can i ask a feminist perspective of the full face veil, neqab.

[tomhardyismydh]

I just wondered if any of you well informed inteligant ladies, could belive that some women now 'own' the veil as thier own feminist stand against being an object for the the male gaze.

or is the feminist stance collect on the veil being opressive etc.

I am asking simply out of interest based on the newsnight interview last night.

Denying men the patriarchal habit of viewing them as sex objects is indeed one feminist perspective of the benefits of wearing a veil. My view goes beyond that though - why should men feel entitled to view women in that way in the first place?

I don't like the fact that some women feel compelled to reduce themselves to a characterless black sheet in order not to be ogled. By men.

If the men are the ones with the sexual problems and uncontrollable urges, why the fuck don't THEY cover themselves up? it's their cocks which are the problem here, not the womens' vaginas.

And I speak as an 'inteligant' (sic) person. What is your considered opinion OP?

I really don't like them. However, that isn't a feminist perspective, I just really can't communicate with someone who has their face covered. Similarly, I wouldn't have a conversation with DH whilst he is wearing his motorcycle helmet.

i dont like them and feel that a woman should not be compeled to feel the need to cover up from a male gaze. comunicating between the sexes is not always sexual and limiting communication as the veil does limits a womans ability to meet thier potential socially and economicaly.

I disagree with you, computermouse. It is not an issue only in the case you state. As I stated on both of the other threads, wearing the burqua/niquab/full face veil/ whatever you want to call it affects women as a group. I believe that it contributes to misogyny within society, by normalising the attitude that says that women should be hidden away.

It makes it publicly acceptable to blame victims rather than perpetrators, by making women responsible for men's gazes, instead of telling the men to deal with it and leave the women alone. It is antisocial and marks a woman out as being 'something else', disguising her humanity. The more it is worn, the more harm it does to women as a group, because these attitudes then become more and more mainstream.

It is not in any way empowering.

Nevertheless--there are women who genuinely want to do it. What do you say to them, that they can't, in the name of feminism?

there are people who want to do lapdancing too, TeiTetua. That doesn't make it any less harmful.

I think the argument "I want to, therefore I should be able to" is childish. There are lots of things we are prohibited from doing because it has been decided that it is better for society as a whole. I cannot walk around town in the nude, either, but I am not claiming the right to do so in the name of feminism or religion or whatever.

spot on, dittany.

I was speaking with a very eloquent Muslim teen last week about this very subject.

On the whole we agreed that it was somehow suggesting that a woman is purely a sexual object that is owned by her husband and should be sheilded from the view of all others.

but she did raise one point that made me think. She pointed out that if a possible suitor cannot see your body, only your eyes then he is judging your suitability in your personality rather than objectifying your body. And for some women maybe that is what they like.

Do women not choose their partners based on personality, then?

I do not need to hide my entire body in order to be judged on my personality. What a strange idea. My personality will soon be apparent, whether I am hidden or not, and in any case, my body is part of who I am, why hide it?

Did that teenager you spoke to expect to be able to choose her own partner? Or was it accepted that she was an object to be chosen.

If you're in favour of prohibiting women from doing something that they want to doas opposed to simply making it clear that you don't approvethen I think you've crossed the line from supporting freedom to supporting tyranny. Just to say that some things are prohibited, so Islamic veils can be too, doesn't help. Those awful women with hairy legs--let's put a stop to them! What makes one ban acceptable and another not? If there were a referendum on these things, I wonder if the right side would win every time.

And continuing to push the angle that it's all about men owning women just looks like an attempt to be respectable. If there were a debate about why some women want to wear this clothing of their own free will, then it would really be something interesting. Life isn't always as simple as we'd like it to be.

She is happy to follow her families traditions of an arranged marriage but her family are very westernised and are chosing together, so although it will be unlikely to be a love marriage it will be one that she has had a strong input in.

I do agree that I do not expect to be objectified simply for not remaining covered entirely. But many western men do look at women as objects and in the countries where the Burkha os most common it is true that women really are chosen by their husbands. So when they have such little choice in much of their lives i can see the attraction of wanting their personality to be what they are judged on rather than their beauty.

But yes, as i said we agreed that it is primarily caused by a feeling of ownership.

Similar to Mamazon's friend, my only first hand experience was a friend in Kuwait. She was a very modern woman - had divorced her husband for being lazy, and then remarried a Western man (admittedly she was empowered by having a wealthy and quite modern father, who had raised very strong minded daughters but also made them financially independent). Anyway, she wore a veil outside the house. When at home in female company or with just family members she would remove it, but in public it was always on. And it was entirely her choice. Neither of her sisters wore a veil. It had never been encouraged by either her father or her husbands. She wore it so that people meeting her for the first time got to know her for her mind, not for her appearance. She certainly made me stop dead in my tracks and re-evaluate my opinion of the veil.

If it was so great men would wear them.

I've worked for years in the Muslim community, so know lots of women who wear viels, of all stripes from the casual scarf draped over the back of the hair to the full niquab.

My problem with the full niquab, the face covering coupled with the full (usually black) body veil is it does precisely what the wears claim it doesn't do. i.e. it turns them into a sex object. By veiling themselves fully they are quite explicitly saying "I am an object which you may not look at, the thing that definies me is my sexuality and it's availability to men". To be honest, all women are subject to the male gaze, even the veiled ones get comments and cat calls in the street. Dressing like a down at heel lesbian-- in baggy jeans and a short haircut is just as effective in warding off the more explicit catcalls than the full on body armour, and it has the added advantage of being more comfortable and without restricted vision.

I was mostly responding to Alexpolismum as of 15:22:34. She really did seem to be supporting a ban. And if not her--those awful French. We may not like it if women choose to cover themselves up, but there are some women who do make that choice.

By the way, what is the European Court of Human Rights likely to make of this? I'm sure it'll get to them, and they're generally pretty strong on individual rights.