Veils

[andrewducker]

While recognising the rights of people to wear whatever the fuck they like, my general reaction to women who choose to wear facial coverings is much the same as it would be if black people chose to wear symbolic chains on their wrists.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

My feelings exactly.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Not quite sure what you mean, unless you're being knowingly provocative. To do the latter would be little more than a deliberate reminder of historical oppression. But not all Muslim women feel wearing their veil identifies them as victims of oppression; many see it as a liberation, freeing them from the male gaze. Surely analogising the two is not all that appropriate.

[andrewducker]

The only reason to need to be free from male gaze is if that gaze is oppressive.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

I believe this is called "bling".

[dougs.livejournal.com]

I congratulate you on your cultural insight.

[dougs.livejournal.com]

The central legend in my faith features torture and execution; many people chose to wear an image of the device used. My reaction to the symbols people choose to wear is mild.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Sure: that's your privilege.

Now imagine there are some extremist Christian fundamentalist groups out there who demand that people don't just where a discreet crucifix, but carry around a three-foot-high piece of wood, on their back, at all times. In particular, they insist that women carry such crosses around. And they take to intimidating or beating up women who don't. Not carrying your crucifix is taken by their followers as a sign of godlessness, and godless women are Asking For It, so the usual shit ensues in rape trials and elsewhere.

There are other countries where these extremists are making life such a misery for everyone that even non-Christians are hauling their lumps of dead tree about: if you don't, you can be beaten up on the streets or worse. There are non-Christian women, moslem or jewish or atheist or whatever, who've been murdered for not carrying their crucifix at all times. The extremists make no bones about their ambition of spreading their practices to the entire world.

Men, of course, may carry crucifixes, but they aren't expected to go the whole nine yards, nor are they beaten up for not carrying one.

Now. Is this symbol's significance private, or public? And does it apply to the wearer as a matter of choice, or is it an imposition?

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

People don't wear huge great crosses that cover their faces though, do they?

Well, except football fans.

[andrewducker]

http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1134090.html?thread=6118410#t6118410

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Funny, you hit the nail on the head: that's precisely why it creeps me out.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

As dougs points out... a crucifix?

But I've worn a pink triangle in my time. It was a very powerful and liberating symbol for me.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Interested. In what way did you feel it was liberating?

[andrewducker]

http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1134090.html?thread=6117898#t6117898

And I do feel that there's a difference between wearing a symbol of a great hero and covering up your face. Also between adopting a symbol of oppression in an ironic manner in order to make a point and adopting it because you've been brought up to think that faces are obscene.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I don't know, having never been in the situation myself. But I thought, what if someone suddenly told me that covering my breasts was a symbol of oppression, and that now I was no longer able to wear any clothes from the chest up. I would feel deeply uncomfortable at being forced to go bare in public, especially in the presence of men.

I don't know for sure, but I can imagine that some women would feel the same way about face veils. Except perhaps with even stronger feelings about it, since veils are mixed in with religion as well as cultural expectations.

I think that if it's really oppression we're concerned with, then it should be a free choice and not an order from above. Yes, it will take more time to catch on, but I think it would be a kinder transition.

(To be fully accurate, I think that your analogy to slave chains would be more accurate if you said that black people _immediately after they were freed_ continued to wear slave chains. Because women who wear veils have actually experiened the oppression that the veils are thought to symbolize, which makes them more than a simple fashion statement.)

[andrewducker]

http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1134090.html?thread=6117898#t6117898

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Shall I be the first in this thread to point out the wearing of a crucifix and Christianity being comparable in this context?

I think the real point is that the veil is something that sets up a barrier. Wherever there are barriers between cultures, there are usually people too lazy to try and overcome them and integrate. The inability to read someones body-language also makes for lack of trust. Try covering your mouth when talking to someone and see how soon those around you start wondering what you're talking about and if it's them. The hiding of something usually inspires people to be paranoid.

Actually, on a related matter, does anyone remember the old Army adverts on TV where it asks how to gain the trust of the guy in the village with the only clean well? (Answer was to take off your sunglasses so he can see your eyes as this is a sign of trust...)

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

I remember that ad, it was memorable because it was so unexpected having come from the Army. It was shown from the point of view of the wearer of the sunglasses, a soldier, who needed to engender trust from an angry man in an extreme situation. The simple lesson was as a soldier to be aware of the angry reactions you will encounter because of your uniform, and not to antagonise those you intend to persuade. The police later did similar ads.

Straw is sufficiently aware of cultural differences not to have paranoia over a detail like this, and he always made it clear his request was not a demand. He may be partially deaf himself, and therefore just wanted fewer barriers to full face-to-face communication when people come to him with requests. I don't find that unreasonable, nor do I find it unreasonable when for religious reasons a woman would prefer not to temporarily remove her veil. No story, in my opinion.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

So long as you realise that's your reaction. Where I have a problem with this debate is where people (Mr Straw, for example) take their reaction to a thing and extrapolate that to whether a thing is a good thing or a bad thing without any reasoned argument inbetween.

I am an athiest and would not wear a facial covering. I think those who advocate women wearing facial coverings may sometimes operate with motives that have little to do with observance of religion. I therefore think women who wear them are mistaken on one and may be mistaken on two counts. But I accept that they know more about their religion than I do, they have a right to wear what they like, and to do so without unreasoned abuse.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

But Straw wasn't saying that veils were a bad thing because they were oppressive, or for any reason other than that they impede communication. Which they do.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

There is a difference between a constrained choice, and an unconstrained choice. The veil is often the former, as although women have the choice to don it or not, often their family and religion put enormous social pressure on them to do so. If your choice is between being ostracised from family and culture, or being ostracised by strangers, which do you choose? Does it look like a free choice?

Compare with the choice of a Christian to wear a crucifix or a black person to wear symbolic chains. These are powerful, but they are unconstrained choices.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Didn't I catch some sort of newspaper article last week with 2 photos of a TV reporter (can't recall her name) one with crucifix, one without and speculation therein?

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, I know I've come to this late-dougs pointed me at it today after I made this entry, which itself details some of my feelings on the subject!)

The key phrase in this post is "women who choose to wear facial coverings". Of course I disagree quite wholeheartedly with the idea of any woman being opressed and/or cajoled into covering their face.

I'd like to echo what others have said here re women being told that they ought to uncover their breasts. And I think it is a fair comparison-it's all about current societal norms, innit.

And as for 'why should a lustful gaze be oppressive'-well, not opressive perhaps, but it can certainly sometimes be uncomfortable. I tend to wear very low-cut tops most of the time. There are certain reactions to this that I find enjoyable and/or entertaining, and certain reactions that I find make me feel uncomfortable. I reserve the right to react this way and act accordingly. And if another woman feels uncomfortable about more reactions than she feels she enjoys, that's her perogative. And if she wishes to react to this by covering her face, then so be it.

[andrewducker]

One of the things that I find interesting is the number of women leaping to the defence of a woman's right to choose whatever they like to wear. Which I agree with, of course. But my feeling is still that any woman who chooses to cover their face is doing so because they've been fed complete rubbish which makes them feel that faces are somehow terrible sexual objects.

I also note that _non_ Muslim women aren't suddenly announcing that veils sound like a great idea to keep the beastly men away. If there was a sudden fad for "ordinary" western women to wear veils and say "Yes, I feel much more comfortable now, thank you very much." then that line of argument would be a tad more convincing.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

To me the veil is a sign of distrust. Largely similar to Victorian attitudes when even table legs were covered in case men were excited by the sight of them. I think we men, apart from individuals with a problem of some kind, are pretty much accustomed to preventing ourselves from ravaging any woman who has the courage to show her face. I therefore find it insulting to my gender and manners.

The trust issue goes in both directions, but in a different way. I don't feel comfortable trusting someone who hides their facial expressions from me.

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

I think we men, apart from individuals with a problem of some kind, are pretty much accustomed to preventing ourselves from ravaging any woman who has the courage to show her face. I therefore find it insulting to my gender and manners.

Unfortunately "individuals with a problem of some kind" are more common then one would think. Take for example the entirety of cultures who would hurt a woman for taking off their veil.

Unfortunately as much as there are many nice trustworthy men in the world, women can't assume that every interaction in their life will be with one of them. That's like being mad that someone doesn't leave their house or car unlocked all the time because there are many decent people in the world.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Right on commander!

My vague thoughts on this statement...

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

If I understand what you're saying here, you're comparing the veil with slave chains as both being symbols of oppression, and implying that you feel discomfort with being confronted with such symbols.

Whether or not the veil actually is a symbol of oppression (which is a matter that still seems to be up for some debate), it's not exactly surprising that you find perceived actual or symbolic cases of oppression discomforting. It usually is discomforting to be part of a privileged group and to be confronted with evidence of the oppression that's caused by the same system that affords you your privileges.

I think part of the problem in all this is that non-Muslim Westerners are too busy thinking about their own discomfort with veiling, and not giving enough time and space to listening to and thinking about the discomfort that Muslim women might experience as a result of living as a practicing Muslim woman in a country like Britain. If non-Muslims can't get past their own discomfort about these issues, I don't think we're ever going to make much progress.

Not getting at you here, just thinking about why this topic can be so uncomfortable to talk about.

Re: My vague thoughts on this statement...

[andrewducker]

Actually, in general the amount of time I spend thinking about my own discomfort with veiling is near zero, as the number of veiled women I've ever spoken to is _actually_ zero.

If it wasn't for all the recent discussion I'd probably never have gotten around to thinking about it at all.

It usually is discomforting to be part of a privileged group and to be confronted with evidence of the oppression that's caused by the same system that affords you your privileges.

Here I'll have to say "What????" as I don't feel even slightly part of the same system as the one that pushes women to wear veils.