World Hijab Day

[Marzipanface]

AIBU to feel uncomfortable with this day and also really irritated at the lack of discussion over this event from a feminist perspective. There seems to be a wholesale silence from the Feminist blogs and papers I subscribe to, and I can't find any discussion on here. No-one wants to talk to about it.

Just that really.

"Sure, I don't understand it either. Doesn't mean to say that I think I have any right to determine how another woman dresses."

Nobody here is saying they don't want others to have the right to dress in hijab or anything else. i can't recall any poster on this thread who wants to ban hi jabs outright. There are some thoughtful comments here reflecting on the potentially disturbing fact that very young (primary aged) children are covered in this way and why girls who are not even teenagers yet might be perceived as sexually tempting and their bodies controlled in this way. Also for developmental reasons, young girls are not able to run around freely (i.e. swimming pool) and therefore the veil could be problematic for their physical development.

It's really typical to shout 'Muslim bashing' just cos posters are criticising the hijab. The Hijab is not above criticism. It isn't holy. It's a piece of fabric which people have given different meanings. Some see it as oppression, some as solidarity with their own kind, some as provocative, some as a political stamens, some might not give it much though at all.

It is absolutely ok to criticise the hijab though. People on MN slag off mum boots, boot cuts, maxi dresses, and wrong sized bras. As you say it's just clothing and thus it is open to be gossiped about, admired, critiqued, copycatted, or condemned, it is not above any of these things as it does not carry intrinsic meaning, only the meaning that people give it. People say fuck off hijab day just as they say fuck off conservative party, it is ok.

"Lumela and I see crippling heels and skimpy clothing and other gender-defining clothing as a thin end of a wedge that ultimately (by shaping our view of what women are and can be) restricts women's access to education and work."

why? schools have uniforms so there is no barrier to education due to high heels. Workplaces have usually a smart casual dress code or uniform. Not sure why high heels should hinder education..... I don't have much time for high heels either can't run in the and wouldn't feel safe but classifying high heels and the hijab as the same is not accurate. There is no country in the world where women are forced to walk around in heels, though japan of course used to mutilate women's feet by bandaging them long time ago.

Wearing a hijab takes place in a a socio political context. Based on what some muslim representatives said after Cologne wearing high heels and certain kind of clothing puffer jackets is 'asking for it'. I believe women across Europe are getting fed up with being seen as fair game for not covering up.

Wearing a hijab cannot be seen in a vacuum as others have suggested.

Saying this, much of the wonderful primark clothes we wear are made by slave labour, a fact that is not given enough consideration.

I don't see that Mistri. I work in London and see a lot of employed well paid woman in ridiculous heals and miniskirts who are doing very well for themselves.
I do not see loads of girls in headscarves walking around or in offices. I contract so move around a lot i.e see a lot of offices.

Also lobbying for a change through politics will acheive nothing. As a nation,standing up an saying we will not accept the oppression of woman in any form. That will make a difference.

It is so sad that many muslim woman appear to be short sighted (indoctrinated/brainwashed) that they cannot see the damage they are doing to woman by wearing clothing specifically designed to oppress them.

BertrandRussel said earlier in this thread...

There are None so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

Never a truer word....

But Misti, we're back there again: if a woman wears heels that she can't walk in and that hurt and damage her feet, she is not reflecting behaviour in existing states, which oblige women to wear heels, don't let them out of the house unless they do, and use the fact that they are women to deny them equal rights, since no such states exist. The wearing of crippling heels is the thin of a wedge, but it's not one that currently ends with girls being forbidden from going to school.

Hijab, however, is the thin of a wedge which ends with women being denied, under the law, basic rights. That is why women choosing to wear it makes me uneasy. I don't think that's remotely Islamophobic, since I'm not denying anyone the right to wear it, nor do I assume that every women who wears it supports the loss of women's rights. But it is a criticism of some interpretations of Islam.

the link from another poster is absolutely interesting

Lumela I think we do basically agree (although I personally also find it equally incomprehensible that women choose to wear footwear that effectively cripples then, in some cases physically and permanently).

There was an interesting post above that the increasing ascendency of more exteme forms of Islam (which promote more "covering" types of veil) are the real issue here. Personally, I don't think a simple headscarf is any more concerning for feminists than many western forms of dress. OTOH, the more "extreme" forms of veil are more of an issue.

Yeah, I think we do mostly agree, Misti. I have a policy of not wearing shoes I can't at the very least jog along in...

I agree with those saying the hijab and porn-style shaving, etc are out of the same box.

They are not fully equivalent, though, because the penalties inflicted are not of the same magnitude.

The penalty for not shaving is of "not pleasing" some man you've chosen to get naked in front of, whom you might bin anyway because you don't think much of him.

The penalty for not wearing a hijab can be strangers on the street approaching you and at best passing comment, at worst sexually assaulting you because you're permitted prey for not following the code.

I'm not dismissing the long term impact of objectification on women's education and careers. But restrictions around enforced "modesty" are no better - and often worse - for education and careers.

(Basically agree with MissHoolie, Lumela and largely with Misti, who are all putting things much better than me.)

UNISEX COLLECTION

{http://www.whistleblowerclothing.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/image12.jpg UNISEX COLLECTION colour]]

clicky link fail
UNISEX COLLECTION colour

and she looks pretty cool.

Oh yawn, what a surprise! another Muslim bashing thread

No, that won't work. Not here, not now.

Every woman should be free to cover or uncover as much of her body as she wishes, regardless of the men who presently control her family or country.

It has sod all to do with religion in this discussion.

Great article JusDeFleures pointing out the distinction between Islam and Islamism. One of my favourite feminists, Maryam Namazie, frequently refers to the well-meaning collusion of western liberals with religious fascists, because they haven't grasped that there is a difference between Islam (a diverse religion with millions of adherents and many interpretations) and Islamism (a political movement of the ultra-conservative religious right).

And pausing I believe there is a link there too - some muslims shave or wax vaginally see

"Praise be to Allaah.

Removing the pubic hair, whether by plucking, using a depilatory agent, shaving or cutting, is one of the actions dictated by the fitrah and encouraged by Islam, but it is not restricted to or required at the end of every period. Ahmad, al-Bukhaari, Muslim and the authors of Sunan reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Five things are part of the fitrah: removing the pubic hairs, circumcision, trimming the moustache, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the nails.” It was reported that Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “A time limit was set for us with regard to trimming the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and shaving the pubic hair – we should not leave it for more than forty days. (Reported by Muslim, Ibn Maajah, Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisaa’i and Abu Dawood). They said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) set a time limit for us…”
naila-k
24-05-12, 06:01 PM
Al-Nawawi said: what is meant by al-‘aanah is the hair which is above and around the man’s penis, and the hair around the woman’s vagina. It was reported from Abu’l-‘Abbaas ibn Surayj that it is the hair that grows around the back passage. From all of this, we may understand that it is mustahabb to shave all the hair from the front and back and all around them. Shaving is mentioned because this is the most common method, but it is also permissible to remove hair by waxing, plucking, etc.
Abu Shaamah said: al-‘aanah is the hair that grows on the rakab, which is what is underneath the bulge of the abdomen and above the private parts. Or it was said that it is the exterior of the private parts; or the private part itself, whether of a man or a woman. It is mustahabb to remove the hair from the front and back, indeed it is more important to remove the hair from the back, lest any faeces get stuck to it and cannot be removed by cleaning it with water or with stones, tissues, etc. Depilatory agents (waxing, sugaring, etc.) may be used instead of shaving, or the hair may be plucked or cut. Ahmad was asked about removing the pubic hair with scissors. He said, “I hope this will be good enough.” He was asked, “What about plucking?” He said, “Could anyone do that?” Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eed said: the scholars of the Arabic language said: “al-‘aanah is the hair that grows around the private part, or it was said that it is where the hair grows. This is what was meant in the report. Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: The pubic hair is the body hair which it is most important to remove, because it grows thick and dirt gets trapped in it. Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eed said: it is as if those who said it is mustahabb to shave the hair around the back passage mentioned this by way of analogy."

The fact hair has a use there and protects you was not apparent to those setting rules without knowledge which were suitable to deserts in the medieval era which is where most Jewish and Muslim rules come from and are logical for their time but obviously out of date and wrong now.

Oh yawn, what a surprise! another Muslim bashing thread

No. No-one here is saying upleasant things about Muslim individuals. Anyone who did would be instantly flamed to a crisp and rightly so.

Of course no-one should face aggression or discrimination based on their faith. But there is a clear distinction between criticising or attacking an individual for their faith, and criticising the ideology itself. That is not 'Muslim bashing'. If you insist on conflating the two, you are effectively saying that no-one is allowed to criticise an ideology, because doing so amounts to discrimination against believers in that ideology. Really? Does that also mean we can't criticise the beliefs of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who want to shut down abortion clinics or refuse their children lifesaving medical treatment because God will provide?

Thought not

It's also worth noting that it's most commonly Islamists that use cries of 'Islamophobia' to try and shut down legitimate criticism of Islamist ideology. This is understandable from their point of view, as Islamism (as distinct from Islam) is a fascist ideology, and like all fascist ideologies it is keen to silence dissent by any means necessary.

The distinction between Islam and Islamism is crucial. So is the distinction between aggression to individuals based on their beliefs, and legitimate criticism of beliefs in the abstract. They get - quite deliberately, if you ask me - fudged all the time to serve different political agendas but the distinctions are crucial.

very true mantee.

Glad to see the debate continuing so sensibly and sensitively.

The article Sel posted was fascinating and this organisation are very interesting too.

Jus - je m'excuse! Not Sel

I just wanted to say how measured and educational I've found this thread- some of the links have been fascinating and I couldn't agree more that it isn't 'Muslim bashing'. It could have descended into a blood bath very quickly but it hasn't.
JusDeFleurs and Manatee, you both explain things so well.
Unfortunately, I have to go and do some work now

This is being discussed on Women's Hour now.

Why would a Christian woman, or any other religious woman, or an atheist woman, want to wear a hijab anyway.

pointing out the distinction between Islam and Islamism

wrt to Hijab is it so clear cut ?

What about conservative Islam / muslims, which is what the vast majority of muslims are in this country.

Hijab refers not just to a head scarf, but to concealing one's 'attractions' from the opposite sex. Almost all muslim girls are subject to this in one form or another.

My family are what would be described as being at the 'liberal end of conservative' so headscarves are not worn much in my family but I certainly had to and still do when around family, wear a loose scarf to conceal the form of my bust along with loose clothes, no sleeveless tops, no skirts above the ankle, no going into rooms where non-related men are.

Huge emphasis on maintaining my virtue, modesty and remaining chaste, so restrictions on where I could go, what I do and with whom I associated with. None for my brother.

It's not true to say only Islamists impose restrictions. Sure Islamism is the extreme end, but Islam itself is a constraining force on individual liberty, behaviour and expression.

Why would a Christian woman, or any other religious woman, or an atheist woman, want to wear a hijab anyway?

They don't necessarily want to.

The request is being made of them. Big difference.

women and men have different expectations of them with regards to modesty in most cultures so why pick on the hijab?. I mean I can understand the distaste over the full burqua, but I do not understand why anyone is bothered by women wearing a hijab. I mean its a headscarf. Loads of cultures wear headscarfs or hats to go out. It isnt a security risk, it isnt oppressive in itself. Id rather wear a hijab than stillettos