Denial
Right. Let’s see if I can discuss the hijab debate without dragging in my King Charles’ head, the anonymously abusive waiting socialists. Oh look, no I can’t, there it is now. Yes I can – I did that on purpose.
It has been decreed by omniscient (albeit nameless) people who can see into the minds of other (not nameless) people that I have been pretending all this time to be somewhat divided, to have qualms, to see the point of arguments on both sides. It’s not in fact true that I’ve been pretending, but I’ve stopped havering now. Some of the arguments I’ve read over the past few days have pushed me off that fence. There is what seems to me an extraordinary amount of denial involved in all this, and also an extraordinary amount of sentimentality that makes the denial possible.
The sentimentality is about religion, and freedom of religion, and ‘self-expression’, and culture, and the hijab, and Islam. The denial is about the hijab, and Islam, and Islamism, and coercion, and what the hijab stands for, and its history. It seems to me (if only because what people are saying makes no sense on any other terms, at least I can’t make sense of it) that people think the hijab is kind of a colourful bit of exoticism, a whiff of the Other, a badge of rebellion, a sign of authenticity, a piece of (of all things in the world!) self-expression. Self-expression! It’s self-immolation, self-immurement, self-extinguishment.
It’s also a very obvious, conspicuous, non-ignorable sign of inferiority, degradation, and subordination. People who object to the ban constantly refer to it as a sign of ‘religious belief,’ thus bestowing on it that air of taboo and hands-off that invocations of religion and ‘religious belief’ always do bestow. But religious belief is simply not the only thing it stands for, to put it mildly, and it seems to me very disingenuous to talk as if it were.
What else does it stand for? It stands for the Taliban whipping women with antennas broken off cars for showing a bit of hair, that’s what. It stands for religious police in Iran beating up women (or worse) for not dressing ‘correctly’. It stands for men blaming women for exciting them, for being able to get pregnant, for having genitals and breasts and bodies and hair and arms and necks. It stands for men fearing and hating women and doing everything they possibly can to keep them ground into the dirt. It’s not benign, it’s not harmless, it’s not just some quaint cultural artifact. But you’d never know it.
Here is one staggering remark, from A Fistful of Euros:
No, the French government and a large part of the French population doesn’t really understand freedom of religion and they don’t understand it in exactly the same manner that most Americans don’t understand diversity, multi-culturalism or freedom of expression. Islam is entirely secure in France, so long as it has no measurable significance and makes no meaningful demands on believers.
Meaningful demands. Do you mark that. The French people who support the ban are being rebuked for disapproving of the ‘meaningful demands’ that Islam makes on ‘believers.’ Not all believers, mind you. No – slightly over half of them, as a matter of fact. The other half is fully exempt from those ‘meaningful demands’ and in a position to enforce the demands on the other half. The demands are made of women and girls, and not of men and boys. Males can walk around in public freely with their heads and necks poking out into the air as if they were not filthy or contaminating or polluted or dangerous – as if they were just ordinary heads and necks like anyone else’s. It’s women who are obliged to wrap theirs up, who are not allowed to walk around freely in public without having a piece of cloth swaddling their necks, hair and shoulders, on pain of being called whores or raped or beaten. That’s the meaningful demand we’re supposed to feel embarrassed or guilty for opposing.
And then there’s the bottomless well of sympathy for the girls who want to (or have been trained or bullied to want to) wear the hijab, and the staggering absence of sympathy for the girls who don’t and who don’t want to have to see the degrading thing next to them in class all day. Here, for instance, from the discussion at Twisty Sticks
You’re right, though, that Muslim women could have a very positive influence on Islam. But banning what some of them think an important part of their religion is not, I’d suggest, a very constructive way of encouraging them.
Okay, but what about not banning them? What about what allowing them in the classroom does to the women who want nothing to do with it? Why so much concern for what the wearers want and none for the others? Do the anti-banners really think about what it is they’re supporting? The right of people to insist on the inferiority of women in a highly visible manner in public schools, all day every day. Now there’s a cause to fight for!
But someone else at Twisty Sticks made the point I’ve been meaning to make for days:
I have a very inelegant hypothetical here. What if groups of immigrants from India, who were of the (formerly or not so formerly) “untouchable” class, settled in a number of cities in the U.S. These untouchables believed that it was important to their Hindu history to wear a black headband so that all the Americans would know right away that they were second (or is 7th) class citizens. The untouchable children, male and female, all in black headbands, were trained by their parents that they should walk behind their betters, keep their heads down, not dream for better….You get the picture. Is this freedom of expression or freedom of oppression?
Exactly.
I was in two minds about the ban – but you’re absolutely right.
Well, absolutely may be putting it a little strongly. Semi-absolutely? Provisionally-absolutely?
At least I think I (and more to the point the Muslim and former-Muslim women who favor the ban, and the people who support them) have some decent points…
Can couture be next? As I said below, Why not just ban high heels? The point of the scarf is to protect women from becoming commodities. The purpose of heels is the opposite. If the girls were prohibited from going to school, that would be a different matter.
The hypocrisy is laughable.
“The point of the scarf is to protect women from becoming commodities. The purpose of heels is the opposite.”
Self determination is of course a vulgar irrelevance when set alongside the need to ‘protect’ women – from themselves if necessary. What an utterly poisonous argument. Freedom is about choosing such matters and not being ‘protected.’
There was just a little irony intended since those who want to ban scarves want to ‘protect’ women as well.
So I assume Richard that you too are against the ban.
But, of course, I haven’t said a word about ‘protecting’ women. Nary a syllable. How people do love to put words in my mouth.
Actually, I am against the ban though I sympathise with many of the grounds for it. The issue of using legislative pressure to force people to behave in certain ways is certainly a serious one (though given that much of the purpose of it is to secure the right of self-determination in the case of children forced to wear the veil I hardly think your analogy is a precise one).
As for the little irony (is that’s what it was) I have heard the argument being seriously advanced before now.
I’ve heard many odd arguments.
A friend on mine wears a veil, by her own choice. She finds the condescension of those who want to protect her from her faith deeply offensive. And again as I said: if the girls were forbidden from going to school – in schools remember, with people of other faiths! that is what this is about- then it would be a different matter. The result of this will not be assimilation but isolation.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Protect. Faith. Deeply. Offensive. Faiths. Assimilation.
All the wrong words. Not what I’m talking about, or rhetoric, or more not what I’m talking about. It’s a waste of time endlessly talking at cross-purposes.
If assimilation, in the sense of political and social modernization is not your point, what is: your idea of truth? What’s more important to you, furthering the cause of women’s independence, or furthering your own idealism?
And again I ask you. Why not call for a ban on heels and mini skirts?
This from a country where a good number of women polled, 20% if I remember, said that being asked to go away for a weekend in exchange for a raise was NOT sexual harassment. Do a search in The Guardian archives if you want.
“A friend on mine wears a veil, by her own choice. She finds the condescension of those who want to protect her from her faith deeply offensive”
Rather besides the point though. If all women wore the veil voluntarily it wouldn’t be an issue. Which, again, is why your heels and skirts ban is a poor analogy.
Parents are in general allowed to make decisions for their children. Are you opposed to this on principle?
Is the state the parent to its citizens?
If so at what point does it choose to protect them from their own decdisions?
Is indentured servitude in the same category as smoking or overeating? Is the choice to behave as an object rather than a subject by stumbling around in 4″ ‘fuck me’ pumps really a decision by an individual or merely the result of a form of indoctrination that begins in childhood. Is there a difference betwen Barbie and a head scarf? I admit I’m throwing around a bit of 70’s feminism but it’s appropriate.
—
“What about what allowing them in the classroom does to the women who want nothing to do with it?”
If O.BE was an American I’d say she did not understand the constitution and our notion of freedom of speech. But the UK does not have a First Amendment. By her logic I should not have to put up with even one priest walking down the streets of my city. And my god, in plain sight!
As implied in my comment on esthetics, I wish philosophers would pay a little more attention to the world and a little less to their preconceptions. Abstraction means to abstract ‘from’ something. Without that it serves no purpose other than to serve those preconceptions, And isn’t that the definition of religion.
And by the way, Scott Martens family background is Mennonite. You might want to do a little research on the history of religious persecution before you start pontificating. And you might begin here:
http://pedantry.fistfulofeuros.net/archives/cat_grandpa_martens.html
Seth,
I’m not quite sure what the heat and light is for given that I agree with you that the ban is a bad idea, on reasons of liberty foremost; the state should not be protecting people from their own decisions. I just don’t think that the reasons for the ban should be dismissed lightly or at all.
“Parents are in general allowed to make decisions for their children. Are you opposed to this on principle?”
No, but it’s hardly an absolute and parents are constrained in what they can do to their children in a number of areas, such as slapping them. There’s certainly enough of an element of coercion that has been associated with the veil to justify such an argument. Besides, all this ban does is to determine what is expected of children at the point where the state is acting in loco parentis. Giving schools the right to impose a uniform code and exclude pupils who don’t adhere to it is not different in principle.
“Is the choice to behave as an object rather than a subject by stumbling around in 4″ ‘fuck me’ pumps really a decision by an individual or merely the result of a form of indoctrination that begins in childhood. Is there a difference betwen Barbie and a head scarf? I admit I’m throwing around a bit of 70’s feminism but it’s appropriate.”
I still think the analogy of peer pressure and social coercion (i.e. force) is a very poor one indeed and probably in rather poor taste. Women have been subjected to the most horrendous abuse (e.g. corporal punishment) for wearing things like the ‘fuck me’ pumps you seem so excised by and for not wearing a veil. As far as I know there is no comparable converse example.
I’m commenting a little more to OBe than you.
–
High heels and a good pair of legs go very very well together. But I understand that the interest can be considered problematic.
To me, this: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo.cms?msid=440535
is as much an image of the headscarf as anything. The photo is from a protest in France. Note the tricolor, the chic glasses and collar… and the insufferably arrogant expression. God, I love French girls.
Meanwhile I’ve been exchanging emails for almost a year emails with a Ph.D. candidate in London, who also wears the hajib.
No you can’t read the letters. they’re private (very)
I may have to convert.
I’ve had enough of this argument and of this site.
ciao
“Note the tricolor, the chic glasses and collar… and the insufferably arrogant expression.”
The preference for a symbol utterly at odds with Western and French traditions…
“No you can’t read the letters. they’re private (very)”
Why on Earth would I want to? If you mean by this that you’re claiming a monopoly on knowing people who wear the hijab voluntarily I can assure you that you are mistaken.
So now it comes out.
You’re right. Chic? France?
And to not get the impli…
oh never mind
Funny stuff!
“So now it comes out.”
I thought you’d had enough? I don’t think the idea that a veil imposed through the same logic that blames women for their own rape might not be a shining example of liberty, equality or fraternity should be a particularly radical or unusual idea. The dalit headband is one analogy – a gay man wearing a ‘God Hates Fags’ t-shirt would be another.