So banning the Burka - freeing women from opression or taking away free choice...?

[Portoeufino]

I read that in Belgium there is a draft bill to ban burkas and also the niqab.

As they put it " There is nothing in Islam or the Koran about the burka. It has become an institution of intimidation and is a sign of submission of women. A civilized society cannot accept the imprisonment of women."

They then talk of "matters of public safety" - is that implying that if you wear a burka is it therefore likely you might have it stuffed with explosives? Or if you cover your face, then there are security issues connected with that?

I have to admit I am very ignorant about all this. DO women only wear this clothing because they are opressed? Do they choose to? What happens if it is banned? Are women freed, or will they end up forbidden from leaving the house?

I am very interested to learn and understand more about this.

I agree with you Riven... I think we all see the symbols of our own or chosen cultures with slightly different eyes. The problem with the Burkha for those of us who champion the feminine cause is that it does seem to symbolise all the things that we've spent the last hundred or so years fighting against (if one assumes that the struggle for equality started with suffragettes which it didn't but...).

I think the point about the different perception in the UK vs Afghanistan is a really good one and I wish I'd heard that quote when I was struggling through my assignment yesterday.

I think banning any item of clothing is pointless and I think it's as bad to ban the Burkha in the west as it is for the Afghans to insist that I wear one.

Like Dittany said though, this is low on the list of things that need addressing. I think it distracts from the real issues of inequality that are glossed over in the name of diplomacy (see Afghans "democratic" leader whose wife "doesn't really want to go out anyway").

BDSM women wear hijab in front of men who arent 'mahram' that is men who aren't close family members, people related so close that you cant marry them.

The list is your bro/father/uncles/fil/son

So it isnt really, men they couldnt have sex with but 'family' but obv would be confusing to just say family as there are within an extended family there are people who you do cover from cousins etc.

I dislike religion. All of them, be it Islam, Christianity, Judasim the lot. I don't differentiate. Personnally I fail to see the validity of any standpoint other than Athiesm in the modern world, seriously.

However there is no way I'd support a "ban the burqa" campaign. It is wrong on many levels.

Firstly, any such campaign is very likely to be hijacked by the far right/BNP/nasty pillocks in general. It may even encourage thugs to harrass muslim women for wearing a head scarf etc (sorry I don't know all of the correct terms for the various garments).

Secondly, I believe very, very strongly in freedom. The freedoms of choice, speach and conscience more specifically. It was Elizabeth I who said that she had no desire to make windows into men's souls (or was it hearts?) anyway, you get the idea. Just because I do not agree with burqa - and I most certainly do not support the reasoning behind it - it is none of my business what another women wears. Nor is it any business of the state. THAT is true oppression.

There is a rather dictatorial vein in this thread. We cannot wear high heels and mini skirts as this is oppresive nor can we wear muslim dress for the same reason. Even if a woman says that she has chosen to dress in these ways, she is told that it cannot be a "real" choice as she has clearly been culturaly conditioned to choose that way and does not know her own mind.

I have not read such truly patronising drivel in a very long time.

In other words, there is only one "true" choice we can make - that of western, conservative dress. No other choice is valid.

umayma
"it wouldn't be practical for men to wear burqa, they are out at work, the majority of muslim women aren't and women in islam do not have to work."
"i'm saying we don't have to go out all day to work to provide for our families, that is mens responsibility"

This offends every bone in my feminist body and I am mortified that muslim women accept this tosh.

Blimey - this kicked off after I went to bed! The point of the OP was not whether religion is a good or bad thing - there are all sorts of practices in religion that are at odds with Feminist principles - but that is another thread entirely.

I just wanted to understand whether banning these items of clothing actually "liberates" women, or whether it is "oppressing" them in a different way. Needless to say, I thinking that citing issues of "public safety" is very sad and ignorant.

I find that women who cover up completely (not just a head scarf) seem to completely remove themselves from (taking part in) society. To me it is a statement of otherness, that they don't agree or like our 'ways' and of saying to me as a western women, regardless of my own modest (read miniskirt-less) garb that I am somehow less worth as a women and human being because I am not neither muslim nor wearing the same thing as she. Being completely covered up is not compatible with taking part reasonably in society. Actually, there are very few who cover up completely so this may not be a problem but it seems like more and more muslim women choose to use the niqab or burkha.

dittany
"It's not an authority. It's a rule book made up by patriarchal men, in order to put themselves in top position.

It's sad so many women have bought into it."

Well said.

Yesterday on a French radio, a politician (female, cannot remember her name) was saying (not exact words as I am translating) So it is just jalousy then?

I totally agree (again) with every single word Riven wrote!

Riven, you talk much sense!

the niqab covers the hair and goes around the face? Can't see these are any different than a nun wearing a habit.

Ilovemydogandobama, No, the Niqab covers the face (not the eyes). hijab covers the hair and goes arround the face.

Riven, although I understand your argument on a cognitive level about being allowed to remove oneself from society I don't think it is possible. Not unless you live in a cave somewhere. Surely if your children go to a state school, you ever use the NHS, your husband has a job and pays his taxes or the family draws benefits of any kind (I place child benefit and tax credits in this category too so not trying to patronise) then you are part of society. I believe that would be the case for most of the women who wear full cover too. The fact that they perhaps don't like or agree with the values of the society they are part of doesn't mean that they aren't part of it for the reasons set out above. And as I've said if your benefitting either directly or indirectly then I think society has a right to request that you comply with certain 'rules'. Now we can all engage, as we are doing here, in a debate about what those rules should be obviously. But my view is that if showing your face to others is part of that, even if just for face recognition, then why not? Given the comments in this thread it seems that full face covering is a cultural issue not a religious one, so as long as you can comply with religious obligations you shouldn't need to use it should you? I know I know, you might want to. But I might want to wear a swastika for fun or a balaclava but I know that would be deemed inappropriate here (and I'm not form here so might not actually care since my culture might allow it). What's the difference?

Just to add, as a Muslim woman, I do wear the hijab but not niqab and personally don't feel that comfortable with it due to the way it isolates the wearer from the rest of society as well as for practical reasons. I know people who have made the choice to wear hijab or even niqab with no pressure from anyone and I find it ridiculously simplistic that intelligent women on here can suggest that all Muslim women cover because a man tells them to. I personally know of many women who do so after making a conscious choice with no influence or pressure from family or society. What about having a right to a non-sexualised identity? A lot of people on MN have raised the worrying issue of the influence of porn and sexualised images in society and my own view is that Islamic values of modesty and respect for women can't simply be dismissed as outdated or patriarchal.

As many have said, the influence of culture has subjugated women in some Muslim societies, in a way that is definitely not part of Islam. E.g. in the early days of Islam women were scholars (and men used to come to learn from them), doctors, traders etc. They were not restricted from working, but were freed from the responsibility of having to provide. And the Prophet Muhammad used to do the housework alongside his wives.

And as others have raised, there are so many issues around women that need to be addressed which are so much bigger (and affect a much larger proportion of society), for a start: domestic violence, trafficking of women, gang rape, right to equal pay..

And as a trainee GP in one of the most deprived and multicultural boroughs in London, I am more than aware that Muslims also need to sort out problems in their communities too (Muslims are diverse and to lump them in one group is also v simplistic): female circumcision, forced marriage, lack of access or knowledge about contraception, poor language skills etc.

Toolly "It's in part a political decision to wear a burka. It's a metaphorical 'up yours' to the moral panic and general hysteria that is going on since 9/11.
It's mixture of defiance, orthodoxy, and assertion of identity in this new bad mad world! "

Thats how I see it, too. I think if I was a muslim I might use the veil as an expression against cultural imperialism.

I've been arguing on another thread about my choice to be SAHM, which is also regarded by some (rightly or wrongly!) as merely being a manifestation of a patriarchal society so some might say it's not a real "choice" as such. I think the argument for or against muslim women's dress is a discussion along the same lines.

I do think its a little ironic for women to be condemned for covering up when "liberated" women are having breast implants, stomach tucks and all other kinds of other uneccesary surgery because they feel they have to conform to a norm of beauty, whatever the cost. that is much worse. Then again, I head a lot of women in Iran have nose-jobs so its not though a headscarf actually liberates you and maybe a burqua would be even more liberating??!

But I don't personally think a burqua is that liberating on the grounds that it restricts movement a lot. I wore a kimono on my wedding day and that was bloody restricting too. You literally couldn't bend forward properly, let alone run!! I would be just as horrified if women wore a kimono everyday like they did in the past.

"What about having a right to a non-sexualised identity?"

And you think that wearing clothes that shout DON'T LOOK AT ME YOU PERVERT amounts to a non-sexual identity? On the contrary: it makes the sexual image, that you choose to portray, the first thing that people notice about you.

Riven"Its all confusing culture with religion. If the burka existed ina culture where women were equal, had chosen to wear it and wore it with pride. Had equal pay/rights blah de blah (which exists nowhere) we'd all be praising it as a symbol of freedom and possibly looking at our plastic breasted anorexic child models with disgust. But the country where it is worn is a shithole. so we take one item of clothing and associate it with oppression.
(Afghani men were tortured and beaten by the Taliban for not having beards. Do we call western veard wearers oppressed? No we don't)"

That's an interesting point. That's my argument in favour of being a SAHM. I say that if child-bearing and child-care was properly paid, (let's say, better paid than the CEO of a large company,) and properly evaluated as being the most important work a human being can carry out, then men and women would respect it more and the people (women!) who carry out this work would have the proper status in society that they deserve. If being a SAHM was very well paid, men would be clambering for the position. Instead, what you have is the work being trivialised because women do it.

"E.g. in the early days of Islam women were scholars (and men used to come to learn from them), doctors, traders etc. They were not restricted from working, but were freed from the responsibility of having to provide. And the Prophet Muhammad used to do the housework alongside his wives. "

Now that is very interesting! I knew Islam was a good religion WRT the rights of women, and way ahead of its time, but I didn't realise it was that ahead. Thats an interesting differentiation between the right to work or not and the responsibility to provide.

In Britain, covering up your visual identity is what criminals do.

Hence wearing hoodies and balaclavas is challenged sometimes or viewed with suspicion.

There are standards of acceptable dress in each country. Neither a burkha nor a bikini is commonly aceptable wear in the workplace.

I think burkha wearing should be saved for being at home.

FWIW I do think it opresses women and I don't buy the "I am seen for myself not as an object of desire" argument. If it were that liberating then surely men would be wearing them too.