Food. Clothes. Hijabs. New Rules.

Do you read Captain Awkward? You should, you know. Everyone in the world should read Captain Awkward. If everyone did that, the world would probably become a significantly better place in, like, a fortnight or so. People would be Using Their Words and respecting boundaries and communicating and getting rid of the Darth Vaders in their life and.. oh, it would be marvellous.

I read a thing in Captain Awkward the other day, where the good Captain observed the following in relation to a letter writer who was tired of having to explain their medical condition and dietary needs over dinner:

I think the world would be a better place if we stuck to one acceptable way of commenting on what is on a fellow adult’s plate. That way is “That looks delicious” + some variation of“Where did you get it/how did you make it/does it taste as good as it looks/smells/Is it like this other thing that is also delicious?

The following are to be instituted immediately:

  • Stop commenting on how much or how little someone eats.
  • Stop commenting on what is on someone else’s plate
  • Stop assigning food a moral value.

Like the Cap’n says, if we did those things then a whole shedload of things would be no longer problems, right there.

Something similar occurred to me today, when I came across this post over on Tumblr about some non-Muslim woman dressing up in latex hijab drag. As with just about every appropriation of Muslim women’s dress, this non-Muslim probably saw what she was doing as a statement on reclaiming sexual liberation in an edgy, different sort of way. Probably not as yet another instance of the same-old same-old, white non-Muslim women using words like ‘unveiled’ and playing with oh-so-exotic hijab fashion to make totally-not-racist-at-all statements. Because Muslim women apparently don’t have voices or keyboards of their own, and they definitely don’t have perfectly ordinary ranges of sexualities. From the post: (I’m barely containing the desire to post all of it and say READ EVERYTHING NOW, but i figure you can hop over there to do that. You should, btw)

i despise the voyeuristic gaze imposed … by non-Muslim, white western feminist eyes …

in the same way i despise photos of Muslim women in abayas shopping at victoria’s secret being circulated as somehow more revolutionary and awe inspiring than the rest

(cause Muslim women don’t need bras and panties too -_-)

all of this indirectly, and often times unintentionally, feeds into western entitlement

the idea that we have to prove how liberated we are in order to garner respect, even if it means divulging the parts of us we keep close for a variety of reasons

fundamentally, in my personal opinion, Muslim women who practice modesty (or dont) are in no way obliged to tell the dirty secrets of their lives in order for western non-Muslim women to look at them as liberated and therefore find common ground with them

and if that’s really the basis in which non-Muslims are going constructively engage with notions of liberation in regards to Muslim women

…then really, you need to critically examine why someone has to put their dirty sexual business in the streets in order to gain respect as a sexually liberated person

you need to constructively examine the distinct positionality and place of privilege a culture of sexual liberation is framed from, if the litmus test for being identified as worthy, of being identified as “liberated” relies on you outing yourself over and over again for validation by the liberated and privileged few, who all the while ignore the varying societal and cultural contexts which don’t make that a safe reality for many people, not just Muslim women.

liberation, or being liberated, should not be contingent having no privacy, framing everything around the western gaze, putting yourself in danger- outing yourself to a larger majority that already suffers from socio-cultural amnesia when it comes to anything far outside the bounds of eurocentricism and western frameworks. prostration before a fucked up ideal isn’t and never should be a necessary condition of “liberation” in the first place 

(emphasis mine).

I think it’s time we proposed some new rules. Copying shamelessly from the Captain, I think the world would be a better place if we:

  • stuck to one acceptable way of commenting on a person’s hijab clothes. That way is “I really like that thing you’re wearing” + some variation of “That colour/style really suits you” and “Where did you get it?. 
    • Only commented on a person’s clothes in appropriate situations. With people who are receptive to having their clothes talked about. By us.
  • Stopped commenting on how much or how little someone wears.
  • Stopped appropriating clothing styles with specific meanings for another culture(s).
  • Stopped assigning clothes a moral value or making assumptions about people’s morals based on what they are wearing.

Can we do that? Like, from right now, can we quit appropriating, quit assigning moral values to clothes, quit fetishising entire freakin’ religions and cultures, and if we have to comment on someone’s hijab, stick to something like “Oh, I like that scarf you’re wearing today, that colour really suits you”? Can we, like, do that now maybe?

 

Food. Clothes. Hijabs. New Rules.
{advertisement}

On face veils and collectively growing the hell up.

There’s been a massive furore this week about France’s new law banning face veils in public. As usual, I’m getting in to this one a few days late- which is, of course, several decades on the internet.

So I’ll be quick(ish). If French women people want to wear a thing, they should bloody well have the right to do so. That right should not be limited by other people’s ideas on what constitutes good fashion sense. That right should not be limited by other people’s ideas on what their clothing says about them. Perhaps some bare minimum of restrictions might be applicable on grounds of public decency. But that’s about it, and even that is a thing I’m a little uncomfortable with.

There are a few grounds on which I’d like to talk about this. You’ll notice, however, that absolutely none of them involve making assumptions regarding the motivations of women who wear face veils. This is because I’m not a woman who wears a face veil. I’m not a Muslim. Hell, I’m not even vaguely religious, and I don’t exist as a religious or cultural minority where I live. Going around ascribing motivations and narratives to a bunch of people I don’t know, about an area we don’t have in common? It’s not only bad form, it’s also quite likely to be out-and-out incorrect.

Security

The major reason given for banning face coverings is that of security. If a person’s face is covered, you can’t identify them, and therefore they could get away with all sorts of mischief. It sounds plausible, doesn’t it? So I did a bit of googling to see if I could find out about all the crimes being committed by women wearing face veils. It seems reasonable to assume that legislators would only go to the trouble of banning a thing if it were already causing problems. Surely if it’s such a major issue, there would be no trouble finding out about the waves of veiled gangs robbing banks and service stations with impunity? No such luck. The major crime being committed by women covering their faces seems to be.. covering their faces. Oh, and also being the victims of assault by bystanders outraged at their fashion sense. Charming, that. Given that this is a bunch of people who’ve been subject to an awful lot of scrutiny, the fact that I can’t find any reports of them actually committing crimes is remarkable.

Participation and Democracy

The ability of women to participate in society while wearing veils on their faces is another issue that seems to come up, time and time again. If a woman covers her face, you see, she is immediately rendered silent and identity-less. She can’t speak for herself, because a thin layer of fabric absolutely prevents a person’s voice from being heard.

You know, I’m trying very hard to take this one seriously and lay off the snark. But, damnit, it’s just too easy. And it seems to me that if a person finds women wearing face-veils to be entirely silent and impossible to interact with, that’s most likely a problem on their side. I’ve never seen much difference in people’s ability to ask for directions, or complain about the weather or how crowded the bus is, or squee over awesome toys in the Science Museum, based on whether I can see their face or not. But then again, I’m not going around glaring at people because of what they’re wearing either. And I may not have ever worn a face-veil, but I have had some odd haircuts in my time. And the people who are inclined to glare at the woman with a shaved head simply didn’t get to chat to me at the bus stop.

Also, if someone is going to be reclusive due to their beliefs, or if they feel excluded from society because of their beliefs, forcibly altering their dress code isn’t going to change that. The only thing that’ll do that is if relatively privileged people get up off their asses and quit marginalising them.

Sexism

Ah, this old chestnut. I love this one, I really do. You see, if a woman wears a face-veil, it’s sexist. If she wears heels, that’s sexist as well- except when it’s unprofessional not to, and they can’t be too high. Ditto to makeup. Also if she wears a bikini, it’s sexist. And so is a burqini! Covering up is prudish. Not covering up is slutty. If you shave your legs you’re a victim of the patriarchy, and if you don’t you’re a fuddy-duddy humourless unsexy feminazi. But like I said to the (impressively awesome) Nahida over at the Fatal Feminist, a veil is a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth! Pieces of cloth aren’t sexist. Pieces of cloth don’t infringe on people’s rights. People do that. And maybe- just maybe- the major thing that’s sexist isn’t face-veils, or bikinis, or heels or makeup or burqinis, but the fact that women are constantly judged as women for the choices we make in how we present ourselves.

Listen, it’s absolutely possible that some women who veil their faces feel pressured to do so. But if you take away their right to cover, then you should probably take away my right to shave my legs as well. Because I sure as hell do feel social pressure to do that one, and everyone knows that unless we make choices in an absolute vacuum they cannot be meaningful. Right? Also, all you need to do is confiscate our fabric and our razors, and sexism will miraculously disappear!

Totally Not Racist, Right.

Oh, this one. You see, in defending the face-veil ban, it’s been argued that it’s actually nothing to do with Muslim women. It’s just a general ban on covering your face. Which is unacceptable in our society, amirite?

Interesting, that. I suppose that’s why a few months ago in the Big Freeze, everyone was up in arms over all of the non-Muslims covering our heads with hats and our faces with big, chunky scarves. Rendering ourselves almost unrecognisable in layers and layers of jumpers, coats and gloves, with nothing visible but our eyes. Staying indoors as much as possible, only leaving the house when we absolutely had to, and definitely covering as much of our faces as possible without restricting our vision. I guess that for those couple of months this winter, practically the entire country were security risks, the victims of extreme sexism, and unable to participate in society?

Or is it okay to cover ourselves up if it’s because of the weather, but not when it’s our choice? A choice which is statistically more likely to be made by (gasp!) brown people? And this is not racist… how?

That bit about growing the hell up.

Here’s the thing. Whatever way you slice it, the ban on face-coverings in France is absolutely an attack on Muslim women’s right to freedom of expression. In extension, it’s an attack on everyone’s freedom of expression. As with all of our rights, my right to not cover my face is meaningless if it isn’t a choice. It’s meaningless as a choice if it would be imposed anyway. Taking away the rights of those who choose to express themselves in a certain- harmless*- manner invalidates all of our autonomy and right to self-determination. Doing so in a pointed attack on an already marginalised group only furthers their marginalisation. As a society, we need to grow the hell up and realise that there is no conflict between Muslim women and Western women. Many Muslim women are Western women, and many of those Western women want to dress how they please. In a society which supposedly values individual freedoms, who are we to take those freedoms from ourselves?

*There have been mentions of increased risk of vitamin D deficiency in people who cover up. This would be a sensible argument in favour of banning covering if there were no such thing as vitamin supplements, and if any and all unhealthy behaviours were banned. But you can take my cookies, my cherry brandy cocktails, and my occasional days spent doing nothing but playing video games from my cold dead hands.

On face veils and collectively growing the hell up.

More on Neda: extremism, religion, power and ‘us’.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Neda today, since watching For Neda, the doc I linked to in my last post. I’m still trying to work out how to relate to and conceptualise what happened. I don’t think that’s a process that I’ll reach a clear conclusion with any time soon, if ever.

My first and strongest reaction is, of course, a deep-seated sense of sorrow and of horror. And of shame, at my own intrusion into such a.. senseless is the wrong word for this act. Because it wasn’t senseless. On the part of the Iranian government, killing its citizens was (and continues to be) a calculated act. On the part of the Basiji who killed her- well, it must have made sense at the time.

understand.

I want to know more about these Basij, these government militia. I want to know more about who they are, about why they are part of the militia. About how they became who they are now. Who taught them. What their lives are like. If it is fear that makes them beat and kill or if it is just a hunger for power? Where in society are they from- are they from all social classes or just some? This is what I want to know. This is what I want to understand. I can empathise so easily with those who mourn Neda, but in order to help to end this, I think we need to understand those who kill, and would kill, those like her.

There’s a quote from that doc. I can’t remember it exactly, but it involves some Basiji women who confronted Neda in the days before she died, saying that it was dangerous for her to be outside because she was beautiful, and ‘they’ hate beauty. That they cannot control themselves around it, and they need to control themselves or else they will be wicked, so they must destroy it.

I want to know how people learn to hate that much. I want to learn how to empathise with that hatred, to understand it, deep in its most basic motivations and impulses. Not to forgive, mind you. To understand, because you can’t fight against a thing you cannot comprehend.

about religion.

I don’t think it’s about religion, although it is, of course, always about religion. However, it’s so, so easy to point and say “this is religion” or “this is Islam”, when discussing what appear to be fanatical, irrational motivations. These people believe one irrational thing, so why not another, and another, and another?

To say so, however, is to be lazy and simplistic. To hijack religion to explain the acts of extremists is to throw up your hands, to not have to bother thinking about any implications of other, more uncomfortable elements of a more complex explanation. While it is impossible to deny the religious motivations of the Basij- they are serving the Islamic Republic, after all- it would be unfair and inaccurate to deny that many, including Neda herself, practiced and lived a spirituality and religion entirely different, sharing only a name. The religion of the Islamic Republic, here, can be seen as a cover for power, for fear of the Other, for motivations I am too ignorant and too distant to begin to guess at. The religion that they use, however, can only be diminished by understanding those facets, the context within which it occurs. Simply brushing aside heinous acts by blaming the religion of their perpetrators is not only unfair, it is blatantly inaccurate.

us (westerners).

I’m a European, middle-class, college educated, urban, white cis woman. I don’t know what you are, but since this is the internet, it’s likely that you and I share at least one or two of those characteristics- although you’re probably American, not European. What I’m about to say has been said before, many times, but it stands saying again. The death of a young, attractive, cosmopolitan woman- wearing a baseball cap, no less- is going to resonate with people like you and me. Demographically speaking, she ticks all the boxes.

I don’t say this to be flippant. I definitely don’t say this in order to wave away the tragedy and disgrace of her death. I just say it in order that I might remember that the deaths of people who are not young, people who are not beautiful, people who are not cosmopolitan, who dress in unfamiliar ways and whose lives and dreams are not so similar to mine? Those deaths are tragic, they are disgraceful every bit as much.

.

I don’t know what to say or to think about this. I still don’t. I circle it, theorising around the edges, never getting closer to the centre.

More on Neda: extremism, religion, power and ‘us’.