(December 7, 2020 at 10:22 pm)Apollo Wrote: I am not a western liberal—I was born in an Islamic country where apostasy and blasphemy are punished by death, women killed by their brothers or father for liking someone, beaten or threatened with violence for not covering their head, and have husbands throw acid on wives’ faces for sundry disobedience reasons—recently the head of the ideological religious council that advises the government has decreed beating wife lightly is legal and permissible under religious law, which btw it is because it says right there in the quran so he is not lying.
So no, hijab is very much not a 7th century fashion statement made its way to modernity because it’s so awesome. I have first hand seen how makes into violence towards women.
On reflection, I do think I should agree with you more. And I think that given your background, and how different it is from mine, it's natural that your impression of things would be accurate to your own experience, whereas mine is more theoretical.
If we think of a hijab as a symbol of something else, then, like all symbols, it will be polysemous and multivalent. The meanings of symbols aren't writ in stone (or decided by God).
So if a woman is forced to wear something by more-powerful people in her society, then it is of course true that for her and for people who sympathize with her, it will become a symbol of that lack of choice.
In cases where a woman chooses to wear something, then it takes on a different meaning for her -- perhaps a sense of moral modesty and connection to a tradition that's important for her. She won't feel it's about oppression.
So even women in the same sect in the same religion, if they are in different situations, can give different symbolic meanings to the same object.
I shouldn't argue for just one side of this.
