BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Thinly veiled

 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Ticker
13:01 / 12.10.06
I've been talking with Saturn's Nod about the issue of the gaze and responsibilty for it.
Should we start a new thread or do some necromancy on an old one to drill into the issue? I'm not sure it fits in the context of this discussion entirely as there is an added layer of another culture's views. I'd like us to deconstruct our own issues with the gaze as a starting point.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:23 / 12.10.06
It's okay for women to wear the veil to stop men from getting all sexed up because that's female responsibility but it's not a rapists fault that he rapes a woman in a short skirt? In my brain the veil is logically inconsistent with other women's issues because the veil is for men.

As a man, I have to say this is always something that's irked me, from the veil to the "short skirt = asking for it" thing. I'm a heterosexual male, and I've always found not assaulting women to be very easy. Instinctual, in fact. If men have imposed the wearing of the veil because they don't think they can trust themselves, then they should really take a look at why that is.
 
 
*
22:51 / 12.10.06
xk: A thread on gaze would be good. I'm going to chase the derailing for one more post. Apologies.

That is, if one person is trying to aid another, then seeing this aid as an expression of privilege is decidedly odd.

Yeah, except it's not. If I have the ability to help another, it may (or may not) be because in a certain aspect of my life I am more privileged than they are. That doesn't mean I shouldn't help, but if I think about my privilege while I decide how to go about doing it, I may be able to figure out how to help better. It frequently happens that someone trying to aid someone else actually makes things worse, because their privilege clouds their understanding of what that person needs.

Yes, everyone has privilege and privilege is everywhere. When I discovered this, it changed my understanding of the meaning of the word too. I got used to it.

so doesn't actually seem like a huge criticism.

That's because I'm not criticizing Straw hugely. I'm discussing, and criticizing him a little.

Okay, let me get this straight. It's okay for women to wear the veil to stop men from getting all sexed up because that's female responsibility but it's not a rapists fault that he rapes a woman in a short skirt?

The way I see it, it's okay for a woman, or a man, or any person who feels more comfortable behind a veil for whatever reason to wear one. It's okay for other people to ask them to take it off if it bothers them for a legitimate reason ("I'm hearing impaired and I need to read your lips" "I really like being able to see facial expressions when I talk to people"). It gets murkier if the person wearing the veil is in a position of relative disempowerment, because then there is a greater likelihood that there is some kind of pressure or coercion— either causing the veil to be worn or the veil to be removed. In my opinion, examples of coercion include ordering women to remove their veils on pain of arrest or something like that, or raping or stoning women who do not wear veils. Examples of pressure include blaming lack of a veil for men's emotions, or blaming presence of a veil for non-Muslims' emotions.

While we're working on changing the world so that no woman feels uncomfortable with the gaze of men, should we ask individual women who may choose to wear a veil for their own reasons to take off their veils, and should we use the voice of authority to add weight to that request? That's one major question I am thinking about here.

In the realm of larger issues of oppression of women, the veil* is the wrong place to put emphasis. Partial face coverings are not responsible for women's oppression; they're a symptom. They're also not responsible for non-Muslims being uncomfortable communicating with Muslims. People are getting hung up on it because, like Jack Straw, they view it as a visible symbol of difference, and the differences are a point of contention right now. What interests me more is why are the differences so contentious and how can we make them less of a problem for people? Just asking women not to wear veils is not actually going to solve the contention around these differences. Jack Straw thinks it's a step in the right direction; I disagree. I also don't think the differences themselves are to blame for the problems; I think it's the negative attitudes around these differences.

*Bearing in mind we're not talking about chador, which is a form of physical restraint that causes physical health problems; that's a whole different issue.
 
 
Tom Coates
07:38 / 13.10.06
I'd be very interested in a separate thread about the gaze more generically. Possibly in the Head Shop?
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:11 / 13.10.06
That doesn't mean I shouldn't help, but if I think about my privilege while I decide how to go about doing it, I may be able to figure out how to help better.

Sure, I can see how that would be relevant in some situations, but not nearly in all, especially since you are framing privilege as inherent in almost every act. I can certainly agree that being sensitive to another person's situation is always helpful, but I seriously doubt the utility of reflecting on my "privilege" every time I walk up the stairs, brush my teeth, write a letter or cross the road. (I don't accept this use of the word "privilege", btw, but this isn't the thread to discuss it.) But I think we can just agree to disagree on this small point, since we agree on the substantive ones. Namely, that it is reasonable to sensitively request the removal of the veil while maintaining the right to wear it, and the Straw's newspaper article is pandering to xenophobia.
 
 
Ticker
19:10 / 13.10.06
my attempt to get the Gaze into a topic-like shape

I've tried to wrangle a good chunk of it into the intro but obviously the topic is too big for one person.
 
 
Quantum
19:55 / 13.10.06
'Teacher sacked for not removing veil' story, from the Mirror no less.

Aishah Azmi, 24, was asked to take it off in class after pupils said they found English lessons hard to understand because they could not see her lips move.
The junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorks, said she could wear her veil in corridors and the staff room - but must remove it when teaching. Angry Miss Azmi refused, claiming the veil was part of her cultural identity, and was suspended.


I was shocked to see an apparently pro-muslim story in the Mirror, but it turns out it's so they can say how wrong it is. ..the Muslim Council of Britain said Miss Azmi was wrong to insist on covering her face.
 
 
Olulabelle
20:19 / 13.10.06
Do you think that it's as obvious as people deliberately putting stories in like that so that they can point to how wrong they think it is, or do you think it's more deep-seated and insidious than that?

Do the people who work for newspapers realise they are doing it and do it deliberately or is it happening on a sub-conscious level?
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
21:10 / 13.10.06
Yeah, except it's not. If I have the ability to help another, it may (or may not) be because in a certain aspect of my life I am more privileged than they are. That doesn't mean I shouldn't help, but if I think about my privilege while I decide how to go about doing it, I may be able to figure out how to help better. It frequently happens that someone trying to aid someone else actually makes things worse, because their privilege clouds their understanding of what that person needs.

Thanks, better than i could say it...

In the realm of larger issues of oppression of women, the veil* is the wrong place to put emphasis... *Bearing in mind we're not talking about chador, which is a form of physical restraint that causes physical health problems; that's a whole different issue.

Where would you stand on issues such as that i mentioned of a small (approx 7/8 yr old) child being made to wear the veil by her parents (and consequently being put in physical danger, by not having peripheral vision and thus not being able to see she was about to be run over), or that mentioned by someone else upthread of the veil being used to cover up bruises from domestic violence?

I'm also not that up on the terminology - i'd be interested to know the precise differences between hijab, niqab and chador...

The "gaze" topic interests me, but i'll have to collect my thoughts a bit further before i can post coherently on it...

Re the Mirror story: the Mirror is generally regarded as a very broadly anti-war, anti-Blair and anti-racist paper (which doesn't stop it being a tacky, dumbed-down, shamelessly attention-seeking and celebrity-obsessed tabloid, but the fact that John Pilger wrote for them has to give them some props...). This particular story actually doesn't strike me as particularly pro- or anti-Muslim - for a tabloid story, it's actually reasonably devoid of automatic value-judgement...

I'm pretty sure the inability to see her lips move wouldn't have affected me as a child learning English, but, for the reasons i've already alluded to, i'm (probably) a special case (as it was, i was repeatedly told off as a child for "not listening" in class, when i was listening well enough to repeat what had just been read out to the class verbatim - i just wasn't looking)... if there was significant evidence that being unable to see her lips move would have significantly impaired the children's learning (it certainly would have done if the kids were hearing impaired, for example... i dunno about developmentally "normal" children), then i think she probably shouldn't have worn the veil in class. Whether she should have been sacked for it is a different thing however, one i'm even less sure about...
 
 
illmatic
10:48 / 14.10.06
I was shocked to see an apparently pro-muslim story in the Mirror, but it turns out it's so they can say how wrong it is.

I find myself pretty much in agreement with the Muslim Council. I think it's ridiculous to attempt to teach English while having your face covered. To have one's face covered through personal choice, cultural pressure or a combination of the two is put a barrier between oneself and wider society and that is part of the reason it exists. I don't like the xenophobia that gathers around this debate but I welcome attempts to critque the institution itself.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:00 / 14.10.06
Black Stoats Ate The Sky I'm a heterosexual male, and I've always found not assaulting women to be very easy. Instinctual, in fact. If men have imposed the wearing of the veil because they don't think they can trust themselves, then they should really take a look at why that is.

I don't know what the number of rapes per year are in predominantly Muslim countries, I'm not sure anyone could say anything other than guesswork, but my understanding is that it's damn difficult to prosecute men for it as their actions are blamed on the women in the unlikely event it gets as far as a court. Sometimes the woman is prosecuted for getting raped rather than the rapist for the raping. It's not the direct fault of the religion but of the culture which is supported by the religion. ISTR, of course, might be wrong.

On the subject of the teaching assistant, She's been giving her side of the story. Says that the kids haven't complained about her (which doesn't actually deny the point that they might have problems understanding her) and that she'd take the veil off as long as there were no male teachers present, because presumably they'd immediately stop teaching the phonics and start raping her in front of the kids.

Lula of Nephelokokkygia There seems to be much more willingness to engage with the issue of Jack Straw wanting 'face to face' communication than there is regarding his comments about cultural separation. Why is that?

Because the reasons behind his comments are more interesting? I live and work in multicultural North London but most of my friends, family and work colleagues are white, those who aren't are integrated as Jack Straw would want, we have a number of women come into the library wearing the headscarf and, less regularly, the niqab, mainly for the storytimes for the children and the majority of them don't use the library for anything else but we're crap at community relations so there are other sectors of society we don't have much luck with, like the Jewish Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. So I don't think I know enough to have this conversation and, a lot of people who have talked about this in the media could do with shutting up.
 
 
nighthawk
12:47 / 14.10.06
I'm not sure its exactly privilege that's important here. Jack Straw made these comments with reference to his interaction with Muslim women in his constituency surgery, i.e. the location in which the people of his ward are able to directly interact with their representative.

So far as I can see, this and ticking a box on a ballot paper are the only times that most of the population exert direct pressure on the political process of this country. Straw is saying that if an individual wears a niqab to his surgery, she is undermining the effective functioning of this arrangement.

His initial comments vaguely suggest concern about the functioning of this institution/locate the problem in his own inability to properly interact with women wearing a niqab. "I'm just trying to do my job, and you're making things difficult for me". By requesting that women remove their niqab, he's ensuring that he is able to properly fulfil his role as their representative. Its about his ability to represent these women, i.e. to understand their needs and concerns.

However by then making very public comment that tie this to concerns about 'visible signs of cultural difference', it becomes clear that he is not just concerned about being a good representative, he's identifying the niqab as something which a) marks Muslim women as separated from British Society, and b) (according to him) undermines their access to one of its two key democratic spaces. Now its not so clear that he talking about doing his job properly. Rather he's talking about the position of Muslims and their cultural practices in British society.

Straw, non-Muslims, maybe even Muslims may have difficulties communicating with women wearing the niqab; veils may be a symptom of patriachal oppression, or an attempt to escape male gaze; and so on. But I'm not sure that's what's really important here. Surely its the fact that Straw made/published these comments as an MP, with reference to his own practice, in a highly charged political situation. In this context, he seems to be saying that aspects of Muslim culture* exclude Muslims from British Society and undermine its democratic process. In the current climate comments like this have very particular, negative overtones regarding the place of Muslims in British society and their integration into particular communities.

*Of course the importance of the niqab in Islam is controversial, but I think that in chosing to highlight something which is connected to Muslim culture like this now, Straw leaves himself open to these criticisms.
 
 
Olulabelle
13:17 / 14.10.06
Natty, I posted a link in the multicutural thread at the place which begat this conversation about all the different forms of female covering related to Islam. Here.
 
 
redtara
18:56 / 14.10.06
I've just posted this in the 'Gaze' thread like a meff. Think it fits better here, doh!

I think the thing about the veil that interests me in the current debate, and the part that seems to be lost, is the political dimension. It may be my assumption but, I get the feeling that the illegal/immoral beginnings of the conflict that is ravaging Iraq has politicised a great many young British Muslim women who, may not have worn the veil ten years ago or were part of a household where women wore the veil but, feel motivated to use it now to become visible in a political sense. I suspect that this response is inmeshed in Jack Straws discomfort.

As I said, no evidence, just observation and a feelng of mistrust of the 'passive, oppressed' cliche of Islamic womanhood.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:39 / 14.10.06
Well, the message that's been coming through from Muslims in the British media and women in Islamic countries has been the same, the former have adopted the veils and headresses while the latter have been discarding them for the same reason, as a symbol of freedom. Only as places such as Iraq fall under the control of religious extremists women are having to start wearing the hijab again. If one woman's symbol of their religious freedom is another's symbol of their being under religious domination it's going to confuse a lot of other people.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:28 / 14.10.06
Just to follow on from what redtara said above- if there has been an increase in wearing veils as a reaction to percieved antipathy between Muslim and other communities in Britain and the Iraq war, then is the right way to go? If that is indeed the intent of veil-wearing Muslim women, or even some of them, then how is the message ('I am wearing this to state my opposition to the Iraq war') being recieved? You've got a signifier, the veil, but where is the signified to the vast majority of the British population? To many them the 'statement' is one of seperation, or oppression, or unwillingness to integrate with British society. Hell, even a 'The Only Bush I Trust is My Own' t-shirt would do the same job better.
And, to follow on from Our Lady, I can certainly see the freedom angle here. Considering how much pressure young women are put under in British society to look and act certain way, and how sexualised this certain way often is, the wearing of veils could seem to be a useful get-out clause available to Muslim women, and when a large portion of the native populus hates or misunderstands you, the option of opting out of parts of British culture, particularly the get-so-drunk-you-can-barely-see-shag-stranger-repeat part, must seem like a tempting possibility. Perhaps if the various forms of Muslim dress were secular and global as opposed to religious and cultural many more women would wear them, perhaps many less. (Yes, I'm aware that many cultures have similar veils, but currently our culture says veil=Muslim, which is why we and Jack Straw are discussing it in that context)

In other news, The Sun has a full page spread today* on 'Issues dividing Britain'. All of which involve Muslims, two of which involving veil (the third, in which a Muslim pharmacist refused to sell a morning-after pill to a woman is pretty much open and shut, for me at least- denying contraception puts you in charge of somebody's entire life from then on, which isn't a right anybody should have for any reason).
Of particular interest is a Muslim school which intends to make non-Muslim girls (about 10% of the projected pupils) wear Hijabs as part of their uniform. Now I hate to agree with The Sun on pretty much anything, but they're right to be ticked off about this in my opinion. No matter what the morality of wearing Hijabs etc. is, it's something for Muslims and Muslims alone, that I think we can all agree on, and forcing it on people is no different from forcing it off.

*= Or perhaps every day, can somebody confirm this?
 
 
nighthawk
21:48 / 14.10.06
how is the message ('I am wearing this to state my opposition to the Iraq war') being recieved?

Does it have to be a straight-forward message, addressed to The Great British Public? Redtara suggested that these women feel motivated to use it now to become visible in a political sense. Extrapolating a little, I took this to mean that they were asserting a cultural identity which they felt to be increasingly threatened or undermined. I'm not sure its the same as, for example, a student deciding to wear a 'Stop the War' t-shirt to lectures.

To many them the 'statement' is one of seperation, or oppression, or unwillingness to integrate with British society

What does integration with British society involve?

That's not a rhetorical question. These phrases come up a lot at the moment, but I'm not sure they have any definite sense. What do people thnk 'British Society' is, and how does one judge who has succesfully integrated with it?
 
 
Olulabelle
23:30 / 14.10.06
Well one example of succesfully integrating into British society would be adherence to it's laws, so, for example, refusing to sell contraception when the law says it's your job to would suggest to me someone who is not and does not want to be integrated.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
23:56 / 14.10.06
ID, your definition of 'privilege' seems to me to be dangerously nonsensical. Your definition means that anyone can assert privilege over anyone else because of a perceived difference - so ; a woman identifying as blind can bring a guide dog into places that would not ordinarily be allowed ; an amateur wrestler can refer to himself as a athlete while a professional wrestler will probably have to justify himself in doing so at every turn ; a female nurse/childminder/gynaecologist/etc reaps the career benefits involved with entering a profession traditionally associated with women while a male entering the same profession may encounter scorn at least ; a woman wearing the veil can, if she chooses, make silly faces at people she's talking about without them knowing.

A lot of the above examples would probably be seen as ridiculous to most people reading this. As an individual identifying as male, I find that playing 'the pronoun game' while writing the above (ie by selecting a gender-identifying sign of any kind while discussing matters of this nature) renders me at risk of objectification purely on the basis of my gender identification. On this message board, your definition of 'privilege' means that anyone espousing a perceived right-wing, reactionary or conservative viewpoint can be considered lacking in privilege... that a libertarian, progressive or left-wing poster gains from privilege while posting on Barbelith that others may not. It turns use of the concept of privilege into one similar to that located by use of other nil-concepts such as 'art' or 'punk' - signs without a useful signifier.

There are real differences occasioning real privilege. To define privilege as you do detracts from real societal issues where real privilege is a serious, debilitating issue needing correction.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:39 / 15.10.06
Back to the specific case under discussion:

During my time as an MP, I found that it was very distracting to me when women at my surgeries wore trousers. Without being able to see their bare legs, I found it hard to communicate with them. So, if a woman came into the surgery wearing trousers, I asked them to remove their trousers and made it clear that there would be another woman in the room at all times when they had no trousers on, to ensure no impropriety ensued. Generally, the people at my surgery had a request to make or something they wanted me to look at. As such, they probably wanted to have my full attention, which as it happens involved in some cases taking off their trousers. Nonetheless, it was their choice whether or not they took this action which I had stated would make it easier for me to feel connected to them and more inclined to listen to their concerns.

How do trousers in this example differ from the niqab? Trousers don't cover the face. However, there's nothing necessarily to say that this is what Straw objected to, exactly - John Prescott's example of dark glasses is salutary. Trousers tend not to be worn as a matter of religious principle. However, if we look at the question of cultural separation, we're on safer ground. Until fairly recently, a woman wearing trousers was seen as making a point about her state of cultural separation from her expected role in British society - a woman visiting her MP wearing a pair of trousers might be seen to be making a clear statement about her role in society and her feelings towards it. So, if Jack Straw is saying that he suffers from a sort of disability - that he is unable to remember the details of a conversation unless he can see the face of his interlocutor - then that is one thing. However, if he then goes on to say that while certain of these face-coverings (dark glasses, Richard Nixon masks) merely trigger that disability, others both trigger that disability and signify cultural separation... well, what does that have to do with his role as a local MP talking to an individual in a surgery? He seems to be trying to do two things at once, rhetorically speaking.
 
 
Ganesh
02:06 / 15.10.06
What if (for example) a person who percieves their face to be "disfigured" (either through actual physical condition or something like Body Dismorphic Disorder) only feels enabled/empowered to leave the house if they cover their face, but is absolutely fine if they are allowed to do so? To require them to uncover their face "to recieve goods and services" would essentially be to sentence them to confinement in their own home, and if a person has the really strong religious belief that it's morally wrong not to cover their face (not saying all veiled Muslim women do feel this, btw), however misguided, then, to me, that's basically exactly the same thing...

I'm not sure that comparing the situation of veiled Muslim women to that of people with (objective or subjective) facial disfigurement really works. If you extent the analogy, there are people with social phobias such that they become intolerably anxious if they have to speak or present a passport in public. Are they permitted to travel without a passport? No. So social tolerance of individual beliefs (or delusions or objectively false convictions) only goes so far.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for Straw here. I think the way he's explained himself, however, muddies rather than clarifies the issue.
 
 
illmatic
06:23 / 15.10.06
To back Ganesh's point a little further: one is an indvidual psychological response (and not that common AFAIK), the other (the niqab) is a cultural behaviour, a lot more widespread and commonly encountered.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:57 / 15.10.06
Jack Straw is saying that he suffers from a sort of disability - that he is unable to remember the details of a conversation unless he can see the face of his interlocutor

I'm pretty sure Straw is actually hard of hearing- not that this simplifies the issue, really, but it addresses that point at least, if it is indeed the case.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:45 / 15.10.06
Of particular interest is a Muslim school which intends to make non-Muslim girls (about 10% of the projected pupils) wear Hijabs as part of their uniform. Now I hate to agree with The Sun on pretty much anything, but they're right to be ticked off about this in my opinion. No matter what the morality of wearing Hijabs etc. is, it's something for Muslims and Muslims alone, that I think we can all agree on, and forcing it on people is no different from forcing it off.

So I take it you don't advocate private schools dictating any kind of uniform, then, and are intending to go picket Eton for making the boys wear suits, and Cambridge/Oxford collegs for making students and staff wear ridiculous gowns at High Table?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:52 / 15.10.06
because presumably they'd immediately stop teaching the phonics and start raping her in front of the kids.

I'm finding the outpouring of frankly anti-Muslim sentiment in this thread quite incredible. Lady, you have cultural practices that mean a lot to you, I presume, and that you probably wouldn't like being told to stop doing (in a professional situation, or whatever) for a whole range of reasons.

Let's say someone -- say, a transvestite -- was working in the public service and wearing a skirt and make-up to work. If someone on Barbelith made the same kind of sarcastic, derisive comment about that person as you made above, you would be speechless. You would interpet that person as being anti-trans, would you not?
 
 
nighthawk
13:18 / 15.10.06
Well one example of succesfully integrating into British society would be adherence to it's laws, so, for example, refusing to sell contraception when the law says it's your job to would suggest to me someone who is not and does not want to be integrated.

OK sure, but is it breaking society's laws per se that's the issue there? People break the law all the time - by using drugs recreationally, for example - but debates surrounding law-breaking in general are not uniformaly framed in terms of 'integration'.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
13:22 / 15.10.06
Natty, I posted a link in the multicutural thread at the place which begat this conversation about all the different forms of female covering related to Islam. Here.

Thanks. In that case, the child who was nearly run over by the car i was in was wearing a burqa type 1 (or possibly a niqab type 2, since there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference from your link - tho it looked more like the photo of burqa type 1).

Hellbunny's post is interesting, but i think deserves a different thread, probably in Head Shop - i have a half-constructed reply to it in my head, but it would feel severely threadrotty to post it here...

Ganesh/Pegs - my response to that would have to be that I really don't believe that there is a hard and fast dividing line between an "indvidual psychological response" and a "cultural behaviour", and can expand on that if you would like me to, but again i'm slightly fearing threadrot, as i think my reply would have to stray into the territory of (at least) the multiculturalism, feminism and antipsychiatry Head Shop threads...

Disco - I think a consistent position against forcing people to wear clothes they don't want to (which, for me, is a pretty basic and not-much-thought-necessary libertarian position) would also require the cobndemnation of compulsory dress codes in schools and/or universities (as well as offices, nightclubs, and anywhere else), and indeed, as a trying-to-be-consistent libertarian, that's pretty much my position (with the specific caveat in the case of schools that removing compulsory dress code may only result in its replacement by a more insidious one dictated by child-targeting "market forces").

Not sure what i think about your second post - i think that, if you find someone's "cultural behaviour" or "individual psychological response" ridiculous, then you have a right to ridicule it (without that necessarily meaning you think it should be banned or anything - i think wearing a tie is utterly ridiculous, and have been known to mock it with references to execution by hanging, but of course i wouldn't ban it) - but "having a right to do X" doesn't necessarily mean "being right to do X", and of course a key difference between the veil example and my tie example is that one is a symbol of a group with privilege and the other of a group lacking in privilege, and i always tend towards thinking it's more acceptable to mock or ridicule the former than the latter... however, i'm still not sure mocking the practices of latter is necessarily equal to denying thgem rights or supporting their oppression (once again i can se this threadrotting into much more abstract arguments)...

this thread is branching in a lot of interesting directions...
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:05 / 15.10.06
So, if Jack Straw is saying that he suffers from a sort of disability - that he is unable to remember the details of a conversation unless he can see the face of his interlocutor - Haus

Out of curiosity, are you making a point with using the word "disability" here that I'm not getting, or are you saying that finding a conversation with someone whose face you cannot see difficult is unusual? Because, without wanting to claim any expertise here, I'd have thought that finding such conversations taxing - perhaps to the extent of interfering with the functioning of a helpful MP - is reasonably plausible.

Beyond that, I thought that Ganesh example of passport control was interesting. That is, I suppose we all agree that there are limits respecting the choices people make, and the situations where there is an agreed need to identify people is one of them. Where does the line get drawn between personal freedom and bureaucratic functioning?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:47 / 15.10.06
I think it may be a question of specific expectations of what a conversation in person involves. Jack Straw is (presumably) perfectly capable of carrying on a conversation with people whose faces he cannot see (on the phone etc.), but clearly feels discomfort when trying to talk face-to-face with someone whose face is largely concealed, perhaps because he expects to be able to pick up on all the visual messages that you send and receive in such an interaction with someone whose face you can see. That is something that he ought to be able to overcome by some means or other - just as, I hope, all of us would try to overcome any initial feelings of discomfort we might have when trying to converse with someone wearing niqab or other concealing face covering. I think conflating that with issues of separation or integration in society is distinctly unhelpful, as it pushes the responsibility for that large and very problematic issue onto the individual woman who wears the veil (for whatever reason she wears it).
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:19 / 15.10.06
That sounds reasonable, KKC, although presumably a large part of the reason for having surgeries is precisely because face-to-face contact is not the equivalent of a phone conversation, email or message. If there were nothing to be gained by an actual meeting, would MPs really spend the time to conduct them?

Of course, if someone wants to wear a covering then one should try to overcome any barriers that that causes. But this isn't to say that good will is all that is required. I keep thinking that there may well be some fairly deep anthropological and psychological reasons that this issue is about more than just tolerance of different cultures. Anyone care to comment on that aspect of it?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
15:23 / 15.10.06
So I take it you don't advocate private schools dictating any kind of uniform, then, and are intending to go picket Eton for making the boys wear suits, and Cambridge/Oxford collegs for making students and staff wear ridiculous gowns at High Table?

The ridiculous gowns aren't religious apparel, and though they presumably have a meaning ("Daddy owns a Porsche" or something), they're not tied into the most important aspect of life (the religion) of a billion and a half people. Basically, they're less important, and have less 'gravity' attached to them. Nobody would feel their rights, or at least their most important and fundamental rights, are being stepped on if they weren't allowed to wear said robes. The rest is covered in Natty Rah Jah's post above.

To carry on from Natty's post concerning the 'outpouring of anti-Muslim sentiment' in this thread, I really don't think there is anything wrong with a reasoned, informed critique of another's behaviour no matter what the relative amount of privilege between the criticiser and the object of that critique. For example, in some deeply underprivileged parts of the world female circumscision is practiced; nobody would argue that it would be wrong for me, sitting here in front of my expensive computer in a suit drinking a latte (I am y'know), to say that I'm disgusted with such a practice and it should stop. If, by looking at the practice of wearing veils and taking as much as possible into account we (Barbelith, the non-Muslim portion of the British public, whoever) arrive at the conclusion that the wearing of veils perpetuates things we don't like (sexism for example) then why not say it?
Disco- above, where you ask if Our Lady (or anybody I suppose) would feel wronged if they were told to stop cultural practices kind of misses the point. Nobody is telling anyone to do anything, Jack Straw is requesting it and Our Lady is critiquing the underlying assumptions of it (i.e, that men can be whipped into a rape-frenzy by the sight of a woman's face). A key feature of Liberalism as opposed to Authoritarianism (and since you're on this board I assume you favor the former over the latter) is the belief in the power of reason and argument as opposed to compulsion ('telling' somebody they have to do X from a position of power). Mr. Straw, in his ham-fisted way, has at least got this issue in the papers and onto the net, where hopefully, if the wearing of veils is indeed wrong, women who wear veils and men who support it may be persuaded to change their minds.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:46 / 15.10.06
Jack Straw is requesting it and Our Lady is critiquing the underlying assumptions of it (i.e, that men can be whipped into a rape-frenzy by the sight of a woman's face).

Help me out on this one - has any veil-wearing British muslim woman explained that this is why she is wearing the veil? To avoid being raped by men excited beyond endurance by the sight of her face? Under where precisely is this assumption lying?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:53 / 15.10.06
If there were nothing to be gained by an actual meeting, would MPs really spend the time to conduct them?


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Lurid. Surgeries are conducted face-to-face precisely to weed out people who would be happy to phone or email their issues, but not turn up at an appointed place at an appointed date in order to get their voices heard by their consituency MP. Attending the surgery proves that you're serious, or at least that you think you're serious. Now, it appears that if you're a woman wearing the veil - what George W Bush would call a "person of cover" - and if you are a constituent of the ward of Blackburn, you will be asked further to remove your veil - that is, you will be asked to take a further step to demonstrate that you are serious about your desire to make your case to an MP who is in the most receptive frame of mind possible for the hearing of that case. Hence my trousers example - if Jack Straw asked any woman wearing trousers to remove her trousers, informing her that he found communicating with women wearing trousers difficult, our hypothetical petitioner might feel herself to be in something of a cleft stick.

If, on the other hand, Jack Straw were to have said that he is hard of hearing, and as such he needs to be able to see people's lips when they talk - and can demonstrate that he deals with telephone calls by some other means - T-loop induction, maybe - then that's a different issue.
 
 
Red Concrete
16:10 / 15.10.06
I keep thinking that there may well be some fairly deep anthropological and psychological reasons that this issue is about more than just tolerance of different cultures.

I think it comes down to separation. I don't think that Haus' point that the probelm is either "disability" or cultural separation, is valid. They are linked. If someone is hiding part of their face with sunglasses, veil or Nixon mask then they are putting across a distanced persona, which probably partly arises from the difficulty of hearing and being heard through such barriers. But also it arises because the veil et al are instruments of privacy, of an imposed barrier.

This means that muslim women who use full veils don't integrate as readily into society. And all that I mean by that cliché is that they don't communicate with people (in shops, their neighbours, etc) as well as they would if there was no veil. Personally (and please don't infer any racist sentiment) I'm a little intimidated, which I think ties a little into the implications in european cultures of face-coverings. Am I alone in feeling that? (I am easily intimidated, btw)

This is skirting dangerous territory, i.e. where defence of religious and gender rights start to step on each other's toes, and also where arguments emerge which are followed by bigots and nationalists in order to draw objectionable conclusions. I hope we can navigate it clearly and maturely.

asked to take a further step to demonstrate that you are serious about your desire to make your case

I didn't think that was the point. Rather, take a step to assist in the discussion of the serious issue.

I think the telephone issue is a red herring. People still meet in person (especially over serious issues) precisely because phone conversations are limited in how well you can understand someone. And I think the 'what about blind people?' similarly; sight- and hearing-impaired people rely on other cues to achieve the same level of understanding in coversations. Including visual facial cues.
 
 
Red Concrete
16:13 / 15.10.06
Not wanting to get facetious here, but one viewing of a Derren Brown program could probably convince anyone of the value of facial and body language in communication.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply