BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Switchboard >

Thinly veiled

  
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
 
Lurid Archive
16:21 / 15.10.06
I'm not sure I entirely buy that, Haus. Certainly, weeding people out is one function, but doing that by personally meeting them is hugely time consuming. And I think that the investment in time is difficult to justify unless one sees an inherent value in meeting people in the flesh. Some of that will be for publicity purposes, I suppose, but again there would be better ways to accomplish that task. The whole tradition only really makes sense to me if the MPs regard the meeting as useful in some intangible way for the person they are helping (though individuals may also do it out of deference to this accepted wisdom). That doesn't mean the justification is correct, but it must be operating at some level surely?
 
 
nighthawk
16:23 / 15.10.06
though they presumably have a meaning ("Daddy owns a Porsche" or something)

Not quite. They symbolise different positions in the Univerity's hierarchy, but the one worn by most students (the commoner's gown) was originally supposed to ensure individuals could not stand out on account of their class or wealth.

More pertinently, Mister Disco's point was not that people might be forced to stop wearing these gowns; rather, that they have to wear them in a range of contexts (mainly formal halls and university examinations), like any other institutional uniform. There's no obvious reason why the uniform of a private Muslim school should be singled out as outrageous.

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.


Its so misleading to characterise Jack Straw as simply encouraging debate. In fact, the idea that people are going to be persuaded to remove their veil by the sort of 'debate' we've seen in the papers over the last few days is ridiculous.

That's not to suggest that Muslim (or any other) practice is beyond criticism. But by conflating a point about the effective running of his surgery with a point about the place of Muslim practice in British society, he's contributed to an ever-growing tide of anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK press.

I mean, its not like Muslims have just arrived on our shores, or just moved in to Blackburn. Why only make the point about the effective running of his surgery now? And why smudge it by also talking about visible markers of cultural difference separating Muslims from the rest of British Society?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
16:34 / 15.10.06
we (Barbelith, the non-Muslim portion of the British public, whoever)

Of course, because Barbelith doesn't have any Muslim members, presumably. Or, in particular, any Muslim women who would actually want to post here after having been denigrated, mocked and generally told they're the victims of false consciousness on this thread so far.

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).

No, it read to me as if Lady was making a joke at the expense of the teacher's assistant. Perhaps I was wrong. I'd welcome clarification on this. And Phex, I don't believe in an 'authoritarian/liberalism' spectrum -- I hate liberalism, actually, and critique it from an ultra-left marxist/autonomist perspective, with a dose of theory and sometimes psychoanalysis. I am a believer in debate, but not in order to win people over because you think they need to be saved.

The veil issue is one of those that conflates gender politics and the cultural politics of difference to the extent that I reckon it acts like a kind of 'vent' for non-Muslims letting off steam about Islam generally. Since most 'Westerners' like to think of themselves as anti-sexism, the veil is one of those things that it's okay to dislike about Islam. No matter that most people who think this have probably never talked to a women who wears hijab, or niqab, about why she does so. No matter that it's actually a cultural practice with as many different local manifestations, and relationships to religion and local cultures as any kind of dress practice in Euro-American 'culture'. Veils are different enough from skin-baring cultural practices to be impossible to ignore. It's not okay to talk about how weird Muslims are in any other way but this -- but this topic, this is where everyone 'draws the line'.

Unfortunately for poor confused white folks, yes, there are many different political opinions about veils in Islamic society. Hijabs' political significance changes according to location -- in Afghanistan, the veil is being used as a way to crush people and exert power, yes. In Australia, more women are wearing the hijab because it's a visible marker of Islam, and a badge of pride. And all the different possibilities that, so far, people on this threead may have no idea about. Islam is not a monolith. It may always be a confusing issue. In my world, such confusing issues are consigned to the pile of, "I wish I could have an opinion about this, but I don't know enough about it to decide one way or the other," or better, "Gee, things are different depending on context. That must mean that there's no way to have a blanket opinion on veils generally. Maybe I'll inform myself more, and come back for an opinion later."

But that would be too hard, and "we" also have some poor benighted Islamic women to save... Meanwhile "we" bomb their countries to shit and treat them as if they're terrorists, or at the very least as if they intimidate "us". No wonder they love "us" so.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:05 / 15.10.06
I don't think you've said anything that contradicts what I said, Lurid. The MP clearly feels that he is helping his constituents by meeting them. However, this being the case, what happens to the dynamic when the constituent, who wants somethuing from the MP, is asked to remove her trousers, since the MP will not be able to get as much out of the meeting if she continues to wear trousers, and will therefore be less likely to provide her with the assistance he might if she would only comply with the requested debagging?

If it is just about his ability to make out what she is saying, or his comfort zone with having to see people's faces when he talks to them while they are in the same room, that's one thing. If it is about a signifier of cultural separation - well, does he ask orthodox Jewish women to remove their sheitls? How about Catholics and any religious symbols they might be wearing - this being a Protestant country with an established Protestant church? These are all symbols of cultural separation.
 
 
Red Concrete
17:16 / 15.10.06
Mister Disco, can you explain how the Marxist/Autonomist position differs from liberalism, with regard to the issue of veils? My (naive?) impression would be that both are of the 'let people do what the hell they want' (with caveats) persuasion, a point which I think most posters have been careful to make. Please enlighten me.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
17:17 / 15.10.06
Help me out on this one - has any veil-wearing British muslim woman explained that this is why she is wearing the veil?

Nope, which isn't what I or Our Lady have said. The original quote, which Mr. Disco objected to, was taken from a discussion of a teaching assistant who, after being asked to remove her veil so the kids in her charge could understand her better said she would take the veil off as long as there were no males present (male colleagues, presumably not male children), to which O.L replied, facestiously, that it was because presumably they'd immediately stop teaching the phonics and start raping her in front of the kids. The comment, if I may second guess O.L, was meant not to show what the woman in question said directly -it wasn't a quote- but what her beliefs might be seen to imply; that there is something wrong with males and women need to protect themselves from them by covering their features. The intent was basically to show that miss Azmi has not arrived at the conclusion because it makes logical sense to wear a veil solely around males (since she is under no more or less threat from them) but for other, less valid reasons that aren't stated.

My question: if Miss Azmi is not wearing her veil only in mixed company for protection from the male gaze and the consequences of it, up to and including rape, then for what?

Nighthawk: to answer the first part of your post- I didn't single out the uniform of a Muslim school as outrageous, I disagreed with forcing religious dress on people who don't belong to that particular religion. Though wearing veils 'says' a lot, one of the most basic things it says is 'I'm a Muslim', just as wearing a cross identifies one as a Christian, wearing a kippah identifies one as Jewish etc. Jewish people don't wear crosses and Christians don't wear kippahs*. Forcing the symbols of another religion onto (or off of) somebody is not something that should be allowed in a secular society for reasons that I have already stated (to reiterate, because they are so much more important and imply much deeper things).

Disco- I would engage with your post more thoroughly if I had the time, but a quick question- If you believe in debate but do not believe it should (or can) be used to change things for the better then what use does it have? (PM me with the answer if you'd prefer)

*It is a requirement that males of any religion, upon entering a Synagogue wear a kippah. Women are required to wear a hajib when inside a Mosque, though since the school in question is not a Mosque this rule doesn't apply.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
17:23 / 15.10.06
Disco- also, if this debate was about female circumcision as opposed to veil wearing, would your objection to my (or anybody's) right to criticise aspects of another culture be the same?
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:24 / 15.10.06
However, this being the case, what happens to the dynamic when the constituent, who wants somethuing from the MP, is asked to remove her trousers, since the MP will not be able to get as much out of the meeting if she continues to wear trousers, and will therefore be less likely to provide her with the assistance he might if she would only comply with the requested debagging?

I think the difference is the importance of bodly language and facial expression as a part of communication. I may be wrong, and just seeking to make an exception for a cultural difference I feel is possibly....different, but if the argument has any merit I think it has to be here. The cultural separation part of Straw's comments is much weaker, however, and I wouldn't want to defend that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:43 / 15.10.06
I don't think you get to pick and choose, though, Lurid. Straw is having just that cake and eating it. If you ask him why hie isn't asking orthodox women to remove their sheitls, he can say that he is really concerned with his ability to serve his constituents. If it is pointed out that his inability to serve his veiled constituents may bed a problem for him to resolve rather than for his veiled constituents to solve for him, he can say that the real issue is that of cultural separation. If you, personally, want to say that you, personally, find it hard to talk to women in veils, that's useful anecdotal evidence, but it's not about Jack Straw

Phex: When I go to the gym, I get changed in a male-only changing room area. I do not do this because I believe that, should a woman happen to look upon my unclothed body, she will be compelled to rape me. I would be interested to know why you (or, indeed, Flowers) felt that this was the underlying assumption in this specific case.
 
 
HCE
17:45 / 15.10.06
I don't quite understand the 'cultural difference' thing. Different from which part of British culture? I was in England earlier this year and didn't notice any sort of unified culture from which somebody in religious dress might differ so remarkably as to make serving one's constituency difficult. You don't all dress alike.

Also, it seems quite bizarre to me for an MP to suggest that his constituents should be the ones changing the way they dress to make his job easier. Aren't MPs public servants? Shouldn't he be the one making an effort to accomodate the people he represents? (Apologies if I've misunderstood how government works over there.)

(And sorry if this point has already been made -- I did read the entire thread but may have missed it.)
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:36 / 15.10.06
But aren't there two parts to Straw's statement? One is about the difficulty of communicating, and hence helping, someone whose face is covered. The other is the problem of integration caused by the same process. Now, I have no particular desire to defend Straw, but I think that it is more interesting to separate these arguments out, and see where the problems are.

And this is where your examples fall down for me, Haus. While they do illustrate that the idea of cultural separation is tricky (if not icky), they don't deal with the problems that arise from not having facial cues in a conversation. I don't think this is an airtight objection to the veil, by any means, but I think it is worth exploring.
 
 
nighthawk
18:56 / 15.10.06
Nighthawk: to answer the first part of your post- I didn't single out the uniform of a Muslim school as outrageous, I disagreed with forcing religious dress on people who don't belong to that particular religion.

I meant that more as a characterisation of the Sun's position. Regardless, though, if you look at the story in question, then you'll see that the students are being asked to wear a headscarf. Headscarfs are hardly unique to Muslim cultures. I can think of a couple of schools near me (Liverpool) which make the girls wear hats. Is this different?

Forcing the symbols of another religion onto (or off of) somebody is not something that should be allowed in a secular society for reasons that I have already stated (to reiterate, because they are so much more important and imply much deeper things).

Yes, but I think it makes a lot more sense to frame this as a criticism of the government's privatisation of schools, of which these new 'faith schools' are an example. Why focus on this specifically Muslim example, particularly when, on closer inspection, it doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial uniform.
 
 
nighthawk
19:07 / 15.10.06
Red Concrete: I don't mean to answer for Mister Disco, but I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the 'Marxist/Autonomist 'position on the veil' in the sense you mean. He made his own position fairly clear, however:

In my world, such confusing issues are consigned to the pile of, "I wish I could have an opinion about this, but I don't know enough about it to decide one way or the other," or better, "Gee, things are different depending on context. That must mean that there's no way to have a blanket opinion on veils generally. Maybe I'll inform myself more, and come back for an opinion later."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:56 / 15.10.06
And this is where your examples fall down for me, Haus. While they do illustrate that the idea of cultural separation is tricky (if not icky), they don't deal with the problems that arise from not having facial cues in a conversation.

Absolutely - a better example if we decide to stop talking about Jack Straw and start talking about talking to people whose faces are covered might be the balaclava. It's certainly strange to talk to people wearing balaclavas, but I think it is possible to do so in a reasonably productive fashion.

However, to drag it back to Jack Straw - as I understand it, he asks them to deveil, but if they decline he continues with the surgery... but without the ability to represent them successfully? This strikes me as another interesting one. Does he simply make it clear that, although it is their right not to remove the veil, he is not going to be as attentive or as sympathetic because they are still wearing it? Or are there back-up mechanisms - perhaps giving her a flipchart on which to add supplementary information?

Only, I can't see a way in which saying "If somebody whom I represent comes to me wearing any form of facial covering, I will ask them to remove it, because I find it harder to do my duty to them as an MP if they do not. In practice, this always means veils. I also dislike veils because they represent cultural separation" is not going to be seen by a woman who wears the veil and does not want to remove it according to the will of a man as an invitation not to try to see him in surgery. Won't that further silence and marginalise Muslim women, which as far as I can tell is generally considered to be a bad idea?
 
 
Olulabelle
21:20 / 15.10.06
Or, in particular, any Muslim women who would actually want to post here after having been denigrated, mocked and generally told they're the victims of false consciousness on this thread so far.

No Panic... there's a lot of people in this thread who aren't saying that in any shape or form, and who are also trying to educate themselves by reading up on Islam and the reasons for wearing the veil. For example me.

And all the different possibilities that, so far, people on this threead may have no idea about. Islam is not a monolith. It may always be a confusing issue. In my world, such confusing issues are consigned to the pile of, "I wish I could have an opinion about this, but I don't know enough about it to decide one way or the other," or better, "Gee, things are different depending on context. That must mean that there's no way to have a blanket opinion on veils generally. Maybe I'll inform myself more, and come back for an opinion later."

That is also evident in the posts of many people here, too, not just you. It would be helpful not to suggest 'people in this thread' were uninformed and 'outpouring anti-Muslim sentiment'. It's pretty judgemental. And I don't think they are by the way, I think they're just trying to get their head areound something. Yes yes, you may know more about it but that doesn't mean all the people in this thread are not trying to educate themselves and understand a bit more clearly. Perhaps that's why they're contributing?
 
 
Quantum
03:01 / 16.10.06
Straw is actually hard of hearing

Just for info, Straw has tinnitus. That doesn't usually require lip reading.
I thought the no-veils-in-surgery request was one issue, but that the contentious side is his further statement that he'd like women not to wear them in general, as it's a barrier to integration. I find that to be a position that trivialises muslim religious practice and has acted as a lightning rod for anti-muslim sentiment around the country in the press and the pub.
I can see why you wouldn't want an english teacher to wear a veil for practical reasons, especially if the children are learning it as a second language, but the broader issue is pretty clear from where I'm sitting. Why is it OK to ask a women to remove her veil but not her trousers/wimple/makeup?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
03:33 / 16.10.06
See, Lula, I don't know more than anyone else posting, probably. I'm asking for people to be careful about their attitude, and to be aware of the possibility that they're giving opinions on something they really don't know much about.

What I really detest is the sense of entitlement I hear in statements like Phex's, that 'we' should be trying to change people's minds about wearing veils through 'rational debate'. (Not that I think that's going to work, anyhow.) Or Lady's comment that 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. In the latter statement in particular, it's the other people who might be confused who matter more, to Lady. It's not actually any Muslim woman wearing a veil ze's worried about. Lady is effectively saying, "This confuses me, and I should not have to be confused about this issue." Which is pretty much the same as Jack Straw, who is saying, "This article of clothing makes me feel uncomfortable. I shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable." The ability to ask people to change their behaviour en masse to avoid personal 'confusion' or 'discomfort' is not possible without imagining, somehow, that you might back the request up by force (as hs been done in France): it's basically colonial/nationalist. It's about who has the power to feel entitled to make pronouncements on how other people should behave in national space. Those others (and many other people who don't have the cultural capital) cannot really make the same kinds of requests without being laughed at. Can you imagine, for example, a Muslim cleric being taken seriously if he said women wearing bikinis made him uncomfortable or confused when he went to the beach, and that he requested women not to wear them? It would be taken as crazy misogynistic fundamentalism, and laughed at. This is not because of the content of the request; it's because of his relative social power, compared to Jack Straw's.

Red Concrete, nighthawk was exactly correct on your question about the marxist/autonomist 'position': there isn't one, because this kind of marxian thought doesn't work that way.

Disco- also, if this debate was about female circumcision as opposed to veil wearing, would your objection to my (or anybody's) right to criticise aspects of another culture be the same?

No, of course not. But by framing my objections as being about a person's right to criticise 'another culture', you're changing the meaning from what I wrote. Veil-wearing is not about 'another culture', in the singular. As has already been pointed out on the gaze thread, it's not even specific to Islam. The absence of cultural relativism is not my problem here. On the other hand, the female circumcision debate does have some parallels with this one. It's also used to mount a critique of 'Islam' from a left, femininst point of view just as much as the hijab -- despite the fact that female circumcision is not actually about Islam as a whole, it's culturally specific to a number of places around the north of Africa where Islam is also often practiced.
 
 
Red Concrete
08:56 / 16.10.06
Red Concrete, nighthawk was exactly correct on your question about the marxist/autonomist 'position': there isn't one, because this kind of marxian thought doesn't work that way.

I thought so, which is why I was wondering why you brought it up. Do you accept the 'liberal' position on this issue? I presume you do, I'm just being a bit pedantic.
 
 
illmatic
09:10 / 16.10.06
I can see why you wouldn't want an english teacher to wear a veil for practical reasons

Actually, the woman mentioned upthread is a learning assistant, not a teacher, so that makes the case a bit different. It's arguable that, as a learning assistant isn't the main focus in the classroom (they help kids with notetaking and essay writing etc, rather than having to teach and lead classes) she could do her job wearing the veil. Personally, I think in an educational situation, it's a barrier to learning, whether worn by pupils or teachers/other members of staff. Much (most?) of education and contact with kids is about building a postive rapport, and I think she's putting a limit on her ability to do this.

However, although I think the critque of the veil in this specific context is correct, this doesn't mean that these concerns should be universalised, give especially since very little attempt has been made AFAIK to address the subjectivity of these women - to ask why they are wearing it in the first place. There's a lot of discussion about these women, but precious little with them.

The fact she is a learning assistant does bring up some interesting issues for me though, in part because I'm because I'm aware of of how badly paid learning assistants are. It's a root into teaching for a lot of people. On one hand, it makes me ask how much are women limiting their chances of economic advancement by choosing to wear the veil? How much does damgae your job chances or send a signal that one isn't involved in economic activity? This is a perception compounded by the area I live in, which is one of the poorest boroughs in London, with a huge Bangladeshi Musim community. I see a lot wearing the veil every day and I wonder to what degree this demonstrates a lack of involvement in wider economic activity.

On the other hand, of course, if we are talking about a relativly disadvantaged and marginalised group, then how does it help to shift the onus of blame back onto them by critquing their culture and choices? Not much, I'd guess.
 
 
illmatic
09:17 / 16.10.06
I suppose what I'm saying this is - in part at least, on a local level for me - class issue. To judge from my knowledge of the Borough's composition, plus what I see day to day, the majority of those who are wearing the veil are first- or second generation working-class female immigrants. I don't feel comfortable with a dialogue that heaps blame on people who are already at the bottom of the heap in terms of power relations.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
09:22 / 16.10.06
Mr. Disco- Exactly: Muslims in affulent parts of Saudi Arabia or Malaysia, or in London or New York or in most of the world aren't at all likely to practice female circumcision- it's bound into a specific place (mainly Africa, though it's not unheard of in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan and Iraq, and it was even practiced for purely aesthetic reasons in the US until it was outlawed in 1996) and is not specific to Islam but is also practiced by African Animists. As you say- female circumcision is not actually about Islam as a whole, so its use to criticise Islam as a whole would be misplaced and useless.
Does the same go for the wearing of veils? Well, there are obviously Muslim women who don't wear veils and Muslim men who don't agree with it; because they might see it as being 'a visible statement of seperation', because they might see it as being sexist, because they might not see it as a necessary part of being a Muslim just as Christians don't see not eating meat on Fridays to be necessary for a relationship to God. If one was to say '(a)veil wearing is wrong, and is (b) a symptom of Islam's inherent wrongness' (and for the record, nobody who has posted in this thread has said that they disagree with wearing veils yet, we're all pretty much agnostic on the subject afaik) then certainly criticism of veil-wearing is tied to a criticism of Islam as a monolithic whole, but (a) is possible without (b) and (b) is not implied by (a), especially since the opinion on wearing veils is not shared by all Muslims, is not a binary good/bad thing but has many shades, is contingent on many factors etc. Again, it is hard for me to make the jump from criticising one thing some, but not all Muslims might choose to do, even if it is framed as part of their faith, to a criticism of that faith as a whole.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:07 / 16.10.06
Do you accept the 'liberal' position on this issue? I presume you do

If the 'liberal position' is what you expounded upthread, then no. I don't accept it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:31 / 16.10.06
Back on subjectivity - I'd still like to get some support on the idea that the veiled learning assistant was veiled because she feared that without the veil she would be raped by her co-workers. Could someone point me to where she either said that or heavily implied it?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:11 / 16.10.06
Disco said-In my world, such confusing issues are consigned to the pile of, "I wish I could have an opinion about this, but I don't know enough about it to decide one way or the other,"

That's kind of my take on the whole thing, to be honest. I'm finding this thread very interesting, and to some degree it's possibly rectifying the situation a little.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
13:43 / 16.10.06
Maybe Straw needs one of these...

(on a slightly more serious note, this may be of at least tangential relevance as a parallel to the "discomfort with showing one's face" aspect of veiling... IMO at least, the reason behind discomfort doesn't have to be rational for it to be valid...)

I had an attempt at a critique of some of the Marxist/multiculturalist positions expressed in Disco's last post, but i'm going to have to wait until i've had a bit more time to formulate it...
 
 
Quantum
13:58 / 16.10.06
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? Lula

Sorry for the late response, I think they are definitely aware and print controversial stories deliberately to sell papers. To be fair, that article was relatively balanced, but it is just running with the story after Jack kicked it off.

Haus- nobody claimed that she feared rape by her colleagues did they? Except Our Lady, seemingly facetiously, which I took to be a chain of assumptions criticising the institution of the veil rather than her. A chain like this- veils are worn to avoid tempting men, meaning it assumes men can't control themselves and it's the woman's responsibility to avoid sexual assault by covering her tempting flesh, which rather ties into the odious concept that women wearing provocative clothing are somehow 'asking for it'. I don't think it's a particularly fruitful direction for discussion to show she didn't say or imply that is it? Seems obvious she didn't.

If I won't touch pork I am excluding myself from working in a sausage factory, if I won't have sex on screen I'm excluding myself from the pr0n industry, the lifestyle choices I make will impact the work I can do whether they're based on religion or personal morality. If wearing the veil were more important to me than a job which required it's removal, not doing that particular job is the price I pay for wearing it. I think the teaching assistant example is a bit of a red herring, what Straw said that was so worrying was that people shouldn't wear the veil *at all*, because it is a barrier to integration.
I'm reminded of the bite-the-cartridge affair around the Indian Rebellion. You shouldn't have to bite pork fat if you're a muslim, or beef fat if you're hindu, even though your job requires it. You shouldn't be asked to take your veil off in the same way you shouldn't be asked to take a wimple off. Isn't it a part of practicing religious tolerance to allow people to wear what they feel their religion requires? Whether or not Jack likes it, whether or not muslim scholars agree the Qur'an says you have to, it's ladies choice innit?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:13 / 16.10.06
I don't think it's a particularly fruitful direction for discussion to show she didn't say or imply that is it? Seems obvious she didn't.

Really? So, we should just make the assumptions we feel are right in order to decide for her why she is wearing the veil, and then mock her for the reasons _we have made up in our heads_? I think that's a very fruitful direction. Phex stated:

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).

So, Phex believes that this is the underlying assumption behind wearing the veil. I cannot judge whether his assessment of Lady's motives was accurate - Lady might have access to information on what this particular veil-wearer had said to which I do not. That's a matter of doubt, which doubt I am trying to clear up. However, if it is simply being assumed that this is what was in the woman's mind when she asked not to unveil in front of a male teacher, then it seems to suggest that one reason that it is hard for veiled women to communicate may be because people have already decided what they mean, and so can skip the onerous process of listening to what they say.

So, it doesn't seem obvious to me, no. I'd like it to be made obvious, is all.
 
 
Quantum
14:41 / 16.10.06
we should just make the assumptions we feel are right

Let me rephrase for clarity- there's no evidence I'm aware of that she said anything like that, or even implied it. I'm assuming nothing about her opinions, feelings or position on men or rape or her co-workers.
It seems obvious to me she didn't say or imply that the reason she wears a veil is that she was afraid of rape, because nothing like that has been reported.
 
 
Quantum
14:44 / 16.10.06
And as to why people wear the veil, I don't particularly care whether it's for devotion or aesthetics, what I care about is Straw singling out a commonly Muslim habit for criticism and sparking a lot of anti-muslim sentiment.
 
 
nighthawk
15:05 / 16.10.06
If I won't touch pork I am excluding myself from working in a sausage factory, if I won't have sex on screen I'm excluding myself from the pr0n industry, the lifestyle choices I make will impact the work I can do whether they're based on religion or personal morality. If wearing the veil were more important to me than a job which required it's removal, not doing that particular job is the price I pay for wearing it.

Well yes, but to stick with you original logic such a job would have to be something like 'hair model', not teaching assistant.
 
 
illmatic
15:12 / 16.10.06
If wearing the veil were more important to me than a job which required it's removal, not doing that particular job is the price I pay for wearing it.

But in the case in question, she clearly does feel that she can do it, and the veil is not an active impediment. Her school supervisors disagreee. This is shortly to be decided by an employment tribunal. I'm very interested to see what their decision is. One could argue that if they find against her, it's setting a precedent that will perpetuate the marginalisation of Muslim women.
 
 
Ticker
15:17 / 16.10.06
On friday I donned a very strange outfit which included a hat and veil to participate in promoting my local Halloween event. My outfit was obviously not related to anything but seasonal tradition. People's reaction to not being able to see my face was quite striking and pronounced. My experience of being veiled was only for a short time but it greatly changed my interaction with my environment.

From this brief experiment I separated out a few things to ponder.

1. the right to wear/display/conceal in my society
2. the need of people to frame strange behavior in others

I have determined for myself that I support the right of people to dress in whatever manner they wish so long as it is their choice.

If I want to dress like a space alien 24x7 it isn't harming anyone. Less extreme and more realisticly if I want to dress like a darque queen in black and velvet it isn't harming anyone. If I wish to veil myself for whatever reason it isn't harming anyone. The issue of safe visual field is important but it applies to halloween masks as much as burqas.

I can support women who choose to wear the veil and their right to wear it while supporting them as fully realized adults capable of making the choice. If I am made uncomfortable by their veil/helmet/mask/face it is my responsibility to own the discomfort's source as coming from my own social conditioning.

Mr. Disco- Exactly: Muslims in affulent parts of Saudi Arabia or Malaysia, or in London or New York or in most of the world aren't at all likely to practice female circumcision- it's bound into a specific place (mainly Africa, though it's not unheard of in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan and Iraq, and it was even practiced for purely aesthetic reasons in the US until it was outlawed in 1996) and is not specific to Islam but is also practiced by African Animists. As you say- female circumcision is not actually about Islam as a whole, so its use to criticise Islam as a whole would be misplaced and useless.

It is still being practiced in America covertly. The hypocrisy of condemning one form of genital alteration (female) will fostering another (male) does not go over really well with many immigrants.
I'm sure there is a thread elsewhere but while the removal of the clitoris in minors is reviled the removal of foreskins in minors is considered socially normal and ideal. I know many folks will point out that one procedure is not analogous to the other but I would ask these folks to consider if any genital alteration of a minor is truly ethical.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
15:56 / 16.10.06
So, Phex believes that this is the underlying assumption behind wearing the veil.

More that Phex believes that things say things. That there are a signifiers and signifieds. A business suit, a burqua, a 'Not in My Name' t-shirt, a mini-skirt all 'say' different things. Think of Roland Barthes's Mythologies, where even something as innocuous as a box of soap contains a mass of signs that naturalise a certain world-view. And that world-view is...? What is being 'said' when a person hides their facial features?
Well, to go back to Barthes again, this time in Death of the Author, “a text’s unity lies not in its origins (or its creator) but in its destination”. For example, if a white person wears Rastafarian clothing and speaks in Jamacian patois they (the 'text's' creator) may say they do it to express solidarity and out of an admiration of Rastafarian culture, others (the text's 'destination' or 'readers') may say that it's an act of (post)colonialist appropriation of another culture by somebody in a position of privilege. We had an example here on the board where Paranoidwriter said that s/he was using 'street' language in a post, others thought s/he was using 'black' language which s/he was not entitled to do.
So, if we accept that clothing is not value-nuetral and that the authority to say what a particular item of clothing means does not lie solely with the wearer ('the author') then Lula's above reading of the veil as saying what Quantum said above (veils are worn to avoid tempting men, meaning it assumes men can't control themselves and it's the woman's responsibility to avoid sexual assault by covering her tempting flesh, which rather ties into the odious concept that women wearing provocative clothing are somehow 'asking for it') is as valid as any other interpretation, including the wearer's own, just as our white-Rasta may say 'solidarity, therefore okay' others may say 'cultural appropriation, therefore not'; Paranoidwriter may say 'street language', others may say 'black language'.
 
 
nighthawk
16:43 / 16.10.06
Well, to go back to Barthes again, this time in Death of the Author, “a text’s unity lies not in its origins (or its creator) but in its destination”.

Yes, but you're not talking about a text or a cultural artifact; you're talking about a women, and basically sidelining her own subjectivity in favour of your interpretation. Only she's not a text sent out into the public domain, she's a women whose case is being shameslessly exploited by the media, which everyone now feel entitled to pass judgement on without really referencing the actual concrete situation. Its the same 'sense of entitlement' that Mister Disco mentioned above - that you can interpret this particular women's actions anyway you want, with minimal reference to, you know, her, because she's just a text open to plural interpretations.

The way this women has been exploited to sell papers and provide a target for people's opinions on Islam is quite disgusting really.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:44 / 16.10.06
Well, quite. And even if she is a text, the existence of a multiplicity of readings does not mean that all readings are of equal validity. If I were to tell you that Gone With the Wind was a story about giant robots laying eggs, it would be a reading: an incorrect reading. However, this is not entirely germaine to this inquiry. Flowers said, specifically, that the reason for the learning assistant not to remove her veil in the presence of men was that if she did then they would rape her. You described this is an underlying assumption.

"I am hiding my face to avoid being raped" is a possible signified. "I have stated in some way on a public record that can be cited that I am reluctant to remove my veil for fear of being raped" is a performative statement. You might claim the first, although in the absence of any corroborating evidence that this is the intended signification or the "underlying assumption" of wearing a veil in this instance I would be skeptical, although I would find the thesis informative. The second is a simple category error.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply