How feminists have let down Muslim women and girls

[beastlyslumber]

This is a brilliant conversation with Yasmine Mohammed, talking about how liberal feminism has betrayed women and girls, what the wearing of hijab really means for girls, how women are being enslaved and tortured by Sharia law. And why feminists need to start caring.

open.spotify.com/episode/4yNPedvPGE2lZ4uPtYViot

That's the spotify link. I'll link it on apple music as well: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e208-yasmine-mohammed-discusses-how-western-liberals/id1437447846?i=1000587384528

Hopefully one of those links will work for you!

Yasmine Mohammed, author of Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam , shares her story of growing up in a fundamentalist Islamic home in Canada. At 13, when she tried to report the abuse she suffered at the hands of her step-father, she was told by a judge “you come from a different culture, and that’s how your family chooses to discipline you, so we just have to accept that.”

And here lies the inherent contradiction in the way in which the West views fundamentalist Islam versus other fundamentalist religions, and turns a blind eye to the abuse and suffering of millions of girls and women. She and Bridget discuss how alienating that is, the message those girls receive is “we don’t care about you, you are ‘other.'”

They cover the escalation of rape culture, sexual harassment, the problems with celebrating the hijab, the indoctrination of attitudes towards girls and women in Muslim culture, and being called Islamophobic for criticizing a tool and system of oppression. They bond over shared traumatic experiences and discuss their belief that if you can use your own trauma to help others, it has not happened in vain. If you only ever listen to one episode of Walk-Ins Welcome, this is the episode.

If you're not willing to listen to the discussion @CleanTheChicken then your comments are of no interest.

I am listening to the discussion but it seems like you're not willing to listen to women whose opinion different from yours. You've only told two women to basically leave this discussion and both have been Muslim women. Why is that?

This thread is to discuss the podcast. You have said you refuse to listen to the podcast. Therefore you have nothing relevant to contribute to the thread.

Many others haven't listened to the podcast but have added their opinion (while agreeing with you). Will you be telling them to leave too?

When someone mentioned Islamophobia earlier I rolled my eyes. Not everything is Islamophobic and ofcourse these things should be discussed. But the more the OP salivates at the podcast and refuses to listen to differing views, I'm getting a very clear picture of what kind of person the OP is.

I'm not telling anyone to leave. I'm telling people to listen to the podcast and if they won't do that, they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion about the podcast. If you read the thread you will see I've asked many pp to listen to the podcast because the reason I posted the thread was specifically to discuss this specific podcast and the specific things that are specifically said on thi specific podcast. HTH.

Yep, I'm just here salivating. You've nailed it. Are you always so devastatingly insightful or is it a special occasion?

I was going to add this too. All three Abrahmic (? Spelling) religions are rather about patrilinear heritage and not very women-friendly on the whole. Reading the old testament it is rather fascinating how a whole Row of men «begat» the next generation of men. Women feature very rarely, and as we well know it is only fairly recently that women in Europe can enjoy economic and political freedom and independence on a large scale. It is not that long ago it was mandatory for women to cover their hair in church (and for decorum elsewhere too). But that aside: no, it is not «islamophobic» to point out very problematic aspects of the religion. The hijab, burka and niqab ARE problematic. Forced covering up IS problematic - especially when forced on children.Aside from everything else it causes severe vitamin D deficiency in the female population in countries with Sun almost every day of the year. Some women are perfectly happy to wear the hijab for spiritual reasons just like some women are perfectly happy to not be able to vote. However, if they do not extend the choice to those who do not want to wear the hijab, or to those who do want to be able to vote - then we are not talking about choice and freedom anymore. Are we? I want the choice and freedom. If others do not want the choice or freedom for themselves, crack on. But they cannot also take my choice and freedom away, to justify their own choice
^
Turbonerd Put so much better than I could, but this in bucket loads, it's about choice and freedoms.

I am going to qualify my post, as in the hijab is not problematic in itself IF it is a free choice to wear it.

The niqab and the burka are definitely problematic. The burka more so than the niqab, but both cover the face to such a degree that the wearer is un-identifiable.
We humans rely on facial features (+ voice) in order to recognise individuals.
In my opinion being forced to wear a face-covering veil is against our human needs to be recognised as an individual in society and thus against our human rights.

It is illegal (at least it was) to cover your face in public - certainly in banks for instance, and for good reason.
If the weather doesn’t demand it for protection (extreme heat or cold, strong winds etc) then wearing a veil to cover your face is completely at odds with participating in society.
Funnily enough it is usually requested in cultures and religions where women are very limited in how they can participate in society. That makes them problematic in my opinion.

Even if the women wearing them do so completely of their own volition it is at odds with how we interact in western cultures and societies. It covers your face and it muffles your voice, and makes you nigh on indistinguishable from any other person who wears the same.

I agree with this. Happy for adult women to make the choice for themselves, but not to make the choice for anyone else or to have the choice made for them.

There's a lot of discussion in the podcast about what the "choice" is like from YM's experience.

Yes @turbonerd I agree that hijab can be a choice but niqab and burka are always problematic whether forced or freely chosen.

All three Abrahmic (? Spelling) religions are rather about patrilinear heritage and not very women-friendly on the whole.

FWIW, some denominations in Judaism are matrilineal. Not that it necessarily makes them more women-friendly, of course: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism

I wondered if there are many other countries except France?
France have banned any and all religious symbols from being worn by people employed by the government afaik.

Covering the rest of the body is not a problem, it is the covering of the face.

But add to that if you are a child (under 16, for the sake of it) then religious coverings are not freely chosen simply because you are a child. Of course people must have freedom of religion (and freedom of no religion too), and children are raised within religions. But the issue raised here (as I understand it) is that some religious symbols are more intrusive into the children’s everyday life than others. The hijab is only for the girls. It singles them out. I can’t think of an equivalent for boys in any of the major religions.

@turbonerd

Sikh men and (less commonly) women wear turbans. They also wear a Kara.

Hindus wear a kautuka (the red thread worn on their wrist) and Hindu women wear a bindi.

Muslim men are required to have fist length beards.

Why are you singling out hijabi women?

It's very common for under 16s to choose to wear the hijab. I wore mine on and off until I was 18 as did my friends. My parents never forced me, it was my choice. It never has hindered me in my everyday life. How would you know unless you've worn one?

@Samjamm
the podcast lady singled out the hijab. I have added my opinion on the forced wearing of it, particularly if it is forced on girls.

I suppose the turban is similar in that you must not show any hair? But as you say, it is not only for one sex though more common for men.

To me a kara, or a small crucifix on a chain, or a bindi is not a problem. It doesn’t obscure the face.
The hijab doesn’t obscure the face as such, but is covering the sides and under the chin. Not a problem for me when I communicate with women wearing a hijab. But -
Many girls and women say they feel that it does hinder them to wear the hijab. They feel singled out, mostly in contrast to the men and boys who are free to wear what they want.
In many families I have noticed that the women are fully covered and the men are in jeans and t-shirt. No fist-length beards either. But perhaps that is regional?

I have never been forced to wear any particular clothing or any religious symbol. That is, there were attempts by some religious men (christians as it happens) to shame me for what I wore in my teens, and to shame people fir dancing or going to the cinema too.
If girls are shamed for not wearing a hijab then that is the main issue.

I did a quick Google and Islam has approx 1.97 billion followers whereas there are approx 30 million sikhs worldwide, so there is a big difference in impact on people I reckon.

Covering the rest of the body is not a problem, it is the covering of the face.

The burkini is banned on some French beaches: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61883529

Sikh women also wear the bangle, I’ve seen Hindu men with the tilak. Sikhs aren’t meant to cut their hair, and the turban is a way of managing long hair. (It has been ages since I’ve seen a Hindu woman with a tilak. I wonder what happened).

The fist length beard, is pretty prescriptive, but at least it doesn’t carry with it notions of modesty.

I think what is problematic about it, is that in an area like the one where I live, at least half my kids school mates are Muslim, which means the old-fashioned notions of ‘modesty’ and ‘honour’ for women and girls, that are part and parcel of the head covering, are normalised. I think that is a backwards step for women’s rights.

@turbonerd but why does it matter if a woman's (or anyone's) ears, chin, neck etc are covered? You're saying it isn't an issue for you when communicating with a hijabi woman, but I don't understand why it would be an issue for anyone. Their face is still visible so you can still decipher their facial expressions and so on.

If a hijabi woman claims that her scarf is preventing her from carrying out everyday activities, then she has the choice to remove it.

Men also must show modesty, but it isn't spoken about. They shouldn't wear skin tight nor transparent clothing that reveals areas that should be covered (above belly button to below the knees). They're also not supposed to cover their ankles. If you ever walk past a mosque during prayer time you'll see that men roll up their trousers before going in.

Perhaps the fist length beard is a regional thing. To be fair, my own husband doesn't have a fist length beard. But it is an Islamic requirement. As well as the fact that their hair must be one length (no short back and sides etc).

Nobody should be shamed for doing what they choose, but we really need to stop claiming that hijabi women are oppressed.

If a woman wearing hijab is oppressed it isn't because of her hijab. If someone is forcing her to wear a hijab, they are the ones at blame, not the hijab itself.

What's wrong with normalising modesty?

Someone can argue that you can dress modestly without wearing a hijab.

Would you claim that a non hijabi woman dressed in loose clothing that covers her skin is oppressed? Or has been forced to dress that way?

If you saw me, you’d think I was dressed modestly, but it is just practical. I don’t think someone is showing off and being immodest if they aren’t covered from neck to wrist to ankle. People can do whatever they feel is comfortable. I think a head covering is a good idea to avoid sun stroke though.

What's wrong with normalising modesty?

There’s a lot wrong with it, imo. But I discussed it a lot in a different thread. Modesty is a patriarchal/religious thing and I am not comfortable with religious values becoming dominant over secular values in our society.

You can’t have seen Hindu (wo)men with a tilak unless you’ve seen them in / around a temple or wedding / festival. Nobody wears a tilak everyday unless they are following strict religious practices.

I think it's fine to criticise hijab just as it's fine to criticise western beauty practices or any other cultural practice from any other culture.

There will always be defensive responses because lots of women choose to participate in these practices and which of us does not like to think of herself as a free agent, making free choices?

But we all know none of our choices are made in a vacuum.

It's also fine to criticise religions and belief systems. All of them.

What horrified me most about this podcast was the family court judge telling her she had to put up with physical abuse because she was from a different culture and that's just how families in her culture disciplined their children.

Agreed LangClegsInSpace - you can’t really avoid that defensiveness in feminism. Obviously we all get benefits when we comply with patriarchy and get abrasiveness when we resist, so it’s easy to believe that we are freely choosing what works for us.