Cool exotification bro.

- The fact that in some countries, not dressing according to the social norm might have real repercussions. Not that fellow citizens might mock you, not even workplace discrimination, but you might get raped, get an acid thrown at you, or even get murdered on counts of your family “honour”. This type of violence – whatever culture it happens in – makes a lot of difference.
Take the issue of clothing in public saunas. It is considered here unhealthy (among other reasons, which are probably mostly cultural) to be dressed (in a bathing suit or something similar) in a public sauna. Even in a mixed sex sauna (it is a matter of social conventions – the same neighbour who sits next to you, both in “Eve’s clothing”, will address you as “Sie”). However, the worst thing that could happen to someone who doesn’t want to go all nude in the sauna is to be banned from it. No one will throw acid on his or her face.

- Being modest in the nikab/chador/burqa doesn’t mean that you’re afraid to be nude in appropriate context (e.g. hospital). If to return to the sauna, one of the women in my sauna is an obviously religious Muslima, who would pray after getting dressed after the sauna (in which she has been naked).

- In the past few years some Western Muslims are looking for a way to continue to express their religious identity while forging a new “Western-Muslim” identity. In fact, even wearing a head-scarf in the West is different in the past 20 years than it has been before. The burqas presented in this blog are not “authentic” in the sense that traditional Afghani women will wear blue or siimilar “subdued” colours (the whole point is to hide the woman). “Loud” colours such as red are deemed inappropriate. In Western societies, part of wearing a head-scarf is to say “I am Muslim” and “I am not a ‘cheap’ woman”. Within this, a woman might as well dress in colours, patterns or combinations that are hardly traditional. But these are head-scarf wearing woman. In a way, covering your face is avoiding all communication (or means to identify yourself).

I might accept that a woman who walks around in a US flag burqa has chosen that (when I will see that on an actual person, the only faced-covered women I saw had traditional black niqab). However, does this represent the majority of burqa wearing women?

In another recent Contexts post we were shown a trend in LA of scantily clad girls working at coffee shops. The clear consensus was this was oppressive patriarchy and effects of the white-male gaze.

Now we’re given another extreme, of women largely indoctrinated to hide their appearance so as it avoid the male gaze, and the consensus seems to ignore the patriarchal background behind the practice and instead celebrate the Muslima ‘freedom’ to wear whatever she wants.

And then there is some strange rationalization that such modest dress isn’t required by law in middle eastern countries, so therefor it’s not really required. As if the lingerie bowl here is somehow required by law. Oppression while often backed by law has never required it.

Wow, if that’s not seeing the forest for the trees.

Personally I can’t wait for the ‘freedom’ of both the nudist and the most ‘modest’ moralist to sit side by side without fisticuffs.

There’s a response a few up by Jillian, ““Equality” is not the first tenet of every society”… It’s horrifying to imagine that rather than risk a liberal faux pas, someone would suggest that maybe, not everyone in the world wants to be treated fairly. Have I misunderstood your point?

If we get through the clutter and the anecdotes, isn’t the debate over whether a person can actively renounce their autonomy?

I’m also concerned about the act of concealing one’s own face. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the face is an extraordinarily important part of human communication. While a person may not be invisible with their face covered, they’re certainly anonymous. As a phenomenon, it’s not only unique to Islam (some forms), but to all social animals. When else do people conceal their face? In costumes, soldiers, criminals?

(By “robe” I simply meant “garment.” See above.)

Reading over the comments, I notice how many people try to frame this as “choice” (and anecdotals by the truckload), while failing to acknowledge that cultural indoctrination is the illusion of choice.

My initial sense of it (and i”m probably wrong about this) is that Western women feel a tinge of guilt when confronted with (obvious) cultural oppression, but come into conflict with the prime liberal directive of cultural non-intervention. How can we feel ok about the lack of action? By framing the wearing of these clothes as a “choice” in some context: avoidance of ‘the male gaze’, a conscious decision to present oneself as sexually unavailable, etc.

Probably one of the most maddening aspects of this topic is the assumption that burqua/hijab-wearing women are unhappy or miserable in their existence. I think this is a form of psychological projection, where we think “My goodness, I’d be so miserable if I had to dress like that” without considering that “normal” for another person may be quite comfortable, thank you very much.

Interesting stuff, that’s for sure.

Your first two paragraphs are spot-on. And while you’re absolutely right about the last part (it being unequal), you’re missing two points:

-I don’t think most people here are arguing about the places where the burqa (or even the hijab) are a requirement. But those places are few; in most Muslim countries, it is a choice, at least legally speaking. Social pressure is another thing, but can be easily compared to social pressure here.

-Are our laws really that equal? Can I walk around with my top off? Can my boyfriend?

I also think it’s unfair to view everything through a western lens. “Equality” is not the first tenet of every society, and as a feminist, I think it’s important to be attuned to the desires of feminists in other cultures.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, but that stood out to me.

Does singlet mean something else in the US (I’m guessing you’re American)? I know I get people confused when I say cot instead of crib.

The burqa, when it is required, is required in all public spaces. If you were going to try to compare this to some item of western dress, why pick the bikini or mini-skirt?????? They are both extremes of two different cultures, each with their own issues with misogyny.

But no one has really addressed my first question: how do you explain that no one requires men to wear anything remotely like a burqa? Metaphor or not, oppressive or not, it is not EQUAL to have different dress requirements (by law) for men and women. How can anyone defend that without suspending the idea that gender equality is important?