One Eye is Enough for Anyone
Andrew Anthony has a piece on the niqab, a female face-covering that leaves only the eyes uncovered (presumably so that the woman wearing it doesn’t need an expensive trained dog in order to grope her way around).
Just a decade ago, this form of enshrouding was seen as an unambiguous sign of female oppression and feudal custom, but now it is frequently referred to as an expression of religious identity, individual rights and even, in some cases, female emancipation.
Yes but emancipation from what.
She says that she deliberated for a whole year before finally deciding to wear the niqab. ‘I think the main thing that was holding me back was my university degree. I was doing a lot of course work, a lot of group work, and so I was constantly thinking, “How am I going to do group work with all these people?” Then one day, I just woke up and thought, “Why am I letting people stop me? I’m not doing it for other people.”‘ Both as a student and a teacher, Chowdhury clearly placed her own right to conceal herself above the group’s right to see her.
Well, presumably, the reason she was letting people stop her was that she had chosen a kind of work that necessarily involves interacting with ‘all these people’. She doesn’t have to be deciding to wear the niqab ‘for other people’ in order to have an affect on other people by doing so – the two things are separate. We can do all sorts of things for our own reasons that nevertheless do have an impact on other people as a byproduct. We may listen to Bruce Springsteen at top volume at 3 a.m. with all the windows open, for our very own reasons (we’re awake at 3 a.m., we like Springsteen, we like fresh air) that have nothing to do with other people, but our activity may affect other people all the same. So the thought she one day just woke up and thought was a stupid thought, because incomplete and irrelevant.
‘There is no place in the Koran,’ he said, sounding like the schoolmaster he once was, ‘that says she must wear the burqa. No place.’ In fact, the burqa, the grilled mask that is popular in Afghanistan, is a relatively modern item, but it’s true that there is no mention of the hijab, much less the niqab in the Koran. There are two key passages that deal with the correctness of women’s clothing…Over the centuries, various Islamic scholars have come to interpret these words as directives to cover the ‘pudendal’ nature of women in its entirety, which, they argue, is everything, including, in the most strict rulings, at least one eye.
There you go – that’s it, you see. Every bit of women (including that one eye – it’s just that seeing-eye dogs are expensive) is pudendal. They’re just big, walking, throbbing, wet genitalia. They may pretend they’re not – they may pretend to be thinking about something else – they may pretend they can talk and walk and think and laugh and eat and look at the birds and flowers and just generally be human, but it’s a pretense, a disguise, a trap. They’re like those horrible women in The Faerie Queen or Orlando Furioso or Jerusalem Delivered or Paradise Lost or The Shining – gorgeous, sexy, welcoming, smiling – until you touch them and then bam! out comes the hideous witch who devours you. Women are just disguised as people with brains and hands and legs and purposes and capacities; in reality they’re just big old ambulatory pudenda. Help me Jesus.
I was keen to hear a woman explain in her own words her reasons for covering herself. This was proving very difficult…The main aim of the niqab is to deter contact between women and men who are not married or related…I checked the etiquette on a Muslim website that detailed the requirements of a woman wearing a niqab. ‘Do not engage in social conversation with persons of the opposite sex,’ it instructed. ‘This is simple, just don’t do it. When a kaffir [infidel] of the opposite sex asks you, “Did you have a good weekend”, look down and say nothing in return.’
Yes, that is simple. Of course it is – it’s all simple. That’s the point. Women are nothing but pudenda, and they are entirely pudenda; therefore, they have to be concealed and confined as far as possible and even farther – but if a seeing-eye dog is not affordable then one eye can remain uncovered (though it’s risky). Simple. Don’t talk to people of the opposite sex. Any of them, ever, for any reason. Simple. A radically impoverished, constricted, narrow, suffocating life – simple. Enjoy.
I did try one couple…I then asked permission to speak to his wife. He looked at me as if I were mad and referred me to the Central Mosque. Would I be able to speak to a woman there? I asked. ‘No, of course not,’ the man said. ‘But there will be men there who will be able to tell you why it is best for Muslim women to be covered.’ His wife remained silent.
Ah – yes, no doubt there will. And if human rights inspectors go to Guantanamo, of course they won’t be able to speak to the prisoners, but there will be guards there who will be able to tell them why it is best for prisoners to be at Guantanamo. If investigators go the house of an exorcist, of course they won’t be able to speak to the devil-possessed children there, but there will be exorcists there who will be able to tell them why it is best for the possessed children to be beaten and starved and shouted at. And so on. Nice racket. Good wheeze.
Robert rejects the idea that if the niqab causes social unease, it undermines its purpose of creating calm. For her, being veiled is all about maintaining the private zone of her faith. But you could equally argue that it is just another way of making public the private. For what is this privacy but a public announcement of the sexually provocative nature of women? It does not challenge the idea of woman as sex object; it simply confirms it.
Just so. It simply confirms it, and puts all the work and deprivation of avoiding the provocation on the women.
I asked Robert at what age she thought a girl should start wearing the hijab in preparation for the niqab. She said that it was not necessary until puberty but as a matter of practice, it’s best to start at seven or eight. In its own way, this premature recognition of female sexuality is every bit as significant, and disturbing, as dressing a child in a high-street approximation of Britney Spears, all bare midriff and attitude.
Not to mention the life-long deprivation for both sexes of simple ordinary routine interaction. All because women have the bad taste and bad judgment to be walking pudenda. Sad.
“Both as a student and a teacher, Chowdhury clearly placed her own right to conceal herself above the group’s right to see her.”
But does she have a right to conceal herself? And does the group have a right to see her?
These days people seem to claim more and more things as “rights” and the phrase “have a right” often seems to really mean: “I want to”.
What does the word “right” really mean here?
This is not a simple issue, as Anthony discusses, and I don’t know that referring to unspecified and unjustified “rights” helps resolve it.
I have no particular desire to dictate what people should wear BUT in western society, when someone conceals most of their person, especially their face, it is usually for nefarious purposes. I certainly find the idea of being surrounded by a crowd of faceless people rather disturbing.
It was a very good article: it highlighted the hypocrisy and the inconsistencies of the niqab/hijab wearers’ arguments. The hijab may seem more innocuous but it is founded on the same flawed premise as the niqab – the sexual allure of women that is supposedly fatal to both men and women.
I wonder at the people who actually employed someone like the chowdury character to teach communication skills. Surreal, isn’t it. As for her explanation that she goes out of her way to be friendly and ‘smile with her eyes’ – that just doesn’t match my experience. There is a niqab wearer in my building and my interactions with her at the lift lobby, include smiling on my part at her and her young children, but either she hasn’t expressive eyes or I haven’t the requisite communication skills to figure it out- but I have never once been sure that she smiled back. The niqab does contribute to social unease, no matter how those like Chowdury may try to explain this away.
Another thing about niqab wearers : western ‘reverts’seem particularly inclined to them. Some of these women may have had troubled pasts. In a book about Australian muslims, Caravanserai, the female muslim author recounts how ostentatiously modest one such white niqab wearer was in public -including all that seductive eyelowering-that she actually drew much more male attention than the unhijabed author as they strolled around Sydney’s Lakemba area. It turned out that she was once a King’s Cross stripper.
Two sides of the same coin?
Two sides of the same coin, mirax?
Yes, that is it. Converts especially, it is just another variation on the me! me! generation. It makes you feel so good to stand out like that from the rest of the crowd, and you are doing it for religion too, that means you are so good, much gooder than everyone else, you are so special and therefore god must think you are so very special too.
It’s like Europe back in medieval times – the worse you could be to yourself, especialy your own body, the holier you were.
It’s like stimgmata and visions. It gets you to number one on the holiest of holies hit parade and a chance to hang out with all the other ‘A list’ gods and angels and saints and prophets.
You get to look down on all the others, those that don’t take religion as seriously as you because you are so good and your god really loves you for it, even if no-one else does.
When I saw the article it gave me a sick feeling which I have been trying to analyse ever since.
My initial reaction was that if an adult wants to go round dressed like that then that is their affair. If I want to go out as Bozo the clown then why not?
But this isn’t good enough. Underlying this are two insults. Put bluntly (and simplistically) these are:
i) Any woman who does not wear a niqab wants to be treated like a prostitute.
ii)If a man sees a woman without a niqab he will treat her like a prostitute.
THis is what “modesty” means in this context. Anyone who wears a niqab voluntarily is making a calculated declaration of difference from everyone else and in the starkest terms possible.
“Acceptance” in this case would be to accept a blatant insult.
MKJ – thanks you’ve nailed a rather vaguely unpleasant feeling I had of what I presumed, possibly, guiltily, xenophobic origins. It’s the imposition on others, as if they (shroud wearers) are saying “I have reached spiritual superiority and purity, according to my leige and master – you haven’t. As a result, I cannot possibly engage in what you call ‘normal’ relations with you. You will just try to rape me, however else you try to disguise your intent.”
Awkward one, that. Like going into a bar and shouting, “Say Larry – still beating the wife!”
Ms. Chowdury is doing a ‘punk’ thing (there is not intention of using punk in the Shakespearean sense, by the way. If I make myself look anti-social, I will be treated as anti-social, others will shun me, BUT I can then blame them for not accepting me as myself.
She must know that in the West (of where she is a native), such garb will attract more attention to her than dressing in (say) jeans and t-shirt or conservative business suit. Worse, she must know that western feminism has exposed this kind of dress as a symbol of oppression.
I agree with the general consensus then, that this is an act of narcissism.
Of course wearing a hijab/niqab/burqa doesn’t actually stop prostitution. Tehran is stuffed with prostitutes- all “modestly” dressed of course.
NickS- Good analogy.
I would still come down on the side of toleration of the niqab. However it would be with gritted teeth and a determination to oppose their daft and insulting ideas wherever possible. Hopefully it won’t spread too much and will peter out over time.
I would still come down on the side of toleration of the niqab.
I am not for banning it outright in public places like that town in Belgium but I would think that there are many public situations and interactions where it is inappropriate and may even be a security risk, so niqab wearers should not complain if they are excluded from such areas.Afterall, as Andrew Anthony points out, nudists (or people whose cultural/religious heritage includes nudism)have the same ‘right’ to inhabit a public place. I would not mind a niqab wearer so much if she was willing to work alongside a nudist ;-)
Notions of modesty are peculiar. I know I have no problem being naked in front of a female doctor as I have had the experience more than once. But if she were even wearing the headscarf some Muslim women doctors wear – in particular those from Indonesia and Malaysia – I am certain I would request another doctor.
Why Paul? You will have to spell it out for me as I am singularly unimaginative in these matters.
There’s an interesting bit in the article that refers to naturists “Could Chowdhury support the right of others to go unclothed in public? ‘No,’ she conceded, ‘as a Muslim, I could not agree with that.'”
This seems to say it all about the limits of ‘freedom’. If society has the right to ban people from walking around naked – presumably because it’s deemed offensive to other people – why does it not have the right to ban people from covering their faces if that is deemed contrary to generally accepted notions of normal behaviour?
If fundamentalists are going to (opportunistically) use the liberal notion of rights to justify their own behaviour, they should accord the same rights to extreme behaviour of which they themselves disapprove.
Still, at least Andrew Anthony is asking some of the right questions, which we don’t always get in these pieces.
Good point. It’s more bait and switch. When it’s about her, it’s rights; when it’s about someone else, it’s ‘as a Muslim, I could not agree’. Whatever works tra la.
“It’s more bait and switch.” I think it’s a bit more complex than that.
Her religion (according to her interpretation) requires her to wear the niqab AND she should have the right to do so. Her religion, AND cultural norms prohibit (say) nudity, SO people should not be allowed to do that.
But the “switch” OB identifies is, I think, still in there because her beliefs trump others: I should be allowed to do *this* because of my beliefs but you should not be allowed to do *that* because it is against my beliefs.
Nonetheless, I do not disagree with the interesting comments made by others.
Mirax:
I think we need a word to describe the boderland between feeling and thought, as that is where my reaction arises. It’s not wholly an emotional reaction nor wholly an intellectual one.
The best I can come up with is as follows: when I am dealing with medical people, I do not feel in any way inferior to them. I could have been a doctor but decided my temperament was not suitable. So when faced with a doctor I think deep down that if circumstances were different I could have been the doctor, and the doctor my patient. Hence being asked to disrobe for medical examination is no problem to me because in the alternative universe I could have been the one doing the examining. But when faced with a doctor who is so obsessed with people’s potential sexual reactions that she will not let me see her hair, I am convinced she would not let be her doctor in the alternative universe so it’s hard to hold on to any concept of equality. That’s the best I can come up with.
New shirt slogan, “Fuck off rapist”
Jeff – or
“Yep – Still Beating the Wife”
Thanks for the explanation,Paul. I did wonder why you made a mention of those particular headscrafed women doctors from mal/indonesia though.What makes ’em worse?
I think the article asked some good questions, but the journalist didn’t seem to work too hard in answering them. Surely it can’t be that hard to find a few more women who would talk to him about why they wear a niqab (on the phone or online …) or failing that find a female colaborator who could do the interviews?? Instead, we are left trying to work out the psychology of it amongst ourselves here.
I don’t think it is quite right to say that it is a punk thing, a look-at-me thing or the-world-is-full-of-sluts-and-rapists thing. These explanations all seem to take our reactions and put them into the
heads of the nicabis. Hijab wearers I know talk about it in terms of (1) their ‘personal relationship with god’ (2) influence and reaction of familiy, friends, other muslims and religious leaders. The message they are sending out the wider world is not (so they say) anywhere near the top of their agenda.
Maybe its just one of those ‘because god
says so’ arguments that just make no sense to the rest of us.
Paul: “But when faced with a doctor who is so obsessed with people’s potential sexual reactions that she will not let me see her hair, I am convinced she would not let be her doctor in the alternative universe so it’s hard to hold on to any concept of equality.”
As a confirmed naturist, I would not be perturbed about disrobing before either doctor. BUT (except in an extraordinary emergency) I would not consult a niqab-garbed doctor because (a) I would like to see the face of someone who is dispensing potentially life-altering information, and (b) I would have some doubts about the rationality and reliability of such a person.
Mirax:
I mentioned female doctors from Indonesia/Malaysia because they seem to make up a disproportionate section of trainees where I live, a consequence of the medical schools being restricted in what they can charge students from the EU. There are other foreign trainees too but they dress like the locals.
Keith/Mirax: As I said, notions of modesty are peculiar and not always rationally coherent. The headscarf on these doctors covers hair I know to be jet black and straight but for some reason I am not allowed to see it, which I take as an insult as I am not so obsessed with sex.
Maya-
I wish I could be convinced by what you say. However I have seen too many justifications of the hijab etc. based on the “modesty” of the hijab. This is quite often contrasted with the “immodesty” of western women.
Indeed the article says precisely this- that the niqab wearers claim to be refusing to be sex objects. This is an implicit claim that Western women want to be seen as sex objects. All that stuff about a woman hiding her beauty because otherwise “she may be liable for people to attack her” is a claim that if she reveals herself then men will rape her.
Paul, there are so many trainees from Malaysia because muslims get preference for government scholarships and the M’sian government has spent oodles of money on such. The irony is that increasingly, trained muslim female doctors are refusing to see/touch male patients (haram, by their way of ‘thinking’)or opting out of practising medicine altogether. Still only a minority, but a growing one. Pity,no?
Mirax:
When I was young I read (possibly in Desmond Morris) about ob/gyn in Britain at a certain period in the upper classes. The picture was of a male doctor, unable to see the operative parts of the female anatomy, trying to deliver a baby, with inevitable disasters. Nowadays we in the West value life over modesty but from your description we are up against it.
BTW : are such female doctors excused the study of those parts of the human male not shared by the female?
Paul,
I do not know of any medical school that allows anyone to qualify without the requisite anatomical studies. I was referring to what some overly religious female doctors don’t do (practise medicine as they should) after they qualify at considerable public expense.
That’s really interesting. They’re secular enough to get the medical education, but not secular enough to see/touch men. Or perhaps I mean they’re secular long enough to get the medical education and then they change. Or some of both. At any rate, what a waste.
MKJ – Not sure I am convinced about what I wrote either! But there is so much unconvincing stuff written about this from all sides. I was just disapointed that the article didn’t shed much light about what really motivates women (smart, educated, westernised women…) to live like this.
The arguments that hijab/niqab protect women from rape is laughable. Similarly the idea that that only way to be modest is to go around with a bag over your head. I can see that, and I am sure that muslim women can see that. Yes, I’ve read the rhetoric about “modesty” and the “immodesty” of western women – but it ignores the obvious fact that if you don’t want to wearing a belly-top and a mini-skirt, there are many other choices than a black shroud.
What it does ‘protect’ women from is having normal relations with people, determining their own sex life, taking part in sport, having a career. But these can’t be the *selling* points, surely!?!
Maya
Ophelia,
the age at which most of these women radicalise and make the decision to take up the niqab coincides with the time they are at uni. This explains the conflicting decisions.
Mirax:
I was trying to be a touch facetious regarding the training of those female doctors. Perhaps they will next be agitating for exemptions from certain courses.
I think that covering up in an extreme manner with the intention of avoiding the sexual interest of men is to regard oneself as a sex object and nothing more. It betrays an unhealthy obsession with sex, or rather, it advertises an unhealthy obsession with sex, just as much as always wearing a microskirt does. (There are times when dressing sexily is appropriate, but to dress that way all the time suggests preoccupation).