- BIG NEWS:
- Israel
- |
- Iran
- |
- Pakistan
- |
- Afghanistan
- |
France Tells Women What Not to Wear
Read More:
Burqa, Europe, Feminism, France, France Burqas, Freedom Of Speech, Islam, Nicolas Sarkozy, Sarkozy Burqa, Women, Women's Rights,
World News
By Laurie Penny
One of the few things that nearly all nations have in common is ideological control over women's bodies as political territory. The French government this week reasserted that control, mounting the latest in its string of socio-sartorial sallies against Muslim female dress, as André Gerin, backed by 57 other MPs, led calls for a nationwide ban of the burqa or full-body veil, declaring that 'the sight of these imprisoned women is intolerable to us...and unacceptable on French soil"
It's always a nice surprise to see a government trying to stick up for women. However, the main issue here seems to be not the rights of the women in question, but the fact that 'the sight of them' offends the delicate sensibilities of Gerin, President Sarkozy and other, mostly male politicians. The opinions of wearers of the burqa and other Islamic garments have not been sought, because they are irrelevant next to the objection of an overwhelmingly male administration to its female citizens covering too much flesh.
When I was seventeen I had to spend a summer in hospital, where I struck up a friendship with a fellow patient called Sara, a Saudi Muslim who smoked Italian cigarettes. When we were well enough to walk in the hospital gardens, Sara and I would spend long hours kvetching: she shared with me the privations of compulsory Islamic dress, whilst I lamented the pressure to constantly appear feminine and sexy that I experienced as a British teenager raised by atheists.
In the end, there was only one thing for it: we decided to swap clothes for a fortnight. Sara wore skintight tracksuits and her short, spiky hair uncovered; I wore an Abaya with full headscarf which she taught me to fold and tuck. What was striking was that when we took trips to the shops in our new gladrags, both of us felt immensely liberated: our bodies were finally our own, hers to show off as she pleased, mine to cover if I wanted. For the first time since puberty, I felt that people might be seeing the real me, rather than looking at my body. This flavour of freedom, which for some women is central to self-respect, is just as valid and important a choice as the freedom to go bare-legged and low-cut -- and a truly progressive Western culture would respect both.
Islamic culture is not mine to appropriate. I still enjoy wearing hijab, but out of respect to the many full-time veil-wearers in my area of London I only wear it around the house. Maybe that's weird - but it's no weirder than the many women who are happiest prancing around their living rooms in frilly underwear or, in the case of one particular friend of mine, eight-inch spike heels and a steel-bone corset.
These and many other options are, of course, only liberating if one is truly free to dress as one pleases. I'd object to being forced to wear a hijab, burqa, frilly knickers or any other garment on the basis of my gender as strenuously as I objected to the mandatory short skirts that formed part of my school uniform. What the French government seems not to have grasped is that the freedom to wear whatever little dress we like is not every woman's idea of the zenith of personal emancipation.
If the administration truly cares about women's personal and political sovereignty, instead of attacking the choices of minority ethnic groups it might start by inviting more females into government: on Tuesday, Sarkozy announced a cabinet reshuffle which reduced the number of women ministers to just four out of eighteen.
There are hundreds of points of action that feminists across Europe would prioritize above banning the burqa, were anyone to actually ask us. I'd start by increasing public provision of refuges and counseling for the hundreds of thousands of French victims of sexual abuse, forced marriage and domestic violence, rather than focusing state efforts on the fashion choices of the hundred or so women in the country who wear the full Islamic veil. After all, it's safe to say that any woman who is forced to wear a burqa against her will has problems that will not be solved by simply forbidding the garment.
It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world, whether it wears the face of an Imam, an abusive partner or a government minister. The truth is that the way women choose to present themselves is still desperately political, in Islamic culture and wider society. In seeking to restrict the free choice of women to dress as they please, whether in a burqa, a bolero or a binbag, France is not protecting women but mounting a paranoid defense of its own right to determine feminine behavior.
Laurie Penny is a British journalist and contributor to LabourList.
Follow LabourList on Twitter: www.twitter.com/labourlist
Related News On Huffington Post:
Related Blogs On Huffington Post:
Deepak Chopra: Mini Skirts, Yes. Burqas, No?
A secular society has no business making decisions based on religion, and that means in either direction. If God is neutral toward the mini skirt, he is neutral toward the burqa.
Vivian Norris de Montaigu: Sexism and the Workplace: Have We Come a Long Way (Baby)?
The reality is that, even if you are a female executive at Goldman Sachs, you will never be part of the "boys' club" -- and guess what, it's still a boys' club.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
lrYLV467dz20gWnMBUDmmkk43wad%2FptF8SyP2eOu9glG25tq%2BZm8GT7bFZVIzbWPMO1kFICe2N3oZUwXYWu8VA%3D%3D
OHu5cU3xPOFdu2R51jhjKO4wszvczcE0%2BFTRHvzxXeX%2B8fewyWG01Ho5W0ZHUWqPgrpP1dxZRj9rLABzlXh08A%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
when is the last time all of you people out there heard that muslims are protesting against something?well i am talking about only one thing. people probley heard about a women getting kiled in germany for being a muslim and no one in the us or any part of the world protested ecpect egypt. 34 year old preagnant marwa al ahmed got stabbed 18 times .she sue a christan for calling her a terriost.t
My god, what rubbish. The French government is trying to take away Muslim women's "freedom" from having to dress a certain way to please their misogynist community. Yes, there is much more that needs to be done, that doesn't mean that this issue should not be addressed.
I think both the article and the comments suffer from a tendency to flip to either 'women in conservative muslim households are so oppressed that they have no choice about what to wear' (so this law just stops men from forcing them to wear burqas), or 'said women have agency and can make their own choices' (so this law is an invasion of personal freedom).
This dichotomy seems obviously inadequate. I think we should see the conservative muslim household (along with other households) as an arena of power relations, in which power is frequently unequal and oppressive but never so absolute as to remove personal agency.
On this view, the best aim for feminists would be to intervene so as to skew the balance of power in a more equal way, i.e. in favour of the more oppressed groups - but that does so without the intervening power itself adding a new and counter-acting layer of control.
In this case I think the first but not the second condition is satisfied. A public ban works in favour of women struggling with their families to wear less concealing clothing (which as far as I know is a great number). So I don't think it's wrong in principle. The problem is that it can only be enforced by arresting people off the streets for their clothing, which is horrible. So I'm against it in practice but I don't share a lot of the more abstract objections which others have voiced.
Here in the States, we have laws restricting the degree of "tint" allowed on our car windows. That's so the cops can see in. If I walked into a convenience store wearing a mask the police would be there in minutes. Being a paranoid (for good reason) American, my problem with the Burqa in public is you don't know who is in there or what they are doing in there. The French don't make this argument it seems. Maybe they value their privacy. I find the defense of women argument totally bogus. Are women not free citizens of France? Then don't tell them what to wear.
Get out of our bedrooms and out of our frigging wardrobes!
Well, quite. It's a little like a government saying, 'HOMG, there are thousands of women being trafficked into our country and forced to be sex slaves. I know what we can do to make it all better...
'We'll BAN THE MINISKIRT'.
Nice try on the analogy but the miniskirt is not a symbol of sexual slavery, it is simply a fashion item. You must know that most women who wear miniskirts are not sexual slaves and were not coerced or trafficked anywhere.
In the other hand the Chador, Niqab, Burqa and whatever other regional variation are part of Hijab, i.e. "to cover". This practice is enforced by Islamic legal systems, supported by the major Sunni and Shia school of thought, refered to in the Koran and in the Hadith. There are even a few countries with a "fashion police" of sorts to enforce it. Muslims see as a way of keeping women modest and moral. Do you see the difference?
Do you believe that modesty and morality can magically appear when a women puts a piece of cloth over their head? Does that morality and modesty disappears if she decides to wear that piece of cloth as a skirt instead?
The Burka is a prison, a symbol of ruthless male oppression and domination over women who in their eyes, are less than zero, a piece of meat to satisfy their lust and raise children, hopefully more male children. I salute France and their reasons for Banning the Burka. I am sure that the Majority of Muslim Women in the world would love to do something as simple as feel a warm summer breeze flowing through their hair or over their bodies.
Your post is so ignorant. There are tons of Muslim women who do not wear the hijab or burqa. You have no idea about the Muslim world and women. You probably think that all Muslims are from the ME.
Not all Muslims are from the ME but most Muslims are from countries which adpot the Hijab in one of its forms...Ch
Tons of Muslim women huh? Can the leave the house just wearing a dress or jeans and a tank top? You are in denial to Muslim Male Oppression.
this is not you but your misinformed mind speaking..
try to get some perspectives and stop being a parrot....
ouch
It is for female rights, and a woman who would insist on wearing that Material Prison is Most in need of experiencing FREEDOM from the oppression that has her covered in that 'thing' in the first place.
Difficult to distinguish patriacat and religion in chariah, since the chariah is based on male supremacy ; anyway, nobody forces you to live in France and you may prefer communitarianism and religious courts, but I do not think this is the solution : one law for atheists, one law for Christians, another law for Jews, another one for Orthodox, another again for Muslims, etc.
Must we accept, with the burqua, polygamy, circumcision of girls, stoning of adulterous women? after all, these are perfectly respectable customs on a religious point of view.
I can't be more agree : "Burqa or Francia!" like "America love it or leave it!."
Same choice!
That analogy is appropriate, considering that "America, love it or leave it" is used almost exclusively by white xenophobes who would like to see certain minorities expelled from the country (e.g. Hispanic-Americans or non-white Muslim-Americans).
Same [false] choice!
It seems as though several people commenting can't separate Muslim women in France from the Middle East. What they do in Saudi Arabia isn't the point. The fundamentalism out of the Middle East isn't the point. The point is that these women are FRENCH CITIZENS, and they should not be singled out and told that what they wear in religious practice is illegal. Period.
So, because many Muslim countries don't allow Westerners to wear religious items or dress according to what their religions dictate, that means that Western countries should do the same and stomp our feet and take our toys and go home? No! If our nations have ideals we hold dear, we should PRACTICE them, even when (and ESPECIALLY if) it's difficult. That's when those ideals truly MEAN something.
If Orthodox Jewish women aren't banned from wearing wigs and long skirts and shirts with long sleeves to cover themselves and their hair in France, why should Muslim women be banned the burqua?
Teresa Justino,
To respond to your last paragraph first: Could the fact that Orthodox Jewish women are not generally known to carry hidden incendiary devices have something to do with their greater (sartorial) acceptance into French society?
I have said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: For too long nations - especially in Europe - have bent over backwards to accommodate the whims of their immigrant communities, while at the same time ignoring the cultural traditions of their native populations.
We need only look at Great Britain to see where this kind of foolhardy thinking has got us.
Your second paragraph is steeped in irony considering the history of European colonialism. While occupying Algeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Ivory Coast, Togo, and Senegal, the French inflicted their culture on native populations, supposing that the French language, diet, and dress would be better suited to Africans than kulchurs of their own creation, within which they had evolved over centuries and, in some cases, longer. Each colonizing power, with greater and lesser degrees of paternalism, inculcated the idea of the superiority of the kulchur of the occupier, sending selected young people to the capitals of Europe to be educated and, thereby, remade. Now that the latest generations of the colonized have congregated in substantial numbers in those same urban centers of the colonizer, they are told of the importance of the new arrival honoring the culture of the host country. Being the power which gets to make the socio-kulchural rules means never having to say you're sorry; you simply keep changing the terms of the discussion, trusting that no one will recall the history which exposes your self-contr
"The point is that these women are FRENCH CITIZENS, and they should not be singled out "
Oddly enough, when they (or their male relatives) think it can serve their interests they don't mind being singled out.In some cities, muslim associations have demanded and obtained separate opening hours in public swimmingpools,then it was not enough,windows had to be tinted,again not enough,male lifeguards had to be removed.
I think part of the problem the French have is, that everytime a group claims the self labeled country of human rights is unfair to him,they feel compelled to bow and then feel themselves overwhelmed.
Far right politicians understand this and just surf on the wave.
Again,some over reaction here:Sarkozy will appoint a bunch of observers gathered in a commission,then it will take them a couple of years to write a report,then maybe a law will be presented to the parliament that will reject it. And if not, and Sarkozy knows it perfectly, France is not entirely free regarding the law department,Europe has its say.So,any muslim association will run to the european court of human rights, crying that the French dictature is oppressing them.Case closed. All the burqas defenders can breathe and rest, the ban is not for tomorrow or any close future.
Teresa, as I pointed out to a previous comment, the Arab Middle East is not the only region were women wear a Hijab. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country in the world) women wear the Tudung. In Turkey (the most "Westernized" Muslim country) women wear the Yashmak, in Pakistan (the second most populous Muslim country) women wear the Dupatta, The Persians of Iran wear the Chador. It is something determined according to local costumes with backing from religious leaders and texts, it is not "fundamentalism". Hijab is mentioned in the Hadith, it is backed by Islamic law and all Sunni/Shia schools of thought, in one form or another. If you look at pictures of these garments, you will notice that they are extremely varied and go in accordance to the local culture.
If in France, a Western country, they want to ban the burqa (along with the abbaya, the other Hijab that covers the woman's whole body), that is within their right. I'm an imigrant to this country and I had to adapt my lifestyle in order to properly assimilate into society, including my religious practices. People should bring with them the practices which enrich the society they chose to live in, not divide it. The French are not going to treat Muslim women as immoral or immodest just because they are not covered from head to toe, such as they do in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Burqa causes controversy for it is a symbol of oppression against women for many people in Western societies. It is such a symbol because with this dress comes rules and behaviors which oppress women. It is a physical represention of ideas such as Saudi Wahhabism and it's mysoginy. I think you have to admit that there is a big difference between seeing a women dressed very conservatively (as the Orthodox Jews and other religious groups do) and seeing a women covered from head to toe.
If an Algerian or Moroccan woman wearing a niqab represents 'Saudi Wahhabism' to a white French person, it has more to do with their own ignorance or misunderstanding than with the clothing itself.
People are allowed to be different, so long as they are not inhuring anybody. Non-Muslim French people can get over their ethnocentrism (so-called 'French universalism') and learn to respect diversity (so-called 'communitaurisme'), instead of accusing a hundred or so women who probably live in some marginalized, out-of-the-way ghetto of being 'divisive' for making a clothing choice they are too b!goted to understand. ahem..
The intellectual contortions in which we involve ourselves, over issues that in reality are quite simple, suggests that our lives are too luxurious by half.
France is a sovereign nation - one of the most culturally, economically and intellectually advanced on the planet. It's government correctly recognises that the security of its citizenry is paramount, and pursues legislation to prohibit the wearing of masks in public.
Unsurprisingly, there are howls of protests from the usual suspects.
Might I suggest that these groups who find the French policy to be so outrageous, attempt to live in a Muslim country for a month.
It is then that they will discover the real meaning of the word "repression".
"It's government correctly recognises that the security of its citizenry is paramount, and pursues legislation to prohibit the wearing of masks in public."
It has nothing to do with "wearing masks in public." After all, are they also taking special steps to make it illegal to wear a scarf around your face in the winter? Or does "safety" become less of a concern when it's cold out?
The fact that this law singles out ONE gender and ONE religion makes it problematic, and while France is a great democratic nation, this law points to some severe flaws that I hope are remedied soon.
"It's government correctly recognises that the security of its citizenry is paramount, and pursues legislation to prohibit the wearing of masks in public."
And what a vividly coloured herring that is. There's a prohibition on masks during demonstrations, and the debate regarding the burqa/niqab is quite different.
"Might I suggest that these groups who find the French policy to be so outrageous, attempt to live in a Muslim country for a month."
A "Muslim country"? Enforcing religious dogma is, I believe, utterly wrong, but the difference between, say, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia is vast.
"It is then that they will discover the real meaning of the word "repressio
So, your logic is that something's not repressive if it could be MORE repressive. Interesting, in a wrong sort of way.
Hmm. I instinctively feel uncomfortable around anyone who has their face covered. If I was walking down the street towards you in a balaclava, I'm sure you would feel the same.
My main problem with the burqa, however, is that it strikes me as massively misogynist.
Laurie, this is the best article I have seen so far discussing the burqa controversy, or "row" as you would say ;) I caught the tv reference in your title btw lol
It is amazing how people accuse anyone opposing the ban of misogyny while dismissing the voices of women who would disagree with them, as if women are by definition passive victims incapable of agency and unable to (re)determine the meanings of their own bodies, faiths, and cultural icons.
The corsait presents one interesting reinvention of something assumed to be a symbol of patriarchy.
The corsait might be thought of as the opposite of the veil; the veil functioned to deflect the male sexual gaze, while the corsait served to indulge its very fantasy by literally reshaping the body of a woman into a male-defined 'ideal' type. In this way, the corsait actually WAS what some dubiously accuse the veil of being. In contemporary Western culture, the corsait has been reinvented and is often associated with the dominatrix - the embodiment of female sexual power and dominance. We might debate whether the dominatrix itself is not another manifestation of male fantasy, or whether a dominatrix is really "choosing" to play her character and isn't just catering to male pressure, but it would hardly be fair or appropriate to simply write-off all such women as "brainwashed" or "enslaved" and incapable of making their own decisions, and then banning the corsait.
The corset? You are really trying to make an argument about women being covered up from head to toe in a Western country in 2009 by comparing it with a Victorian piece of garment? I think it is safe to bet to say that there are many, many, many more women under a burqa then dominatrixes in this world (unfortunately). Plus, the burqa becomes the public persona of these women, while I believe I must come in contact with a dominatrix every now and then without ever knowing, since they keep their practices private.
Not all women wearing the burqa are helpless victims but I applaud the French government for attempting to defend those who are.
Aaarghhhh.
When someone is starting a national conversation about a practice (forced donning of the niqab/burqa) *possibly* occurring within 0.0003 % of the population (high estimate - 180 people), you know something deeper, something more symbolic is going on. This debate has never been about empowering Muslim women; it is about public space and national identity. It is about who is really 'French', and who will never be considered full citizens; it is about what 'true' womanhood is and is not; it is about demarcating the boundaries of belonging and erecting the walls of exclusion. It is a rotten French onion with layer after pungent layer of symbolic violence.
firstly, let me just say that this is difficult topic to address. I also want to say that I truly enjoyed reading most of the comments. This is what my ideal of a good conversation - differing view points, using rational reasons and thoughtful explanations to share ideas. Maybe I'm overly impressed, but it's been a while since a comment section wasn't interlaced with useless quips and childish antics.
As I've said, this is a tough topic. For me it comes down to where I would draw the line. If a culture beat their women, inflicted severe physical or emotional harm, then one could rightly step in. But cultural issues tend to be more complex than that. I may disagree with the burqa. I may find it stifling to the women of that culture. I may find the patriarchal mandate to be wrong. But I can say the same thing for many other cultures. Where I'm from ,India, they still do a dowry. It's the 21st century, yet they still see the woman as a "burden" that needs to traded away in the marriage along with some substantial offering so the husband will accept the "burden". It may be less common than before, but it does happen.
What about western women. If I felt that their choice to wear provocative clothing was demeaning them, and I wanted to force them to dress like the Amish, would that be right? How about dressing the "repressed" Amish in mini skirts for sexual
Unfortunately as we see here, some women appear too confused and/or addled to make decisions for themselves when it comes to freedom from the enslaving burqa.
As for the notion that the troglodyte muslim men will simply not let their women out of the house if they cant be shrouded within a burqa, the women need only point out the illegality of wearing one, and say to dear husband or daddy, "Fine! You do the grocery shopping then!"
I have seen a bunch of these disingenuous articles that try to portray the this issue as "taking away freedom" and I am sorry, but you are helping a religion that has no interest in freedom abuse the rhetoric of democratic nations for their own ends...whe
No more. I am happy that one leader of one modern nation has decided to draw a line in the sand and stop these barbarian beliefs from spreading and keeping their entrenched power. If only more countries would have the guts to stand up to any and all religions and make clear that bigotry and oppression doesn't get a free pass just because their magic book says so.
Right on, Neal!
@Neal:
I disagree with you, and agree with Laurie Penny in the article. There are a couple of things to consider here:
1) What Sarkozy is suggesting *is* taking away freedom, to whit, the freedom of French women to wear whatever they want in public.
2) Penny is not helping a religion, she is objecting to the French government dictating to women what they should wear. Simple as.
3) I agree the "internalized oppression" issue is there. FWIW I think the line should be drawn in such a way that Muslim women are fully aware that they can choose a secular lifestyle and will suffer as little as possible because of that choice.
4) Genital mutilation is wrong because it contravenes the harm principle.
I can see that you might argue that raising women in such a way that they believe they ought to wear particular garments *also* contravenes the harm principle, but not to anything like the same extent (after all Western culture has plenty of taboos and strictures about what women should and should not wear as well).
Ahem. When I said "a couple" clearly I meant "a few".
Yes, Muslim women in Europe and elsewhere "are fully aware that they can choose a secular lifestyle". That's why the debate in France is not on how to solve the poor helpless Muslim women from themselves. The focus is on those who might not want to go with tradition but who feel preassured by family and religion to do so. They should have a voice as well, n'est-ce pas?
Inferring that the wearing of a piece of cloth is equivalent to cutting off someone's clitoris is rather, um, "disingenuous". Let's be serious here. Really.
"I am happy that one leader of one modern nation has decided to draw a line in the sand and stop these barbarian beliefs from spreading and keeping their entrenched power."
QUITE a rich sentence you produced, there. Let's deconstruct it :)
"one modern nation" - ah yes, the classic modern/premodern dichotomy between the West and the rest. The rhetoric of cultural rac!sm.. Never ceases to disgust.
"draw a line in the sand" - Freudian slip, perhaps? "The sand", after all, is where things "barbarian" are known to lurk (e.g. Arabs.. or maybe you would call them "Turks" - it would fit with your antiquated "modern/barbarian" colonial rhetoric)
"barbarian beliefs" - I know I just referenced this, but wait did you really just say that? Wow. The "mission civilisatrice" is alive and kicking! Check you out: http://boo
"stop these... from spreading" - mmm nothing like a good old contagion analogy!
In a way, you are sooo right - this discourse has everything to do with "drawing lines" and keeping those "barbarian" elements "entrenched" in "the sand" (e.g. MUSLIMS) from "spreading" into France.
"that France determines that everyone is free to not wear a burqa"
I don't think you read Ms. Penny's post very carefully, Willie. Nor do I think you understand France's new las. France is not saying that everyone is free not to wear a burqa; it is saying that no one CAN wear one in public.
My first reaction upon reading about this new law was "Good. Forcing a woman to wear a burqa is oppressive and no civilized nation should allow it." But then I read what others had to say and which showed me two things:
1. This law will not allow these women to go out in public without a burqa. Their husbands just won't allow them to go out in public at all. This will further oppress these women.
2. While I can't imagine any woman wanting to wear a burqa, not allowing them to do so violates their freedom of choice.
Ms. Penny is not defending these oppressive men. She's stating that this law will not free those women.
A very enlightening read by one who lives it. I believe she addresses both your concerns in her article also.
http://apo
Wearing a burqa doesn't allow someone to see the "real" you because one can see virtually nothing other than the hands and barely the eyes. Most of our communication is non verbal and is from visual cues from the eyes, mouth, body language, none of which you can see while wearing a burqa. Pleople also express themselves with the clothes they wear.
Besides if your premise was true, then why wouldn't you wear a burqa all of the time...aro
'Wearing a burqa doesn't allow someone to see the "real" you because one can see virtually nothing other than the hands and barely the eyes'.
Oh gosh, and there was me thinking that my hands, my eyes and the way I choose to express myself verbally are more important to my personhood than the shape of my body and the way I use it. How very silly of me. I'll get back to the shopping now.
[I've already explained that I DO wear hijab around the house - not a burqa, because I find that a bit too much coverage for my personal tastes - and why I don't often wear it outside]
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
