Hijabs and legally enforced standards of dress.

[TexanStar]

I got into an argument with some other liberals recently about hijabs. Specifically, they felt that hijabs were an extreme example of oppression, I don't personally see them as any more or less oppressive than legally enforced requirements in many US states where women need to keep their breasts covered in places where men do not.

You can get a run-down on different styles of Islamic dress here: https://www.yomyomf.com/here-is-why-muslim-women-wear-a-burka-niqab-or-a-hijab/

The pictures are a bit misleading though, because although hijabs can cover all of a woman's hair, they don't legally have to in all of the countries where a hijab is required. Like this is reasonably common:

Note, I do not support women being forced to wear hijabs. I think that should be their decision and forcing it, as a gender-based inequality, is a type of oppression.

But I also think it's on par with USA dress codes with respect to breast coverage and it's hypocritical to complain about one more strongly than the other.

This was prompted by discussion about female foreigners travelling to Iran and protesting that they have to wear a hijab when they are there.

Any thoughts?

 

[Heat]

I think if you're another country you should
Abuse by its laws, whether they are based in religion or not. Otherwise don't go to that country.

 

[Jjz1109]

^ Sorry, but not following your thought process. So, are you saying that an American woman should wear a hajib when in countries where required, and muslim woman should not wear them here in US?

Personally, I think women forced to wear a hajib are oppressed, not allowed to show their femininity. Plus, not so sure they always have the choice to go with, or without, whereas a woman in the U.S. has the choice to go to a topless beach, for example, or not.

 

[950483]

Some women choose to do it. I still think that it is oppressive because I have seen how women who have either moved to the UK from elsewhere, or grown up in the UK, have been bullied, shamed and coerced into covering their hair and altering their behaviour by friends, family, social circles and the wider community. There are certain expectations and codes of behaviour that go along with all of this covering your hair nonsense, it's not just purely about covering your hair. Even in the photo showing the casual, half-assed kind of hijab, the hijab is more of a signifier rather than a thing in itself.

 

[ronin001]

Sometimes it is just easier to conform; and go with the flow. I know a few liberated Middle Eastern men and women in NY who dress and live like just live everyone else around them does. Though ween they visit their native countries, some of the men will grow their beards and some of the women will wear a traditional head covering. I have been told it helps to blend in, and not get hassled by the locals or even their families.

Probably the same reason women in NY who are legally able to walk topless in the summer, decline to do so. Why ???? because it would get them unwanted attention from pervs as well as conservatives.

 

[TexanStar]

^ Sorry, but not following your thought process. So, are you saying that an American woman should wear a hajib when in countries where required, and muslim woman should not wear them here in US?

No. Saying all women should be forced to wear hijabs is oppressive. Saying no women should be allowed to wear hijabs is oppressive. Either way it would be some dude sitting around telling women what parts they have to cover when no such requirement is made of men.

I'm saying that women who come from countries which have gender inequity in dress codes (like the USA) can overlook oppression in their own back yard, and can also ascribe a higher level of severity to the oppression involved in other country's dress codes when they're not really more severe, but rather just different.

Personally, I think women forced to wear a hajib are oppressed

Sure, I agree. I think the oppression is in the being forced to cover parts that men are not forced to cover.

, not allowed to show their femininity.

I disagree on this part of it. We're not talking burqas. This particular line of logic would imply that women in the US aren't allowed to dress recognizably feminine if they can't take expose their breasts. It's a question of modesty and how modesty is defined in a given country.

Plus, not so sure they always have the choice to go with, or without, whereas a woman in the U.S. has the choice to go to a topless beach, for example, or not.

Women in the US do not have the choice to go without in all the areas that men go without. I can take off my shirt and go mow the lawn with no issue, but my wife could risk police coming by if she tried the same.

There are parts of the US where women have won equality in dress codes through legislation or court decision, but in much of the US there is still a legal inequality except in those designated areas where some priviledge has been carved out (like nude beaches).

Some women choose to do it. I still think that it is oppressive because I have seen how women who have either moved to the UK from elsewhere, or grown up in the UK, have been bullied, shamed and coerced into covering their hair and altering their behaviour by friends, family, social circles and the wider community. There are certain expectations and codes of behaviour that go along with all of this covering your hair nonsense, it's not just purely about covering your hair. Even in the photo showing the casual, half-assed kind of hijab, the hijab is more of a signifier rather than a thing in itself.

I agree it's oppressive. I just don't think it's any more oppressive than laws governing breast coverage in the USA. Other countries have more liberal attitudes (in Canada to our north, for example, it is legal for women to be topless anywhere that men can be topless). The USA has more religious restrictions in this regard.

Sometimes it is just easier to conform; and go with the flow. I know a few liberated Middle Eastern men and women in NY who dress and live like just live everyone else around them does. Though ween they visit their native countries, some of the men will grow their beards and some of the women will wear a traditional head covering. I have been told it helps to blend in, and not get hassled by the locals or even their families.

Probably the same reason women in NY who are legally able to walk topless in the summer, decline to do so. Why ???? because it would get them unwanted attention from pervs as well as conservatives.

Sure, social pressures and such are something else. I'm mainly talking about what's codified in the law.

 

[TexanStar]

I'll note that I may understate a bit in making a point, because this is coming from the perspective of someone who would be travelling to a country w/ these restrictions, not from someone living under them.

Although laws governing women's toplessness are oppressive (in my view), they're oriented more purely towards modesty. Day to day, neither men nor women are going to be going about much of their day without a shirt on in most cases.

The hijab is extra clothing though. It's not about what you can take off, but what you have to put on. It's extra clothing that women have to wear, and even in the countries where the amount of fabric is small, it communicates a message that you are in a country which is under the rule of religious law and those religious laws almost always carry some extra restrictions on what women can or can't do.

So on that level, as a symbol, it is more oppressive, because even if the difference in actual dress between men & women is just as minor, one case carries the weight of all those other religious laws with it.

I was raising this more with respect to travel to/from countries where a hijab is required attire. Some westerners act like the act of donning a hijab is a horrible case of oppression (I don't think it is), but at the same time, with respect to the people who live there, I think it is a significant source of oppression, if only because it's basically the poster/reminder that women there are under religious rule and need to stay in line. Does that make any sense?

 

[950483]

I agree it's oppressive. I just don't think it's any more oppressive than laws governing breast coverage in the USA. Other countries have more liberal attitudes (in Canada to our north, for example, it is legal for women to be topless anywhere that men can be topless). The USA has more religious restrictions in this regard.

Women are sexualized, objectified, and oppressed in the USA which means that a topless man is not the equivalent to a topless woman. Creating gender equality in the law concerning wearing shirts in public is nonsense if the underlying inequalities are not addressed.

 

[TexanStar]

Women are sexualized, objectified, and oppressed in the USA which means that a topless man is not the equivalent to a topless woman. Creating gender equality in the law concerning wearing shirts in public is nonsense if the underlying inequalities are not addressed.

The blatant sexualization of women in the US has little to do with what they are (or aren't) wearing.

Women can be dressed very conservatively and still draw tons of unwanted attention (with recognition that actually going topless would in all likelihood draw much more).

 

[950483]

The blatant sexualization of women in the US has little to do with what they are (or aren't) wearing.

Women can be dressed very conservatively and still draw tons of unwanted attention (with recognition that actually going topless would in all likelihood draw much more).

Unfortunately many people do equate nudity with sex. I know that nudity is just nudity, but most people don't.

 

[firsttimecaller]

Unfortunately many people do equate nudity with sex. I know that nudity is just nudity, but most people don't.

That's a chicken-egg thing, no?

I mean, if the only time you get to see nudity is when sex is on the table, how can you blame people for assuming a bit of symbiosis?

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Ok, Tex, if you saw me in a restaurant with my tichel, would you think I'm oppressed?
Here's one I got recently-
http://www.wrapunzel.com/store/wrapunzel-signature/

I'd say I cover about 70 percent of the time, using a tichel or a pony scrub hat.
It's far from universal in my community, and wigs are more common.

My modesty is chosen by me, and often gets flak from my family and friends.

 

[Doranq]

I don't think really matters with clothes. It is just about being forced to do something that is the issue. Or being forbid.

It is the rule in of itself. I do think everyone should be able to do wear whatever they want. Then again I don't make the rules nor do I enforce said rules.

That said, we can't speak for everyone, i imagine there are some that like the clothing or take pride in it just as there are obviously women who hate it.

I agree with the first poster, if you are visiting a country, you should abide by their laws. If you come to the US, you are expected to abide the laws, there is no excuse including ignorance. If you want to reform a country, the go for it, that's your business. It is just unwise/moronic to be picking a fight because you are stubborn and disagree with the law and have no plans to actually get it changed.
Especially in a FOREIGN country. A country you have little to no rights in.

You also need to factor in your age, race, sex, and nationality because life, the shit matters.


My personal opinion is hijabs are very mild in terms of oppression, like super mild. Extreme to me is something that is causing physical harm or not allowing you the resources you need to survive, taking away your freedom (ex. slavery) that is "extreme" to me. Women have been oppressed in a lot of cultures. This wouldn't even make a blip on the radar in top 10 ways they have been oppressed. Just sayin.

 

[TexanStar]

Ok, Tex, if you saw me in a restaurant with my tichel, would you think I'm oppressed?
Here's one I got recently-
http://www.wrapunzel.com/store/wrapunzel-signature/

I'd say I cover about 70 percent of the time, using a tichel or a pony scrub hat.
It's far from universal in my community, and wigs are more common.

My modesty is chosen by me, and often gets flak from my family and friends.

No.

1) You're wearing it by choice, not force of law (force of law when men don't have the same requirement).
2) You're still recognizable as an individual.

 

[TexanStar]

I don't think really matters with clothes. It is just about being forced to do something that is the issue. Or being forbid.

It is the rule in of itself. I do think everyone should be able to do wear whatever they want. Then again I don't make the rules nor do I enforce said rules.

That said, we can't speak for everyone, i imagine there are some that like the clothing or take pride in it just as there are obviously women who hate it.

I agree with the first poster, if you are visiting a country, you should abide by their laws. If you come to the US, you are expected to abide the laws, there is no excuse including ignorance. If you want to reform a country, the go for it, that's your business. It is just unwise/moronic to be picking a fight because you are stubborn and disagree with the law and have no plans to actually get it changed.
Especially in a FOREIGN country. A country you have little to no rights in.

You also need to factor in your age, race, sex, and nationality because life, the shit matters.


My personal opinion is hijabs are very mild in terms of oppression, like super mild. Extreme to me is something that is causing physical harm or not allowing you the resources you need to survive, taking away your freedom (ex. slavery) that is "extreme" to me. Women have been oppressed in a lot of cultures. This wouldn't even make a blip on the radar in top 10 ways they have been oppressed. Just sayin.

Here's what prompted all of this: https://www.unwatch.org/game-changer-chess-queen-refuses-used-pawn/

She's not attending the chess tournament because she thinks it would be oppressive to wear a hijab and would thus send a bad example.

On the one hand, I agree, when in Rome, do as the romans do. If she's unwilling to wear a hjijab, then just not going is the proper choice.

However, I disagree pretty strongly w/ her decision not go attend. I think in the context of this specifically being a women's tournament, if her goal actually is womens rights, it's better to participate in the event. Locally, within the culture that is oppressing women, activities like this are positive and empowering for the women that live there. It encourages pursuit of equality for women.

Like imagine if Jesse Owens had sat out from the Olympics when they were held in Germany (not that civil rights in the US were great for black people at the time). It's not exactly a parallel, but the point is that there's a benefit to visibility and participating in events like this even when they're held in countries that have ongoing civil rights issues. Stepping out removes your voice from the local conversation.

Her stepping out is a form of protest, but I don't think it's as effective with respect to the end-goal as if she would've attended.

 

[Doranq]

Here's what prompted all of this: https://www.unwatch.org/game-changer-chess-queen-refuses-used-pawn/

She's not attending the chess tournament because she thinks it would be oppressive to wear a hijab and would thus send a bad example.

On the one hand, I agree, when in Rome, do as the romans do. If she's unwilling to wear a hjijab, then just not going is the proper choice.

However, I disagree pretty strongly w/ her decision not go attend. I think in the context of this specifically being a women's tournament, if her goal actually is womens rights, it's better to participate in the event. Locally, within the culture that is oppressing women, activities like this are positive and empowering for the women that live there. It encourages pursuit of equality for women.

Like imagine if Jesse Owens had sat out from the Olympics when they were held in Germany (not that civil rights in the US were great for black people at the time). It's not exactly a parallel, but the point is that there's a benefit to visibility and participating in events like this even when they're held in countries that have ongoing civil rights issues. Stepping out removes your voice from the local conversation.

Her stepping out is a form of protest, but I don't think it's as effective with respect to the end-goal as if she would've attended.

To sum it up. She should of came into that chess tournament and wrecked dem bitches to show how intelligent women can be and that women can excel just as well as men can do in any given activity (in this case chess). In the process inspiring more women to perhaps pursue things they are discouraged from doing and garnering the respect of men which could lead to a few re-evaluating their views on women.

Achievements and proficiency more often than not do gain some amount of respect.

 

[WillyLong]

What they're saying with their headscarves and burkinis is that they're not sluts. So if you're a woman who does not wear that head-neck scarf thing, or if you're a woman who has the nerve to show some skin in public, as far as they're concerned, you're a slut.

 

[twoton]

My opinion is that the chick on the right is cute, and her hajib adds to the allure.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

My opinion is that the chick on the right is cute, and her hajib adds to the allure.

Which is Western romanticism of what Muslim women are, what men assume happens in women-only spaces, and a general misunderstanding of cultures with modesty codes enforced by the society, on a social community level (such as my covering) or enforced by law (think Iran after the revolution and Afghanistan under the Talib warlords).

I will grant that mystery does add to allure.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

No.

1) You're wearing it by choice, not force of law (force of law when men don't have the same requirement).
2) You're still recognizable as an individual.

Unless my neighbors veil their faces, I can see who is who. And I'm only middling good with face recognition (meaning intend to log in a birthmark, freckle pattern, cheekbones that are different, hair cut and color-- pointless in an area with hair extension studios on every third block)
In contrast, if someone meets me with my hair covered, they recognize me elsewhere, but if someone meets me without it covered, they often don't recognize me when covered.
Because I'm reduced to "the redhead," or at best, the "redhead who likes long skirts."
Same when I wore tie dye almost exclusively.

Men in communities with modesty rules do have some prohibitions, one of which is to behave in a modest way and keep your eyes to yourself. But look at Orthodox Jewish communities. The men dress in a prescribed fashion, too.
Locally, the immigrant Muslim husbands and adult sons don't wear shorts, keep shirts on for the most part (it's so rare to see even an undershirt). Yes the majority of control is on women, and increasingly, girls. I see girls in hijab at startlingly young ages.
I've lived around Muslim communities that didn't require/encourage head covering until adolescence or even marriage. This seems to not apply in my neighborhood.
On the other hand, several non-covering young women (late middle school into university) are starting to cover as a political statement of their own. I'm close to Berkeley, so political statements are everywhere.