On the burka:

[lunadelcorvo]

A-frakkin'-men!

I know a few women on campus who wear hijabs, and one who wears a burka, and I think it's tragic, barbaric, and utterly backward. One girl in particular, I would otherwise have tremendous respect for, but I see her in that damned headgear, and I want to shake her until her teeth rattle. WTF is WRONG with women who do this?

And he is SO right - it's NOT about modesty; there are better ways of being 'modest' than sticking out like an 'in your face,' sore thumb. Get real! And it's NOT about removing gender from the social equation, because hello? men don't wear this crap, and you're pretty quick to pretty it up, wear jewelry, high heels, and so on. So don't tell me it's because you are trying to be seen as a person, not as a sexual object - bullshit!

Of course, the burka is the most offensive (yes, I said offensive!) garment of all of them, and I fully agree it should be banned in Europe and in the US, and anywhere damn else it can be banned. Tolerance only goes so far folks!

Comments

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

My mother used to dress in deliberately-frumpy outfits when she worked as a legal secretary throughout my childhood. When I asked her why, she explained to me every time that a beautiful woman is not taken seriously, and she implied just as often that a beautiful woman is not safe. So she used the dowdy clothes as a way to desexualize herself when dealing with people she perceived as likely to objectify her.

I grew up watching her do that, and so when I hear a woman say, "I cover my hair and don't show my cleavage because I want a man to look at my face," I hear shades of those old conversations. I'm torn about it because on the one hand... it feels like a capitulation to the notion that a woman showing her body is a woman offering it, and that this is the only way to not be seen as offering. On the other... I'm always loathe to tell other women what is and is not an appropriate way to feel more in control of who feels the right to put their eyes (and for some, by extension hands) on it.

I wonder what this guy would say to my mother. In a culture where a woman's body is seen as public property anytime it's seen at all, should we really rag on women who are trying to "opt out" in that way? Are they protecting themselves at the expense of the larger fight against the whole assumption that seen=owned? If so, do we have the right to demand they do otherwise?

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

I get what you are saying, I do. But my point is, in the case of all too many women, it's clearly not about desexualizing. Further, I do think there is situationally appropriate dress for BOTH sexes, especially in the workplace. If I went to an office job in a mini-dress cut down to next week and 5 inch heels, I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously; no woman should. And if I wore that to a bar or nightclub, I'd expect a certain kind of attention.*

However, I can't buy hijabs in that context not only because only women wear them so it's hardly desexualizing, but also because I don't see these women eschewing other forms of flattering dress. There are ways to dress to de-emphasize one's sexuality or present oneself as a professional first and foremost without resorting to veils. Like I said, hijab + high heels? Give me a break!

Also, a point that Condell makes, with which I wholly agree, is that modesty is not served by something as 'stick-out,' 'in your face' as a hijab. (And burkas are just frakking barbaric!) A hijab is a statement, a declaration of alliance with a set of cultural and ethical ideas that to my mind have no place in anything remotely resembling an egalitarian, democratic society. A hijab is gender discrimination, plain and simple, and it is inculcated by the worst of the major religions in terms of their treatment of women.

*It's not about gender, it's about presentation and communication. We communicate our attitudes and intentions by our appearance; both genders. I mean, think about it; a guy in skin-tight pants and an unbuttoned purple silk shirt won't be taken seriously in the office, nor should he be. And you certainly wouldn't assume he was out to watch the game with his buddies if you saw him in a bar, either. I certainly wouldn't say a woman who is raped was 'asking for it' if she was dressed provocatively, but I might conclude that her choice of wardrobe might have helped make her a target.

I have issues with feminism seeming to argue (not that I am saying *you* are arguing this, BTW) that a woman should be able to dress as provocatively as she pleases and not be seen as a sex object. It's silly, really. Maybe we can poke fun at the perpetually suited professional male, but one must admit, there is as strict a contextual code of dress for men as for women. Hell, they've been at it longer, they have it down to a science! For my money, a strapless minidress is appropriate professional wear on a woman when a Speedo is for a man.

[x3non.livejournal.com]

Just a week ago, Virginia Haussegger, a news anchor for one of Australia's major news shows, published an article in favor of banning the burka there. It's an impressive piece:

http://virginiahaussegger.blogspot.com/2009/06/ban-burka-27-june-2009.html (http://virginiahaussegger.blogspot.com/2009/06/ban-burka-27-june-2009.html)

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

Oooh. Thanks for the link! It is indeed!

[kalsia.livejournal.com]

Because I am at work, I can't see what you pasted in .. but I have seen something on drudgereport.com

I had made an aquaintence through chat . She was transgendered and living in CA. She was searching for religion and had made the choice to wear burkas. I never ever understood it. She tried to tell me that her face was only to shown to the person that was her mate in life. I still never got it.

I think this lifestyle arose out of mysticism and technically she was turning it into some kind of fantasy rather than understanding the roots through wish it was really born.

I mean, shit, in some cultures men cut out the clitorus of a woman and sew their labia shut - are people running out to glorify this act. Hell No!!!

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

Actually, I heard a woman on NPR who lives in NY and went to Africa to be circumcised, and defending it as a woman's choice, liberating, blah blah. Sad to say... :(

[kalsia.livejournal.com]

oh my stars!!!

=(

I thought about this on the way to my doctor's appt. And was like .. you know .. I don't know what I would do if I took away my choice to orgasm. I believe I felt a bit disgusted.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

Totally!

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

My major rejection of the garment is that it dehumanizes the person inside it. NO FACE = NO SOUL. Villains are masked in fiction for a reason-- so we can't empathize witht the "bad guy." Woman are often the bad guy by default in the cultures where burkas are required to be worn by women. These cultures REQUIRE that males demonize females in order to keep the males themselves in line despite taking away the rights of the MEN-- not just the women. The women are created to be the perfect and convenient scapegoat for the frustrated men and there you go-- a UTTERLY MISERABLE society.

However, freedom of expression would dictate not allowing most garments to be banned. I would make the exception for FACE-covering pieces, though, because it interferes with SAFETY (they can't see out of those things very well) and IDENTITY-- which is required to be sure the person you're supposedly dealing with is the person you're actually dealing with. If they want to wear a sack over their body, fine. It's bullshit, but whatever. No face coverings though-- that's beyond bullshit.

[shadowchilde.livejournal.com]

You have an interesting point here. As I read your comment I was thinking... is the purpose of the burka to make the women the 'bad guys' of Islam? I guess that many cultures and religions have their own ways of making women out to be evil, bad, temptations that cause men to do bad things. Maybe instead of these religions looking for scape goats, they should teach their followers to look within and find their own goodness and their own self-control.

I mean how long are women going to be held responsible for all the evils in the world, just because we can bleed without dying?

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

I think both of your points are fascinating, apt and provocative. (In a good way!)

Something else I find interesting is this: I have heard the argument that Islamic women in the west wear burkas to protect themselves from the evils of western culture. However, the burka originated in Islamic culture, on the home soil as it were. So truthfully, if the burka is to be considered protective of women, it can only be that it protects them from Islamic men.

What does that say about Islam's perception of itself, (at least extremist Islam, although the same has been said about the hijab and the other forms of veiling/concealment/desexualization of women) and it's own ideas of decency, accountability, sexuality....

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

"So truthfully, if the burka is to be considered protective of women, it can only be that it protects them from Islamic men."

Indeed!

But the point is control, not truth. Until people realize that the ones making up these rules are NOT God, but rather weak, envious old men who want to keep a clenched fist over the population things won't change. Luckily, people do seem to get a clue collectively-- eventually.

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

The need to breed is SO strong that religions that wish to have control over people absolutely MUST address the sex issue. In fundamentalist Islam (just as in Christianity not even 100 years ago in the western world!) women were seen as the "great temptation to sin" and rather than hold men responsible for how they responded to the temptation, women were held responsible for being the temptation. (I.E. the rape was HER fault-- she showed her ankles!)

Until women refuse to take it, and until good men refuse to join with it, this mentality appeals to too many low-status men, just as racism does (all over the globe.) As in: "Well, I may be a low-class male, but -- at least I'm not FEMALE!" If there is ALWAYS someone below you, no matter who that person is, there's always an incentive to keep the status quo in place for even very low status males.

Crazy system... Horrid.

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Oh-- and my previously stated opinion is just in regards to general clothing choices. For PROFESSIONAL wear, I agree companies have the right to say no to anything too distracting or distancing.

[thecolorsanctum.livejournal.com]

I attended the March for Women's Lives 2004 in DC and there were women there in burkas - mainly to symbolically remove them after sharing stories of their personal struggles as women. In a culture that seems to hate them. Well, except when they can be useful objects, you know...

I had never been around someone in a burka before that day - it was downright spooky. Sent a chill down my spine. Actually, it just did again typing about it!! Huh, ain't that something.

It was horrifying. And just made me feel so incredibly sad. An overwhelmed and shocked kind of sad.

[shadowchilde.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything that has already been posted. The concept of making women wear clothing that de-humanizes them and gives a message to the world that they are not true citizens or respected as equals is terrible.

The concept that the feminists are not hooting and hollering about this in those countries where they have made very loud statements for women in general is a terrible show.

However... I can say one thing... when someone believes strongly in what they are doing and that it is a display of faith... very little will shake them. You really need to have an open mind to be able to hear what others are trying to say to you. And maybe these people just can't hear.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

"when someone believes strongly in what they are doing and that it is a display of faith... very little will shake them"

I agree completely. Which brings me, once gain, to ask when it is exactly, that 'belief' crosses a line from something healthy into something neurotic. I think one criteria for that is the nature of the actions which that belief requires, or the way in which that belief affects a person's ability to function in society...

How much violence, repression, distortion of reality, etc. is acceptable in the name of belief before we decide it's no longer appropriate belief, but becomes something else? It's the same question one has to ask when addressing parents who refuse to get medical treatment for their children because of their religious beliefs - how far do we let it go? Where do we say that religion is one thing, *this* is something else...

It's a difficult issue, and I'm not saying I have the answer myself, certainly, but it seems that there are places where religious belief crosses that line into neurosis rather flagrantly... (It's also why I, personally, would love to see religion abandoned altogether, but I tend to be on the extreme end of that, I admit! ;-)

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Religion is always a "from the top down" authority phenomenon, whereas true spirituality is from within and then expressed outwards. I think humans have a very real need to express ourselves or to address our spiritual needs, and unless a way is found to "replace" religion with something healthier-- I fear it will continue. Especially since religion tends to be more social, and spirituality more individual-- people tend to seek, be led to, or drift towards that which addresses their social needs as well...

So-- it's a pickle to find a way to abandon religion all together, though I can see your point about there being a need for just that. (Especially in the extremely unbalanced and patriarchal "desert" religions that sprang from scarcity-- Judism, Xtianity, and Islam. All are very hostile and unhealthy religions in general.)

[qasr-e-shirin.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but that video is completely wrong.

Burqa and niqab are not synonyms. This (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/04/30/1225860/801122-burqa.jpg) is a burqa and This (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/4/1/1301673637817/A-woman-in-a-burqa-008.jpg) is a niqab. The burqa originated in Central Asia and is worn mostly by Pashtun women who live mostly in Afghanistan. The niqab probably originated in the Eastern Roman Empire and today, it's worn mostly by women in Saudi Arabia, as well as Oman, the UAE, and Yemen.

Banning the burqa and niqab is unnecessary. Most Muslim women in the UK are of Pakistani descent, who don't traditionally wear the burqa or niqab. Most Muslim women in France are of Algerian, Moroccan, and Tunisian descent, none of whom traditionally wear the burqa or niqab. Muslim women in the US are a varied group, but most of them are not from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. The claim that it's a security risk are unsubstantiated and the minority of Muslim women who wear burqas and hijabs are generally willing to unveil themselves for security personnel. The burqa ban in France has failed (http://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france-burqa-ban-five-years-on-we-create-a-monster) catastrophically. That doesn't surprise me: Reza Pahlavi tried to completely ban chadors in 1936 (which are more revealing than burqas and niqabs, relatively speaking) and his plan also failed. His son pretty much repealed the law when he came to power in 1941. The problem here is that if you tell people they can't do something, a lot of them will react by doing it more, even if they weren't inclined to do that in the first place. Call it the prohibition effect, if you want. If you want women to stop wearing the burqa and niqab, the best way is to tell them that they don't have to and it will probably drop out of the culture in a few generations or so.

Despite what Pat Condell says, most Salafists and Islamists don't give a shit about whether the burqa and niqab are banned in Europe or the US or not. We could all convert to Islam and they'd still hate us for not subscribing to their exact brand of Islam and contaminating their countries with our "Western" ideas. Modern Salafism is an attempt to purge Islam of Western influences and by "Western", they typically mean, "Anything I don't like," regardless of what its origins actually are. For instance, they see women in power as the result of Western, colonial influence, but this overlooks the existence of Shajar Al-Durr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shajar_al-Durr) and Razia Sultana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultana).

The fact that Al Qaeda and Daesh both hate the government of Saudi Arabia for being insufficiently strict when it's actually the most conservative and repressive Islamic country by far so tell you a lot about their beliefs. So should the fact that, by and large, most of the people who've been killed by Al Qaeda and Daesh are their fellow Muslims.

On that subject, Salafism is not an ancient movement; it's essentially modern one formed in reaction to modern concerns and the same is true of all religious fundamentalism. For instance, pre-modern Christians like Saint Augustine had a softer stance on abortion than many modern fundamentalists do, though this was partially because comparatively little was known of anatomy at the time.