Subscribe to Desicritics
A Veiled Insult
The Buddha Smiled
Serendipity is a word that we apply to happy, unexpected but ultimately personally satisfying discoveries; things like finding that perfect little café that has the best cheesecake in the whole city. Sadly, no similar word exists (and if it does, I certainly am not aware of it) for discoveries that are unexpected but can be quite distressing. Sometimes, personal epiphanies or revelations about oneself can fall into this category too. I had a similar “eureka” moment on the ubiquitous London Tube some weeks back, and it has taken me a long, long time to come to terms with all three major components of that biblical moment: the actual discovery , the events that triggered it, and my own personal reaction to realising what it was that I had found out about myself.
What happened is this – I boarded a Tube train some time back, my mind focused on Jeff Buckley’s cover of Hallelujah on my iTouch, and took the only free seat available opposite a Middle Eastern couple. Unlike other Middle Eastern / Arab Muslim couples, however, who tend not to be incredibly expressive in public, this one was generally quite “couple-y”, holding hands, whispering softly to each other, feeding each other cookies out of a bag from Cranberry; you know, just generally being very lovey-dovey. Nothing too out of the ordinary for a normal train journey in London, albeit with one surreal twist.
The man had a long, unkempt and straggly beard, and was walking around in a long djellaba/thawb/dishdasha that could have done with either a wash and darn, or possibly a binbag. The woman was wearing a long black burqa and had a full facial niqab, with a tiny little crack in the face for her eyes to peek through. But that was not all; not only did she have several layers of veils on, she was also wearing black gloves on her hands - from the part of her hands that protruded from the long billowing sleeves of her cloak, they caught the light in that weird way that cheap synthetic faux opera gloves that you can buy at your local costume shop do. I could almost imagine her wearing elbow length opera gloves, and who knows, potentially a black off-the-shoulder evening gown underneath her many-layered veil. All very bizarre, especially that given the warm weather and bright sunlight, the black material was a portable heat sink.
So why am I taking this much time to describe how this couple was dressed? For a very simple reason: the sight of this otherwise so ordinary couple filled me with completely unexpected, and at the time, inexplicable, rage.
My sudden anger at seeing this couple dressed in what would be a totally unremarkable way in the Middle East, including that "Western" idyll of Dubai, totally caught me completely by surprise. I spent the ten minutes or so that I was in that carriage sitting opposite them listening to Jeff Buckley's dulcet tones, trying to calm down, not looking at them and generally trying to come to terms with the fact that I was very, very angry. And I was very glad to get off my train after a couple of stops, with a chance to walk and clear my head. But once my rage dissipated I had to spend the remainder of my journey, and several days afterwards, trying to get my head around what it was about that perfectly ordinary, typical couple that had angered me so much.
What was particularly galling about the episode was that I like to think of myself as a multicultural citizen of the world; someone who is truly a global person, able to live in anywhere on the planet (well, except Singapore, maybe) and accept and appreciate diversity in culture, food, music, dress, religion. And having spent time in countries where the sight of women in full black veil is not uncommon (try walking through the old city in Istanbul, Delhi, or even East London, and you would be hard pressed to avoid them) I could not fathom what it was about the couple, and particularly about the woman in the opera gloves, that really drove me over the edge.
After several days of introspection and having discussed my reaction with several friends, I think I'm beginning to understand the causes of my rage. It is always very difficult to talk about Islam in today's world, and I know that what I will say may be construed as being incendiary, but in the spirit of independent, liberal analysis, and in the interests of freedom of speech, here goes nothing.
Essentially there were two main things about the woman in the niqab and opera gloves that got me angry. And they had to do with how the veil was a symbol of broader interactions concerning the woman in her own life, and her interactions with me as a random passing stranger; a stranger you share space with in public transport, but do not actually verbally communicate with.
With regards to the woman herself, I don't know why she was veiled. The standard, often immediate, assumption made about a woman in a veil is that she is oppressed and has been coerced into wearing it, or that she would be risking honour killing by choosing to discard it. It is also the easiest and most accessible assumption to make about the veil, particularly in societies where the majority of women are not veiled. However, I have also met several people where the adoption of a hijab has been a personal choice, usually as a consciously forged link with a heritage, but also often as a very visible form of personal protest – Turkish women being a classic case in point. A (Muslim) female friend in London also once told me that sometimes a woman can choose to wear a veil (usually a hijab) as an educated adult in the West as a way of registering political protest in today's Islamophobic geopolitical environment, but also as a means of demonstrating an awareness and acknowledgement of her own sexuality and as part of the process of sexualisation into an adult. There have been several news articles in the mainstream UK media about women choosing to adopt a full niqab out of personal choice.
That is not to say, however, that all women wearing the niqab in the West do so out of personal choice. Furthermore, given that personal decisions are coloured by the lenses of our upbringing and our environments, I don't know whether the woman in the tube wore a full veil out of free will, or because that was what she had been brought up to do. But my anger surrounding her being veiled was partly driven by my own implicit assumption that she had somehow had been coerced into being fully veiled; an assumption that was reinforced by her obviously intimate interactions with a man himself dressed in a way as to facilitate easy identification as a conservative Muslim man. I realise that this part of my anger was possibly based on a preconception on my part, and therefore probably the more irrational part of my being angry. It is also the pettier and baser part of my own anger, something that does me no favours, but therefore all the more necessary for me to challenge and confront as a (previously) hidden prejudice.
What is not so easy to explain away as irrational is what the niqab implied with regards to the woman and her interaction with me as a co-passenger in London's public transport. The entire premise of wearing a niqab is to protect yourself from the gaze of strange men; men who as strangers might be driven to uncontrollable lust by the sight of an unveiled face, or the sight of an ankle or wrist. The veil hides, covers, shields, but most importantly, protects, the wearer from the attention of strange men.
So by choosing to wear a niqab in public in London, this woman was making a statement about the potential people she would be likely to encounter on the street, ordinary people like you and me. The veiling of her entire body in public was a statement that as a random (male) stranger in her Tube carriage, I was a threat. I was assumed to be incapable of controlling my sexual urges, and that the safest thing she could do to protect herself was to cover herself up fully to remove the slightest threat of temptation. The wearing of the opera gloves was the reinforcing element that catapulted me over the edge. Not only was I unreliable as a purportedly healthy male, I was so much of a threat that every last vestige of flesh that could be concealed had to be; who could say that the glimpse of a fingernail would not send me over the edge and turn me into a boorish caveman, bursting with lust and full of dishonourable intentions?
And so by choosing to wear a niqab, by branding me (not personally, but as a random male stranger on the street) and a threat, this woman had insulted me and my ability to interact as a civilised member of society in public; or perhaps she was calling into question our assumptions that existing societal structures would be in a position to protect her. Historically societies have developed rituals and norms around "protecting" women, particularly so in Asia where concepts of family honour are intrinsically tied to the "virtue" of women. And if it was the 12th century and if I was a Safavid soldier at the siege of Jerusalem I could understand the assumption being made by a veiled woman that all men were potential rapists. But to perpetrate the niqab in Central London was perhaps taking things a little too far.
Now don't get me wrong - I don't mean to say that women are not harassed while walking down the street in many parts of the city by men who find it easy fun to wolf-whistle or to (in more unpleasant situations) actually grab or pinch some body part; in India this goes by the anachronistic and incredibly ludicrous phrase of "eve-teasing". But at the same time, there is an important distinction between wearing what you want, regardless of its suitability for the neighbourhood you walk through and in wearing a full niqab with gloves and black shoes to prevent the slightest chance of skin being exposed.
I suspect that I would probably not mind the full veil as much if I was in a country where the social norm was for women to be veiled, in as much as my choosing to live or visit a place where such traditions exist would involve a subconscious acknowledgement of that tradition, and of accepting it within my own consciousness. However, when in a culture where a woman being veiled is not the norm, then I have to call into question what the act of wearing a niqab is about. Is it about exercising religious freedom? Is it about personal choice? Is it about a right to be able to discriminate against complete strangers on the basis that they are strangers? And if a woman choosing to wear a niqab is exercising religious freedom, what about my own personal right to not be insulted?
I don't have the answers - not yet - but hopefully I'm asking the right questions...
A Veiled Insult
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: Society
- » Culture: Women
- » Desicritics.org articles by The Buddha Smiled
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Chandra
June 12, 2008
02:56 AM
Why so angry?
Just a kinky exhibitionist couple having fun trying out a very conservative outfit ;)and enjoying the mortified faces of people like you :-)
bollyviewer
URL
June 12, 2008
03:43 AM
Have you considered that the woman wears full veil simply because she's used to it and probably feels naked without it in public? I see several women from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh in North America who still wear traditional clothes simply because they cant imagine wearing anything else. Cultural conditioning is not that easy to get out of. Also, wearing full veil is definitely a statement of distrust but perhaps not of North American males but males in her own country whom she is more used to and distrusts profoundly.
Deepti Lamba
URL
June 12, 2008
04:55 AM
TBS, some people are born rebellious and some lead lives of quiet desperation;)
Your right to be personally insulted by her hijab? Well, the way I see it some people are born paranoid and some are conditioned to think the world is against them.
If thats her way of thinking or her community's way of thinking its their problem and not yours. You can't make them change their mind. They have to do it all o ntheir own. Till the time I don't see them threatening you physically or verbally why should you feel insulted?
You can't save them all right? As it sometimes people tend to get insular in foreign lands and become more conservative than they would have been back home.
All said and done I admire your self reflecting attitude. Its a rare quality:)
Ledzius
URL
June 12, 2008
07:22 AM
Had I been in your situation, I wouldn't care about being insulted as much as wanting to know if she has any bombs hidden under the hijab.
One needs to recognize trash as such, even when it comes to human minds.
Guido
June 12, 2008
07:28 AM
TBS,
Perhaps you were tired or in a foul mood prior to the encounter. Perceptions and reactions are influenced by fluctuating states of mind.
Ciao, Guido
Jawahara
URL
June 12, 2008
07:37 AM
I've asked a few hijabi women I've met about this veiling in non-Islamic countries. There are consistently two answers:
1) This is the simple one: They *want* to be set apart and seen as virtuous and pious, as believing Muslim women. And when questioned further, this setting apart is important because women in the west are perceived as being promiscuous and not virtuous. This is interesting since hijab is supposed to make you not stand out...and these women do want to stand out in a crowd.
2) This is more complicated but these are the women who've drank the Kool-Aid: There is a growing sub-field and/or movement that says that the hijab (or any form of veiling) actually empowers women. First, they become like these precious jewels, too beautiful to be defiled by the gaze of the world. Second, western women are slaves to fashion, to the gaze of men, to the desperate whirl of dating and sleeping around (yes, the entire western world is a giant sex and the city scenario). Wearing the hijab frees women from this mad dash, and makes men (and other women too presumably) look beyond their physical attributes to their minds. Therefore, they can compete with men with equality because they, in a sense, become pure minds, with no exasperatingly distracting body attached.
Veiling is the face of Islamo-feminism. In my mind it is making victims complicit in their own victimization by feeding them a load of bull. But, hey, that's me.
On the other newest research suggests that hijabs and burqas can save you from uranium-enriched weapons and malnutrition, so perhaps there is more than meets the eye *removes tongue from cheek and points to Ms. Sharma-Winters' latest article on DC*
smallsquirrel
June 12, 2008
07:59 AM
jawahara... I think I just peed my pants. if I was wearing burqa, no one would see! :P
(I failed to catch that *WILD* assertion on her part as I was floored at her other assertion that they were great cause she has worn one for a minute last week)
Anamika
June 12, 2008
09:31 AM
Jawahara: you're right except the burqa doesn't work against thermal weapons! ;-p
Btw, I think the point that TBS has been ignored by focussing on the woman wearing the burqa - what does such a choice say about men?
If a random man walked up to a woman and called her a slut, she would be insulted. When men call out sexual slurs at women in the streets - Mumbai, Rome wherever, women do feel insulted. So why is okay for a woman to brand a casual stranger a rapist just because he is a man?
I hadn't thought of the topic this way, TBS. But the more I think about it, the more angry I feel: there are a lot of men in my life - father, brother, uncles, cousins, nephews, friends - who are wonderful human beings, caring and respectful not only of women but all humans. Why does a woman have the right to label those men as rapists, and why am I supposed to let that pass as "cultural sensitivity" or multiculturalism?
Thanks for raising the point...
commonsense
June 12, 2008
09:52 AM
TBS,
Any idea what might have happened had you flashed a Buddha Smile at them?
Ledzius
URL
June 12, 2008
10:39 AM
#9: Any idea what might have happened had you flashed a Buddha Smile at them?
cs, you remember what happened to the Bamiyan Buddha statues under the Taliban?
Ledzius
URL
June 12, 2008
10:44 AM
Anamika,
It would make our job a lot simpler if we restrict ourselves to Islamic customs that are NOT offensive or threatening or insulting to one or the other.
commonsense
June 12, 2008
11:16 AM
Anamika,
I remember well. And they were not even smiling!!
commonsense
June 12, 2008
11:29 AM
TBS:
I think you should not be too hard on a couple who were most likely:
1. not at all aware of the fact that it's illegal to wear faux operal gloves in the tube. There is no law against wearing real opera gloves, but I guess they were trying to save a few p's.
2. I agree with you about the limits to multiculturalism. I mean, there's a culture of the opera and there's a distinctive culture of riding the tube. Now, it is not impossible to take the tube to the opera, but if one is NOT going to the opera, AND donning faux opera gloves...nah, this kind of multicultural violation of culture should be curbed.
3. I can empathise with how you felt and continue to feel. when i was younger, during the medieval era, i picked up the courage to go the that section of Brighton beach where you can let it all hang out. I will not say that I did not ogle, but the novelty wore off (no pun intended) after about five minutes. I was more interested in feeding my self-righteous pomposity (I was young then) by ogling, not at tits, but at a group of sikhs who were not just fully dressed, but in suits with ties and the high heels for men that were fashionable way back then. And the were armed with clunky cameras on which were attached humungus zooms. Ogling at them, ogling at the gallery of real, live nude women, was more interesting, as it made me feel infinitely superior to them. And a bit embarrassed, as others looked at them with annoyance. I felt sort of responsible for their behavious due to the desi equation. But mostly it pumped up my self-righteousness at being slightly higher up the civilization ladder, as i imagined that these guys had recently arrived, done the standard things: ie. bought playboys right away, went to the strip parlour, but eventually got tired of all the fake commercialized flesh...hence Brighton for the real, voluntary thing. Feeling maha-superior as opposed to them uncouth louts, I fell asleep. No ogling, no touching of any women. I was not a danger to anyone. However, when I got inside the tube en route to London, fully clothed of course, I felt as if all the women who were clothed, were implicitly accusing me of something....not sure what.
commonsense
June 12, 2008
12:18 PM
oops #10 was Leadzious, not Anamika. Sorry!
The Buddha Smiled
URL
June 12, 2008
03:04 PM
Hello all - thank you all so much for your comments. There are several questions I have to answer, so let me take them systematically....
Chandra in #1: Being covered head to toe sort of defeats the whole exhibitionist logic, does it not?! :)
Bollyviewer in #2: Your comment about a hijab/niqab being worn out of a cultural memory (paraphrasing here) is an interesting one; a comment left on my personal blog in relation to this article also refers to the role of multiculturalism and many times the veil is a link to a heritage.
I think the point I should make here is that I am not against the "veil" per se; I think nothing of a hijab to be perfectly honest. The issue with the niqab is that it is an extreme form of the veil, and therefore implies an extreme threat perception as well. As I mentioned in the article, the first part of my reaction was embedded in my own assumption (possibly incorrectly) that the woman was veiled out of compulsion, not choice. Perhaps I was conflating the role the veil, especially the full niqab, has played in places like a Talibanised Afghanistan, where it became (or potentially merely regained its historic currency) as a tool of repression. Like I said, I'm still figuring this out in my own head...
Jawahara in #6: The problem with movements of any kind is that it is so easy to lose coherent analysis and be reduced to slogans and pith catchphrases - there is no reason why Islamo-feminism is any different than radical fundamentalism in this respect. I strongly believe that a human being is more than just the outer body (the dating game teaches you that early on!) but I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that you HAVE to look beyond the body completely. While I agree that some people end up doing crazy things to fit a stereotypical image of beauty, I also don't think that abandoning everything to do with outward appearance will somehow enhance recognition of what's inside; its about celebrating every part of a human being, not just one part. Besides, the frisson of excitement you get on being called sexy is so much better than being called smart or funny - I dare anyone to disagree with that statement! :)
Anamika in #8: I am myself surprised that nobody has ever raised this point earlier, but better late than never I guess. Human beings discriminate on a variety of levels, and this is just one more manifestation. I wouldn't get too angry about it though - remember, you're not anyone else's keeper, just as they aren't yours. I'm sure the men in your life are strong enough to live with the burden of the insult. (Not trying to patronise here, so apologies if I come across doing that)
Commonsense in #13: I've had a long day dealing with FX rates, option pricing and non disclosure agreements, so I have to admit I'm a little confused by your comments. Help?!
And to all - don't worry about me; I've got a beatific smile on my face right now...
blokesablogin
June 12, 2008
03:31 PM
TBS: You are reading way too much into a simple couple loving each other. irrespective of how they were dressed, the love was there wasn't it? had they had a child with them, you would have cooed. Children and pets make for easy icebreakers in any situation. you have made this simple daily excursion of taking the tube to work into a huge "issue" in your head. Hijab or no hijab, food, clothes, customs are personal choices. As long as the lady or the man did not demand that you wore such clothes, there is no issue here!
Ruvy
June 12, 2008
03:54 PM
I'm used to seeing Arab women in head coverings and loose dress. It's pretty common here. If a such a woman was sitting on the bus from French Hill riding alone, I might be worried about a bomb belt on her, ready to go off at her magic "shahada" moment. But if she were sitting, flirting with some guy, no matter what he looked like, I would feel reassured that her bomb belt had been left at home - that day, at least....
I don't introspect as much as you do TBS, and don't really care what people wear, so long as it is not an intended and obvious insult to me.
I've had a long day dealing with FX rates,.... you could always do this poor Jew a favor and try to encourage people to buy shekels and push their value higher - particularly against the dollar. In the meantime, enjoy your beatific smile.
commonsense
June 12, 2008
04:45 PM
TBS:
"Commonsense in #13: I've had a long day dealing with...non disclosure agreements, so I have to admit I'm a little confused by your comments. Help?!"
One of the non-disclosure agreement you signed was with me!! so me not disclosing what my message means. meanwhile, don't take me seriously. nobody, including me, does. i like the sound of my own keyboard, so to speak, so that's all there is to it. (ummm, unless i'm arguing with a certain unnamed friend on this forum...so smile for all you're worth, TBS!
The Buddha Smiled
URL
June 12, 2008
05:15 PM
Blokesablogin: Suggest you read the article a little more closely. I wasn't upset by the sight of a couple in the throes of passion; I was upset by the sight of a woman in full veil and what I inferred it said about the wider society she lived and operated in, and what is implied about me as a member of that society in close physical proximity to her. And as someone with a strong aversion to all humans below the legal drinking age, I can't imagine how seeing a child would have made me react more positively!
To clarify and possibly reiterate a bit - I'm all for freedom of personal choice, but at what point does a personal choice that impinges on another person become an issue? That is what I am trying to investigate.
Ruvy in #17: Try the introspection sometimes; its amazing how much in our lives can be illuminated by it. As for encouraging people to buy shekels, I can't really see the economic value in that - the Israeli economy doesn't have the fundamentals to support a higher exchange rate against the USD.
Still beatific!
commonsense
June 12, 2008
05:57 PM
TBS:
""And as someone with a strong aversion to all humans below the legal drinking age""
hey, we have something in common!! is there a term for the likes of us? i mean, we have "misanthropist", "misogynist" etc. etc, but does somebody know a term to describe who do not particularly like kids? (Clarification: I don't actually dislike kids, but I always try to steer clear of them. And not necessarily because I cannot share a beer with them....)
Ruvy
June 12, 2008
06:06 PM
Try the introspection sometimes; its amazing how much in our lives can be illuminated by it. As for encouraging people to buy shekels, I can't really see the economic value in that - the Israeli economy doesn't have the fundamentals to support a higher exchange rate against the USD.
There is a reason I do not introspect more. I've seen too much of myself in my "inner mirror", and do not like what I see at all. While it is never too late to change, it is, for me at any rate, too late to undo damage done.
Ravi Kulkarni
June 13, 2008
03:38 AM
Dear TBS,
Great article. I have sometimes thought about women, not just the veiled ones, who perceive ALL men as threatening. But thankfully, most women are not like that.
There is another angle to muslim women who make a statement by wearing hijab/niqab. It is all fine and dandy to protest against islamophobia. But at the same time there are many in the islamic world who force their women to dress in a certain fashion while keeping them within the four walls. These statement makers also encourage these misogynists.
Regards,
Ravi Kulkarni
Ledzius
June 13, 2008
04:02 AM
"To clarify and possibly reiterate a bit - I'm all for freedom of personal choice, but at what point does a personal choice that impinges on another person become an issue? That is what I am trying to investigate."
I cannot fathom why you think her niqab impinges on another person, unless you are concerned that she might have a bomb or even a knife hidden under it (but that doesn't seem to be the issue according to you). If she considers strange men as a threat, it only speaks volumes about the men in the society she comes from, and, frankly speaking, I agree with her on that.
Anamika
June 13, 2008
04:37 AM
TBS: Agreed. But just as I would be angry on behalf of a friend who was insulted by a random stranger, I find myself getting angry about this idea too. :-)
CS: I dont think the nudist colony logic is quite the same. The whole point of that is that it is a specifically designated area (although people taking pictures is really quite disgusting and inappropriate).
The point is also not as Ruvy makes that niqab-ed women are walking about common or not and therefore about the beholder. Most Indians have grown up with that a common sight (and most of them will not be found canoodling with a man in a public place)
It is about an apparently "liberated" - and given the way London Muslim community(ies) work, most likely, highly politicized - woman choosing to publicly make a statement about herself and the society she lives in.
And yes, she has the full right to do so - thankfully not living in sharia state! or indeed Saudi where she would be stoned for all sorts of reasons - another person has ALSO the right to be insulted by the insult embedded in that statement.
commonsense
June 13, 2008
02:26 PM
anamika,
true!
temporal
URL
June 14, 2008
08:38 AM
ana:
re: last para
"business as usual"
;)
The Buddha Smiled
URL
June 14, 2008
10:09 AM
Anamika,
Thanks for saying something that I forgot to in my own article. I at no point am disputing the woman's RIGHT to wear a full niqab - if at the end of the day, she wants to do that, she should have the full freedom to do so. In the very same spirit, I as an individual have the full freedom to react to the statment that she makes in so far as what it says about me. But at no point in the article, or indeed my normal life, do I suggest that there should be a ban on a full veil.
As a (possibly facetious) example, its like saying that the National Front has the right to go around calling people niggers and coolies - I will not stop them from saying that unless they try to start hanging the objects of their hatred from trees, but I do reserve the full right to react to their statements..
Live and let live - but call me names, and expect a response! :)
Peace, all.
commonsense
June 14, 2008
11:54 AM
TBS,
Methinks you are just a sensitive soul. The couple did not mean anything personal against you, but being a sensitive sort, who are we to tell you what you should or should not take personally?
Anamika
June 14, 2008
12:11 PM
Thanks TBS - I think that is a necessary distinction that you make on "freedom of expression."
CS: I dont think the issue was TBS getting offended by the couple. At least thats not what I read. I think the issue is what the choice of burqa in a land where it is not the norm says about men surrounding Ms. burqa-nashin. And I have to agree, that wearing a burqa in London does make a specific point re: men and their sexuality. If I were a man, I would be insulted as well.
On a related note, I find the whole burqa thing quite absurd. The university where I teach has quite a few of these burqa-nashin types - all second and third generation British-born who wear it for "political" reasons. And of course then they proceed to tell all other Muslim "sisters" how they are not being "good" Muslims.
Quite ridiculous as the burqa is meant to ensure that a woman does not call attention to herself. But by wearing it in the middle of London, the woman is going precisely against this principle. Wouldn't a simply dressed woman in jeans and jumpers be - in completely Koranic terms - a "better" Muslim by not drawing attention to herself than one who cloaks herself in a burqa?
commonsense
June 14, 2008
12:32 PM
Anamika:
""Quite ridiculous as the burqa is meant to ensure that a woman does not call attention to herself. But by wearing it in the middle of London, the woman is going precisely against this principle. Wouldn't a simply dressed woman in jeans and jumpers be - in completely Koranic terms - a "better" Muslim by not drawing attention to herself than one who cloaks herself in a burqa?""
Good point vis-a-vis attention. Didn't think of it this way.
However: ""And I have to agree, that wearing a burqa in London does make a specific point re: men and their sexuality.""
Not entirely sure about this; maybe you are right. My take: as long as there is no law against specific attire....of course that does not mean that TBS has no right to reflect on the implications of specific attires. His piece is of course, a very thoughtful and reflexive one.
And no TBS, I do not accuse you of calling for a ban on the burqa. (Although it was done by the Shah in Iran....).
A lot of my students are indeed burqa-nashin, but honestly i couldn't care less as long as i can see their face for identification purposes. As in, I'm completely neutral. As long as they don't start trumpeting the superiority of their culture etc....that is a red-flag (as you can tell by now!!)....but then such discussions are unlikely in physics, unless they start talking about the thermal and radiation-protective properties of their attire....
It is Swift who I believe said,
""Passion and fashion cannot be governed""....assuming that the burqa in its specific incarnations, is certainly fashion too, in a manner of speaking....
Anamika
June 14, 2008
04:16 PM
CS: "A lot of my students are indeed burqa-nashin, but honestly i couldn't care less as long as i can see their face for identification purposes. As in, I'm completely neutral."
But then you're talking of the hijab and not the niqab. I was speaking very specifically (and should have been more precise - apologies) of women students who wear the full niqab at university. Then you can't identify them or indeed ask them to remove the niqab.
At our university its a very problematic scenario. We have students insisting on wearing a full niqab in creative writing, theatre or performance studies classes when the whole point of these is trust-building and working with other people, which is frankly a bit difficult with a niqab.
A colleague in theatre studies had one such student last term who announced (unsolicited) in a full on Broomie accent that she never removed her niqab in public. When it came to the group presentation, few other students wanted to work with her - and then of course as far she was concerned it was about "racism" and not the fact that she was showing them disrespect. A lot of other students in the class felt it was disrespectful, especially as trust-building is one of the key components of theatre studies (and acting in general), not to mention it was a bit difficult for the tutor to assess her performance for the course without seeing her face!
Basically it got to the point where the tutor and most other students felt it was a piss-take on her part. She did - unfortunately - more for the cause of Islamophobia than anything else.
commonsense
June 14, 2008
07:54 PM
oops, i couldn't be neutral towards somebody who had her face completely covered. i would refuse to teach!!
Morris
June 15, 2008
12:27 AM
There is no need for TBS to feel insulted. She is free to wear whatever she wish to. He should simply feel sorry for her for wearing niqab. If she was coersed then for not having her free will. And if she chose to wear it on her own free will then for carrying all that "baggage" which is not necessary.
Ledzius
June 15, 2008
01:30 AM
Or as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does".
Anamika
June 15, 2008
07:37 AM
"i couldn't be neutral towards somebody who had her face completely covered. i would refuse to teach!!"
Lucky you! UK rules are too messy and refusing to teach is really not an option for most of us.
Btw, re having face completely covered - isnt that what TBS's piece was about and NOT about a woman canoodling in public (which is what a lot of people here seem to think its about). ;-)
temporal
URL
June 15, 2008
12:05 PM
ana:
agree - such delusional cuckoos help spread phobias
their twisted interpretation is an insult to everyone's intelligence
on a lighter note
aaja pyare, paas humare
aaja pyare, dikhaja re
jalwa apna, dikhaje re
Ritu
URL
June 16, 2008
12:10 PM
#10
Ledzius
Touche! :)
@ TBS : An engaging post, very well written and provides an interesting angle to the whole burqa embroil.
@ Jawahara : I like you point #2. Burqa as empowerment!. It more than demonstrates that the traditional lines we draw are almost always from our own viewpoints and sensibilities and may not represent the full picture. A good example is this whole burqa issue that has been cropping up on DC.
I haven't managed to go through all the comments, so I apologise if I am repeating an already expressed opinion. My take is that TBS is missing the larger picture. The larger picture is this that most people are very strongly tied to their religious and traditional practices and rituals. So much so that the original reason for the practice is lost over time. People do it, because it is done. It is not a statement, just a way of life.
To me the woman in the tube wearing a burqa is not too different from my mother continuing to wear Indian clothes even when she travels out of the country. She has no ideological problem against western wear, yet it just not in her comfort zone. There are times when you don't particularly care for a tradition but it's just too much a part of your skin.
The burqa effect is also not too different from the other thread the case of the desi expatriate not letting go of what we(and what we perceive the western world would) consider strange. For someone who has applied Chameli ka Tel all their lives, leaving their hair without oil is very difficult to let do. However conspicuous they might be. So many desi girls from traditional backgrounds continue to wear a bindi over their western clothes. What is the difference between them and our burqaed friend?
Are we being over-sensitive given the sexual repression connotation of the burqa? Have you ever thought of the possibility that women could consider the burqa like just another garment? Cumbersome yes, but just another garment?
commonsense
June 16, 2008
03:04 PM
Ritu:
"@ Jawahara : I like you point #2. Burqa as empowerment!. It more than demonstrates that the traditional lines we draw are almost always from our own viewpoints and sensibilities and may not represent the full picture."
Ritu, but Jawahar is ripping up this idea of the burqa as empowerment....as he rips the burqa too...
Anamika
June 16, 2008
06:40 PM
Ritu: "Are we being over-sensitive given the sexual repression connotation of the burqa? Have you ever thought of the possibility that women could consider the burqa like just another garment? Cumbersome yes, but just another garment?"
Ever wonder why when its "cumbersome" garments that involve ridiculous amounts of physical discomfort and limited mobility, they are always for women? Whether these be bondage heels or the burqa?
But beyond the frivolity and universality, the burqa (and here this is more about the full niqab rather than the robe cum hijab) is by contemporary standards very problematic - simply as it obscures the face of the person I am supposed to deal with.
I personally have ZERO problems with women who live in harems and are "maintained" by their men, be they fathers/brothers/sons or husbands. What I do NOT agree with - simply as yet another feminine garment choice - is a teacher, or lawyer or bank cashier or policewoman (or indeed an actress) insisting that somehow wearing a niqab is EXACTLY the same as wearing any other garment and therefore appropriate.
There is no "polite" way of saying this but sorry, no dice. You can't have it both ways...
commonsense
June 16, 2008
08:06 PM
Anamika,
Covering the face sucks big time! No dice I agree, and not just when entering a bank. BTW, I read that in Canada female members of some Christian fundamentalit sect insist on getting driver's license but but want to cover their face while being photographed for it.
Temporal saheb, is this true? Forget the name of the sect. Is it multiculturalism gone nuts?
commonsense
June 16, 2008
08:07 PM
Anamika,
Covering the face sucks big time! No dice I agree, and not just when entering a bank. BTW, I read that in Canada female member of some Christian fundamentalit sect insists on getting driver's license but but want to cover their face while being photographed for it.
Temporal saheb, is this true? Forget the name of the sect. Is it multiculturalism gone nuts?
smallsquirrel
June 16, 2008
10:00 PM
common, babe... last time.
JawaharA... is a WOMAN...
what's your mind-block with that one? :)
commonsense
June 17, 2008
04:18 AM
SS, yes, yes! somehow, jawaharlal nehru keeps getting in the way....
Add your comment