On the Hijab and human faces.

[FloralBuntingIsObnoxious]

Way back when I wore headcoverings myself as a Christian woman, I took a keen interest in what was taught about the Hijab, and what women themselves had to say about it.

I recall being particularly impressed by something I saw from a number of women about it being 'liberating' because it creates a focus on the face, on the woman as a human, rather than a sex object.

I took that at face value for some time as a good thought, but over time, I've begun to feel very uneasy about it.

For a start, there is an implicit understanding that a woman who is not covering her hair is a sex object, not a human. It all leads in to this notion that if a woman does not cover herself then she is not as worthy of respect as those women who do.

Then there is the understandable desire to be seen as a human, rather than simply subject to the male gaze. I feel it myself when I'm not wearing make up and just want to get on with my day - a sort of wish to be invisible to leering glances.

But why is there this strange notion that only our faces are 'human'? My whole body is part of what makes me human, the same as a man. How come a Muslim man is able to walk around with hair uncovered and still be seen as a human, but a woman does not have that ability unless we can only see her face? This 'disembodying' is so harmful.

Anyway, just some rolled around thoughts I had this morning while reading some things about the objections to hijab. I'd be interested in a discussion about it.

What I am cautious of is ignoring the patriarchal rituals that white women perform while telling Muslim women that they are oppressed because they wear head-dress.

Fair enough. I don't think that was intended by the op - but the whole discussion gets polarised by the assumption that this is what ops like this are 'really' about. It is a sensitive issue, but it must not be above feminist analysis.

I mentioned that my OP was inspired by me musing on the things Muslim women had told me themselves about their decision to wear hijab. They shared those thoughts as a positive thing, and for a long time, I took those thoughts in a positive way too, but since in the interim I've engaged with more feminist thought, I've come to view it slightly differently. That's not me trying to Lord it over and shut down Muslim voices, that's me listening to what Muslim women said about their reasoning, and asking if it was quite the positive, persuasive spin I had first considered it to be.

Yes, there are lots of things that are oppressive to women, and rightly critiqued by feminist thought. But I had been considering this issue after reading things and watching reports and videos from Muslim women who are against the hijab, particularly, but not exclusively, when enforced.

Fair enough, Floral. It is a difficult and sensitive issue. But debate is good, I agree.

What I am cautious of is ignoring the patriarchal rituals that white women perform while telling Muslim women that they are oppressed because they wear head-dress.

Seriously? There's no doubt that there's still some way to go in terms of women's rights in the west but are we saying that this stuff is as bad as what happens in women in some parts of the world?

Women are killed by their families because of honour. Women are killed by their families because they're not dressing right. The difference is that they live in places where this is condoned within the societies they live in and in some cases by the laws of those lands.

When we are being told we can no longer define the word woman without including men, women’s rights the world over are looking pretty shit.
I agree, parts of the world are certainly way behind but women telling other women they are offended by their dress sense and questioning why they are acquiescing to their particular patriarchy only serves to divide not join together women of different faiths/ ethnicities. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a debate but it needs to be done in a spirit of tolerance not hostility.

What I am cautious of is ignoring the patriarchal rituals that white women perform while telling Muslim women that they are oppressed because they wear head-dress.

Are you kidding? This is the feminism section, there are loads of threads criticising patriarchal rituals like changing your name, sacrificing your career etc etc.

I think that the covering of hair by women is linked to the fact that for whatever reason* women tend to have long hair and men don't. And that long hair is seems to be regarded as sexually alluring in a way that short hair isn't.

*try explaining to a child why (in the main) women have longer hair than men - it's bloody hard!

*What I am cautious of is ignoring the patriarchal rituals that white women perform while telling Muslim women that they are oppressed because they wear head-dress.

Seriously? There's no doubt that there's still some way to go in terms of women's rights in the west but are we saying that this stuff is as bad as what happens in women in some parts of the world?*

No. But here in the UK I don’t see much difference between a woman who says she freely chooses to cover her head, and a woman who says she freely chooses to change her name and title upon marriage.

Both are done as outward symbols of “good” behaviour. Both confer status within the community. A good muslim woman following her communities guidelines with regard to sex and modesty, and a woman following her communities guidelines with regard to sex (fidelity) and family.

Women on here repeatedly say changing their name is something they do out of free choice, that they are proud to do. Why is that any different to a woman who says the same about a hijab.

Out of interest, sikh turbans are about class, not religion, or modesty. Turbans were a signifier of higher or lower class. So a sikh leader decreed all men should wear turbans, then class distinction would be erased. Women cover their heads to show solidarity with men.

So turbans were a political equaliser. Like pp have said, if wearing a hijab was truly that empowering, men would do it. Same as men should be “proud” to take a womans name on marriage.

Real freedom would be wearing whatever the hell you want to and not ever being subject to sexual objectification or harassment because of it.

This^^

It seems consistent across all the cultures I can think of that the more uncomfortable or restricting clothing choice is reserved for or required of women, rather than men. It’s depressing.
I get that adults may want to go along with those expectations for lots of reasons, often with a complex relationship to context and their personal choice. I wish kids could just be left to be kids without slotting into the right gender stereotype for as long as possible though.

Absolutely we should do it in spirit of tolerance etc but I find it difficult being tolerant when I know women and girls are dying in other parts of the world because of these beliefs.

No. But here in the UK I don’t see much difference between a woman who says she freely chooses to cover her head, and a woman who says she freely chooses to change her name and title upon marriage.*

I live in London, not all women cover their heads because they are free to do so. There women living in this country who are forced to.

Please survey women in this country and let me know what percentage actually change their name and wear a wedding ring due to them wanting acceptance from their community. If there are people like this, they're a dying breed.

I can understand the anger and frustration but alienating women in this country many of whom have strong ties with women in oppressive countries, serves no purpose.
It sends the message women who choose to be covered are despised wherever they may be, not much else.

alienating women in this country

Who is doing this?

Who is doing this? < wide eyed innocence>
Try reading mumsnet from the perspective of a brown, muslim woman. Its alienating. Read the hateful crap thats been spouted on these boards over the last few days.

I can understand the anger and frustration but alienating women in this country many of whom have strong ties with women in oppressive countries, serves no purpose.
It sends the message women who choose to be covered are despised wherever they may be, not much else.

I just don't get it, if you know that other women are oppressed by this why on earth defend it? It's like those women that carry out fgm on young girls, they experience the pain but then are prepared to do it to innocent children.

I grew up in a culture where girls married young (due to poverty) they had no right to divorce and no right to contraceptive. I've seen women living desperately sad lives because of these social norms. I suspect previous generations even lost their lives but within my life time, this attitude towards women has changed is no longer tolerated.

I'm sorry, but I can't just be polite about these things. It maybe sensitive and it may even offend but surely we need to speak out. Do you think there are no women living in this country who suffer oppression?

Threads were Muslims have been referred to as 'animalistic' nothing alienating about that?

Then speak out with them, with the ones who are oppressed don’t shirk at the sight of how many are roaming major cities these days. No one is asking you to be polite, be tolerant.

Yossarian22 what does your response even mean?

A small proportion of the Muslim girls each year come wearing hijabs in reception (so aged 4/5 years old) in our local school. Personal choice about that seems unlikely to become a factor for them as they grow up in that context.

Yossarian22 what does your response even mean?
In simple terms it means the most effective way to engage people is to be with them not against them.
How did women in your society change? I think the most effective and long lasting change comes from within societies not from those outside preaching the ‘right view’. While muslim women are treated with contempt for choosing to cover up, I think they will cling to that identity even more.
The support for women to escape the shit they’re forced to endure will come mainly from other women. Tolerance and support.

Yes? So examining the rationalizations and pointing to the inherent injustice of women doing things to mitigate bad male behaviour is treating them with contempt how?

I think there is a place to critique all manifestations of patriarchal oppression. Last time I checked many followers of Islam in the UK (at least in my neck of the woods) are from Eastern Europe and pale-skinned anyway.

I just don't get this thing where feminists have to compromise principles to be super nice to a particular group.

It isn't just followers of patriarchal religions. There has been so much bullshit about how feminists who criticise the sex trade actually make the women caught up in it feel bad - therefore such feminists are 'Swerfs'... ('sex worker exclusionary radical feminiets) and are somehow worse than the pimps, punters and traffickers who profit from the sex trade.

I am suprised no one has yet coined 'MERFs' to smear feminist as defined by 'excluding muslims'... You heard it here first.

Stick on a hijab/ niqab for the day, won’t take long for you to experience the contempt from women who disapprove.

won’t take long for you to experience the contempt from women who disapprove.

Are those women feminists? Mumsnetters?

Pal, have you read the thread? I've worn religious headcoverings. I've been mocked while doing so by yobs and superior women alike. It doesn't speak to the discussion of how certain things are slanted against women, even if they appear to be freely chosen.