Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

What a speech! I thought Michelle Obama's words, emotions, presence, intelligence, and strength were very inspiring. For societies that don't allow women to participate in politics or vote, and who relegate their women to the domestic sphere only... this is what you are missing.



I do have criticisms of some of the things she says though. For example, "The American Dream" is a sham. When you have many families with parents who must work two or three jobs each in order to make ends meet and they still can't get ahead, there is something wrong in your society. It isn't for lack of trying on their part - they are just unlucky enough to live in a capitalist country where wealthy people like to keep the money in their strata of the population only. No one wants to spend their money to raise the standard of living for their society as a whole, they figure everyone should pay for themselves. US culture is about credit cards, and buying bigger and better, and trying to be bigger and better than others. Private health care and private education ensure a high standard of living for the rich, and the poor have to make do with a bare minimum of public health and education services that get debated every term by the politicians who are backed by the wealthy or who come from a long line of wealth themselves. Young people nowadays want instant gratification, which is supported by the media and consumerist culture. They don't share the same values as Michelle and Barack Obama's parents' generation and those before. From Michelle Obama's speech it is clear that the way forward is a more socialist agenda where an increase in public money is generated and spent widely across the population as a whole. Making life better for everyone means better sharing the countries resources and wealth. While these words sound great, will the wealthy get on board?

Bravo to the first lady for her poise and eloquence. I do hope she does inspire girls and women around the world..

I do agree with you on the 'American Dream' part - the stats showing that the 'ordinary joe' in the US has actually had a declining income in real terms over recent decades supports your view. The income gap has increased in the US and it is really only an 'American Dream' for the minority. However, I forgive her the rhetoric in a political speech in support of her husband.

(BTW - you do realise that those who support women who choose to mix in wider society and cover their hair, or even cover their noses and mouth, are all supporting women NOT being "relegated to the domestic sphere" - but it is interesting to note that this Harvard educated lawyer is playing the domestic goddess role quite well, and doing so by choice. )

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:For societies that don't allow women to participate in politics or vote, and who relegate their women to the domestic sphere only... this is what you are missing.

Not missing much then
Just kidding Kanelli.
Women rule everywhere.
The X chromosome is the more resilient gene; the Y chromosome is about to go extinct.
In another few million years, there maybe no males left
So dont grudge us our few days in the sun!

^A few million years!.. I call that it an extreme 'jam tomorrow' scenario..

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:(BTW - you do realise that those who support women who choose to mix in wider society and cover their hair, or even cover their noses and mouth, are all supporting women NOT being "relegated to the domestic sphere" - but it is interesting to note that this Harvard educated lawyer is playing the domestic goddess role quite well, and doing so by choice. )

Feminism is about equality between men and women, and if a woman has to cover all of her skin and even her face in order to feel that she can mix with men, then that isn't supporting equality. Its simple. If the men don't need to shroud in cloth to mix with women, the women don't need to shroud in cloth to mix with men. There is no need to overthink it or make false excuses as to why a woman is morally superior or safer for doing so.

(And by the way, Michelle Obama has shown more skin than any other other First Lady before, yet she still looks classy and is treated with respect by everyone, as she should be.)

Michelle Obama is "playing the domestic goddess role quite well"? I don't understand this comment Shaf. What choice has she made? Just like most North American women, she works outside the home as well as looks after her own domestic life.

--- Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:08 pm ---

Frequentflier wrote:Women rule everywhere.

Partnership is better

kanelli wrote:Feminism is about equality between men and women

I personally am ok with female only toilets and female only boxing, tennis etc matches - and am also happy for men and women to have different dress codes (be it in schools, work or places of worship). I always have a wry smile at the 'equality' comment - as if recognising some differences between the sexes is equal to being anti-feminist!

However, the point I was simply making was that women choosing to cover up in public are women that ARE NOT being constrained to the home. Therefore people supporting a woman's right to choose what to wear in public can't be accused of demanding women stay in doors.

The domestic goddess bit is a reference to the first lady making the choice to put her family first, not practice law, tend to the 'first garden' and championing causes such as tackling childhood obesity. 'Domestic goddesses' would be women who also do activities outside the home - volunteering, good causes etc. I was contrasting that with her earlier career as a lawyer.

I have no issue with women choosing either roles - and I think Obama does her current role extremely well, and I'm sure she was a great lawyer and balanced her work and home life well when she was working full time. Women should be free to choose - and economics should ideally be such that if a parent chooses to stay at home and raise the kids, they should be in a position to make that choice. For many families, the economics means both need to work - and there isn't that choice. (That's a slightly different topic though)

Cheers,

Shafique

EMZ wrote: What wife wants to see her husband lose his job

Some wives aren't as enlightened as Michelle Obama is.

You seem to be saying a wife should know her place.

If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I've just said that Obama is performing her chosen role well and I have no issue at all with her choosing to do this. If you think it is naive to take this view, or to say women in general should be free to choose whether to work full time or devote time to being 'stay at home' moms who also do charity etc work.. you'll have to explain yourself better.

Cheers,
Shafique

PS - Rather than using Yahia Idris' photo for your avatar: http://www.facebook.com/yahia.idris.9
..may I suggest this one instead:
http://memecreator.net/grandma-finds-th ... orking.jpg

shafique wrote:I personally am ok with female only toilets and female only boxing, tennis etc matches - and am also happy for men and women to have different dress codes (be it in schools, work or places of worship). I always have a wry smile at the 'equality' comment - as if recognising some differences between the sexes is equal to being anti-feminist!

However, the point I was simply making was that women choosing to cover up in public are women that ARE NOT being constrained to the home. Therefore people supporting a woman's right to choose what to wear in public can't be accused of demanding women stay in doors.

The domestic goddess bit is a reference to the first lady making the choice to put her family first, not practice law, tend to the 'first garden' and championing causes such as tackling childhood obesity. 'Domestic goddesses' would be women who also do activities outside the home - volunteering, good causes etc. I was contrasting that with her earlier career as a lawyer.

I have no issue with women choosing either roles - and I think Obama does her current role extremely well, and I'm sure she was a great lawyer and balanced her work and home life well when she was working full time. Women should be free to choose - and economics should ideally be such that if a parent chooses to stay at home and raise the kids, they should be in a position to make that choice. For many families, the economics means both need to work - and there isn't that choice. (That's a slightly different topic though)

Equality doesn't mean sharing toilets. (Though at my university I lived in a co-ed hall and we did share bathrooms. It wasn't a problem at all.) Equality means having the same toilets as men. Imagine if there were toilets available everwhere for men, but women were told they were "special" and "biologically different" and could only use the toilet in their own home, therefore no women's toilets available in public. This is the kind of bullcrap that is fed to women on various issues, and making women feel that they need to shroud in cloth while the men run around in t-shirts and shorts is a perfect example of that. Don't get me wrong, there are biological differences, but those should not be exploited to put women at a disadvantage for things they shouldn't be. As for sport... It makes sense that men compete with men (even broken down by size and weight class if it is crucial in the sport), and women should compete with women - that is more fair for strength and ability according to each s.ex. However, what is important is that women can play sports and the media covers their sports too, even if women aren't faster and stronger than the male athletes.

At least in the West, women choosing to wear the veil are primarily home-makers - they are not out in the workforce and working side-by-side with male co-workers and the public while wearing their veils. From the years I lived in Dubai it seems to confirm the same there, because I never met any veiled women working in any of the offices I visited, either private or public. I'll leave you to gather what you may about the ideologies of such women (or their husbands and fathers), and the impact that has on their ability to work outside the home.

Michelle Obama has a job as First Lady, which includes political and charitable activism, project work etc. She's constantly busy outside of the home. She's like every other woman out ther who balances a job with her home life. Just because she isn't working as a laywer right now (that any of us know of), doesn't mean she doesn't have a full-time job as First Lady. By supporting her husband to become President she knew the tasks and potential influence she can have working in the role of First Lady, and it is smart of her to take on those tasks and projects, because she can achieve more and influence more change in that role than as a lawyer. I doubt that Michelle Obama would accept the title of "Domestic Godess".

I'm all for women choosing to stay home with the kids or choosing to work and balance both work and home life. That's what feminism is about. You are right that some families have no choice but to have two working parents, and I think that society should make policies that are more accommodating to that. (Good maternity and paternity leave, daycare, job protection, equal salary etc.)

kanelli wrote:Equality means having the same toilets as men

Do women really want urinals too?

kanelli wrote:
As for sport... It makes sense that men compete with men

Ahh, so equality does not extend to sport - as long as the women can compete in sport against other women. I agree completely.

kanelli wrote:At least in the West, women choosing to wear the veil are primarily home-makers

I have no way of confirming what proportion of the women you see in public are 'home-makers' or working women - whether they choose to wear veils or not. The point is that whether they are working or are home-makers, they are in public when they are wearing veils and therefore aren't being confined to the home. Those women who are working and wearing the veil, certainly aren't being confined.

I don't see the term 'Domestic Goddess' as demeaning or derogatory - and your description of what Obama is doing fits in with my understanding and usage of the term.

A woman choosing to wear a piece of cloth in public can just as easily balance work and homelife as a person who doesn't choose to wear a veil. I don't accept therefore the argument that a veil is an impediment to the aspect of feminism you've highlighted in your post - playing an active part in society, whether as a 'home-maker' or as a worker isn't impeded by a veil as far as I can see.

Cheers,

Shafique

Shaf, you are getty petty with your points and I think you know that. It shouldn't be beyond your intellectual capacity to understand that women don't need urinals and it is irrelevant to the point that equality means that both men and women have bathroom facilities - no matter what appartus for disposing of the waste are included in those facilities. What's next, are you going to point out that it isn't equality if the paint colours are different in the bathrooms?

Equality in sport means that women can play sports and have leagues just like men do. I'm sure you can grasp that concept.

Shaf, if veiled women are working alongside men and interfacing in public jobs, why haven't I seen any? I'm sure there are some veiled women who work in female-only settings, or perhaps work from home. The only veiled women I see are in the shopping mall, or walking along the street next to shops. I've never dealt with a veiled woman in a working capacity. Why don't veiled women tend to work outside the home? It is an interesting question isn't it. Since you are British, I'm sure you understand that veiling oneself is an impediment to finding work in many job roles in the West. You must realize that women who choose to veil are putting themselves at a financial and social disadvantage in the West.

The burka, niqab, veil are all completely anti-feminist forms of dress - the ideas of which came from men in order to control their women, and ideas which are still propagated today even by women who subscribe to the notion that a woman can only reach the pinnacle of piety and morality if she shrouds herself completely in cloth. It all goes back to placing a huge emphasis on a woman's se.xual honour, which some societies seem quite obsessed with. It is complete nonsense.

kanelli wrote:What a speech! I thought Michelle Obama's words, emotions, presence, intelligence, and strength were very inspiring. For societies that don't allow women to participate in politics or vote, and who relegate their women to the domestic sphere only... this is what you are missing

What I find irrating, for an educated woman who is a lawyer, is her frequent use of the words "you know". Any interview she gives, and in her speech, many of her sentences start with "You know" and continue to be used when she speaks.

The hypocrasy is how the Obama family has spent over $10 million dollars of taxpayers money in the past four years, entertaining personal friends, shopping, flying all over taking vacations all over the world. Obama has to date played golf 104 times - a record for a first term president. He has made over 214 (I believe) appearances at fund raisers, mostly with Hollywood stars. Michelle doesn't hold a candle to Jackie Kennedy, Roslyn Carter, Eleanor Roosevelt. Those were great first ladies.

Michelle is so confident about herself and so full of trust for Barack that she has a personal ban list of women who she will not allow into the WH. Actress Kerry Washington (beautiful woman) was the most recent and must be seen as a "threat" to Michelle. Apparently Michelle thought Kerry was "flirting" with Obama. Does Obama have a roaming eye? I don't think a wife praising her husband and how wonderful her children are are enough reason to cast a vote, but there are many who probably factor that in when voting.

Did you catch Ann Romney's speech? She's another piece of work. She spoke at the RNC how she relates to the average women who have no choice and have to work and raise children. She did laundry, drove the kids to school, was up at night with them when they were sick, blah,blah,blah. That's what mothers do!!! She has never worked a day in her life so it's inconceivable that she would know what it is like to raise and family and work at the same time. It's inconceivable that she can even relate to any woman who works. The difference is that the women she was relating to aren't worth around $250 million dollars with another million in a trust fund.

She had the audacity to say in an interview that she didn't think she was "rich". What is rich to her - having more than $1 billion in wealth. Of course everyone has a lift in their McMansion to take them down to the garage. She went on to tell about how she and Mitt lived in a basement apartment while attending college (tuition fully paid with no loans) and they had to cash in stock to survive. Does she think that is how the average American gets through college? I'm sure it wasn't a basement apartment below street level but more of a walk in.

Two books of interest: The President's Club. This was a fraternity of sorts created by Truman for former presidents and the current president, who can seek advice from living presidents. Obama didn't get along well with the former presidents, in particular Bill Clinton. Either it had to do with his arrogance thinking that for someone who never did anything in his life knew how to be president, run a country and fix the problems, or maybe his socialist views were not in line with the surviving presidents.

I have to say that Bill Clinton gave the performance of his life at the DNC. That bugger sure can tell a great lie and is even a better actor!!! Many are hoping that he can sway Hillary to run in 2016. She's leaving the Obama administration if he gets re-elected.

Second book: Price of Politics by Bob Woodward (release date 9/11). If you recall Woodward was one of two reporters that revealed the scandal known as Watergate which caused Nixon to resign before he was impeached. Woodward is a highly respected investigative journalist and the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. His book discusses Obama's arrogance and how he alienated the Republican party. If Obama gets 4 more years he's going to have to humble himself if he wants to get anything done. As it stands, if he doesn't get elected he will probably go down in history at the top of the list of being one of the worst US Presidents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... itics.html

If I was American, I'd vote Obama over Romney any day. It is a shame voting is always polarized between the same 2 parties all of the time.

kanelli ,

That's what many are saying. The devil you know, the devil you kinda know. Then you have those that if you don't want to vote for Obama, they vote for Romney and see it as a vote against Obama,, and vice versa. Then if you don't vote at all, or you write in another candidate (Ron Paul) it's a vote for the winner. Romney is a war monger and Americans are sick of wars and are pretty sure that he will go after Iran.

The irony is that with all the bashing Obama did about Romney being a crook and Bain & Company, Obama recently hired two former Bain & Co employees. I think he now has 3 former Bain employees on staff. Would those be the three honest former Bain employees???

I've resigned myself to the fact that all politicians are crooked. There is too much outside influence pressuring them, and too much manipulation - to achieve one goal you have to concede others or play favours.

kanelli ,

Add to the problem, at least with the Obama and Romney, they are running on personal agendas. Obama definitely is with his socialist views. He was raised on Marxism and his mentors were Marxists. Well, socialism was his view when he was poor. Now that he's living the life he detested and is worth $12 million, I wonder if his views have changed.

He has a staff member, Valerie Jarrett, who has his ear and is his advisor. She's pretty much to Obama what Cheney was to Bush. Running the show from behind. From what I read she is quite disliked. I can't wait for a book to come out about her. Even Joe Biden has to go through her to get to Obama. She wields alot of power. Most of his administration is out of Chicago and based on cronyism. They truly do operate with a mafia attitude.

I'd probably want people I trust around me too - all royalty and poweful leaders tend to insulate themselves with those sharing their agenda and those who will protect them from some outside influences.

I'm a fan of socialism over capitalism, so that's probably why Obama is appealing to me. I've lived in two countries that are more socialist than the US and I've seen the good it does for the whole of society.

kanelli wrote:Shaf, if veiled women are working alongside men and interfacing in public jobs, why haven't I seen any?

Probably because there are relatively few women who wear the full veil - far more wear the hijab, but the same principle applies. The women who are wearing a veil are doing so in public (by definition).

Women are generally paid worse than men in the West - and yes, I fully agree that choosing to wear a veil is to make it harder for the lady who chooses to work to be accepted in the work place in the west - and probably are indeed putting themselves at a financial disadvantage. I still support their choice to veil if they want to - and would say that society should evolve.

kanelli wrote:The burka, niqab, veil are all completely anti-feminist forms of dress

In your opinion. I agree with the eloquent women quoted a few times before who explain that for them it isn't - and I also think that you focus too much on the se.xual honour etc aspect of the choice to wear a veil. In many cultures, and indeed historically, covering oneself up was just the cultural norm of modesty and good manners. 'Muffin tops' for example are just offensive (to me), and nothing to do with se.xuality - unless one has a particular fetish for muffins

Anyway - I feel we've covered all this before in other threads.. so let's agree to disagree on the veil - and get back to Obama. The points Bora and you are discussing make interesting reading..

Cheers,
Shafique

Society isn't evolving if they will accept the ridiculous notion that women are more pious or have better manners if they hide themselves under a sheet when the men aren't doing the same.

Society is certainly not evolving if they refuse to listen to women who say that is not the reason they choose to wear a veil, and insist they know better and discriminate against women making this choice.

Ok, now moving on...

Cheers,

Shafique

Societies that have made huge strides to create more equality between men and women will certainly discriminate against a form of dress that says the following;



All men viewing me are potentially dangerous to my personal safety and to my honour.

My honour is based on how I am viewed se.xually.

I am a se.xual object that must be hidden from male view to protect my honour and safety.

By wearing the veil I am showing respect to my husband/father by protecting my honour.

Even though the Quran doesn't require it, I have been told by the Imam that I can become closer to god by veiling myself.

Wearing the veil shows that I am the pinnacle of piety and morality in my religion.

As a new convert to Islam, I will prove my devotion by becoming more pious than even the hijabi Muslim-born women by taking up the veil.

I am taking a stand and opposing the superficiality and se.xual objectification happing in Westen society by veiling. (Men and non-Muslims are not allowed to make the same statement though, this is the "privilege" of being a Muslim female. )



Did I leave anything out?

Yes, you left out the reasons given by the women who choose to wear the veil. Why is that?

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/bey ... 32864.html

One of the women says they can speak for themselves:

Ismail believes it's not just patronising but chauvinistic for the debate on burkas to be conducted in the press and among politicians without involving the women who actually wear them. "We're not delicate little creatures," she scoffs. "We don't need to be saved. We need to be heard if they want to take this debate seriously and stop using it as a weapon to attack Islam."

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, please enlighten me as to the reasons if you didn't like my list. Edit: You've posted an article that I'll now deal with.

Shaista Gohir wrote:"Yes, Muslims are displaying their identity more overtly since 9/11 and 7/7 but they've also come under heavier political scrutiny. The veil has almost become a spiritual and physical shield."

So it is a political statement that says "I'm Muslim and proud!" Yet, the men don't wear the veil. The Quran still hasn't changed to require women to veil themselves.

What is a veiled woman physically shielding herself from? How does the veil provide anything more spiritual to a woman or man who doesn't wear a veil? The Quran doesn't say there is a higher level of contact with Allah for those who veil.

Gohair admits that "the niqab is a barrier to communication, community relations and integration". I'm glad she does, because its true.

Fatima Barktulla wrote:"I started with the hijab, but when I got married I wanted to wear the niqab It isn't a rejection of society, or an attempt to be different. It's not a political statement either."

"No woman I know who wears a niqab is doing it to make a huge point. It's a personal, spiritual conviction. And I know that the niqab is a virtuous option and it is not obligatory."

She isn't doing it to be political, but as the quote above shows, some women are using the veil to make a political statement. As for Fatima, what has changed spiritually for her since marrying? Note the comment about virtue. Is she wearing the veil because she wants to prove to her husband that she is loyal and virtuous and takes marriage seriously? What spiritual conviction can come when the Quran does not stipulate anything spiritual about a woman veiling? Of course she is making a statement about wearing a veil. People wear wedding rings on their fingers to make a statement. They are showing a sign of marriage and commitment to one another. It is worn by both men and women. The veil is not worn by men.

London Evening Standard wrote:El Hajbi finds it difficult to understand the feminist position that many veiled women maintain on account of the niqab making them feel empowered, but respects their choice. "A state ban would be totally counter-productive. The only real issue is where women or girls — such as at the school in Tower Hamlets — are forced to wear it."

The Madani School for Girls has so far refused to speak to the press about its policy — niqabs for pupils aged 11-18 are mandatory on the journey to and from school.

[/quote]

A very good point.

I didn't comment on wearing the hijab, because there is nothing wrong with the hijab. A woman can at least show her face in public and communicate and have more opportunities for work.

As you can see Shaf, my list does cover many of the reasons given by women and shows how absurd the reasons are. Ultimately it is down to choice (or I guess not for those school girls who must wear the niqab to and from school), but I'd hardly call it feminist to walk around under a sheet. The only thing I agree with is not using the niqab/burka debate as anti-Islam propaganda, but it certainly remains a feminist issue.

Ok - the two in the article choosing to wear the veil say it is a personal, voluntary choice (not an obligation under Islam) and they do it for personal reasons to feel closer to God - not because a man has told them this (Imam or not):

Fatima Barktulla, 31, a cheery pregnant mother of three boys who was born and grew up in Hackney, elaborates: "I started with the hijab, but when I got married I wanted to wear the niqab It isn't a rejection of society, or an attempt to be different. It's not a political statement either."

Does she feel it might be perceived as such? "No woman I know who wears a niqab is doing it to make a huge point. It's a personal, spiritual conviction. And I know that the niqab is a virtuous option and it is not obligatory."

Barktulla, an Arabic studies lecturer, says that taking up the veil simply allows her to feel closer to God. "It doesn't contradict my being British either," she insists. "I love this country — it's my home. Mine and my husband's parents come from India but it's alien to us.

Cheers,

Shafique

I'm just as virtous as a woman who walks around under a sheet. If I was Muslim I doubt that Allah would love me less or not let me close to him because I didn't wear the veil.

--- Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:40 pm ---

We are so off-topic

I'm sure neither of the women would try to force you to wear a headscarf or veil, they have just stated the reasons they have for wearing the veil - to feel closer to God.

Some posters here have made the point that erotic dancers can be moral and that they enjoy speaking with them. I don't doubt that pole dancers can choose to lead chaste and virtuous lives, and I conversely absolutely agree that women who choose to dress modestly can be unchaste and unvirtuous.

However, the point is that the women choosing to dress modestly or wear a veil are doing so out of choice and for personal reasons they have given. I support their right to make that choice.

(Agree, we're off topic... happy to stop here..)

Cheers,

Shafique

You say you support choice, but you support the propagation of false ideas attached to your religion. The point still stands that male Imams have given the false line that wearing the veil brings a WOMAN closer to god, the Quran itself says nothing about that. For this reason alone I think more Muslims should reject the veiling of Muslim women.

If some societies weren't so preoccupied with women's s.exual virtue and honour, there would be no such thing as veiling.

Shaf, imagine going out every day with your whole body obscured under a sheet and only your eyes peeking out. You can't feel the sun or the breeze. Imagine your wife next to you wearing shorts and a t-shirt, her lovely arms and legs on display. Some men give her a second look as they walk past. Imagine people looking right past you with expressionless faces like you don't exist. You smile behind your veil, but no one can see. You try make eye contact, but no one bothers because all they see is a sheet. You go to a job interview and are being interviewed by a female, you so you can't take your veil off. You answer questions, your voice dulled from under the fabric, no facial expressions visible beyond enthusiastic eyes, gloved hands gesticulating. Imagine working years in a job where none of the female co-workers that you have worked with on projects have ever seen what you look like besides your eyes. Imagine sitting down for many meetings with customers and clients and they will never see your face. Fine for you, but very awkward for them. At least no one will stare at you and think anything about how you look - ugly, handsome, se.xy or otherwise. That would make your wife happy, because she'd be jealous if anyone found you attractive. You know that wearing the veil shows Muslims and non-Muslims alike how devoutly Muslim you are. The Imam assures you if you hide yourself under the cloth you'll feel closer to god! If this sounds empowering to you, and sounds like it brings you closer to god, perhaps you should take up the veil as well?

kanelli wrote:You say you support choice,

I do.

Given that the women making the choices are clearly stating that they understand it is not an obligation under Islam, I can't agree with you that in supporting these women I'm propagating 'false ideas'.

I also disagree with your view of where veiling comes from. It rather originates in cultures where veiling is the norm because of the climatic conditions - men and women cover their faces in the desert because of the climate (for example) - in those societies it was the norm to be fully covered up when going out - as protection from the sun and sand. Similarly cultures that developed in humid, rainforest climates they wore less clothes and their concepts of modesty are different as a result.

As for imagining what it is like to cover up your nose and mouth with a piece of cloth, I applaud your imagination - but I again refer you to the testimony of the women who have chosen to do so. The voice isn't dulled in my experience, and eye contact can indeed be made.

What you describe is other people feeling awkward when faced with a woman who has chosen to wear a veil. So be it - I say - but feeling awkward is not a reason to criminalise those who choose to wear the veil.

If you listen to Nuc's post above - the first caller says the veil intimidates him and that the veil is a sign of the oppression of women etc. I'm sure you agree that the points made in response to his views are quite compelling.

But we still come back to a simple, fundamental point - I support the right of women to choose freely to wear the veil. I don't support the calls for them to be criminalised. For me the arguments to criminalise it don't make sense.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I also disagree with your view of where veiling comes from. It rather originates in cultures where veiling is the norm because of the climatic conditions - men and women cover their faces in the desert because of the climate (for example) - in those societies it was the norm to be fully covered up when going out - as protection from the sun and sand. Similarly cultures that developed in humid, rainforest climates they wore less clothes and their concepts of modesty are different as a result.

So far I've never heard a woman say she is getting in touch with her desert tribe roots by wearing the niqab/burka.

Would Middle Eastern countries accept Africans who move from tribal areas to their countries dressing in only loincloths in public? Shouldn't every country accept the chosen dress of the citizens in the name of cultural and religious freedom? In fact, why all the fuss about what female tourists wear in public in the UAE?

I'm still surprised that Muslims cling onto the "feminist" right to wear the niqab/burka when wearing the burka is supposedly a cultural form of dress for the desert climate, despite men never wearing the same kind of dress, and somehow it has also become a form of dress to bring a woman, but not a man, closer to god, and display a woman's, but not a man's, outward sign of virtue. It all sounds pretty illogical, se.xist, and anti-feminist to me - on top of being a false attribution to Islam since the Quran says nothing about a woman needing to walk around under a sheet with only her eyes peeking out.

kanelli wrote:So far I've never heard a woman say she is getting in touch with her desert tribe roots by wearing the niqab/burka.

Well, people often lose track of where customs originate from. The neck-tie is a pretty useless piece of clothing for example - but it seems to have gone around the world without much thought for where it originated from.

The point is just that in the Mid East, the veil was worn by people - pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslims. That some Muslims want to emulate Mid East dress codes is a choice for them - but many adopt local dress instead. African Muslim women, Indonesian etc.

Whilst you may be surprised that the Muslim women choosing to wear a veil see it as liberating etc - I don't. I just happen to think they should be allowed to make an informed decision, however much it may surprise or displease some people who insist they 'know better'.

Cheers,
Shafique