Ban the Burka? You Bet!

I am writing this from Paris, where Nicholas Sarkozy's proposal to ban the burka in his country is still a hot topic.

Should he go ahead with the ban? My answer would be yes.

There is a huge difference between the headscarf that women wear to proclaim their religion and the burka. Unlike the headscarf, the burka completely obliterates a woman's individuality. It makes her a grey shapeless mass of fabric, among other such masses. A woman in a burka perceives the world around her, because a small slit is provided for her eyes, through which she can peer out. Tellingly, though, her mouth is completely covered. The symbolism is shriekingly obvious. In public, women must be silent. The public sphere belongs to men.

It is the same dictum that in the west kept women out of the ballot box, out of the university, out of the courts, and out of the legislature for centuries. When early suffragists chained themselves to public buildings, it was to protect their public powerlessness. Their opponents protested that women were already "queens of the home" and that going into the ballot box would sully their feminine purity. The burka, of course, is about purity--and about power.

One of the least true truisms is the one that goes "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Nonsense. If that hand is kept from marking the ballot, and from rocking public policy as well as the cradle, its owner is without power in her own right. She can wheedle, but she cannot decide.

Some women--even feminists--decree that the burka should be a personal choice. Some women, in fact, claim that they are set free from the unwanted stares of men under the burka. That freedom, alas, comes at a price--assent to a system that subordinates women in the public sphere and relegates them to purely domestic power. Feeling comfortable on the streets in a burka is too high a fee to pay for one's own oppression, however unfair this seems. (Of course in countries where women are beaten if they appear in public without a burka, they have no choice but to wear it.) As for comfort on the streets, women can achieve the same effect by wearing a floppy hat, sunglasses and loose, cover-all clothes.

Can a woman be a feminist and wear a burka? Perhaps--but its rather like being a civil rights advocate wearing the robes of the KKK. The duds just don't compute.

The burka is a symbol of the power of the "Male Gaze." Imagine if all the males disappeared from the planet in an instant, would women keep wrapping themselves up in heavy clothing that covered everything but their eyes? Of course not. Women are neither naturally stupid nor masochistic. The burka is a symbol of the male power to compel women to behave in ways that speak of men's right to own female bodies and to restrict female action. It's in the long line of dreary cultural artifacts that include foot binding, chastity belts, female circumcision, honor killings, concubinage, and the sex trade.

To those who argue the burka is a religious requirement, I would point out that nowhere in the Koran does it say that women must wear garments that reveal only their eyes. The burka is a cultural custom that grew largely from Arab rural cultures, proliferating mainly in areas in which lack of education, poverty and fanaticism were rife. Many of the Taliban, for example, are uneducated peasant young men who have no idea of what Muslim scholars say. They blindly follow the preachments of local mullahs who order such barbaric acts as beating women whose burkas do not cover enough flesh, or restricting widows to their homes, making it impossible for them to work to feed their children. This brutality is anathema to most Muslims around the world.

Sometimes, cultural symbols that are about male power and female submission can be transformed so as to lose their patriarchal power. The wedding tradition of the father giving away the bride--who is cosseted in a white dress--symbolized one male passing the ownership of a woman to another male, and the white dress was the symbol of purity. Today, women wear white dresses to their second or third marriages, and the woman the father "gives away" may be earning twice as much as her husband and is far from subordinate to him.

But it's hard to see the burka losing its sting, because it is so physically confining, restricting, and simply damn clumsy. Can a woman try a case, run a company or even drive a car in a burka? Only with extreme difficulty.

Western democracies have the right to insist that immigrants shed cultural practices that violate human rights, even when those practices are thriving back home. We don't allow indentured servitude, the selling of children into sexual slavery, the right of a man to beat his wife, the right to keep girls uneducated, honor killings, bride burnings, assaults on homosexuals, or fatwas that instruct people to main or kill anyone who is seen to have insulted religion.

The burka, though not as severe as the above, restricts women's ability to function in a non-domestic role and symbolizes submission and inequality. It needs to be consigned to that trash heap of history, along with many of those other cultural traditions noted above that are mainly about female subjugation.

The sooner the better.

Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women" (University Press of New England.)

Comments

[amalfedup]

I hope you are including strip clubs in your definition of traditions that subjugate women.

[JayDubs]

Yeah, exactly, that's why there are no male strippers. Oh wait! Gosh, there are! The only reason there are more female strippers is because there are more men willing to pay for the service.

[ModernTimes1]

Good one JayDubs.
It is seems fundies and their befuddled supporters unable to produce coherent defense have been reduced to mooing this same point over and over.

[HPdevotee]

The dynamics of the male/female stripper are much more complex than "men are willing to pay for the service" and to suggest otherwise, shows your superficial knowledge of the socioeconomic institutio­nalization of misogyny.

[listeningpost]

Round two:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/lifting-the-veil-on-the-d_b_230229.html

[Mnemanth]

Wow. I don't suppose you travel much. There's a big old world out there outside of the U.S., and here's a little secret- not all countries and cultures wish to be westernized. It's not a question of gender, it's not a question of color, it's not any number of western questions. They have every right to do as they wish, just as our culture limits and infringes on the rights of some in order to satisfy the desires of the majority.
Ever visited a baptist church and witnessed how women are treated?
Ever heard of the "war" on drugs?
Ever heard of "don't ask don't tell"?
The list goes on and on, and you bet I'm talking about the good old U.S. of A. Let's focus on our own moral issues in our country before running around the world telling everyone how aweful their culture is. We've got problems enough of our own that really limit the legitimacy of our self righteousness.

[ModernTimes1]

It is a wild fallacy to claim that those who oppose face covering oppose other people's culture.
Those who oppose face covering oppose oppression. Pure and simple.
T

[sas]

Somehow the fact that rampant discrimination, prejudice and lack of employment opportunities seem to be far more serious obstacles to the empowerment of French immigrant women than a garment worn by an estimated one hundred or so women in the whole of France is eluding the author of this piece.

[ModernTimes1]

A woman who is forced to wear face covering by her religion or family SEVERELY limits her employment and education opportunities. Not to mention interaction with the world outside of the immigrant community. It is disingenuous ( at best) to pretend otherwise.

[JayDubs]

"SEVERELY limits her employment and education opportunities. Not to mention interaction with the world outside of the immigrant community."
So does being an unwed mother or not speaking English in the United States. I guess we should outlaw premarital sex and make English the national language?
Here's a better idea. How about we just stop trying to regulate values or morality through government. I don't care if it's conservative or liberal values, it's time to stop this my way or jail nonsense.

[ModernTimes1]

"Islam may not be the sole factor in the repression of women. Local, social, economic, political, and educational forces as well as the prevalence of pre-Islamic customs must also be taken into consideration. But Islam and the application of the sharia, Islamic law, remain a major obstacle to the evolution of the position of women."

The subordinate place of women in Islamic societies should give way to equality. A woman should have freedom of action, should be able to travel alone, should be permitted to uncover her face, and should be allowed the same inheritance rights as a man. "

Reza Afshari, Iran, Political Scientist
Sadik al Azm, Syria, Philosopher
Mahshid Amir-Shahy
Masud Ansari, Iran, Physician, Author, United States
Bahram Azad, Iran, Scholar, Physician, United States
Parvin Darabi, Scholar, Homa Darabi Foundation, United States
Khalid Duran, Professor of Political Science, Editor and Founder of TransState Islam, Founder of the Ibn Khaldun Society, United States
Ranjana Hossain, Executive Director of the Assembly of Free Thinkers, Bangladesh
Mustafa Hussain, Sudan, Advisory Board, Ibn Khaldun Society, United States
Ramine Kamrane, Iran, Political Scientist, France
Ioanna Kuçuradi, Philosopher, Turkish Human Rights Commission and Secretary General, International Federation of Philosophical Societies, Turkey

[listeningpost]

...freedom of action... includes having the right to choose one's own clothing. I doubt the above signees would dispute that.

If Sarkozy wants to take on Islamic customs or domestic mores he should do so, criminalizing wearing of certain clothing is political posturing and absurd.

[ModernTimes1]

Listeningpost.
You're wrong.
Not "clothing" but face covering. VAST difference between the two.
This PRECISELY what the more progressive Muslims. oppose in the above statement.

'll re-post the above for your benefit:

"A woman should have freedom of action, should be able to travel alone, should be permitted to uncover her face, and should be allowed the same inheritance rights as a man. "

Which part of that do you fundamentalists oppose?

[JNarragansett]

You say: "Perhaps--but its rather like being a civil rights advocate wearing the robes of the KKK." The reason a civil rights advocate wearing robes of the KKK seems strange is the racist motivations that drive the KKK make it fundamentally opposed to civil rights. To compare klan robes with a burqa like this seems to be making the argument that Islam is fundamentally opposed to the freedom for women. If that is the case, then your argument is with a religion, not a garment, and banning a garment is nothing more than theater.

The relationship between Islam and the west has been strained for hundreds of years and remains antagonistic to this day. Anyone who would like to ban the burqa I encourage you to open a dialogue with the women on who you would like to impose your will. If your argument is truly superior you can win someone over with logic (always better than force), and at the very least you could come away with some understanding of another culture.

[TheBlackCat]

Your point is spot on...I think the argument should be against fundamentalism and authoritarian oppression, not against a garment.

I used to live in Amsterdam and there were a large number of Muslims living in the area. I knew a couple women who no longer wore burqas...but who had at one point. These were women who, through increased education and information available to them through Islamic scholars in the Netherlands, came to the decision that burqas were not a necessity of Islamic life, were not supported by the Koran, and were not necessary for them to be pure and faithful Muslims. They had said to me that these were things they needed to come to realize ON THEIR OWN. They didn't see the burqa ITSELF as the problem...rather the twsiting of Islam by various leaders which made them believe in the mindset which encourages the burqa. This is like my own experiences with Catholicism, though to a lesser degree. I had to figure out for myself that what I believed in wasn't really in my best interest or reflected what I relaly wanted out of life for myself. I had to figure it out for myself.

At the time there were people in the Nethelands proposing a burqa ban, and these women said to me that they thought banning the burqa would only alienate the very people such a law was ostensibly trying to protect...make them feel victimized, but not by Islam, by the West.

[longtimegone]

Well said.

[TheBlackCat]

It is always difficult when dealing with a personal choice when that choice is often made through strong arming or even brainwashing.

For instance, proponants of polygamy will use as examples testimonies from women who are of age and state that they wish to enter polygamy of their own choice...but only because she's had it drilled into her head from the cradel that she'll go to Hell if she doesn't do otherwise?

It's like Frank Zappa says...all your children are the poor unfortunate victims of the lies that you believe.

I was raised as a very strict Catholic. Now, I'm no longer Catholic, and I look at things I did or did not do earlier in my life, and I recognize that I hadn't made these choices based on what *I* wanted, but rather based on an arbitrary moral code foistered upon my by a male hierarchy.


Though I appreciate the author's setiments and do agree with them regarding the function of the burqa as a repressive tool, I don't think banning the burqa is the answer. I think that what we need to go after is the disease of oppressive fundamentalism and not the symptom. Educate people, empower moderate religious sects, teach people to question authority and think for themselves.

I think doing something like banning the burqa will make women who wear them cling MORE to fundamentalism, not less, because now they will see it as an "us vs them" mentality, with their culture under attack.

[TheBlackCat]

Rather that should read "what of proponants of polygamy..."

[Mike Armstrong]

This is a good example of illogic. We will not achieve greater freedom by banning freedom.
The author wants to achieve political correctness by violating a basic right to choose one's own apparel. Freedom will occur when no woman is forced to wear a garment she does not choose and can wear any garment she chooses. This prohibition even more absurd than the "War on Drugs".

[ModernTimes1]

Imperialists in France are very oppressive.
Luckily, in Iran and Saudi Arabia ( among others) women have a complete freedom to wear the face cover.
And total freedom not to reject the religious dogma such practice is based on.
That's is why great thongs of refugees from Europe are desperately trying to get into Iran to live the Iranian dream.

[JNarragansett]

Two wrongs do not make a right and oppression in one part of the world does not justify oppression in France. It doesn't matter what is done in those other countries because France professes to be a country in which liberty is one of the core tenants. I've said before France should not look to wahhabism as a guide to individual liberty.

[JNarragansett]

You state: "Can a woman try a case, run a company or even drive a car in a burka?" Well, I'll give you the car argument assuming that the burqa restricts peripheral vision, but the first two seem strange to me. There is nothing that would physically keep a woman from running a company or trying a case in this garment. The only obstacle that would stand in her way is prejudice. Race plays a factor in employment decisions and being non-white can lead to discrimination in hiring, but we wouldn't dream of forcing skin bleaching treatments to "protect" these people. The burka may be off putting to those who are not used to seeing it, but simply being uncomfortable with what is different is no justification for infringing upon religious practices. The only thing that this law will accomplish with certainty is the subjugation of the women who wear a burqa by choice. Our own prejudice and ignorance is the only thing that keeps these from getting a job/trying a case, and that is what should be addressed.

[ModernTimes1]

Certainly wearing a face cover is no impediment to real life in a Western society.
Its about time we have burqa covered acting and dance classes.
Only Western colonialist imperialists dare to suggest that a driver license, work ID or court apparent requires face identification. Thou shalt never criticize oppressive religious customs!
Remember the fate of Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie and many others like them.

[JNarragansett]

I fail to see how banning the burqa will help Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. I also fail to see how banning the burqa is even connected to their cases. Unless your argument is "look at what they did, so we're justified" I am genuinely perplexed.

Driving was addressed in the last comment, and because of the specific threat associated with driving with impaired vision I would have no problem with a law that stated something to the effect of "While driving it is illegal to wear a garment that restricts ones vision." That way we are safe and it is done in a neutral way to single out the actual destructive behavior. I never said anything about an ID.

Yes, individual choices about modesty may limit your ability to get a job in the entertainment industry (you may have been off in your calculation because people in veils do make up a niche market of entertainment). I was addressing the point that if you are being kept from running a company or working as an attorney for wearing a garment (yes even in court because your check in could be done in a way to accommodate with little trouble) then that is a result of our prejudice.

[Wozzeck]

This is a wedge issue meant to harness Isl*mophobia to Sarkozy's political advantage.

[joz22]

Total nonesense just as bad as those who want to force the burqa on women. I recommend reading Jamal Dajani's report from France
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-dajani/sarkozy-hiding-behind-the_b_229239.html

[ModernTimes1]

Sorry, an opinion of culturally preoccupied rich Palestinian man is incapable of producing any shred of objectivity on the subject.

[Grundibular]

"When early suffragists chained themselves to public buildings, it was to protect their public powerlessness"

Um...no. It was the opposite of that, surely?

(Otherwise, good article. Thanks.)

[listeningpost]

Prescribing mores, is a dicey business. As is defining individuality in different cultures. This same rationale could be used to ban mini skirts or any other form of dress. Right now people are being beaten in the streets of Iran for wearing green.
I presume Ms. Rivers advocates banning the Burka in the USA as well.
Americans seem to feel that their assumptions about the individual and society are superior to any other, it is this assumption and sense of superiority that fostered the term "ugly american".
If someone wants to assert their agenda, be it feminism or anything else, education beats edicts any day.

[ModernTimes1]

it is astonishing how those who claim an entirely liberal perspective turn hidebound fundamentalist supporters as soon as some exotic culture is under discussion. Mainly because of utterly misbegotten idea that all cultural practices are sacrosanct, no matter how oppressive. This is multi culti taken to the extreme.

Secular Muslim women level similar criticisms at European feminist establishment.
Europe feminists would fight like furies against even a tiniest hint of male preference among Europeans. But similar demands of Muslims woman elicit a stony silence because of preposterous fear of offending some minority practice.

[ModernTimes1]

The face covering keeps woman's world small and highly circumscribed. And many Muslim men love it that way. They're threatened by freedoms available to women in the West.

Hence the evidence of savage reprisals and killings visited upon women who dare leave this tiny world.

Both Muslim men and women are controlled and repressed by their patriarchal religious and cultural norms.

[longtimegone]

You continually allude to Muslim men and women as a totality, then tell us what we believe, what we think, what we feel. You might not know that although all Muslims may read the Qur'an, pray, fast and give in charity, their lives vary a great deal depending on the culture in which they have been raised, their education, even their personal temperment. Islam joins people across all manner of boundaries, whether of natural origin (gender), of social origin (class distinctions, educational levels), or of political origin (national boundaries), but it does not, nor does it seek to, standardize humanity to a single norm. American Muslims tend to be well to very well educated; most "converts" have sought the truth in many places before becoming Muslims; they have had nothing foisted upon them, their responses and decisions are reasoned, and they can articulate that reasoning. Islam has, in the past, fostered a blossoming of culture, music, poetry, science, jurisprudence, historical study, all around the globe. By focusing as you do on the most repressive elements of contemporary Islam, then attributing this state of mind to all Muslims, you purposefully slander billions of human beings, and display your own prejudice and ignorance.

[Freenation]

Ms. Rivers who are you to decide whether burqa should be banned or not? the law should support women who are FORCED to wear burqa and not for women who wear by CHOICE....­understand the difference....

[ModernTimes1]

This is a fallacy.
The choice does not belong to the women, but to the oppressive religious community that demands subservience to it oppressive customs on the threat of ostracism, physical beatings and death.

[Freenation]

first read clearly what I wrote and then understand the context before making any comment...what i mentioned is no one should be ASKED to do what they want...the law can help those who are asked to wear burqa by force...

yeah as for the oppressive customs how about custom of in jerusalem where women are asked to sit in the back of the bus, this is modernity right in 'modern times'....