Dilemma of French Muslims

[checkers]

I personally find it hard to accept the rationale that Madeleine's friends gave for wearing the niqab/hijab as a feminist act for the reasons Antonio outlined, but I guess I could understand an argument that in the context where the state seeks to police what a woman can and cannot wear, wearing a niqab/hijab in defiance of that becomes a feminist act.

[afleitch]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

What I dislike about that is that women are making as assumption that the man whose gaze they want to avoid has any interest in her, or indeed any woman at all. If you catch my drift Which is in itself nothing more than an extension of patriarchal thinking.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

What I dislike about that is that women are making as assumption that the man whose gaze they want to avoid has any interest in her, or indeed any woman at all. If you catch my drift Which is in itself nothing more than an extension of patriarchal thinking.

I think there was a discussion in some school of fiqh or another recently about whether or not gay or asexual men could be treated the same as relatives for these purposes. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

[afleitch]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

What I dislike about that is that women are making as assumption that the man whose gaze they want to avoid has any interest in her, or indeed any woman at all. If you catch my drift Which is in itself nothing more than an extension of patriarchal thinking.

I think there was a discussion in some school of fiqh or another recently about whether or not gay or asexual men could be treated the same as relatives for these purposes. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Make sure you have wings.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

That's an idea I personally have a hard time to swallow, considering my understanding of how patriarchy works. In my understanding, the objectification of women goes hand in hand with the obsession with "modesty", they are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, there's the idea that women are sexual commodity for men to use, and on the opposite side, the idea that women should stay chaste and preserve themselves from men. I think that is roughly what is meant with the "madonna/whore complex". The genius of patriarchy, so to speak, is that it invented both a thesis and an antithesis, that it has framed the debate in such a way that i can draw strength from both sides of it. Adhering to one side of it to counter the other one strikes me as a futile attempt, at least at the symbolic and ideological level (again, I'm not claiming that it cannot work in certain practical situations).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

That's an idea I personally have a hard time to swallow, considering my understanding of how patriarchy works. In my understanding, the objectification of women goes hand in hand with the obsession with "modesty", they are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, there's the idea that women are sexual commodity for men to use, and on the opposite side, the idea that women should stay chaste and preserve themselves from men. I think that is roughly what is meant with the "madonna/whore complex". The genius of patriarchy, so to speak, is that it invented both a thesis and an antithesis, that it has framed the debate in such a way that i can draw strength from both sides of it. Adhering to one side of it to counter the other one strikes me as a futile attempt, at least at the symbolic and ideological level (again, I'm not claiming that it cannot work in certain practical situations).

I've been making a conscious effort to become more praxis-oriented in my understanding of feminism lately, so maybe that's where our difference of opinion on this comes from.

[afleitch]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

That's an idea I personally have a hard time to swallow, considering my understanding of how patriarchy works. In my understanding, the objectification of women goes hand in hand with the obsession with "modesty", they are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, there's the idea that women are sexual commodity for men to use, and on the opposite side, the idea that women should stay chaste and preserve themselves from men. I think that is roughly what is meant with the "madonna/whore complex". The genius of patriarchy, so to speak, is that it invented both a thesis and an antithesis, that it has framed the debate in such a way that i can draw strength from both sides of it. Adhering to one side of it to counter the other one strikes me as a futile attempt, at least at the symbolic and ideological level (again, I'm not claiming that it cannot work in certain practical situations).

I think you've nailed it, with respect to how I would approach it. It is not possible to determine in what way women would present themselves if there were no 'critics'; either men who were critiquing on the basis of sex; whether wanting a 'loose woman' or a dutiful wife both of which are extensions of patriarchal thinking, or peer criticism from other women who demand that of women themselves.

This is merely from my own experience, but as a non-heterosexual male, when in the company of women, I don't find that they cover up to an extreme in private. If I was being honest, from women I know they tend to dress for comfort and probably 'wear less' than in public, but while it's less garments it's for comfort and not for a sexual end. I would say as a male that the same is true for us. Which I think is probably close to a 'neutral' non-sexual state of dress.

Therefore I would contend that of the two extremes and they are both extremes driven by the same means, completely covering the body in public is the most distant from what we could consider a neutral state of dress/undress. I have argued a similar point with respect to sex and food; a hedonist is 'obese' towards sex in the same way that someone who is abstinent and seeks abstinence in others is 'anorexic' towards sex. Eating too much is closer to 'eating' than starving yourself is and having constant sex is closer to 'having sex' than completely shutting yourself off from it is. It might be a contentious observation but as someone who eats and who has sex in moderation as most people do, I somewhat disturbingly but almost entirely by default have more in 'common' with a glutton of both.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In my view, a "feminist act" refers to an act that either constitutes a symbolic challenge to patriarchy (which implies active rejection of the patriarchal system rather than merely coping with it) or actively contributes to undermine patriarchy's material or ideological foundations.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the notion that the general principle of using sartorial choices to offend male sensibilities or male entitlement and to deflect or confuse the male gaze can, in fact, constitute just such a symbolic challenge. I'm just not sure that this is in fact a case of that for most people. (I know anecdotally that for at least a few women it is but the plural of anecdote is not et cetera.)

That's an idea I personally have a hard time to swallow, considering my understanding of how patriarchy works. In my understanding, the objectification of women goes hand in hand with the obsession with "modesty", they are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, there's the idea that women are sexual commodity for men to use, and on the opposite side, the idea that women should stay chaste and preserve themselves from men. I think that is roughly what is meant with the "madonna/whore complex". The genius of patriarchy, so to speak, is that it invented both a thesis and an antithesis, that it has framed the debate in such a way that i can draw strength from both sides of it. Adhering to one side of it to counter the other one strikes me as a futile attempt, at least at the symbolic and ideological level (again, I'm not claiming that it cannot work in certain practical situations).

I've been making a conscious effort to become more praxis-oriented in my understanding of feminism lately, so maybe that's where our difference of opinion on this comes from.

I respect that, and I think that it's a fair criticism on me that I tend to think of issues (not only this one) in too abstract terms. Still, I think one should never underestimate the extent to which ideas end up shaping reality. The strength of patriarchy, in particular, strikes me as being based almost exclusively on ideology. If we are to eradicate it, we must actively seek out and destroy all the sorts of attitudes and beliefs that nourish it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It should however be remembered that a lot of the people clamoring for these bans want them to extend not only to burqas but to niqabs and in some cases even hijabs as well, banning which would be not only clearly anti-Muslim but also arguably anti-feminist.

The problem is that the hijab and the niqab are essentially 'cultural' dress, not religious. There is no requirement in Islam to wear them.

Indeed. The Koran simply states "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..." (33:59), which can be (and is) interpreted broadly, though most of the Islamic scholars agree that a woman's hair should be covered. It should be noted on the side that women covering their hairs is not an exclusively Muslim nor Middle Eastern thing.

So yes, there is no religious requirement whatsoever to cover the face, making it more of a "cultural", or more "ideological", thing. We all know not all Arab women cover their faces (far from it). Also, Berber women doesn't cover their faces (interestingly, Tuareg men cover their face to "wards off evil spirits").

Btw, I can't find a source, but I remember reading a while ago quite an interesting piece about about hijabs, niqabs and burqas history. Many of variants you currently see, especially those endorsed by most "fundamentalist" elements, have very little to do with a traditional Muslim or Arab clothing. I'll try to locate that piece.

[Storebought]

These discussions about Islamic clothing for women can become pretty academic. Too often these discussions assume that women's clothing is in-itself a badge of shame and a consequence of patriarchy. It surely is when religious authorities or the police (or husbands or fathers, but that sadly is not limited to Muslims) force women to wear certain unwieldy styles out of doors, but even in Iran, total body drapes are not compulsory.

Muslim women shop for Islamic clothing just as well as they shop for any other article of clothing. Muslim women can express personality through more concealing wardrobes as well as through western clothing, it being no more an expression of patriarchy than buying clothes from J. C. Penney or Gucci.

However, the most conservative of styles, like niqab and this chador abaya, do merit the scorn that people in this thread have levied against Muslim clothing in general. Not only do they obliterate personality (which was their intention), they are genuine health and safety hazards as well.

[politicus]

These discussions about Islamic clothing for women can become pretty academic. Too often these discussions assume that women's clothing is in-itself a badge of shame and a consequence of patriarchy. It surely is when religious authorities or the police (or husbands or fathers, but that sadly is not limited to Muslims) force women to wear certain unwieldy styles out of doors, but even in Iran, total body drapes are not compulsory.

Muslim women shop for Islamic clothing just as well as they shop for any other article of clothing. Muslim women can express personality through more concealing wardrobes as well as through western clothing, it being no more an expression of patriarchy than buying clothes from J. C. Penney or Gucci.

However, the most conservative of styles, like niqab and this chador abaya, do merit the scorn that people in this thread have levied against Muslim clothing in general. Not only do they obliterate personality (which was their intention), they are genuine health and safety hazards as well.

There are more to it than just the Muslim women, there is also the question of how such disguised women affect society's view of women in general. Burqas and niqabs are very strong symbols of female submission no matter how they are interpreted by the persons wearing them.