Run like hell
Catherine Bennett notes that the Rational Dress Society protested against dress fashion that ‘impedes the movements of the body’ with the result that after three or four decades, women were able to ride bicycles. Well, yes. Clothes and dress codes seem like a comparatively trivial matter, but they’re not. They’re immensely important. I’ve felt that literally all my life – from earliest earliest childhood. I always wore jeans when I could, I always fought wearing a skirt whether for school or for social occasions, I always fought binding or uncomfortable clothes. I remember fussing (okay probably whining) about a dress that was too tight or pinchy somewhere when I was a child; my mother said something to the effect that a little discomfort was the price of looking elegant; I rejected the principle absolutely. And it’s gone on that way ever since. I loathe the dress code for women, and that includes the secular dress code as well as religious ones – I loathe all the things women are expected to wear that impede the movements of the body. Did you know the streets of lower Manhattan were littered with high heeled shoes on September 11? Women are expected (and expect themselves) to dress for work in such a way that they can’t even run. They even, ‘Wonkette’ tells us, amputate ‘their little toes the better to fit their Jimmy Choos’ – and it’s been little more than a century that we’ve been able – and allowed – to ride bicycles, run, play sports, swim freely. Imagine not having that option. Imagine always having to wear a long dress, a corset, little flimsy shoes; imagine never ever being able to run, breathe freely, lounge, jump around – never being able to use your own body in an unconfined untrammeled way. Imagine life imprisonment.
Over a century on, this is just one of the many freedoms that young, enthusiastic female proponents of the jilbab and veil are content, apparently, to deny themselves. Yes, they freely choose not to be able to see properly nor to be able to communicate directly, nor move freely, nor play sports, swim in a public place and willingly embrace all the attendant limitations on their professional and social lives. Meanwhile, they are happy to watch their menfolk caper about, bareheaded, in western trainers and jeans.
Imprisonment for me, freedom for you – ‘freely’ chosen.
All this free choosing, according to Straw’s critics, we should accept, uncritically, at face value, because – here’s their trumping argument – what does freedom mean, if it doesn’t mean being free to oppress yourself? What does freedom mean if you can’t feel comfy in a niqab? Or happy to shave off your hair and wear a wig instead? Or comfortable – if you so choose – with footbinding? Or keen – if that’s what you want – to have a clitoridectomy?
The irony is beautifully stark in this item on a teacher suspended for wearing the niqab in class (the students, not surprisingly, couldn’t understand what she said).
She said: “The veil is really important to all Muslim women who choose to wear it. Our religion compels us to wear it because it’s in the Koran.”
As Edmund Standing pointed out when he sent me the link, note the juxtaposition of the liberal language of choice with the anti-liberal language of religious compulsion. She chooses to be compelled to wear it – and presumably not to fret too much about the women in Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and many other places who are unable to choose not to be compelled to wear it.
“She said: “The veil is really important to all Muslim women who choose to wear it. Our religion compels us to wear it because it’s in the Koran.””
Well, someone’s been lied to and brainwashed, right there…..
Even if you are daft enough to think that Mahmoud actually did write down what an “angel” told him, rather than making it up as he went along ……
The “recital” merely says that women should be modestly dressed.
It says nothing about face-veils or head-coverings.
For proof look at the society-porn magazines, wher photos of royalty etc. are published.
Look at the photos og Queen Noor of Jordan, and the Moriccan family, and the Syrians – they are all msulim woimen, and their heads are usually completely uncovered….
Oops.
Isn’t Google wonderful? Now I know what Jimmy Choos are all I need to do is find out what makes them different from all th other seemingly identical looking brands of shoes.
Anyway, the important bit – don’t we choose to be compelled by quite a lot of things, though.
Examples off the top of my head:
If I was good enough to sign for Manchester United I woul be choosing to play for them, but I would be compelled to wear the team shirt for each match.
If I freely choose to go out for a drive in the car I am still compelled to obey the traffic laws.
If we choose to play a game aren’t we – to some extent – compelled to obey the rules of that game, even if they go against ordinary common sense?
In other words I can see lots wrong with wearing a veil, but see no problem inherent in choosing to be compelled.
Re the suspended teacher and veil: her lawyers state
“No child has ever had a problem with the support she provides and no child or parent has ever complained about her work.”
Now I know we have an issue with the l word here, but the head teacher stated that the children complained couldn’t understand her very easily, and that visibility of her mouth when speaking was the key issue. So who is being ‘colourful with the actualité’ here?
David – good point. But…she didn’t say ‘I choose to be an obedient Muslim, so I obey the [putative] command to wear the niqab’ – which would be the parallel to your examples. First you choose to drive or play, then as a consequence you accept the rules. The quoted comment said women choose to wear it, our religion compels us to wear it – that really is rather contradictory.
More generally – I think Edmund is right that there is something peculiar about using the liberal language of choice about an illiberal form of compulsion – even though it is something one can choose. Suppose some people decided to become slaves. They could say they were choosing it, and that could be accurate enough, but it would still be peculiar. I suppose it’s because ‘choose’ is a hurrah word there – so it’s odd to use a hurrah word about the abdication of the very thing being hurrahed. I’m choosing to give up my ability to choose, isn’t that admirable? Uh, no, not really.
“but the head teacher stated that the children complained couldn’t understand her very easily”
The way I understood that is that the children didn’t complain to the teacher, but they did complain to the head. That is not very surprising! And it’s disingenuous of the teacher to say the children didn’t complain to her. Of course they didn’t! How comfortable or easy would that have been, for Christ’s sake? That’s like people who make a lot of noise and say the neighbours have never complained – the fact that the neighbours have never complained cannot be taken as meaning the neighbours are perfectly happy with the noise: complaining about people one has to have relations with, such as teachers or neighbours or co-workers, is not fun; people often keep silent about situations they don’t like simply because complaining is not fun. Obviously children don’t want to tell their teacher they can’t hear a word she says because of her stupid veil. Duh.
OB Yes, and refining the point further, many kids at the school have English as their second language, so it was crucial that the communication as effective as possible. Perhaps it will now become a feature of the job interview process?
“She chooses to be compelled to wear it”
I think this is the problem with the whole “liberal society identity politics consumerist ostentatious displays of individuality” justification for subjugation.
OK, liberal democracies can elect dictators, but they won’t be liberal democracies after that. You cannot say that such a dictatorship is a liberal democracy, never mind an exemplary one.
But withdrawal from (and opposition to) liberal society is being claimed as the exemplification of liberal society. This doesn’t work.
Yeah. Good compact way of putting it. ‘Liberal democracies can elect dictators, but they won’t be liberal democracies after that.’ Everyone really really needs to grasp that. It’s crucial.
Nick S: “Perhaps it will now become a feature of the job interview process?”
And did you note this: “But Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor.”
I think that if she can take the veil off to be interviewed for the job, she can take the veil off to DO the job.
I think there is more to all this than just “my religion says I must”.
“The way I understood that is that the children didn’t complain to the teacher” suggests they must be quite young. A class of 10 year olds or older would just laugh their heads off at a teacher dressed in a tent.
Paul. Are we discussing obesity or religion here ?
Nick: you’ve made me think of the Simpsons’ episode where Homer deliberately becomes obese so as to be permitted to work from home. He ends up wearing a tent-like garment. For those not in the know, the teacher in the headlines is not noticeably fat and unlike Homer wears the tent over her head too. There’s a small slit for her head.
apologies for mis-type: it should be “slit for her eyes”
It’s one of my favourite episodes !