As expected, France did it. They passed a law banning the full Muslim veil, specifically the ones that cover faces, in public places. Ostensibly this new law wasn’t aimed directly at Muslims, but since I’m unaware of any other group who has women who cover head to toe, I’m not sure that’s actually a very useful thought.
So what do I think of this? Well, first, let’s get one thing out of the way.
Freedom of religion is not, and should not be, absolute. Just because you want to sacrifice your child to Moloch because you think the pagan God demands it, doesn’t mean that we, as a society, shouldn’t step in and save your kid. I’m using an extreme example, and there are more close-to-home ones, such as FGM (if you don’t know what that is then be warned it’s extremely disturbing if you decide look it up), or even the church in Oregon whose members keep letting their kids die from the most easily treatable medical conditions. In 1999 the Oregon state legislature banned the “spiritual healing” defense for such cases. And if you don’t vaccinate your kids for religious reasons, I’m sorry, I don’t want your kids attending public school.
So the question is this: does the Burqua qualify as such a religious practice that society should step in and regulate?
The place to go would be to women who actually wear the things. But sadly those articles are few and far between. I found this one, in searching for a similar one that I found a few months ago, but didn’t save the link. I do wonder if this is a statistically valid sampling of the female population that wear veils in all their variety. Also, remember the French ban is on face-covering veils. The niqab was not banned.
On the flip side, I’ve also read Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and whenever I stop by a bookstore I read a chapter out of her newer Nomad. And while I think she has some very good points, this review of Nomad does a good job of calling her out on her probably unjustified anti-Islamic rhetoric. My friend Deidre was very disappointed in me when she saw I was reading Infidel.
However, all discussion aside about how valuable (or not) her work is, there is enough of an element of truth to it that I think the flip side of those American Women who choose to wear veils is those who are forced to wear them. Hirsi Ali does do a good job of showing how the culture that surrounds the veil can be very damaging to women physically, mentally, and emotionally. It’s not seen in some circles as a requirement for all times and places, but in others it is. And the reason is ostensibly because (according to Hirsi Ali) men would be drive into sexual frenzies by the sight of uncovered women, a fact that is demonstrably, um, not true. Or perhaps it’s a form of modesty—in some cultures (specifically some Middle Eastern cultures) a woman’s hair is seen as the most erotic part of her body. Breast feeding in public is common there, compared to here in the U.S.
In her email, Beth talks about how she was not groped or molested during her trip to Egypt, because she wore a “pirate-style” bandanna over her hair, while all the other girls in her BYU group were. This is what she looked like (thanks to her for the pictures):
What disturbed me about both Beth’s email and the article I couldn’t find about American women wearing the veil was this: If you entirely cover up to avoid harassment at work, here in America, that’s the wrong response. Call your HR department or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sexual harassment. The issue here isn’t that you’re being an alluring women, it’s that the men, whether on the streets of Egypt or in an American workplace, never learned to respect women. As Beth said in her email “On the other hand, the harassment has strong roots in the segregation of men and women. Males hardly ever interact with females other than immediate family members and as a result many men never learn the proper way to treat women. It's a huge social problem. And unfortunately the veil serves to perpetuate that segregation.” The video in CNN article linked above has one of the interviewed women stating “why, immediately, when others see the niqab they don’t think about the fact that there’s a human being under there. There’s a woman under there. We’re women. We’re soft hearted.” Well, seems to me you’re missing the point in that it’s hard for me to approach you as an individual when you look like, well, like any other woman covered head to toe. I can’t tell you apart. Our major sense organs are our eyes, and you take away visual indications of who you are (or how to differentiate you) and you don’t expect there to be general repercussions?
So it seems that the veil may very well be one of those religious practices that, overall, is not in the best interests of society and therefore could be regulated by the government. All it does it serve to segregate men and women, perpetuate a view of women that is at worst very damaging to them, and at best is a misogynistic way of enforcing modesty. (At least Mormon garments are the same for both men and women—and nobody’s forced to wear them on the same way that some women are the veil.)
Then there’s also the fact that the veil is, in my opinion, the beginning of a view of women that ends with this very disturbingTime Magazine cover. I saw that cover in the airport in CA while hitting family reunions with Susan, and was very disappointed that it was covered with one of the shields. This Rolling Stone cover was not. I moved the shield to cover up Sex, God, and Katy Perry, and left the Afghan woman who had been so brutally assaulted uncovered.
So while you could make an argument that the veil is one of those practices that should be regulated by governments, it’s certainly nothing even close to a slam dunk, like the other examples I gave above. And I appreciate modesty. Certainly I’m attracted to attractive women. And it’s certainly easy to make yourself more attractive, in a sexual sense, by wearing less clothes. Caveat: If you have the body of Rosie O’Donnell, don’t dress like Paris Hilton.
But I wouldn’t date you. (Well, I wouldn’t date you now because I’m engaged to Susan, but I wouldn’t have dated you before either.)
And I certainly don’t want to infringe on religious liberties. I’m a Mormon. We’re not exactly well-liked, nor are we exactly in the majority.
Beth’s email was interesting because she hadn’t, as of July of this year when I first asked her about it, made up her mind. (She appears to still not have made up her mind, but is more leaning towards being in favor of the veiling practices than not.) I hadn’t made up my mind either. This is a thorny, complicated issue with many sides, opinions, variables, and considerations. But you know what? Weighing the Pro’s and the Con’s, and it pains me to have to resort to utilitarianism because I generally feel I’m more of a deontologist, I’m just going to say it. I’m also feeling culturally imperialistic, but here goes.
With a rather heavy heart I’m going to come out in favor of the ban. For far too many women world-wide it’s something they are forced to do. It’s misogynistic (it would not be if men had to similarly cover up). It turns women into non-entities. It creates too many problems for men and women to relate to each other in public, as per Beth’s email. In short, all of these negatives, and the worldview it generally engenders with its violence towards women, are not worth the positive of allowing religious freedom on this subject.
And I know that, in the short-term, there will be a bit of a backlash in France, and that in the short-term it will simply serve to segregate hijab-wearing women more there. I also know there are exceptions to just about every statement I’ve made in this blog post. But I’ve been thinking about this for several years now, and I’ve made my choice. The full burqua (covering everything but the eyes) is indeed a religious rights issue that a government can regulate.
But note I didn’t say should. If France feels that the negatives outweigh the positives in its country, than it can do so. Here in America, I don’t feel we would need to do so.
But I may be wrong on both counts. It’s been known to happen before.
Beth. Emily. Stephen. You guys are up. Thoughts?
7 comments:
I disagree with your assessment of this situation. And I don't agree that covering my hair was the wrong response to the harassment during my stay in Egypt. What alternative would you suggest? That I allow myself to be groped? Because I guarantee that is what would have happened. A foreigner staying in Alexandria for three months is not going to enact social change for flaunting her long blond hair. If anything, my decision to cover my hair made the Egyptian males more comfortable to interact with me, not less. It made me less of a sex object and more of a person.
You say that the veil turns women into nonentities, but women who actually wear the hijab maintain that they feel men can see them for their personality and talents, not for their beauty. Is that not also a valid argument?
Also you have to consider that France is notoriously xenophobic, culturally and religiously. They spout rhetoric about how banning the burqa is in favor of women's rights, and good for society, when at the heart of the issue, it's just "not French enough." It's a reflection of the animosity felt towards the Algerian immigrants living in France. Hey, if you didn't want Algerian immigrants in France, you shouldn't have invaded Algeria and taught them French.
There is rhetoric that women are "made" to wear the veil by patriarchal men. The fact is, the practice of veiling is most vehemently perpetuated by women. If you're going to arrest a woman for wearing a burqa when she goes to pick up her kid from school in the hopes of negating the patriarchy, you're still punishing the woman.
And one more point: Since when does France care what the heck people wear in public? Topless beaches don't seem to bother them. The French have never balked at showing a little skin. So why does it bother them so much when a women chooses not to show any?
I'm with Beth on this one. I think this measure reflects France's long history of xenophobia, and - more than that - I think that any law that claims to protect a victim by punishing the victim is a crock.
It's like prostitution in the US - law enforcement appears to target prostitutes more than the johns, when most research indicates that the women who turn to prostitution are in fact usually victims of pimps, johns, and other individuals.
I'm putting up my own post on this issue, but my basic stance is that as much as I don't like the tradition of the face scarf, and as much as I support making it illegal for anyone to force anyone else to wear it, this law will force any number of women to stay indoors. And as anyone who studies domestic abuse knows, isolating a victim only makes things much worse. So, insofar as this tradition is a form of oppression, this law will only compound that oppression by depriving the women of the support structures they so need.
Though I agree with you that the government should in fact make and enforce laws that may impose on someone's practice of religion if that practice is destructive to society, I also don't know enough Muslim women personally to know how they feel about their veils. If it doesn't make them feel inferior and they want to by choice for reasons of their own that may be healthy (their personal relationship with God), let them wear it. If they feel it is demoralizing then let them take it off. Yes, there is more to this issue but I think that how they see it is a very key factor.
I am going to disagree with you on all counts Carl. As big I am on Women's Rights and as much as I hate the Burqua I think there has to be very compelling circumstances to restricts someones freedom of conscience and religion. A year ago we evaluated an article about a woman whose school district prohibited her from wearing just a simple head covering because the school felt teachers should be neutral. I immediately thought to my own garments. They mean a lot to me and I would be devastated if someone told me I couldn't wear them.
And I agree with Beth. Especially from a foreign policy standpoint. One of the complaints Muslim countries have against us is that our over sexualized culture makes infiltrates their country as a result of our globalized world (See Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin Barber) By wearing a covering we show respect for their culture and emphasis that we are not trying to push our western ideologies on others. Laura Bush was eviscerated for wearing a veil once. The veil was given to her by a group of Cancer survivors as a gift she wore it out of respect and to honor the generosity and she shouldn't have been questioned for doing it.
This is a huge issue, and I've not thought about this long enough to make a statement on what I think. I do take issue, however, with one of Beth's comments. She said that the veiling practice is strongly perpetuated by women. Well, if you're going to be treated as a sex object by men if your hair is uncovered, then of course most women are going to favor veiling. I don't think, however, that that is the best rationale for women to keep covered. It puts all of the responsibility on women and basically gives men a free pass to treat women however they want.
I've been mulling over Melanie's comment, and I finally figured out what bothered me about it.
Does sexual harassment happen in the Middle East? Heck yes. The Middle East is not without its fair share of social problems. While veiling is at the heart of some of these issues, it is not the cause, nor the solution. We in the West get so caught up in our perception of veiled women as oppressed that we fail to look at it from their perspective. Women who wear the hijab of their own free will and choice are just trying to live religious lives. What is so bad about that? People are fighting these battles over them and good, normal women get caught in the middle.
Furthermore, Middle Easterners look at us and our obsession with physical beauty and call US "oppressed."
I think by definition we aren't "oppressed" because nobody is FORCING us to do anything. I'm all for our culture being labeled as "oppressive" and in a discussion in one of my sexuality classes last year maybe even "sexually abusive," but you are not forced to participate in those parts of the culture. (The extent to which it's possible to avoid sex in our culture is one reason it can be labeled "sexually abusive.")
So I think those who would call us oppressed because we live in Western culture are only partially right. But nobody is walking around beating me if I don't get my fair share of "beautiful" people.
Post a Comment