Banning Burquas (veils) in the West

-Amarah Niazi-

Growing up in the streets of Pakistan, most of us never questioned the wisdom behind women covering their heads, wearing a chadar, hijab or burqa. In fact I somewhat envied the invisibility it afforded women, and the spectacle of watching men actually making way for burqa clad women instead of ogling them into squirming uncomfortably was a source of endless fascination for me as we grew older. Little did we know that our customary chadars and hijabs would lead to pondering and deliberations at some of the highest echelons of power in the West. It appears imperative that Muslim women of substance join the debate and have their opinions weighed in before the fate of scores of hijab wearing Muslim minorities in the West is decided for them.

Much has been said over the years about the 'burqa' as a recognizable symbol of women's oppression in the Muslim world. The discussion hasn't reached a fever pitch in Washington yet, maybe because the US has enough on it's plate with eight years of alienating the Muslim world in general and the large Muslim minority in the US itself in particular. France it appears however, has been at the fore front of condemning any outward symbolism of religious belief and orientation and has a state-sponsored campaign underway for declaring the burqa or hijab unlawful in the public domain. The rippling effect of the discourse is attracting women's activists and human rights experts; not to mention everyday critics of the Islamic way of life across the North American continent, Europe and Australia. I was recently invited to a public forum hosted by the Australian National University (ANU) and the self explanatory title of the discussion 'Should we ban the burka?" has prompted me to put my thoughts on paper.

Before I comment on the necessity for state-level interference on the issue, let me share a disclaimer with the readers. I consider myself a very moderate Muslim woman with a very strong independent streak that has often come into conflict with my conservative upbringing; I do not wear the burqa, have strong opinions about how the burqa manifested itself into a class-segregation tool in the post-colonial South Asia- and yet, I object vehemently to any Western discourse that solicits state intervention for declaring the burqa unlawful or unnecessary.

My first objection to the ongoing colloquy is that it is patronizing, somewhat condescending and extremely unilateral in its approach. It fails to acknowledge women who have committed themselves to an understanding of their customs, religious doctrines and the art of intricate balancing of gender roles in a complex Islamic society and CHOSEN to wear the veil out of their own accord. Even the women who are forced into a voiceless existence behind the veil (and there is no denying there are plenty such women) this discussion doesn't represent their interests because most commentaries on the subject are steeped in Western ideals and do not reconcile with Muslim women's unique experiences. Secondly, I find this debate contradictory and paradoxical to the Western idea of freedom. As a woman of faith and color, I find the notion most disturbing that the state would dictate how anyone, let alone women who have been dictated to for centuries, must express themselves in public. Muslim women are a unique force unto themselves and while a large number of them are subjected to oppression and abuse, still a large cross-section of them across the Muslim world are very aware of their rights and still choose to cover themselves.

I wish someone would point out the commonly thrown-around argument in the West regarding 'Freedom of Speech and Expression'. The burqa is a manifestation of oppression only when forced upon a woman against her will. A lot of women cover themselves out of respect for their customs and to make a bold statement about their values; why should the state decide this matter for them? I do, however, think that the state can enforce laws that protect women from harm if they choose not to wear the burqa. The matter to me is simply that of defining freedom equally across the board for women of all religions. I will be a very interested participant if the debate ever arises over allowing women the right to wear revealing clothing in public, or even public nudity as that could be seen as an extreme form of expressing one freely. Objectifying women into sexual objects could be no better than dehumanizing them behind identical fabric walls.

This debate could be so much more than it is right now. Muslim women from different cadres of societies need to add their voice to a largely Western discourse and ensure our customs are not scrutinized with a negative lens without bringing unique socio-cultural perspectives to the table that define each one of us in a diverse way.

And the Editorializing Just Keeps on Getting Uglier

OK. Well, the activism worked. The Lookers and Gawkers article has spawned some "discussion" if you want to call it that. There are some great supportive comments, but the ugly ones make for the most outrageous reading. I thought about posting one of the most vitriolic, but decided he didn't need any more self-aggrandizing press. Particularly since he's already posted it to his FB page in the true style of self promotion. BUT: Here's his e-mail (krichevb@onid.orst.edu) if you want to tell him what you think!

Love that OSU contact information is public!!

Latest at the Barometer

Local Activism

Hey everyone! Check out some local activism by WS student Rachel Brinker. Then read the comments and get more fired up!

Concerning Lookers and Gawkers: Back of Fellas

Telling the story of Sex Trafficking through art

You must all watch this video touring "The Journey" an installation art exhibit telling the story of sex trafficking. Coming to New York.

Also, here's the NPR story and interview from this morning

I LOVE Maureen Dowd

elle
LOVE LOVE LOVE!! Two columns in a row on women's issues. You must, must, MUST read.

Women invading the "Oval Man Cave"
More Nuns!

(OK, I admit to a bit of a thrill that I beat her on the nun thing...)

To wear or not to wear?

elle

Well, so here we are in a bit of a conundrum. If you're here at OSU you've probably heard about the undie run that's been all the buzz via Facebook, etc. If you're like me your first reaction was probably 'brrr! It's October and raining out there!'. However, we know that it will probably be quite the event (barring an unseasonable snowstorm or something), and so we're debating how we feminists feel about this.

On one hand nobody wants to be a stick in the mud or live up to the stereotype that feminists are a bunch of complainers that are just out to stop everyone else from having some good clean fun. We don't. My idea of fun runs much more to the lounging by a pool with a good book, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

On the other, there are a few things we are worried about. We want things to be good clean fun, which means nobody getting hurt. A few concerns might be:

1. staying safe--this includes not falling and skinning your knees (or whatever else isn't protected when you're dashing about in your knickers), but it's also about the realities of sexual assault. In our society a woman wearing just her underwear in public is still thought to be 'asking for it' (she's not) or deserving of whatever abuse--physical or verbal--is hurled her way (again, she's not!). I hate to sound like your mother, but...behave yourselves and be safe, don't drink to much, stay in a group. It sucks and we're trying really hard to change it, but for the moment.

2. The objectification--if you've attended or seen other such events it becomes obvious that there are a lot of men standing around watching the women run. Not quite the good clean fun we all want. Sure, we all like attention, but hey if he's not going to give you attention with your clothes on do you really want that attention anyway? Also, if you're going to take your clothes off, do it for you, not for the jeers and cheers from the peanut gallery.

3. Body image issues--we all do it. You walk into the party and scan it to see who looks good and who probably shouldn't have worn that top. Imagine the possibilities when they aren't wearing that top. Again, if you want to glory in your body I am all for it, but if you're there to make yourself feel better by making other people feel less about themselves leave that crap in Jr. High.

Anyway, if you don't want to run--or if you want to and then want to and then need somewhere to warm up--the Women's Center will be open Saturday night for our jammie party--hot chocolate, popcorn, surprises, come on by!!

Jumping on the Bandwagon

elle

OK, so everyone is all a fuss over today's Presidential address to Congress on health care. Well, I would like to jump on the bandwagon, and since the internet is the place for this to happen, add my (wage gap) 76 cents. Prepare yourselves for a rant, because I am SO OVER the politicking. This is peoples lives people.

We activist types all know that it's women and children, particularly poor women, women of color, and immigrant women, in this country who don't have health care, who have lower health outcomes, and who don't have access to preventative care or healthy options--particularly when it comes to mental health services. So, why aren't we really talking about this. And why aren't our congressional leaders reaching out to those people to push this forward. Sure, you might have to knock on a few doors because the truly poor, be they in Detroit or Appalachia, can't get to your town hall meetings. And you may have to actually REALLY understand the options because they might not understand your deliberately ambiguous soundbites. Basically, I'm calling your bluff Obama administration, Congress, and the medical establishment--what are you going to do for the people who really need you but who you aren't talking to.

OK, got that off my chest. Now for some thoughts.

In the US, our health care system is based on a heternormative family model. You don't believe me, think about how you got health care (if you had it, see above) as a child. Chances are, you were covered under a parent's employment based health care. Generally we allow individuals to pay extra to cover family members on their employee health care, but...And this is a big BUT. Employers can make certain decisions about who can be covered and for what cost. For many non-married couples it costs more to cover a partner than if you were married. So if you are a couple that is not legally allowed to be married in your state you're paying more. Add children into the mix and it gets even more complicated. Most states only allow one parent in a same-sex family to be the custodial parent, so it's quite possible you wouldn't even be allowed to cover your own children on your work health care. And don't even get me started on taxes, etc.

My point here is that health care should be an individual right. I should be guaranteed health care whether I'm married, single, parenting, child-free, or whatever. Whether or not I can have health insurance shouldn't have to figure into a decision to get married (if you're even allowed to make that decision). This does not even qualify as the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but I want people to think about the long term consequences of a sexist, racist, heterosexist, classist system.

Meanwhile, a nod to the Corvallis members of Mad as Hell Doctors, who started their tour yesterday!! Check out the webpage and join their care-a-van!