Major-Tom wrote:Well, first off, burqas and hijabs are quite different, as I'm confident you know.
I'm aware. I'm far less wary about the hypothetical ubiquity of the hijab than I am about the hypothetical ubiquity of the burqa - in part because the burqa is almost invariably associated with Salafism or Deobandism.
Major-Tom wrote:Second, yes, the hijab is an indicator of cultural values, of collective religious and social beliefs, but it does extend to the individual level as well. And when it comes to freedom of religion, I tend to take the individualist route. The origins of the hijab are interesting, I may not even be fond of the cultural and religious ideals that spurned its commonality in the first place.
I don't really disagree with this in princple. As I've expressed before, I don't really support even burqa bans as a rule, at least not in the United States.
Major-Tom wrote:But, for me, I see a case like this as a clear cut in terms of my belief system. If I believe that people ought to wear what they want, so long as it doesn't harm those around them, then logically I'll defend their right to do so with more of a focus on the individual right to expression than questions of collective meaning and prevailing cultural attitudes.
The issue is that cultural regalia and the expression of certain values can serve to popularize and reinforce prevailing cultural attitudes that are actively harmful to individual liberties and to the collective well-being of persons. As I pointed out, even quoting particular attitudes present in this thread, a lot of the attitudes and arguments that accompany the wearing of these garments are not very advantageous for women who don't subscribe to these high standards of modesty.
Islamic Holy Sites wrote:Well, a SA women's rights person defended her right to wear the veil. Just because Europeans think that walking around half naked is 'freedom' doesn't mean anyone else does.
I think this perception, and its not an uncommon one among certain Muslim men, is part of the problem that bans like this are attempting to address. If you believe women, even women who are dressed modestly by the standards of their own communities, are "half naked", what other perceptions towards those women might that engender? We can get some indication based on how these people talk about women who do not wear the hijab or niqab, and it's really not pretty. The words range from "sluts" to "whores" to "loose" and onward.
This is part of what I mean when I say that hijab usually isn't about the empowerment of women or gender equality as most people conceive of them. If people have the attitude that not wearing the hijab is slutty or loose behavior, adhering to a cultural standard that has those sorts of attitudes surrounding it literally makes women worse off in almost every social respect.
Dowaesk wrote:Maybe they are the great nation we need in order to make the world a better place. These rich white men are gonna make the world a better place. With naked women and drunk men. Because nakedness and drunkness is what shows that the country is free from oppression
Well, there's a lot to unpack on this one.
Mind you, my intention isn't to call these particular posters out. I don't think they believe, or at least I hope they don't believe, that women who refuse to wear the hijab are behaving immodestly or are half-naked. I read this as a bit of hyperbole, perhaps referencing that women are allowed to dress down in France but aren't allowed to dress up to the standard of modesty prevalent in the Dar as-Salaam. That said, there are a decent number of Muslims, men in particular, who do hold these sorts of toxic and misogynistic opinions. As an example...
Kowani wrote:Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan blames rise in rape on decline in modestyThe Prime Minister of Pakistan has caused widespread outrage after he urged women to dress more modestly while addressing a surge in rape cases.
The former professional cricketer turned politician, 65, made the comments during a televised interview, where he said women should cover their bodies to avoid being attacked.
Taking a question from a caller, Prime Minister Khan was asked what the government was doing to address a rise in sexual attacks in Pakistan.
“The incidents of rape of women … (have) actually very rapidly increased in society,” he said.
Khan cited the Islamic concept of purdah, which means using veils and screens to obscure women from men.
“This entire concept of purdah is to avoid temptation; not everyone has the willpower to avoid it,” he said.
Khan said his government would be bringing in new laws to protect women from sexual assault – but added it was up to society to preserve women’s modesty.
The Prime Minister said a rise in rape indicated the “consequences in any society where vulgarity is on the rise”.
The comments sparked furious outrage, with women’s rights campaigners and activists in the country accusing the Prime Minister of “baffling ignorance”.
And, while I'm bringing up misogyny in the Muslim community, I do also want to emphasize that similar attitudes may be found in Christian and Jewish communities as well, especially when we're dealing with more traditionalist religious sorts. There can be very real harm in these kinds of attitudes proliferating so, while I agree with you to some extent, I wouldn't call these cultural expressions innocuous when they have a good amount of this type of implicit or explicit misogyny behind them.