Editorial note: The following has been drafted on the fly via berry. Pardon the mistakes and the non-coherency if I am a little all over the place…it is an inspired piece (thank you, Clay!).
I have been watching women fight for women’s rights since the day I knew how to watch, because it started with my momma.
Recently, there has been a surge in this fight for women’s freedoms. Specifically, it has been about our (female) right to choose.
Abortion. We possess the right to choose whether we will or whether we will not. The refusal to stand for a Government (or anybody else) that attempts to tell us we can not make this choice.
When the prohibitions against forms of hijab in some parts of Europe came to the forefront, very few ‘feminist’ sisters said anything. In fact, some of them actually nodded in agreement with this prohibition, arguing that the prohibition is a means to ‘free’ women.
Sadly, very few drew the correlation between a woman’s right to choose what she ‘aborts’ from her body, and with what she chooses to cover her body.
But they are both choices, no?
And last I checked, we defend the female right to choose, not the female right to choose what only some of us see fit.
Choices that affect a woman’s body. Choices that affect society. Choices that are extremely private.
C.H.O.I.C.E.S.
And yet, amazingly, there has been very little blow-back from self-proclaimed ‘feminists’. (Or have I managed to miss it? And if I have, then please post links here to those organizations or individuals so that they receive the necessary accolades.)
Don’t get me wrong. I am turned off by both the niqab and the burka.
But I will support and fight for any woman’s prerogative to choose how she covers her body.
Additionally, and to the core of me, I loathe abortion.
But I will support a woman’s right to that choice, and I will fight for her right to make that choice in a safe environment. And I will stand next to her and protect her should she choose accordingly in a hostile environment.
I have zero tolerance for the sisters among us who actively engage in furthering only their idea of what a ‘free’ woman is. If you fight for rights, you best be fighting for rights for all, even if you don’t agree with it.
So then, this begs the question: Where do we draw the line? (e.g. How far do we defend this freedom of choice; is it ‘anything goes’?)
Naturally, I have a few ideas that are developing still, and I would really love your input to help along this development. (Keep comments clean and respectful of all opinions, please & thank you.)
==========
Originally published 10/07/19.
The fight should be about the right to choose, as women.
I never thought about the corelation you mention but it is an excellent comparison.
I don’t know where you would draw the line however. Maybe when the composition of a woman’s body is altered physically, as with FGM?
Excellent and straight to the point, and most definitely thought provoking.
Thomas
I agree about the lack of choice being being inherintly un-femist, but I have some counter points that could expand the discussion.
I guess for some (warning a terrible correlation is coming) they might argue that for those that make the cultural “choice” to wear them, it really isn’t a choice. So, like childrens rights, society is making the rules for them, to so-called protect the oppressed, while not worrying about the collateral damage.
Secondly (the ole he did it so I can trick), what of the cultural rules on dress code that are so adamantly enforced on visiting or expats that inhabit some of the lands that accept the burka, ie modesty laws?
Just two thoughts beyond what was mentioned that came up. Enjoy.
K so FGM. Would we count male circumcision in there too or are we only discussing women’s bodies in particular??
I like that idea about drawing the line there, but is it only fgm or any other forms of self-inflicted mutilation? But then again, fgm isn’t self-inflicted!!
I would add to that ‘limit’, age. I don’t know what the age would be…14 or 16 or 18 – but some age, before which nothing can be imposed?
Which takes me to Max’s point –
1) We aren’t discussing the imposition of something, and so no “collateral damage”.
And anyway, what “collateral damage”? Define that through an example, so I am not confusing it.
I would agree that if a country *imposes* it on all, then there is – no doubt – collateral damage.
But I believe in the strict separation between ‘state’ & ‘church’.
Don’t tell me I *must* wear the hijab; don’t tell me I am prohibited from doing so.
2). For a Muslimah, hijab is not a “cultural” imposition, but rather a request from God.
But the flipside is: in places such as Saudi, where it is a must, then there are definite leanings toward the abuse of this by (specifically) men.
Food for thought.
Amanda – I don’t believe circumcision would be comparible in either its root (male domination / female suppression) or its intended outcome (lack of sexual enjoyment / chastity when – in the extreme – fgm is about sewing and unsewing repeatedly when the husband is absent – a chastity belt, but the worst most twisted and violent kind).
And again back to Max, to take your last point further. “When in Rome…”; where there is a country such as Saudi that imposes its veil on even the non-Muslim, I would think that’s inclining toward respecting that country’s rules. Especially when we know how crazy liberal are their compounds, inside of which you are free to run around in a bikini – which is where most of the foreigners reside.
Ooooooooh! DISCUSSION! Yay! More! More! More!
Thanks, lovely folks for taking the time to read and reflect…
Collateral damage I referenced was by banning them, those that want to wear cannot.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong here, I didn’t know a hijab was in fact requested, I always was told “modesty” was, and sometimes litterally to protect against mens scurrilous desires… I should look this up, but I’d prefer your verbal slap down!
So yeah. Wear what you want. Counter pointed on the basis that it seems cultures make their own minds up for what works for them, some more openly and more freely than others.
As for Max’s first point, I think he was talking less about the government removing one’s choice and more about society itself doing it (and if I misunderstood and that isn’t what you were talking about, it’s still a point worth being brought up). Even though it may be a matter of an individual’s choice in terms of rights and the government, there are plenty of places where making the “wrong” choice (the one not accepted by most people in that place) will have consequences–people will treat you as though you are doing something wrong when you are only exercising that right. It goes both ways–telling someone you’re a staunch Democrat in the South of the US and telling them you’re a hard-core Republican in the Northeast will get you the same responses.
I want to bring up something about the imposition of hijab, by governments or cultures or even individuals. For some reason it tends to go in one direction only; women are given particular constraints, and men are given more loose or at least more lenient ones. Remember the post you made a while back on expectations about our spouses and partners’ appearances… I think the same thing could apply here. What is so inherently seductive about a woman’s face to men that isn’t potentially just as seductive in a man’s face to women? It’s just a thought.
clay
You are correct 100% and this has been the problem re collateral damage. I believe that in one of the countries, there were less than 10 women wearing niqab – but even if it was just one woman, that is one woman too many who has had her right to choose thieved by the State.
As per hijab. There is no argument re whether it is a. “fard” (necessity). The argument lies in what the actual dress code is re that hijab. Is it merely modesty? Is it a scarf / covering one’s neck / arms & legs (for the female – as there too is a ‘hijab’ for men). The heavy weight scholars within Islam, the greatest historically as well as our contemporaries, have *never* even come close to either a burqa or niqab.
My understanding has always been that both the burqa & the niqab are purely man-driven, mysoginist interpretations.
Having said that. The discussion as to whether they should be prohibited or not – does *not* rest with the State. It should rest solely within the confines of theological discussions among the Ummah (the Muslim population – this transcends borders). I for one, am entirely opposed to either but don’t want the State (Muslim or otherwise) telling me because then they have the right to tell me how to perform any task within my Faith, but rather the scholars within the Faith itself – the learned men and women themselves.
Take for example FGM – it is 100% unanimous among all Muslim scholars that FGM is in fact a ‘haram’.
I can’t access the links at the moment, but there was a few months ago a big discussion on here re hijab. I will find it and post it later tonight, inshallah.
Clay – yes re FGM. It is usually performed on little girls.
Point noted about society’s imposition. Taking it to another example – like a black man exercising his right to sit in the same area as ‘white folk’ post civil liberties struggle and change of law.
After 9 / 11, and when I heard that women wearing hijab were being harassed, I went out with a headscarf on – I went out and I exercised the right to make that choise. I believe a part of me was looking for a fight, but def the greater part of me was trying to stand in solidarity with my Muslim sisters, full-stop. No one said a word to me.
Your point about the gender divide is one I struggle with almost daily re our culture – not our Faith. Specifically, the Arab culture and how notwithstanding the (yes, I’ll say it) ‘proper’ understanding of Islam, both our men and women tend to behave in a sad double standard re the genders. Again – not because of our Faith itself, because when you look at men and women who represent the best among Muslims, they do not fall prey to this.
It’s rooted in something much greater, I think, and it’s not merely about Arabs (though for me it is likely heightened there because I deal with that specifically all too often). It’s rooted in the historic and continuing male need for domination. The perversion of that is at the root of things.
The Quran tells us that women are to be protected – that they are vulnerable and require protection. Men have perverted that to mean that women are property and to be dealt with in any way (e.g. The grossest exageration is the burqa and the placement of women behind closed doors and shut windows in the name of ‘protecting’ them). Sad sad sad.
Hope all of this makes sense – I am, once again, on berry! 🙂
Note…the women aren’t commenting here yet, except Amanda (yay you!). WTF?
I am popping into comment about your writing. I can’t help myself. Whether its a charming note about your childhood, or how you embarresed yourself at the grocery store or feminism – you blow me away every time. Clear, beautifully put together and to the point – whether you are on your berry or not.
What a killer opening line:
I have been watching women fight for women’s rights since the day I knew how to watch, because it started with my momma.
xoxoxo
I keep looking at those young girls and wondering what kind of radiation were they exposed to at birth to convince them that this is how they feel valued? Do they really have a choice or is it at the end of the day a question of ensuring that women have the freedom of choice provided that they choose what pleases the men? If so, what’s the problem in Afghanistan? What pleases the men there is for the women to cover up.
At the end of the day, it is a simple question of whether allowing people a choice really means allowing them to choose even if we do not like their choice or allowing them to choose as long as they choose what we want. If choice indeed means choice, then one would fight to ensure women have the right to take the burka off in Afghanistan and to put it on in Canada. Fight to give the women the choice not to get women to comply with what we chose for them.
feminism was not about women being required to work outside the home. it was about women having the right to choose to work if they so wishand to stay home with their kids if they so wish. It is equally not about women being required to dress in ways to look sexy. It is about women having the right to dress extra sexy, even trashy, if they so wish and equally about women having the right to dress modestly, even wear the burka, if they so wish..
However, all this applies in a ratioanl world and we live in a world were leadesr are ignorant and are using fear to manipulate people into thinking that by forcing a woman to show her face when she is walking down the street, they have resolved all their imminent problems. I would die if I was forced to wear the burka as I assume for my sister who chooses to wear it, she woulddie if she was forced to take it off. sad state of affairs
BB
My mom thinks it should be illegal to cover one’s face.
Hot topic!
Hope they catch your robbing bandit soon xx
As for YOU: Yes, YOU may wear your full ski-mask body but ONLY in the summer.
Additionally: You receive First Use of “Cameltoe” Reward on this site. Amazing.
No wonder we became friendly so quickly!!