Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Wearing the veil supports the false statement that men are dangerous and women have to become invisible to be safe in their company. Isn't that essentially supporting the misogynist notion that women are se.x objects and must make themselves invisible in order for men to behave themselves and women to protect their honour and virtue?

I'm thinking back to my time in Dubai and travelling across the Emirates, and I don't recall meeting any veiled women in office or work settings. Most women were wearing an abaya and hijab. Does that mean that veiled women choose not to work or are not being hired for jobs in mixed gender settings or settings involved with interfacing with the public?

Shaf, are you saying that your sister-in-law would wear a veil and work on projects with male co-workers without any problems? What happens if she spends time talking with a male co-worker and he's really nice, and she can see he is attractive because he isn't wearing the niqab. What if over the course of their work projects they fall in love? It has happened to many co-workers before. Do you really think her wearing a niqab would stop that from happening? Her co-worker can desire her based on her personality and even admire her beautiful eyes. Once again, one's conduct is important, not what one is wearing.

Are Muslim women who live in the West unfit to speak about Muslim women elsewhere, lest those women be made to look like victims that need rescuing by the West? I certainly think that marrying women off to their rapists, marrying young girls off as soon as they hit puberty, arresting protesting women and forcibly checking that their hymens are intact, and jailing women who want to drive their own car, are all worthy causes that any woman, Muslim or not, should speak up about. I think that any society that does those things to their women must view women in a negative light to restrict their freedoms and mistreat them so badly, all in the name of honour.

tnc123, you are right, there are misogynistic men in many other countries who speak in horrible ways about women, and mistreat the women in their lives. Women (and men!) have made a lot of progress against that though, thanks to feminism (yes, there are male feminists too). I am glad that I live in this day in age and not in the centuries past. As a Western woman I have many rights and freedoms that I appreciate greatly and I would never let anyone take those rights away in my society again.

kanelli wrote:Wearing the veil supports the false statement that men are dangerous and women have to become invisible to be safe in their company.

Not sure about the intentions of the most, personally I know few women wear veil and almost all of them are converts. That is not the reason they gave for wearing a veil. The most common reasons they gave were that they want people to see them by what they do and not by their appearance. Second they said it makes them empowered, I don't want to put it this way but it goes along the lines of ninja, they control what other people see. I wouldn't call it supporting the notion of misogynist, I'm not a fan of veil, but if they feel good about it I don't see anything wrong with it. I said before if you want to understand their reason better talk to a woman who choose to wear veil voluntarily.

kanelli wrote:I'm thinking back to my time in Dubai and travelling across the Emirates, and I don't recall meeting any veiled women in office or work settings. Most women were wearing an abaya and hijab. Does that mean that veiled women choose not to work or are not being hired for jobs in mixed gender settings or settings involved with interfacing with the public?

There is no dicrimination against veil in UAE, but very few women wear veil, if I remember correctly less than 1% wear veil. And it is one of their argument since they are such a small number, it is making mountain out of mole hill and still want to do away their right. Which direction hate is?

Nucleus wrote:I said before if you want to understand their reason better talk to a woman who choose to wear veil voluntarily.

I think that is the best course of action if one really wants to understand and not push their own agenda forward and because no matter what we say it won't matter because it is comming from a man and a muslim man on top and somehow that immediately invalidates all arguments in this regards.

This is about hijab though http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

kanelli wrote:Wearing the veil supports the false statement that men are dangerous and women have to become invisible to be safe in their company. Isn't that essentially supporting the misogynist notion that women are se.x objects and must make themselves invisible in order for men to behave themselves and women to protect their honour and virtue?

Kanelli - I hope by now that you realise that this view of the veil is an opinion and isn't shared by the examples, explanations, articles and videos etc cited.

In a way it is symptomatic that the focus seems to be on s.ex and s.exualisation. At the end of the day you are talking about a piece of cloth that a woman has chosen to put infront of her nose and mouth when out in public.



Are these school girls invisible, or wearing the mask out of fear of germs?

Shaf, are you saying that your sister-in-law would wear a veil and work on projects with male co-workers without any problems?

She does. She has been on many television shows and is in contact with men all the time in the course of her daily life and also for some aspects of her work - she is no shrinking violet (by the Grace of God, none of the women in my family and extended family are - certainly not my 3 daughters!). And indeed, her interactions breaks down a lot of prejudices and assumptions people make about women choosing to wear the veil - especially the notion that this is a restriction on freedom of women, rather than the liberating influence she insists it is.



As per the CNN interview - I understand why you're against the veil. I understand you view it as symptomatic of misogynism and indeed created by misogynists. However, I don't agree that this is actually the case and that you're conflating symptoms with causes, based on faulty assumptions. Where misogyny exists and women are abused, be it the one in five who suffer violence in Europe or the vast numbers in Eastern countries, we should tackle the underlying causes and not criminalise women who choose to put piece of cloth in front of their nose and mouth. Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote: we should tackle the underlying causes and not criminalise women who choose to put piece of cloth in front of their nose and mouth. Just my opinion.

Well said! But I fear more bigger things from articles like in the OP, they can used to make justification for further wars in the region which will make situation worse for the women and rollback any progress made so far. This is a real eye opener: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... stan-india

Nucleus wrote:This is about hijab though http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

Great piece. And whilst is it about the hijab, the sentiments also apply to the veil.

This part I thought was relevant here:

I do not believe that the hair in itself is that important; this is not about protection from men's lusts. It is me telling the world that my femininity is not available for public consumption. I am taking control of it, and I don't want to be part of a system that reduces and demeans women. Behind this exterior I am a person – and it is this person for which I want to be known.

Wearing the hijab has given me a new consciousness of this. Though my mode of expression may appear Islamic, and my experiences carry a spiritual dimension, there is no theological monopoly on women's empowerment; I really believe that a non-Muslim woman could do this if she chose to. My motivations have been explicitly political, and my experiences human.

Cheers,

Shafique

I suppose you can wear a bumble bee suit and come up with whatever rationale how liberating it is to wear one; but in the end of the day, you're in a bumble bee suit.

I do not believe that the hair in itself is that important

So this lady needs to dehumanize herself to feel liberated.

Well, the person who found this argument compelling isn't exactly the greatest thinker around.

And here's a response to the silly article quoted above:

Religious modesty also objectifies women by erasing them. The hijab feels liberating to Takolia because it enables her to forgo the effort it takes to maintain artificial beauty. That does not at all mean she isn’t participating in the system. She’s just reinforcing it. She has decided that, since she is tired of conforming to artificial beauty standards, she’s just going to hide. What she’s doing is apologizing for her body, for its failure to live up to an ideal of attractiveness.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixand ... -part-two/

eh ^^ you can tell that to nuns

desertdudeshj wrote:I think that is the best course of action if one really wants to understand and not push their own agenda forward and because no matter what we say it won't matter because it is comming from a man and a muslim man on top and somehow that immediately invalidates all arguments in this regards.

I have heard from veiled women about why they choose to wear a veil and every one of their reasons can be logically challenged. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have challenged their reasons. As Nucleus pointed out, the majority of Muslim women do not wear the veil. The fact that converts seem to be doing it is an interesting piece of information.

Funny that you complain that arguments from a male Muslim are invalidated when you tried to invalidate comments from a white non-Muslim feminist. Neither one of us has covered in a black sheet and walked around and experienced what it supposedly should do for us. If I have "an agenda" to support a ban on the niqab/burka/veil, what is your agenda for supporting women wearing the veil? If you are in support of women's choice, how about supporting women in the Middle East choosing to wear tank tops and shorts in public?

kanelli wrote:I have heard from veiled women about why they choose to wear a veil and every one of their reasons can be logically challenged.

And that is where you went horribly wrong. Its about a womens choice, not appealing to your logic.

" wrote:I do not believe that the hair in itself is that important; this is not about protection from men's lusts. It is me telling the world that my femininity is not available for public consumption. I am taking control of it, and I don't want to be part of a system that reduces and demeans women. Behind this exterior I am a person – and it is this person for which I want to be known.

Wearing the hijab has given me a new consciousness of this. Though my mode of expression may appear Islamic, and my experiences carry a spiritual dimension, there is no theological monopoly on women's empowerment; I really believe that a non-Muslim woman could do this if she chose to. My motivations have been explicitly political, and my experiences human.

We aren't talking about the hijab here. Covering one's hair is not the same thing as being draped in a black sheet with only eyes peeking out.

--- Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:53 pm ---

desertdudeshj wrote:And that is where you went horribly wrong. Its about a womens choice, not appealing to your logic.

You support women's choice to wear tank tops and shorts in public in the Middle East? I wonder why so many people in Dubai are upset at what the expats and tourists wear, because they are exercising their right to wear what they choose and what is culturally and religiously appropriate in their home country.

--- Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:03 pm ---

Nucleus wrote:But I fear more bigger things from articles like in the OP, they can used to make justification for further wars in the region which will make situation worse for the women and rollback any progress made so far.

Come on, do you really think the West is going to invade countries because of women's rights? If there isn't any oil or some other economic benefit, they aren't interested. There are plenty of examples around the world of how foreign governments just sat and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and genocide.

Ultimately, it isn't up to any foreign feminists to make changes. By the looks of things, the Middle Eastern women are rising up to make changes on their own. I hope those societies will be ready for the big changes coming, and that they won't lash out and abuse women into submission out of fear, as we saw happening in Egypt with the se.xual assault of female protesters and female foreigners who were witnessing events in Tahrir Square.

A whole lot of fuss over a small piece of cloth.



Is there anything new to say on the subject (on either side?)

Cheers,

Shafique

kanelli wrote:how about supporting women in the Middle East choosing to wear tank tops and shorts in public?

I'm fine with it to a certain level. But if something is borderline naked, I don't want to see other peoples private stuff/under-garments it is just gross. By the way, there is difference between walking naked and somebody walking like an eskimo. And there won't be problem unless it is a muslim walking like eskimo, this is just an analogy, but beards and hijab have been tried to be banned before.

--- Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:00 pm ---

kanelli wrote:Come on, do you really think the West is going to invade countries because of women's rights?

It wouldn't be new.

Recommended reading:
http://www.southendpress.org/2005/items/Conquest

dubai-politics-talk/malalai-joya-inconvenient-truth-t51993.html

I would never advocate banning beards and hijab.

Shaf, I certainly hope you don't think that Asian women wear face masks to be religiously pious and protect themselves from all the men in society who are lustful beasts and can't control themselves otherwise.

Those Asian women wouldn't be wearing medical masks if there wasn't so much pollution on the streets. They are wearing them temporarily to protect their health. In Western countries people aren't walking around wearing medical masks all of the time. If there was a virus outbreak or massive pollution it might change the view of people covering their faces in public. When my son was sick and we had to spend the night in the hospital it was during the H1N1 outbreak and all docs and nurses were wearing masks. It was irritating trying to discuss with everyone without seeing their faces properly. I would never recognize any of them besides one who had coloured eyeglasses.

Nucleus, if you want to think the Middle East is at risk of being invaded by Western military forces because women like Mona Eltahawy speak up about women being arrested and having they hymens checked because they were out protesting in Tahrir Square, or women are married off to their violent rapists, or women are jailed for driving their own car, go ahead. You are entitled to your own opinion. Personally, I think it is an exaggeration to try to make women who speak out appear dangerous.

--- Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:33 am ---

shafique wrote:A whole lot of fuss over a small piece of cloth.

A small piece of cloth that no Muslim man would ever dream of wearing...

kanelli wrote:Shaf, I certainly hope you don't think that Asian women wear face masks to be religiously pious and protect themselves from all the men in society who are lustful beasts and can't control themselves otherwise.

I'm simply making the (obvious) point that covering your nose and mouth in public does not make you either invisible or oppressed.

It would be amusing to argue that we should criminalise Asian women who choose to cover their mouth and nose in public because we perceive that their arguments for covering are illogical, and that we don't believe they are actually doing it for valid medical reasons.

To extend the analogy - if some people decided to wear medical masks all the time they are in public, even when there is no real need - just out of precaution from catching other people's germs - would we criminalise this action? I'd say - no, let them choose to wear medical masks in public if they want to, and just have to show their face when needed for security purposes (Like the lady in the video does in the US). No harm, no foul.

Cheers

Shafique

kanelli wrote:Nucleus, if you want to think the Middle East is at risk of being invaded by Western military forces because women like Mona Eltahawy

But in history it has been used to drum up support for invasion from native amerians to afghanistian, so it will definitatly cause fear and caution.

kanelli wrote: Mona Eltahawy speak up about women being arrested and having they hymens checked because they were out protesting in Tahrir Square, or women are married off to their violent rapists, or women are jailed for driving their own car, go ahead. You are entitled to your own opinion. Personally, I think it is an exaggeration to try to make women who speak out appear dangerous.

Not true, because Mona is not the only one and she is not even the first one. So many other feminist activists in the region coming out against her and saying she is not their voice for a reason, which have been mentioned during this topic, don't have to repeat again.

Tawakkul Karman, Maryam al-Khawaja, Gigi Ibrahim, and Malalai Joya to name few are female activist who have large regional support behind them as opposed to Mona. I guess these are not women in your eyes and they are not speaking out and fighting against things you mentioned

I've other things to do, this my last reply on this topic.

kanelli wrote:I would never advocate banning beards and hijab.

I just thought I'd comment on this point of agreement.

I too would join you in opposing a ban on the hijab (and beards). We'd both have to acknowledge that others do view the hijab with distrust and some do believe in the notion that it is a sign of oppression and makes the women who choose to wear the hijab invisible.

If you look at eh's negative comment ('bumblebee suit' and that it 'dehumanizes' her) and the negative comments to the Guardian piece by the Hijab wearing lady (which was accompanied by her photo) - we see that those objecting to the piece are using the same arguments you have used for your opposition to the veil - indeed some are almost word for word what you have said here about s.exualisation, invisibility etc.

So, we would both have to acknowledge that others oppose the hijab and yet we'd both say it would be wrong to criminalise women who chose to wear the hijab in public.

Food for thought?

Cheers,
Shafique

Nucleus, I never said that Mona was the only woman or first woman to speak out. I support all women who are pushing for positive change, even if they disagree with each other. Feminists often do disagree, because there are many different feminist ideologies and different priorities and paces for change.

Shaf, the reason women give for wearing the hijab regarding women's se.xualization is also false in my mind, but covering one's hair is mentioned in the Quran, and a woman's face is still visible - the face that shows people who she is and facilitates human communication. In many parts of the world I have visited and lived in, people don't bat an eyelash at the hijab as compared to the niqab. Even the majority of Muslim women don't wear the niqab, so that gives a pretty good indication of the perceived difference between the two.

Though I say I support a ban, I don't actively seek it. Women who wear the niqab/burka/veil will have to live with the bias and restrictions to their lives that wearing those coverings entail in countries where it is not the norm. Sort of the same way that women who decide to walk in the Dubai malls wearing a skimpy clothes have to deal with the bias and restrictions.

kanelli wrote:In many parts of the world I have visited and lived in, people don't bat an eyelash at the hijab as compared to the niqab

Agreed.

However, I was pointing out that eh's negative comments and the ones on the website - were citing exactly the same arguments you have given for opposing the face veil.

Personally, I don't see what the big difference is between wearing a hijab and then adding the small piece of cloth to cover the nose and mouth.

Cheers,

Shafique

Face veil is not the issue here, and OP is not mainly about face veil. That was the one example (forcing through policing like Iran govt) why so many faminist in the region are opposing her, and this is not even the top reasons.

One for example:

While Muslim women’s discourse has become compromised by politicians who seek to “rescue” Muslim women from Muslim men, it is possible to skilfully highlight the systemic violence and abuse of Muslim women without sensationally fanning the likes of Samuel Huntington. I find it deeply insidious that Mona repeatedly associates the Arab man with the dark ages – the same Arab man that George Bush, Tony Blair and now David Cameron seek to rescue us from. I am fully aware of where I have repeatedly heard this precise conflation – and it reeks of the odious “clash of civilisations” hypothesis. Is it possible that Mona entirely subscribes to the Western definition of who and what she is, or is she involved in a stealthy political game? From here, it is really difficult to tell but the end result of her article, which was to fragment global feminism, is deeply troubling and most unforgivable; irresponsible at best. -- AYESHA KAZMI

http://americanpaki.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/oh-mona/

You are right, the veil isn't the focus of the original article. Why don't we talk about what behaviour is from the dark ages then? I think that se.xually harassing women on the street who are not wearing Islamic clothing is pretty dark ages, as is arresting female protesters and checking that their hymens are intact as a way to shame and control them from coming out to publicly protest. It is pretty dark ages when girls are married off just because they have hit puberty. When girls are married off to their violent rapists it is pretty dark ages. When women are jailed because they are raped (infidelity!), or because they want to drive their own car, that is pretty dark ages. Killing daughters and sisters because they have "dishonoured" the family by refusing an arranged marriage, wanting a divorce, or having a boyfriend (or suspected boyfriend) is also dark ages.

Nucleus, there is a reason why Middle Eastern families who move to the West have problems with their children, especially girls, in the new culture. Once they have tasted the freedoms that women in the West have, they rarely want to accept anything less. I don't think that women are bad Muslims or bad members of their culture by shrugging off archaic cultural/religious ideas and behaviour that infringes upon their human rights and are not equally applied to men.

kanelli wrote:Why don't we talk about what behaviour is from the dark ages then? I think that se.xually harassing women on the street who are not wearing Islamic clothing is pretty dark ages, as is arresting female protesters and checking that their hymens are intact as a way to shame and control them from coming out to publicly protest. It is pretty dark ages when girls are married off just because they have hit puberty. When girls are married off to their violent rapists it is pretty dark ages. When women are jailed because they are raped (infidelity!), or because they want to drive their own car, that is pretty dark ages. Killing daughters and sisters because they have "dishonoured" the family by refusing an arranged marriage, wanting a divorce, or having a boyfriend (or suspected boyfriend) is also dark ages.

That is appalling and I'm completely against that, and people are working against that. But middle east is not the worst place on earth for women, Afghanistan and Congo are top two of the worst places for women in the world, and I've yet to see anything about it from you. Here is from Guardian (warning graphic):

High maternal mortality rates, limited access to doctors and a "near total lack of economic rights" render Afghanistan such a threat to its female inhabitants. "Continuing conflict, Nato airstrikes and cultural practices combine to make Afghanistan a very dangerous place for women," said Antonella Notari, head of Women Change Makers, a group that supports women social entrepreneurs around the world.... The "staggering levels of sexual violence" in the lawless east of the DRC [Congo] account for its second place in the list.... The UN has called Congo the rape capital of the world. "Rights activists say militia groups and soldiers target all ages, including girls as young as three and elderly women," the survey reports, "They are gang raped, raped with bayonets and some have guns shot into their vaginas."

....

In terms of individual risk categories, Afghanistan was deemed to be the most dangerous for health, economic/discrimination and non-sexual violence; the Congo is most plagued by rape and sexual violence; and India has most problems with trafficking.

"You have to look at all the dangers to women, all the risks women and girls face," said Elisabeth Roesch, who works on gender-based violence for the International Rescue Committee in Washington.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... stan-india

--- Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:19 pm ---

kanelli wrote:Nucleus, there is a reason why Middle Eastern families who move to the West have problems with their children, especially girls, in the new culture. Once they have tasted the freedoms that women in the West have, they rarely want to accept anything less.

From personally people I know that is more of a case with boys than girls. Girls usually are more religious or over the years have become more religious, happening with the boys too but at lesser rate. Doesn't mean there are few, but the above is not the usual trend to my experience.

I'm glad that we seem to be moving beyond just the veil now.

As I said before:

shafique wrote: Where misogyny exists and women are abused, be it the one in five who suffer violence in Europe or the vast numbers in Eastern countries, we should tackle the underlying causes and not criminalise women who choose to put piece of cloth in front of their nose and mouth. Just my opinion.

In some places religion is being misused, in others religion plays no part. The veil is not the issue - where women don't have a choice or are being told by men to wear (or in this case to not wear) the veil is the underlying issue I'd say.

Cheers,
Shafique

Nucleus, the article I posted didn't cover those countries, and I have never stated this is only happening in the Middle East. It was a focused topic based on that article I had come across. I'll start a new thread with the other country articles if you like. There are examples of how girls and women in India and Africa are married off to settle disputes and are constantly beaten, raped, and mentally abused by their husband's family in punishment. In North America there polygamist groups who marry off their girls to men who are essentially pedophiles and se.xual deviants. Having multiple wives is just a way for the older men to constantly have se.xual access to girls and young women, and of course it is couched in religion to make it "holy". Then there are the issues of se.xual trafficking etc.

The big question is why women are hated so much in their societies that these things can be done to them?

This isn't to say that in some countries young males aren't also affected - like child sacrifice in Uganda, selling male children into slave labour, and arranged marriages where the men also can't choose their spouse because it is forced on them to create family alliances.

In my mind, poverty can account for only so much, and it amazes me when spiritual beliefs are called into play in such abuses.

When does TED start?

Personally, I didn't find this to be a very satisfying discussion. We could have talked about the possible reasons why women are facing the abuses they are in those societies and what needs to change to stop the injustices that are happening to them, but I think it is too uncomfortable a subject for some here.