Via my work abroad, I'm fortunate enough to have a bunch of good Muslim friends, two of whom are women living in the US. One wears the burkha, and one wears the hijab. Both of them swear that they feel more liberated wearing the garment, as they are under much less risk of being objectified.

And come on, ladies, how many of you have the occasional comfort day where you wear baggier, longer, clothing and don't do your usual makeup, hair, or shaving routine?

Anyway, a simple anecdote about my friends, but this is really how many Muslim women feel. I am sure there are many others chafing under the social pressures that force them to cover up in public.

In the end, who's to say what's right or wrong, but I doubt that anorexia and boob job rates in Saudia Arabia are anywhere close to those here. As long as it's freely chosen, I'm fine either way.

A french sociologist just noticed the fact that young women seem, according to an article in a french daily paper, to give up topless tanning ("le monokini, c'est fini !" ("Monokini is over !")), making an ironic parallel with the moral panic on burqas. He urges representatives to ban bikinis, so that young women don't have to live under the "swimsuit slavery" :
http://jeanbauberotlaicite.blogspirit.com/archive/2009/07/22/le-blaspheme-du-bikini.html

I really have no problem with women choosing to wear burkas. what i have a problem with is women being forced to wear them ( sometimes under a threat of death or violence).

I am with Dmitriy; as a cultural icon, I'm opposed, but actually constraining women's rights? Not the way to fix it.

There's nothing liberating about forcing people to dress or not dress in a particular way, period. Make no mistake, women even in the west are forced by social pressures and threats of violence in their communities to wear burqas. The answer is to create a society where people don't feel threatened in this way. The clothing is the symptom, not the root problem, and banning it is silly and counterproductive.

On the subject of the gaze, I heard an interesting interview once with a group of teenagers in the Arab world (can't remember what country now). There were a group of boys swimming in a river, and a group of girls nearby dressed in abayas and who thus couldn't swim. The boys swore up and down that the girls were luckier, because they could look at mostly naked boys, whereas the boys couldn't look at mostly naked girls. The girls weren't asked their opinion (if I were them, I would have just wanted to be able to swim), but since the debate is often phrased in terms of being looked at, it was interesting to hear it framed as looking.

I ca understand the hijab (simple veil), or the wearing of looser, baggier clothes, but the burka does really disturb me for the covering of the face. You say that women choose to wear it because they feel more comfortable in it, less objectified, but does escaping to objectification means covering your face, the place which expresses emotions and contributes highly to nonvocal communication and human recognition, what identifies you as a fellow human somehow, and also covering the mouth, making it harder being heard. Do women have to hide every inch of their physical existence to be respected?
Also, I'm disturbed about the social effects. It's funny to hear talking about freedom here, where generally the effects of social pressure and norms are much more weighted on than agency. I'm talking about a vicious circle : women feel objectified by men, some start wearing the burka, men start associating those not wearing it with the less respectful woman, and the ones willing to be objectified, whereas the other women feel an increasing pressure of this "option", until the rate of burka is high and the respect for women has plummeted. I admit that it's unlikely at the scale of a society that is not in majority muslim, and Iran somehow offers some counter examples, but it is something that had been seen in French classroom before the 2004 law, in strongly muslim neighbourhood : some girls would start wearing the hijab, and the other girls would be bullied as sluts until they give in too.
Id love to hear your opinions.

Duran-- for the record, I love the assumption that baggy clothes and no make-up is an occasional thing ;) I only dress up for special occasions, and even then I don't wear heels. The phrase "occasional comfort day" just makes it sound like the default SHOULD be to be UNcomfortable every other day. Which is the debate exactly, isn't it?

I really don't feel qualified to comment on hijabs and burkas without firsthand experience, but I will say this. I'd never want to remove a choice that a woman can make to make herself feel more comfortable. But on the other hand, it's terribly depressing (to me, in America) that any woman lives in a society where she feels she can only escape objectification by hiding her appearance. I wish there were more effort spent on discouraging MEN from objectifying women, so we could get away from this horrible idea that no men can ever control themselves around a hot girl.

The liberating value of the hijab and burkha is not just in avoiding male gaze. Does anyone really believe that western fashion is primarily dictated by male desire? Women have basically created a system in which we are all judged by our clothes. So rich people look better than poor people and artistic people look better than non-artistic people and young people look better than old people. Our "choice" comes with its own ball and chain. The middle-eastern clothing is like a school uniform -- designed to minimize differences that we in the West emphasize for the sake of personal vanity.

I'm not saying it's a better approach, particularly when the face is covered, since the face is used so constantly for communication that covering it is a form of silencing. But I'm not sure that we're in some morally superior position here.

Here's an interesting thought experiment to consider the fairness of the burkha burden: If the justification for the burkha and hijab is to reduce the male gaze on women's bodies, then why shouldn't men be required to wear blinders in public instead?

Well, Joseph Orosco, the whole idea of women covering up is the myth that men are lustful beasts that cannot control themselves around exposed women! Exposed, of course, meaning anything from naked to dressed 'sexily' to showing their hair or even a hand in public, depending on the culture.

Of course putting the burden on women to change their behaviour as a solution to the perceived problem just makes it all even more mysogynistic but I think the underlying false assumption needs to be exposed.

I mean, what is the function of modesty, really?

Right on, Joseph Orosco. The burkha/hijab does not protect women from men. Men still rape and abuse women who wear those garments, just as they rape and abuse women who wear loose-fitting sweatpants and women who wear mini skirts and tube tops. Far from reducing objectification of women, the burkha/hijab is just the other side of the same coin - the coin on which women are valued primarily for their bodies and on which women are held responsible for the way men treat them.

@Trabb's Boy: "Women have basically created a system in which we are all judged by our clothes."

Uh, how does that go again?

Sorry, I'm just really confused by what you mean by this...Why are you blaming only women for a superficial society?

I'm not sure if Wester fashion is *primarily* dictated by male desire, but I'm 100% positive that it has a whole lot to do it, especially with high heels. I'm not saying that women only wear high heels because it shapes their bodies a certain way that men find appealing (it's hard to look professional without them these days), but that is one (big) reason why they exist.

Hi abby,

I just don't think that it's men saying what women should be wearing. I think that choice of clothing and make-up and all this beauty stuff is done by women by choice. There are a lot of companies that push it by trying to make women feel bad about themselves and there is social pressure from movie and TV studios that are primarily run by men, but really, the vast majority of men don't give a shit what women wear. They may want to see more boobs and leg for sexual reasons, but that doesn't particularly dictate fashion.

One example is in business attire. When women started getting into the work force in droves, they wore the equivalent of men's suits with ugly bow ties. There was a perfect opportunity to make clothing a non-issue by wearing exactly what men wear, but women wanted to broaden the options, and now you have silk dresses with bolero jackets and straight skirts with kicky little sweater sets, etc. There are suddenly all kinds of "choices" about business fashion that differentiate among women based on income and body type. Men didn't do that.

I'm not blaming only women for a superficial society, just for women's personal decorative choices, with the possible exception of lingerie, miniskirts and other items of clothing specifically designed to attract the male gaze.

Cheers,
T'sB

T'sB, you are obviously unaware that for some of us women male-like suits are REALLY FECKING UNCOMFORTABLE and downright unsuitable. With a large hip to waist ratio, pants either don't do up across the hips or you end up with extra layers of cloth gathered round your middle making it difficult to bend and any sort of bust outside the industry-standard B cup means your shirts are so loose they're a wind sail, or you are in danger of popping a button with each breath.

Beyond that, you REALLY don't think men - the bosses and business owners - had anything to do with the 'standards' of attire demanded for their female employees? Really, now?

Wow, T'sB, blaming women for how they are actually taught to live and dress -- and for also being punished when not correctly dressed -- just shows how messed up your views are. I mean, women had to conquer, had to struggle for space in business and many areas that were considered as exclusive for males. Men were always allowed to dress pretty much how they wanted to, following very broad codes. Women, on the other hand, by the point they started going to and working in the same places as men, had to follow a very strict rule for dressing. They couldn't just WORK, as you could imagine, but they had to stay beautiful, according to the opinion of those in the power -- obviously men --, and that because that is (still, sadly) seen as their primary function: decoration. They can work, as long as they remain beautiful to look at.

And if really were women who created this whole code of dressing accordingly, then we should ask really why do you say that "men didn't do" that, while women started doing. Is that because they're futile, inclined to their decorative perspectives, as to say, or because they are taught from the beginning that they should (again, sorry) remain and stay beautiful no matter what?

I'm worried about the portrayal of bulimia in this segment. I understand that social/cultural norms are often a source of jokes for The Daly Show, but I think that mental illness should be left out of the line up. It undermines the otherwise amusing perspective the piece takes. Eating disorders, like PTSD and addictions, rely on "triggers," and it seems a mocking portrayl of someone suffering from bulimia would easily trigger a person who is truly in pain from the disease.

I don't even understand why you all are so certain that males are keeping women down when it comes to fashion. Most work-related sexism is pretty blatant, like not hiring women or paying women less or making the real deals on the golf course when the women aren't around or claiming women will act on feeling instead of logic or making the environment hell with rude jokes and belittling comments. But fashion? Just don't see it.

Okay, in Hooters, I concede that the male management makes sexist clothing choices for their staff. At Goldman Sachs? At Sears? At Microsoft? At the Department of Motor Vehicles? No. And if you're talking about some kind of amorphous background "society makes women think they have to be decorative and society is male-dominated" idea then pfffth. You may as well say women are just passive receptacles of male messaging. I think that women determine fashion because women LIKE fashion. They're the ones going to fashion shows and buying fashion magazines and shopping for clothes all the time. They are capable of acting on their own impulses. BUT it is a vicious circle. You buy something a little different because it's cute and stands out, and you contribute to the social norm of women wearing trendy clothes. I think the pressure to dress fashionably all the time is an unfortunate side effect of women wanting to dress fashionably sometimes. I don't blame women, but I sure as hell don't blame men.

to Trabb's boy:

"And if you’re talking about some kind of amorphous background “society makes women think they have to be decorative and society is male-dominated” idea then pfffth. I think that women determine fashion because women LIKE fashion."

This is ridiculous, you're basically claiming the patriarchy and male gaze doesn't exist. Do you really think women are predisposed to shopping and fashion? Do you think this has nothing to do with the expectations and cultural pressure placed on women from birth? Women aren't passive receptacles it's just incredibly hard to undo years and years of social conditioning.

"Most work-related sexism is pretty blatant, like not hiring women or paying women less or making the real deals on the golf course when the women aren’t around or claiming women will act on feeling instead of logic or making the environment hell with rude jokes and belittling comments."

Uh, no -- most *blatant* sexism is pretty blatant; *most* sexism (like most racism, sizism, ableism, etc) is frighteningly covert.

I, for one, popped out of the womb obsessed with my appearance and how the world views me. Because I am a lady and I always have been!

Pfft. The majority of fashion designers are men. Studies have shown that a woman's attire DOES affect how both men and women view and treat her.
Don't blame women for using some survival strategies in this world.

About women's business attire- I recall reading in Backlash about the drab suits that Trabb's Boy describes, and how one or two male fashion designers pushed and pushed and pushed to make the only options for women the frilly, floral, baby-doll, neo-victorian, type clothes that were so common in the mid-eighties.
The most interesting thing is that this was very much a top-down decree, and not a response to what the masses were demanding. The shoppers, the retailers and everyone else in between, knew that the average business woman did not want floral dresses with huge collars, but that is what they wore because that is all that was available to buy.

Women do have a certain advantage in business attire because there is a wider range of acceptable options. However men have the option of being 'unmarked.' Men can wear the plain suit with a striped tie and just be a neutral worker. Women's business attire is all marked somehow to communicate something beyond 'worker' (ie matron, sexy librarian, vintage, indie, preppy, trendy etc), so women never have the benefit of being neutral default worker because they are constantly balancing between being sexy enough, but not too sexy, matronly enough, but not too matronly, ad nauseam.

If women want to be neutral "workers" then they should buy boring clothes. Every designer has a basic suit in black and blue, and basic blouses to go under them. If it gets women ahead to buy fashionable clothes, they should fight it, the way they fought the need to sleep with the boss to get ahead, rather than giving into it. If boring clothes stop being available, they should complain loudly or start up a "boring clothing" company. Women don't go this route because they genuinely like fashionable clothes.

As to whether they were born that way or not, my guess is that it is a bit of both. There may be some impulse toward self-decoration to attract a mate, as there is in one sex of many species. There may be some impulse in men to act tough to attract a mate. Given how incredibly widespread these behaviours are, and how early they appear in children, it seems pretty likely, although I admit I have not done any research on this issue. But whether or not there is an innate impulse toward self-decoration, it is certainly socially reinforced.

But there is a big difference between saying something is a social construct and that it is created by men and that women are victims of it. Men aren't the ones hosting princess parties or painting their daughter's nails. If this is a social construct it is passed on from women to women and, on the whole, passed on with pleasure and indulged in with pleasure.

What you seem to be saying is that women don't like fashion. They hate it and resent it as oppressive but follow it anyway because it's the only way to get ahead in the world. And I think that's nonsense.

I'm not surprised that the American debate on European burqa/hijab restrictions has focused on gender issues. Naturally, that's the part of the issue that we relate to.

However, since I live in a largely-Muslim community in Germany, I thought I should weigh in on the neglected side of the issue, which is race/ethnicity.

The laws on the books here - and in France - allow women many ways to escape from abusive conditions in which they might be forced to wear things like burqas. They prosecute honor killings, they allow wives to file for divorce, and for citizens there is some measure of social welfare if you are abandoned by your community or family.

However, as a result of a pervasive racism and xenophobia, our Muslim minorities live in such marginalization and isolation that Muslim women often don't feel they have the benefit of the choices our societies supposedly offer. To a large extent, they are already ostracized by the white majority and other communities, their opportunities for work are very limited, and their residential status often carries great risk and few privilieges as well.

Laws that seek to criminalize the women's clothing choices - rather than the men who deny them a choice - only deepen the sense of hostility that is a part of their everyday lives. When we stop treating Muslims like members of a criminal underclass and take greater steps toward inclusivity, there's a much better chance that those who wear the burqa will have done so out of their own choices.

I can't speak for bikinis, though. In Berlin, most of us don't wear anything to the beach at all.

@Trabb's Boy You make little to no sense, and obviously can't back up your argument. Yet I will argue with you anyway.
Funny thing. I'm a genderqueer young woman. I don't wear makeup or shave my legs. My hair is quite short, and I never do more than wash and comb it. I wear hiking boots or sandals everywhere, and pretty androgynous clothing. Maybe even "boring clothes", I don't know what your standards of "boring" are, though. It's still women's clothing, because I am very short and also have hips, so men's clothing fits me not at all. Most women's clothing doesn't either.

Yet! Despite this being MY CHOICE of how to dress! I still get lots and lots of pressure (mostly by men! btw!) to conform to Western standards of female dress and presentation! I almost was fired from a job for this, by my male manager!
So tell me how I have infinite choice, and how I am oppressing myself into wearing "fancy lady clothes"!

Also, I agree completely with Dmitriy and mordicai. Everyone should have the CHOICE of what to wear. I believe it's heinous that even in the US, women are in danger of criminal prosecution for going topless in public, while men are not. Still not nearly as disgusting as forcing full-body-wear on someone against their will, but still.

Magnetic Crow, there's a big difference between dressing "boring," which means dressing in a minimally acceptible way so as to draw no attention to your clothes, and wearing whatever you want. If you don't want to comply with the basic social norms of the workplace, yes, you will get in trouble for it. My entire point has been that the effect of choice in clothing in the West has some unfortunate consequences along with its good ones. We can choose, but we can't demand that no one care except by choosing to deemphasize looks, the way the hijab and burkha do. Not saying that's better, it's just the dilemma faced in the West.

And the comment at the beginning of your post was unnecessarily rude.

"Does anyone really believe that western fashion is primarily dictated by male desire?"

If you're asking whether angry fingers are being pointed at living men to indicate personal blame, I don't think anyone would go that far. We all live and work in our predecessors' footsteps.

But it's been established and re-established on this blog, and in a million other places, that sexism and the social systems it's created cause a wide variety of anxiety issues in women about their appearance that can begin before they even develop secondary sexual characteristics. Simultaneously, fashion consumption in men is in modern times actively stigmatized. And the idea that women shop more and just do it because they're born that way ignores all historical influence...

"Davidoff and Hall, in their influential work Family Fortunes: men and women of the English middle class 1780-1850 (1987), trace the formation of separate masculine and feminine, private and public spheres which, they suggest, came to symbolize the foundation of middle-class morality, family structures, and domestic economy from the late eighteenth century onward. Through their work it has become generally accepted that a concept of domestic and decorative femininity was informed by the rise of a particularly vehement non-conformist Protestantism which disregarded the complexities of a female position compromised by the mounting pressures of changing business practices and the growth of suburban segregation in favour of a simplistic spiritual vision of a pure angelic womanhood. This model, it is claimed, was enforced on the middle classes by an uncritical press until the late 1850s. Within its dictates there arose a central contradiction between the transcendental innocence of the model wife and mother, and the demands of material display made of the domestic, feminine sphere by the public, masculine world." - Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present by Moira Donald, Linda Hurcombe

I see that women still can't get out of that catch-22. Thanks, religious conservative patriarchy.

Anyway, your assertion that [if women don't like the system of judgment they suffer under then they should just stop playing that game] is not unlike telling a fish that it should just ignore the water and swim wherever it wants to.

Banning burkas in the schools in France (I am not discussing the idea of banning it everywhere) makes perfect sense, since their school system is secular, and religious symbols are not welcome. Given that, one would expect that kippots, burkas and crucifixes would be banned. I don't see any problem with the banning of burkas. In a way this is even symmetric with the policies of many muslim countries that make it mandatory to use them (why European women that travel to some Middle East countries have to abide to this type of law and Middle Eastern women wouldn't have to abide to not having to wear them?). Anyway, States should be allowed to legislate on anything as there is democratic support to it and religious rights should not come first anyway. On a similar topic, in the US many states do not allow women to go top less or even breast feed in public. If the majority of French decide to support the ban, I guess this would be acceptable. In regards to the statement that muslim women like the burka (and the veil), I get the impression that it is very difficult to separate the indoctrination from the true opinion. I have an Iranian neighbor that always rationalizes in order to explain everything she can't do (even if she wants to). Once she told me that she wanted to have a dog badly. When I asked her why she did not have one (some hadiths prohibit muslims from having dogs) she told me that they were dirty and carried diseases. Another day, she complained with me that she did not have a drivers license and that she could not work where she wanted. When I asked her why she did not take driving classes, she came out with another excuse to the same sort: "I don't want to learn how to drive in an old car". Is this what she really thinks? I'd rather think that it is not.

I realize this is way past the expiration date, but I find the idea that men are not held to any standards of attire, whether via workplace dress codes (informal or otherwise) or in social settings looking for approval and romance, to be ridiculous.

Men may not exactly be pressured to -sexualize- their appearance the way women are, but certainly there is a stigma (and a very large fashion industry taking advantage of it) that in any workplace or social setting where you are being "outdressed" by your peers, you are hurting your chances for job advancement, romantic success, etc.

Just as women are pressured to dress for sex, men are pressured to "dress for success", and those who reject this or fight against it suffer. Both men and women are subjected to the male gaze.

What's funny is this seems to be an exclusively *Western* phenomenon, as class divisions and subsequent nepotism and exclusivity that primarily drive the modern Middle Eastern culture nullify this influence.