The United States of inclusivity

[Apollo]

very much not a 7th century fashion statement

I never said it was a fashion statement. I said it was a cultural norm.

For the record, I am against doing violence to women who don't wish to abide by the modesty norms of their societies. A Nebraska woman who insisted on going nude into Walmart shouldn't be beaten, she should be covered and spoken with. And given psychological counseling, probably. The store does have the right to ban her, however.

That was more of bit of sarcasm not really directed at you personally but made rhetorically.

[Rev. Rye]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...countries/

So, it looks like this poll was directed towards people in Middle Eastern countries. Unfortunately, it looks like the link is dead, so I can't be sure how women voted vs men, which might undermine your point.

Also not noted in this poll is how Muslim women in America (which, IIRC is supposed to be the cultural force this thread is supposed to be about) feel about the hijab. How certain are we that with a less punishingly patriarchal system, (note that I said less) it doesn't evolve into something less severe than in many Islamic-majority nations? I mean, I can imagine why you'd have such strong views on it with all the oppression you witnessed, but what if, when adjusting to America, it becomes less an instrument of patriarchal oppression and more just a cultural signifier for Muslim women? (Note, whether or not the question of whether it should happen is irrelevant to whether it does.)

[Belacqua]

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.

[Apollo]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...countries/

So, it looks like this poll was directed towards people in Middle Eastern countries. Unfortunately, it looks like the link is dead, so I can't be sure how women voted vs men, which might undermine your point.

Also not noted in this poll is how Muslim women in America (which, IIRC is supposed to be the cultural force this thread is supposed to be about) feel about the hijab. How certain are we that with a less punishingly patriarchal system, (note that I said less) it doesn't evolve into something less severe than in many Islamic-majority nations? I mean, I can imagine why you'd have such strong views on it with all the oppression you witnessed, but what if, when adjusting to America, it becomes less an instrument of patriarchal oppression and more just a cultural signifier for Muslim women? (Note, whether or not the question of whether it should happen is irrelevant to whether it does.)

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.

Here are some of the categorize we can think of to see where merits of each argument lie:

1- Women who wear hijab due to indoctrination when they were child and can't see themselves without it under the sense of patriarchal obligation and submission.
2- Women who wear hijab because of family and social pressures but they don't really want to but are forced or intimidated or receive backlash, taunts, slut-shaming, victim-blaming etc
3- Women who wear hijab because they converted to Islam when they were adult and started wearing hijab out of sense of piety/identity etc. Basically out of free will as an adult.
4- Women who were born Muslims and didn't use to wear hijab but when they grow up to be adult decided to start wearing hijab for whatever reason (identity/piety/reversion to more conservative values etc). Basically out of free will as an adult.
5- Women who don't wear hijab at all

Out of these categories the majority of the Muslim women population falls into 1, 2, and 5.  (3rd mostly holds true in the context of West).  The liberal activism for these categories should be to provide opportunities and social space where they are able to fall into categories like 3, 4, or 5.  For this reason I am myself against banning hijab, much the same way I'm against enforcing it through law.

By the way, hijab is just one symptom of patriarchy.  There are many other patriarchal traditions that don't even get talked about. For example, a Muslim women is not allowed to marry a non-muslim –– the only way she can is if the guy converts to Islam.  So you'll see a lot of mixed-race marriages in the west where the guy is a convert and very few where wife is Muslim and guy is whatever he is.

Now the question is why should western liberals worry about what happens in other countries?  It is because when we say "universal human rights", we don't call them "western human rights".  Whether or not we like it or endorse it or drive it, western culture is the predominate culture that permeates the world through historic colonization/imperialism, entertainment industry, and more recently, social media. We can't live in a vacuum where we have all kind of relationships of trade, war, and geopolitics but when it comes to human rights suddenly take backseat (and we don't, btw. Western human rights organization due tremendously great work throughout the world and we should continue to do that –– even COVID-19 vaccine is western gift to humanity).

In 2002 Mukhtaran Bibi was gang raped on the order of a tribal council because her brother had romantically advanced daughter of a rich man in the clan. She was expected to commit suicide afterwards but instead with the help of local and international media, along with activists both in Hollywood and journalism (Nick Kristoff etc) and other places, she became the face of courage. She mustered up enough help and funds to open a school for girls in her village.  Malala Yousafzai is another success story.  There are tons more.

Point is, western liberalism goes a long way changing the world for the good.  Activists in poor countries look up to feminists and liberals in western countries in how to reform their own world.  MLK is not just American idol of civil liberties.  But when feminists look away from issues in the name of tolerance and acceptance of minority practices that they would otherwise be critical of, they hurt the cause of those who are taking cues from them to change their own world.

So second-guessing and being self-critical are all great virtues but at the same time we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture.  Parsing out finer details is a great exercise but it shouldn't come at the expense of ignoring elephant in the room.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your problem appears to be with feminists, specifically and boringly, and I still don't think you've got the pulse. Wearing a scarf on your head isn't looking away from wife beating. It isn't because women who wear scarves on their heads are beaten (or in fact any other encyclopedic trivia about islam or women in the islamic world) that women who wear scarves on their heads are othered, and it isn't to advocate for wife beating that greater and more flattering space in representation might be afforded to women who wear scarves on their heads.

It's because people see a scarf on a head and immediately think alien. They don't recognize how american those women are, and ofc, how equally human.

[Apollo]

I'd even say that reforming the world at large is even in our and everybody's best interest. 9/11 attacks and other terrorism that followed is just one example of how we need the world at large, and specially Muslim world, to catch up with modernity and universal human rights and build their societies on those principles and move on from taking cues from wet dreams of a 7th century bedouin pedophile.

[Belacqua]

It would be interesting to show a set of symbols to the men in this photo, and ask what the symbols mean to them.

I suspect the American flag would be a symbol of oppression. The Israeli flag a symbol of the Nakba. Symbols like those are polyvalent.