not another thread about the veil... [Archive]

View Full Version : not another thread about the veil...

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 12:52

i didn't want to make this thread because it's not a subject i feel knowledgable enough to talk about, especially given how sensitive it is, but that never seems to stop anybody, so...

the pew research centre have done this report on the way people in muslim-majority countries believe women should dress in public:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/

there are problems with it, and i have seen people eloquently express what is wrong with it, but all too often i have seen people - usually non-muslim, western and left-wing - draw conclusions i find questionable at best, damaging at worst:

a) all women who choose to wear the veil actively choose to do so, to suggest otherwise is to deny them their agency, and to imply that they are passive victims rather than people freely making decisions.
b) the idea that the veil is oppressive is secular and western, and is alien to "native" feminisms, which draw on / find their basis in islam.
c) the veil is liberating because it means women are judged on account of their character and not on their looks, as in the west.

point a and b most concern me really.

point b, first. i hadn't realised until reading the mouvement communiste text on egypt how ahistorical this is - in the early 20th century, women in egypt removed their veils (an item of clothing imported by the ottomans) as a sign of their independence from men - and this is just scratching the surface with regards to the changes made by women, from below, towards their emancipation - all of which were seen as part of the movement for independence from british rule. as i understand it, this is something that happened in a greater or lesser extent, throughout muslim majority countries until the 1980s.

but instead of this historical context being established, we have - laughably from people who'd pick up said over marx - what is arguably a form of racist orientalism in itself. whilst they may not look at muslim women who wear the veil negatively, they are like the racists who attack muslims as backwards in that they essentialise social customs that they can never imagine "non-western" people going beyond, seeing them as intrinsic to the people themselves. of course, the voices of muslim women who freely choose to wear the veil are often silence - but so too are muslim women who choose not to, who may as well not exist.

as to point a - stressing a subject's agency seems to be central to a kind of identity politics, inc. class identity politics (perhaps worst of all). but taken to it's logical conclusion i cannot see how this can amount to anything other than a defence of the present state of things. i understand the desire not to condescend or infantilise, or in the case of the veil, not buy into racist arguments about all muslim men beating all muslim women into covering up. but at the same time, how can we really talk of oppression if it is oppressive in and of itself to describe certain things as oppression? (this is a more abstract point, one i probably haven't made well enough, but i hope people can see the argument i'm trying to make).

brigadista

11th January 2014, 13:19

But no survey on how people in non Muslim countries prefer to see women dress? This is stupid

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 13:26

But no survey on how people in non Muslim countries prefer to see women dress? This is stupid

obviously it's stupid. the survey isn't the point of the thread though, it's tangential - i could have linked to any number of stories i have seen elicit the same / similar responses, this just happened to be most recent.

brigadista

11th January 2014, 13:35

Tbh I don't see what there is to discuss its a woman's choice to wear what she wants wherever she lives

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 13:40

Tbh I don't see what there is to discuss its a woman's choice to wear what she wants wherever she lives

where have i denied that though? yes it is. but there are deeper issues here: a rejection of universality in favour of local essentialisms, for example.

fuck off if you're going to play silly beggars in this thread. the point isn't to attack women who face enough shit as it is, so don't try to make it about that.

brigadista

11th January 2014, 13:44

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 13:55

I don't understand your point and I'm not saying that you are attacking any woman I have a lot of discussions about this so relax I just don't under stand what you are trying to discuss so I would be grateful if you could clarify

it's something that yasmin alibahai-brown writes about here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/liberal-defenders-of-the-veil-have-lost-their-way-8832758.html

left-wing support for the veil that goes beyond supporting the right of women to choose to wear a veil without fear of violence, and becomes support for the veil in and of itself, based most questionably on a form of essentialism that sees certain values (secularism, for example) as uniquely western and alien to non-europeans.

as it happens, i think alibahai-brown goes too far the other way, and fails to see that 'veil bans' and so on are used to attack muslims in european countries. but she writes about a milieu that exist and i think have values that should be challenged.

brigadista

11th January 2014, 14:24

Trap Queen Voxxy

11th January 2014, 15:28

Before I respond, I would like to ask, when you say 'veil' what do you mean specifically? Hijab? Niqab? What? I feel I could actually be useful for once in this thread.

Sea

11th January 2014, 16:52

Before I respond, I would like to ask, when you say 'veil' what do you mean specifically? Hijab? Niqab? What? I feel I could actually be useful for once in this thread.look at the pole itself
The survey treated the question of women’s dress as a visual preference. Each respondent was given a card depicting six styles of women’s headdress and asked to choose the woman most appropriately outfitted for a public place. Although no labels were included on the card, the styles ranged from a fully-hooded burqa (woman #1) and niqab (#2) to the less conservative hijab (women #4 and #5). There was also the option of a woman wearing no head covering of any type.

Devrim

11th January 2014, 16:55

left-wing support for the veil that goes beyond supporting the right of women to choose to wear a veil without fear of violence, and becomes support for the veil in and of itself, based most questionably on a form of essentialism that sees certain values (secularism, for example) as uniquely western and alien to non-europeans.

I know what you are talking about, but I have never come across it personally. It is specific to that social context. As the correspondent in Alibhai Brown's article points out "The Left in Muslim countries is under no such illusions ..." and the view on veil bans is very different.

I remember my ex-wife being horrified by the idea of veiled women in her workplace.

Devrim

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 17:30

I agree that alibhai brown goes too far the other way - however I believe that the upsurge of wearing the hijab is as a result of attacks on the various Muslims communities as an assertion of identity - however it is a complicated matter because various communities have different experiences historically :
Also the 'veil' may be traditional dress as opposed for religious reasons

on the other hand, kenan malik has done good work on the 1970s asian youth movement which was secular, revolutionary and emerged in response to the racism faced by non-white communities - regardless of religion or nationality. this movement was subverted through the encouragement of religious, communalist politics. the point is, the turn to religion or tradition in order to assert the identities of groups facing racism was not a foregone conclusion - in fact, it could have gone very differently.

i do take your point to an extent, but i'd add that whilst this form "assertion of identity" in the face of racism is absolutely understandable it's not positive, and should not be beyond criticism. in fact, i think it should be lamented.

Geiseric

11th January 2014, 17:50

Europeans and white people are so ignorant about Muslim culture that they for one don't know what the cultural importance of the veils is, and also don't know the difference between the cultures of Muslim countries and the different types of veils that are worn. Women in Iran have no problem with the veils that they wear as they go outside for example. Westerners look at this with the "enlightened atheist" point of view which is practically racist. Afghanistan was completely secular before the US aided the Taliban for example.

brigadista

11th January 2014, 18:10

on the other hand, kenan malik has done good work on the 1970s asian youth movement which was secular, revolutionary and emerged in response to the racism faced by non-white communities - regardless of religion or nationality. this movement was subverted through the encouragement of religious, communalist politics. the point is, the turn to religion or tradition in order to assert the identities of groups facing racism was not a foregone conclusion - in fact, it could have gone very differently.

i do take your point to an extent, but i'd add that whilst this form "assertion of identity" in the face of racism is absolutely understandable it's not positive, and should not be beyond criticism. in fact, i think it should be lamented.

But do you think criticism from outside communities feeling under siege will achieve anything?
doesn't that have to come from the communities themselves?
Also the situation in the 70s was quite different .

Devrim

11th January 2014, 18:31

Women in Iran have no problem with the veils that they wear as they go outside for example.

You go there often, do you?

Devrim

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 18:35

But do you think criticism from outside communities feeling under siege will achieve anything?
doesn't that have to come from the communities themselves?
Also the situation in the 70s was quite different .

look, i'm in no position to make any criticism of muslim women whatsoever, this is a purely abstract discussion. i'm not going to go next door and preach to my neighbour about why she should throw her hijab in the bin and read some marx. but i do think communists should be able to figure out a "position" that isn't simply religious apologetics whilst standing against racist attacks on muslim women from the state and the far-right (though again, it's not like this "position" amounts to anything at all).

and i'm really uncomfortable with stuff about "communities", as if "communities" are neutral things or something, beyond criticism. lots of shit happens, and is allowed to occur, because it takes place in "communities".

brigadista

11th January 2014, 18:41

So you figure out a position and then what?
I'm not trying to be obstructive - I'm interested in what you are saying

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 18:48

So you figure out a position and then what?
I'm not trying to be obstructive - I'm interested in what you are saying

really, you seem to imagine my preoccupation is with muslim women when in fact i'm much more concerned with predominantly non-muslim people who mount a defence of the veil here and abroad in the name of left-wing politics. maybe you haven't encountered this, i have though, and i want to talk about it. that's it.

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 19:00

Before I respond, I would like to ask, when you say 'veil' what do you mean specifically? Hijab? Niqab? What? I feel I could actually be useful for once in this thread.

to be honest, if only because the people i'm (attempting) to discuss and their right-wing opponents rarely make a distinction, i mean anything from the hijab to the burqa.

Trap Queen Voxxy

11th January 2014, 19:58

to be honest, if only because the people i'm (attempting) to discuss and their right-wing opponents rarely make a distinction, i mean anything from the hijab to the burqa.

Cools, I have been experimenting with wearing the hijab as demonstrated by group 5, next to the scarfless one, and these photos.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/3f7786e2c281b6fef657d57ff62e04dd/tumblr_mnqmtfBc711s4z31yo1_500.jpg

http://31.media.tumblr.com/0788d1affd52837392914c01673c3ce1/tumblr_mv8762ZZSV1sjvg5lo1_1280.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3wFztDi7GUg/TRgPP-4-oVI/AAAAAAAACv4/Tz7qbzmjUxA/s400/hijab_fashion.jpg

I like the idea and symbolism behind it however with this being said, I would say it's case dependent and means different things to different women in different areas. Me choosing to wear the hijab as a rejection of Western decadence, sexism, objectification, etc. along with religious expression is much different than say some lady removing said veil in Egypt as a rejection of Islamic patriarchy, oppression, etc. even though essentially I think the motives and 'jist' of both actions would be similar. Treatment of the 'veil situation' is kind of silly in the West due to general cultural and religious ignorance both accidental and purposeful.

adipocere

11th January 2014, 21:49

how can we really talk of oppression if it is oppressive in and of itself to describe certain things as oppression? (this is a more abstract point, one i probably haven't made well enough, but i hope people can see the argument i'm trying to make).

I think then it is critical to determine if veils are even important enough to discuss. I would imagine that if I went somewhere where the custom was not to wear a bra, I would be very uncomfortable with that. It would be surreal if bra wearing became some national talking point, the subject of bans, part of the rationale of invading and occupying bra-clad countries, and studies by think tanks began showing white women in different kinds of bras with acceptability statistics.
It a symbol of patriarchy? Maybe. Is it harmful? Not really...it's just a garment that covers/supports a part of my body that I could be arrested for exposing, and one that I find comfortable and flattering and would cause me more trouble not to wear back home.
I would then question exactly what the fixation on the bra (or veil) really is and understand that it has everything to do with foreign oppression (cultural and militarily), not so much with my own "backwards" culture.

The veil is not important enough to discuss. It is the discussion that attaches significance to it, and it's an artificial discussion at that - entirely concocted to create an us vs. them mentality based entirely around an obvious visual representation of "them". It has nothing to do with how or why women are abused, it is just a foreign construct of phony evidence of that abuse - directed towards (western) women, who are less likely to cheer for wars - so that we collectively feel less bad about using extreme violence to lay waste to their societies.

The process of politically unloading a topic begins with ignoring it. If we agree that the veil is unimportant, than we should stop infusing it with powers that it cannot possibly have on its own.

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 21:59

Cools, I have been experimenting with wearing the hijab as demonstrated by group 5, next to the scarfless one, and these photos.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/3f7786e2c281b6fef657d57ff62e04dd/tumblr_mnqmtfBc711s4z31yo1_500.jpg

http://31.media.tumblr.com/0788d1affd52837392914c01673c3ce1/tumblr_mv8762ZZSV1sjvg5lo1_1280.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3wFztDi7GUg/TRgPP-4-oVI/AAAAAAAACv4/Tz7qbzmjUxA/s400/hijab_fashion.jpg

if i'm right, the top style of hijab is called khaleeji and it's actually considered haram by some. i actually consider that pretty cool, hah. it strikes me in some cases that young muslim women wear the hijab in such a way that is a middle finger to a number of different figures of authority, but as you go on to say, it's a contextual thing...

I like the idea and symbolism behind it however with this being said, I would say it's case dependent and means different things to different women in different areas. Me choosing to wear the hijab as a rejection of Western decadence, sexism, objectification, etc. along with religious expression is much different than say some lady removing said veil in Egypt as a rejection of Islamic patriarchy, oppression, etc. even though essentially I think the motives and 'jist' of both actions would be similar. Treatment of the 'veil situation' is kind of silly in the West due to general cultural and religious ignorance both accidental and purposeful.

i think acknowledging that difference is the key, really, and all too often i think it's ignored.

ed miliband

11th January 2014, 22:04

Trap Queen Voxxy

11th January 2014, 23:48

if i'm right, the top style of hijab is called khaleeji and it's actually considered haram by some.

For no real reason, imho, but yeah.

i actually consider that pretty cool, hah. it strikes me in some cases that young muslim women wear the hijab in such a way that is a middle finger to a number of different figures of authority

Tbh, I am consciously aware of the fact that how I wear the hijab is seen as 'liberal' if not haram and that the khaleeji is considered controversial and I think it's hilarious (apparently the heads of damned women are lumped) and so on by Islamic orthodoxy however I think such people miss the whole point of the woman wearing the hijab. I take on the attitude of, if you don't consider me or this apart of your Islam then fine, you can have it, fuck Islam. To paraphrase comments by Michael Muhammad Knight and his Taqwacore crew.

What is considered modest is up to personal opinion and the whole point is for the woman to not become an object leading to 'sin,' or harassment which could mean a variety of things, not just sexual objectification and harassment but also violence and so on, those are still sins too. In the qur'an, it talks of wearing the hijab and jilbab so as not to be harassed and so on; funny, huh? For me, the khaleeji and other more 'liberal' head scarfs (lmfao) and normal Western clothes are perfectly fine as my assets are covered and so on. To me, that's the whole point, is just covering stuff up which doesn't require wearing a burqa and of which would seem self-defeating as the goal is to not be harassed or become an object of gazing and distraction and so on. That's just me.

also, the fact you talk of "islamic patriarchy" and oppression would be considered controversial to some.

Only because some would interpret any critique of said patriarchal practices or attitudes as jab against Islam itself and not a critique of organized religious practice in general or social norms, habits, practices, etc. or indigenous cultural traditions and so on.

i have genuinely encountered people suggest that to talk of islam as patriarchal is to imply that muslim women are victims and do not make active choices. this is what i was trying - badly - to express in the last bit of my first post.

That seems weird. I don't really get it? Idk, hope what I'm saying is helpful. I was genuinely trying to be.

Sea

12th January 2014, 02:23

Cools, I have been experimenting with wearing the hijab as demonstrated by group 5, next to the scarfless one, and these photos.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/3f7786e2c281b6fef657d57ff62e04dd/tumblr_mnqmtfBc711s4z31yo1_500.jpg

http://31.media.tumblr.com/0788d1affd52837392914c01673c3ce1/tumblr_mv8762ZZSV1sjvg5lo1_1280.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3wFztDi7GUg/TRgPP-4-oVI/AAAAAAAACv4/Tz7qbzmjUxA/s400/hijab_fashion.jpg

I like the idea and symbolism behind it however with this being said, I would say it's case dependent and means different things to different women in different areas. Me choosing to wear the hijab as a rejection of Western decadence, sexism, objectification, etc. along with religious expression is much different than say some lady removing said veil in Egypt as a rejection of Islamic patriarchy, oppression, etc. even though essentially I think the motives and 'jist' of both actions would be similar. Treatment of the 'veil situation' is kind of silly in the West due to general cultural and religious ignorance both accidental and purposeful.Please, drop the orientalism. It's patronizing and offensive.

Trap Queen Voxxy

12th January 2014, 02:32

Please, drop the orientalism. It's patronizing and offensive.

The fuck are you talking about?

Sabot Cat

12th January 2014, 02:37

The fuck are you talking about?

I think he means that you, as a Westerner, are using a symbol from another culture that isn't your own for a certain end divorced from the original context of the aforesaid symbol whilst romanticizing it in that alienated state; many would call that cultural appropriation. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue in this context, but that's pretty much where he's coming from if I understand him correctly.

To be honest, I would rather wear these kind of clothes as a woman who is trans, but there is the thorny issue of possible cultural appropriation, and well, being more noticeable than before; although, the way you did it kind of remedies that.

Another interesting factor for the argument on appropriation in this context is that those who wear these to accord to religious tenants (generally) believe that those who do not wear them lack modesty, and would prefer them to do so. So I'm not sure if one should abstain on their behalf if they'd be likely encourage one to do so; however, the reasons for these tenants are patriarchal notions of what is and isn't "appropriate" in the eyes of a being that doesn't exist. Very complex.

Sea

12th January 2014, 02:42

The fuck are you talking about?I can't make up for your lack of reading comprehension. Not only is the premise absurd (you seem to imply that the magical properties of the veil have nothing to do with the veil itself) but it's really just as racist and nonsensical as the Beatles experimenting with Eastern philosophy. By the way, it's against the board rules to post pictures of yourself.
To be honest, I would rather wear these kind of clothes as a woman who is trans, but there is the thorny issue of possible cultural appropriation, and well, being more noticeable than before; although, the way you did it kind of remedies that.Well, there's a difference between wearing clothes because you like them and they just happen to be from another culture and wearing clothes because they were originally worn by Aladdin's family of exotic brown people.

Trap Queen Voxxy

12th January 2014, 03:32

I will address this sexist pseudo-intellectual bullfuckery tomorrow. Literally so stupid I nearly passed out, lol, wow.

Out of curiosity, considering I posted 3 pictures of 3 different persons, which one is me then? Lol

Sea

12th January 2014, 09:04

Out of curiosity, considering I posted 3 pictures of 3 different persons, which one is me then? LolThe first 2 could easily be the same person and you said "I have been experimenting with wearing the hijab as demonstrated by group 5, next to the scarfless one, and these photos" and I did a 2+2=5 thing and interpreted that as "hey look it's me in my hijab". I still stand by my other points though.

Devrim

12th January 2014, 09:15

also, the fact you talk of "islamic patriarchy" and oppression would be considered controversial to some. i have genuinely encountered people suggest that to talk of islam as patriarchal is to imply that muslim women are victims and do not make active choices. this is what i was trying - badly - to express in the last bit of my first post.

This I am quite shocked by. Who would these people be? I don't think that they would be Muslims. Muslims talk about Ibrahim and refer to him as a patriarch, and that period as a patriarchal age.

Devrim

Sea

12th January 2014, 09:37

This I am quite shocked by. Who would these people be? I don't think that they would be Muslims. Muslims talk about Ibrahim and refer to him as a patriarch, and that period as a patriarchal age.

DevrimThe theological "patriarchal age" doesn't refer to the same thing or have the connotations as the patriarchy that is usually discussed on this forum. The patriarchial age refers to the rule of one or more specific men (patriarchs) whereas patriarchy refers to the gender inequality where as the name suggests men have the upper position.

Devrim

12th January 2014, 10:29

The theological "patriarchal age" doesn't refer to the same thing or have the connotations as the patriarchy that is usually discussed on this forum. The patriarchial age refers to the rule of one or more specific men (patriarchs) whereas patriarchy refers to the gender inequality where as the name suggests men have the upper position.

Yes, but those specific men were not the foremost leaders of gender equality. There is a connection here.

Devrim

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 11:30

Point C is something that has come straight out of Islam, I believe - that a man should judge a woman based on her honour and so on, rather than on any perceived 'shallow' method of attraction (correct me if i'm wrong).

In terms of agency, my own observations would lead me to believe that whilst there is a lot of positive agency on the part of Muslim women towards wearing the hijab, I am not so sure whether this extends to the wearing of the niqab or burqa. Perhaps somebody who has more experience within the Muslim community could expand upon this? I don't know whether it's that wearing the hijab has become something 'fashionable' for the liberal and moderate muslim communities in the west, with the niqab and burqa remaining symbols of oppression and ultra-religiosity?

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 12:57

This I am quite shocked by. Who would these people be? I don't think that they would be Muslims. Muslims talk about Ibrahim and refer to him as a patriarch, and that period as a patriarchal age.

Devrim

here's an academic example of the kind of thing i mean:

http://postcolonialist.com/civil-discourse/feminist-critique-and-islamic-feminism-the-question-of-intersectionality/

the basic contention is that in the past feminists considered religion patriarchal - but the fact that there are religious feminists means that this has to be reconsidered. the text mentions various academic attempts to 'read' the qur'an as supporting "complete gender equality" and so on, suggesting islam is not inherently patriarchal but interpreted in a way that is. the really questionable bits are things like this:

This has been echoed by Saba Mahmood in her study of Islamist women in Cairo, who effectively challenged social norms as an act of obedience to God. This obedience, however, was to a transcendental power, not men or patriarchal systems.

Nilufer Göle and Barbara Pusch have both written about the phenomenon of feminism being articulated by women within the Islamist movement in Turkey, and argues that the structures within Islamism that reproduce gender inequality are making these women question issues of gender in Islam (as opposed to leaving Islam).[31] Göle argues that we can speak of a post-Islamist stage where Islamism is losing its relevance but at the same time permeating social and cultural life; and it is this space within which Islamic feminism is growing.[32]

i don't really think people should be taking cues from islamists - male or female. of course, given foucault and the iranian revolution, academia has bad form in this department.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 13:50

the basic contention is that in the past feminists considered religion patriarchal - but the fact that there are religious feminists means that this has to be reconsidered.

Hmm, this I find problematic. I can understand religion being considered patriarchal in that, like other power structures, its formal institutions tend to be male dominated. One only needs to count the number of male and female ministers and imams, or go to a United Synagogue, to see the over-bearing influence of men on organised religion.

But that doesn't mean that individual religiosity is wholly incompatible with feminism. I mean, in some respects it may be, if that person takes to reading, believing and following every scripture of the religious texts, because every religion does seem to have its own patriarchal bent.

But I don't know if we can go so far as to say that the very belief in a supernatural being = incompatibility with feminism. And to be honest I would say that it is null and void for any man to argue such a position, which is among the reasons I don't.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

12th January 2014, 13:55

It's pretty simple. Many Muslim women wear it because they want to, and who the hell is anyone to tell them they cannot do that?

However, there ARE abusive Muslim men who force their wives/girlfriends to wear it. Remember, there are still honor killings in the West. Just the other day I was watching a show where a camera crew goes into American prisons and interviews prisoners and documents their daily lives. One man was in there for murdering his sister, a Muslim man, who murdered her because she was simply talking to a man on the internet. There are multiple examples of this type of horror among Muslim men, and this also carries over to them forcing the women they live with to adhere to Muslim ethics, including wearing a veil. These women cannot even speak up for fear of being murdered.

By the way, this is not some kind of anti-Muslim rant, I am simply pointing out some facts. Most Muslim women who wear the veil do it through their own choice, but there are abusive men who force some of them to do it against their will. It IS possible to be from the Middle East or Southeast Asia without being Muslim, you know. For instance, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, there are plenty of atheists and non-Muslims, but it's hard for them to spread their voice because of their oppressive Islamist governments.

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 14:15

Hmm, this I find problematic. I can understand religion being considered patriarchal in that, like other power structures, its formal institutions tend to be male dominated. One only needs to count the number of male and female ministers and imams, or go to a United Synagogue, to see the over-bearing influence of men on organised religion.

But that doesn't mean that individual religiosity is wholly incompatible with feminism. I mean, in some respects it may be, if that person takes to reading, believing and following every scripture of the religious texts, because every religion does seem to have its own patriarchal bent.

But I don't know if we can go so far as to say that the very belief in a supernatural being = incompatibility with feminism. And to be honest I would say that it is null and void for any man to argue such a position, which is among the reasons I don't.

i wouldn't argue you can't be religious and be a feminist, it's not my place to say, and feminism has included much worse things than belief in a higher power, anyway. that said, having gone to a catholic school and been taught by "catholic feminists", i do think there are serious issues with trying to shape and model your feminism to fit the beliefs you hold, and vice versa. ultimately i don't think you can interpret away the "patriarchal bent" from the abrahamic religions, and the fact is dominant "interpretations" of religions / religious texts don't tend to match those made in liberal arts colleges in the us. like i could probably do a hermeneutic readign (whtever that is) of a bunch of catholic things to justify my communism but i don't think the pope would take it up anytime soon.

the other thing is the argument rests on ignoring muslim feminists who happen to be just, y'know, muslim and feminist, in favour of drawing on the experience of (explicitly) islamist women, for example - there's something political happening here, it's not just about religion.. so for example, this is argued:

An important underlying point about mainstream Western feminism is that of secularism.[6]
[...]
Within feminism, postcolonial and black feminists have never been overtly secular, and in fact religion and in particular spirituality has long been central to their worldviews and work[9], in stark contrast to mainstream feminism.[10]

one, i don't think it's historically true, and two, i have serious issues with the assumption their is something uniquely "western" about secularism. it's almost as if - for these academics - the history of women and feminism in the middle east doesn't start until the late twentieth century.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 16:35

one, i don't think it's historically true, and two, i have serious issues with the assumption their is something uniquely "western" about secularism. it's almost as if - for these academics - the history of women and feminism in the middle east doesn't start until the late twentieth century.

Indeed. There is also something problematic about the language - when it refers to 'black feminism', something that conjured in my mind was the more radical wing of the civil rights movement in 20th century America.

It may just be sloppy language, but the insinuation is a separation of African-Americans from the West, which is at best unwanted, and at worst has somewhat white supremacist overtones, i.e. the west and its white people are secular and have a history of feminism and other social liberal trends, the rest of the world including the blacks who live in the west are backwards etc., as you highlight.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 16:41

i do think there are serious issues with trying to shape and model your feminism to fit the beliefs you hold, and vice versa.

Not sure I follow this. I don't think there is 'a' feminism, or a space for people, especially you and me, to start saying 'feminism is...' and 'feminism can't be...', in any meaningful way. I would actually say that it is hugely helpful if people with diverse worldviews try to engage their belief systems towards feminism.

ultimately i don't think you can interpret away the "patriarchal bent" from the abrahamic religions,

Why not? Religions have changed over time, due to different interpretations. Look at the Jewish community in the UK as an example. There are some (Liberal and Reform) currents of Judaism where not only is it accepted and in some cases encouraged to inter-mix and inter-marry, but women are given certain elements of equality even within formal institutions; contrast this with the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic elements of the Jewish community, which are based on more 'traditional'/historic interpretations of the Torah, where inter-mixing is rare and inter-marriage pretty much doesn't happen. Similar has happened within the Muslim community, and as for Christians in the UK, you could argue that many British Christians have a very loose interpretation of the Bible, whilst still upholding their own personal religiosity.

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 17:21

Not sure I follow this. I don't think there is 'a' feminism, or a space for people, especially you and me, to start saying 'feminism is...' and 'feminism can't be...', in any meaningful way. I would actually say that it is hugely helpful if people with diverse worldviews try to engage their belief systems towards feminism.

well like, plenty of people here would say you can't have 'conservative feminism' - following your argument, why not?

i think ultimately it depends on how one views the oppression of women: if you believe the oppression of women is integral to capitalism then surely opposition to capitalism should be an integral part of feminism? of course, in many cases it isn't.

point is, your line of argument - one i've heard many times before - basically means anything can be feminism.

Why not? Religions have changed over time, due to different interpretations. Look at the Jewish community in the UK as an example. There are some (Liberal and Reform) currents of Judaism where not only is it accepted and in some cases encouraged to inter-mix and inter-marry, but women are given certain elements of equality even within formal institutions; contrast this with the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic elements of the Jewish community, which are based on more 'traditional'/historic interpretations of the Torah, where inter-mixing is rare and inter-marriage pretty much doesn't happen. Similar has happened within the Muslim community, and as for Christians in the UK, you could argue that many British Christians have a very loose interpretation of the Bible, whilst still upholding their own personal religiosity.

because i'm being lazy, this explains quite well why i think so:

Not many people nowadays publicly state to what extent the three monotheisms set a stigma on half the human species. Instead of being created (like Adam) in God's image, Eve more plainly derived from a man's rib, and soon was the prime culprit in the Fall: hence the obligation to (hard) work and (painful) motherhood. She came second in the process of creation, but ranked first in destruction. Here again, the point is not that people "believe" in this myth as they have no doubt about the existence of the pyramids, but that the myth structures a world vision that helps keep women in a minor role. If we think that fairy tales contribute to building up a conscious and unconscious collective mind that plays a big part in our lives, then we must admit that a tale as far reaching and widely known as that of Genesis plays a much larger part, even for those who've never opened a Bible. The Vatican's adamant hostility to birth control is a side effect of a two thousand year old process of downplaying women.

It's quite logical that God should be mercilessly vindictive and punish not just the guilty couple, but their entire descent down to you and me : to hammer into our heads that we come under an incurable evil human nature, it is necessary that no generation should get away from the curse, even two thousand years after the event. There's no better evidence of an inescapable original "fault" than an utterly collective punishment: when only Noah and his family are spared, human failure is proved by the mass drowning of thousands of innocents, babies included.

On such a cornerstone the three religions of the Book are built, and only a handful of heretical exegetists have questioned it. Even in the very patriarchal times when the Scriptures were composed, there were woman heads of State. But we hear of no woman catholic or orthodox priest, few female Protestant ministers, hardly any woman rabbi or imam.

The optimist will object that, at least in the West, sexism is on the wane. It all depends on what we choose to look at. In 2006, a "free abortion" woman campaigner of the early 1970s declared: "We fought for the right to be a woman without being a mother. And you can't say that today." True. Most of our contemporaries, in Berlin as in Los Angeles, including those who regard themselves as non-sexist, feel there is something missing in a woman that has no child, nor the desire to bear or raise one. And they would not react in the same way to a man with no wish of fatherhood. Judeo-Christianity is not the unique cause of that attitude, but it surely contributes to it, especially Catholicism with its cult of Mary that present the ideal woman both as a virgin and as a mother. The Pope was once accurately defined as the person who would like every woman to be pregnant without ever being penetrated by a penis.

http://www.prole.info/texts/continuingreligion.html

human strike

12th January 2014, 17:36

Islam Muslim Muhammad

12th January 2014, 17:47

I am disgusted by how many Islamaphobes there are on this site :crying:

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 17:49

This is the best thing I've ever read on the topic: Badiou, Behind the Scarfed Law, There is Fear (http://www.lacan.com/islbad.htm)

It's important to emphasise that it's not only white supremacy and patriarchy that is outraged by the hijab in Europe, but capitalism and work society too. "Let's argue the following, then, a pretty strange point: the law on the hijab [in France] is a pure capitalist law. It orders femininity to be exposed. In other words, having the female body circulate according to the market paradigm is obligatory."

the "topic" of this thread isn't the french veil ban, though, but western leftists, essentialism, religious apologetics, plenty of other things. the only time i've spoken about veil bans is to describe them as racist attacks on muslim women.

Geiseric

12th January 2014, 18:06

You go there often, do you?

Devrim

Women in Iran struggle for things much more important than a head scarf. Are you one of those people who supports Hollandes race baiting?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 18:12

[QUOTE=ed miliband;2706341]well like, plenty of people here would say you can't have 'conservative feminism' - following your argument, why not?

Because you're conflating the conservative nature of monolithic religious institutions with mere belief in god. Religious institutions have a material interest in the preservation of capitalism; indeed, religious institutions were at their most powerful centuries ago, and so they have a material interest in the conservative ideology within capitalism even more so.

Your point doesn't demonstrate that mere belief in god is 'conservative' in and of itself, though. Don't take this as a defence of, or an apology for, religion. I'm not religious myself, have no vested interest in god, and oppose any 'belief' system that tries to supersede scientific method. The point, however, is whether we want to be inclusive or exclusive; whether we want to be ideologues, maintaining ownership over 'the left', or whether we really want to work with others from diverse backgrounds.

The problem with what you're saying is, ultimately, by conflating belief in god with religious institutions with conservatism, you are positing atheism/non-theism as the progressive force in the world. Certainly, religious institutions are indeed reactionary, but you've yet to really post an argument - a proof as opposed to a belief - that shows that mere individual belief in god leads generally to conservatism, anti-feminism or is reactionary in itself.

For me, an individual believing in the existence of god is no different to an atheist proclaiming their belief that god doesn't exist. End of the day they are both belief systems. It is not the belief systems themselves that are right, wrong, progressive or reactionary, or at least from the POV of a Marxist shouldn't be; we should concern ourselves with the material elements of such systems. In the case of religion, what we ought to tackle is the institutional, oppressive elements of religion, not attack individuals for believing in god.

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 18:18

[QUOTE]...

nah, you've confused my point. i'm perfectly aware of "progressive" interpretations of religion.

i was responding to your suggestion that there isn't "'a' feminism" or we can't say "'feminism is...' and 'feminism can't be...'"; my response was that following this logic, would you say that there can be 'conservative feminism' (like, could margaret thatcher be called a feminist?). it had nothing to do with conflating religion with conservatism.

Devrim

12th January 2014, 18:22

Women in Iran struggle for things much more important than a head scarf. Are you one of those people who supports Hollandes race baiting?

No, not at all, and there is nothing that I have written that would suggest that in any way.

I am familiar with Iran though and have been there on more than one occasion, and I would imagine that I have had much more contact with the Iranian left than you. What you said had no connection at all to my experience. It is an issue, which very much concerns Iranian women, and women in other Middle Eastern countries.

the only time i've spoken about veil bans is to describe them as racist attacks on muslim women.

I wrote a few articles about headscarf bans a few years ago when the AKP government in Turkey was talking about lifting the headscarf ban. Obviously, those who defended the headscarf ban in Turkey were not making racist attacks or 'race baiting'. Context is important.

Devrim

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 18:24

nah, you've confused my point. i'm perfectly aware of "progressive" interpretations of religion.

i was responding to your suggestion that there isn't "'a' feminism" or we can't say "'feminism is...' and 'feminism can't be...'"; my response was that following this logic, would you say that there can be 'conservative feminism' (like, could margaret thatcher be called a feminist?). it had nothing to do with conflating religion with conservatism.

Oh, fair enough. I didn't mean it to such extremes. I was going to add a caveat - I think there are obviously limits. My point was that individual religiosity is not one of those limits.

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 18:32

I wrote a few articles about headscarf bans a few years ago when the AKP government in Turkey was talking about lifting the headscarf ban. Obviously, those who defended the headscarf ban in Turkey were not making racist attacks or 'race baiting'. Context is important.

Devrim

yeah, of course, i just think this thread has been full of so many people missing the point - either willingly or otherwise - that i have to make it clear that my intention isn't to support such bans in the west, or attack muslim women, but to discuss the response(s) of western leftists to the issue. but people keep missing that so i end up overcompensating. it's frustrating.

Hit The North

12th January 2014, 18:50

I would imagine that if I went somewhere where the custom was not to wear a bra, I would be very uncomfortable with that. It would be surreal if bra wearing became some national talking point,

It was in the UK in the 1970s (admittedly, quite a surreal decade). Some argued that the bra was a symbol of patriarchy and many women chose not to wear the bra. Some refused to shave their legs and armpits for the same reason. The way women present themselves and are represented culturally has always been an area of contestation in modern, patriarchal societies.

To the OP: I think that if the debate is reduced to 'individual free choice' then the debate is confined to a liberal agenda. The problem is that an effect of oppression is that it draws many of the oppressed into collusion with their own oppression. The policing and control of women's bodies in many societies has chiefly been the job of other women. As Steve Biko once remarked, the greatest weapon the oppressor possesses is the mind of the oppressed. So, many women might choose to wear the veil but this does not mean that the choice doesn't accord to a patriarchal discourse and that they are not colluding in their own oppression. I mean, we could make the same point about women who choose to have plastic surgery to heighten their sexual appeal. They might be acting from a discourse of individual self-improvement and be unaware that they are doing exactly what is required of them by a patriarchal society that demands the over-sexualisation of women.

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 19:21

To the OP: I think that if the debate is reduced to 'individual free choice' then the debate is confined to a liberal agenda. The problem is that an effect of oppression is that it draws many of the oppressed into collusion with their own oppression. The policing and control of women's bodies in many societies has chiefly been the job of other women. As Steve Biko once remarked, the greatest weapon the oppressor possesses is the mind of the oppressed. So, many women might choose to wear the veil but this does not mean that the choice doesn't accord to a patriarchal discourse and that they are not colluding in their own oppression. I mean, we could make the same point about women who choose to have plastic surgery to heighten their sexual appeal. They might be acting from a discourse of individual self-improvement and be unaware that they are doing exactly what is required of them by a patriarchal society that demands the over-sexualisation of women.

exactly what i was trying to get at, thanks.

Quail

12th January 2014, 21:01

I admit I don't know a lot about Islam, so I'm going to respond to the OP about the choices women make more generally, and hopefully it will be applicable to the veil. If not, please correct me.

I think it's important to look at the choices we make in the context of the patriarchal society in which we live. I think there are a lot of "choices" that we convince ourselves we are free to make, but are actually harmful and perpetuate patriarchal values. There are loads of examples of this: shaving our body hair, the way we dress, whether or not we wear a bra, etc. Some people do make those choices freely, and that's okay, but I'd wager a majority of people don't.

I'm not saying that I'm perfect or anything either, because I myself make "choices" which are influenced by patriarchal society; for example I often cover up in clothes that aren't revealing when I go out, because I don't like the attention I receive when I do wear revealing clothes. By doing that, I'm not challenging the idea that it's okay to objectify women in short skirts and low tops, and I'm actually kind of perpetuating the idea that I should cover up to avoid being objectified. (Having said that, it's not that I don't want to challenge the idea that it's okay to objectify women in revealing clothes, but I don't always feel like dealing with people being creepy.)

(Basically what Hit The North said, but a bit ramblier. :unsure:)

Regarding religion and feminism, I don't think that personal religious or spiritual views are necessarily incompatible with feminism, but organised religion tends to be very patriarchal and sexist, so I do think that supporting religious institutions is incompatible with feminism in the same way that supporting a company with a policy to fire pregnant women is incompatible with feminism. It is contradictory to support something which contributes to your own oppression.

Rafiq

12th January 2014, 21:18

The veil is a symbol of female submission and sexual oppression, it's defenders are objectively reactionary, or orientalist. It should not be banned as such, but opposed. It is funny how users ignore that in the Central Republics of the Soviet Union it was banned. In secular states in the middle east, abandoning the veil was widely encouraged. The veil also creates worse standards with regard to objectivizing women, a women who is "revealing", according to the logic of so called Islamist feminists, cannot complain about being sexualized because she did not cover up. Not so long ago was the veil considered a sign of social backwardness that posed a threat to anti colonial struggle, now it's championed by pseudo leftists and crypto Islamist liberals in the west as a form of female empowerment. Shame on them.

Trap Queen Voxxy

12th January 2014, 21:26

I can't make up for your lack of reading comprehension.

I was actually trying to be polite and give you another chance to clarify your argument but if you want to just make yourself look like a jerky idiot, by all means.

Not only is the premise absurd

How?

(you seem to imply that the magical properties of the veil have nothing to do with the veil itself) but it's really just as racist and nonsensical as the Beatles experimenting with Eastern philosophy.

Makes no sense within the context of this discussion and thus smacks of grasping and high horseries.

By the way, it's against the board rules to post pictures of yourself.

:lol:

Well, there's a difference between wearing clothes because you like them and they just happen to be from another culture and wearing clothes because they were originally worn by Aladdin's family of exotic brown people.

There's critiquing something and using the facade of critique to air out all those racist stereotypes you got from 1994, like, seriously, wtf? But, even with this aside, what the fuck are you really trying to get at? It's not my fault when you read "Muslim women," you assume it means this...

http://www.deadmoon.org/images/misc/JasmineScarf.png

Something, from a Disney cartoon and then proceed to go on some weird tirade using 10 dollar words to mask your own seemingly racist and sexist views on the subject and many others. Yet, here we are wondering in this thread why you it's hard to get first hand answers to your questions. The irony here is nearly blinding.

I think he means that you, as a Westerner, are using a symbol from another culture that isn't your own for a certain end divorced from the original context of the aforesaid symbol whilst romanticizing it in that alienated state

This is equally as stupid. You know it is possible to speak of an American Islam or Russian Islam or European Islam nowadays considering oh, I don't know, history. Wearing the hijab is a practice in which Muslim women all over the world have observed throughout the history of Islam and it's spread. It's no longer specific to one specific culture or set of similar cultures within a specific region but one apart of religious tradition. Not only this, head covering is also practiced and observed within Christian Orthodoxy, which is where my background is prior to my conversion. It's really not that "culturally foreign." The whole idea of such an argument seems racist, tbh. Coupled with the fact that this seems to be a veiled (ha) attempt at guilting me into not wearing an article of clothing of my choosing and thus dictating what is and isn't appropriate for me to wear; which is sexist. I'm pretty sure I have the right to wear a piece of fucking fabric on my head and talk about it on a internet discussion board thread about that very thing without being subject to a slew of negative adjectives and e-hardasseries.

Rafiq

12th January 2014, 21:27

What ignorance has befallen these cultural relativists. What cack you all speak. "It's a different culture". Oh? Tell that to the Leftists of the middle east who strove against that culture. Tell that to the anti colonialists who did the same. "Their culture" is a recent, politicized phenomena. By giving them legitimacy to the entirety of Arab history, or Muslim history, you do them a great favor. You shine the ass of islamists with your tongue when you speak of how "Oh westerners just don't understand their culture". Well then, fuck "their culture" and fuck you too. We're Communists, to fire will we set reactionaries no matter where they reside.

Yuppie Grinder

12th January 2014, 21:50

I feel the same way about a non-Muslim native-born American wearing a traditional Islamic veil as I do white lady models wearing Native American head-dresses.
I don't know Vox Populi's background so I'm in absolutely no place to judge her, Sea is assuming a lot about her that may or may not be true.
Cosmopolitan cultural appropriation makes me angry.
This post will make a lot of people really angry can't wait.

Rafiq

12th January 2014, 21:57

Trap Queen Voxxy

12th January 2014, 22:00

The veil is a symbol of female submission and sexual oppression, it's defenders are objectively reactionary, or orientalist.

As defined by whom?

It should not be banned as such, but opposed. It is funny how users ignore that in the Central Republics of the Soviet Union it was banned.

Ties are banned in Iran. What's your point?

In secular states in the middle east, abandoning the veil was widely encouraged. The veil also creates worse standards with regard to objectivizing women, a women who is "revealing", according to the logic of so called Islamist feminists, cannot complain about being sexualized because she did not cover up. Not so long ago was the veil considered a sign of social backwardness that posed a threat to anti colonial struggle, now it's championed by pseudo leftists and crypto Islamist liberals in the west as a form of female empowerment. Shame on them.

Within the context of Western culture and society, this isn't the case and you seem to speaking only in regards to situations in which Islamic patriarchy is legitimately an overall social, political, economic, etc. issue. So, yes, I can see it being rejected there as I as I can see foot-binding being outlawed in post-revolutionary China yet we see high heeled shoes and other various foot fashions remaining unquestioned here in the West despite cultural similarities and linkages too sexism and so on. Why is that?

Yes shame on us for thinking we can wear shit on our heads. :rolleyes:

Are you guys being serious or fucking with me? lol

Yuppie Grinder

12th January 2014, 22:03

So you assume there is something profound, something of value about these original, untainted cultures? We must tear down the constraints of culture, we must all become rootless, of no origin, no names, no family, nothing. We must be a new Human driven by the desire to conquer, this will be the new proletarian ideology. All cultures will the Communists appropriate, and to hell with all that which is incompatible with us.
It's not that all existing cultures are not reflections of class society, I agree with that.
I don't however, want to live in a world of homogenized culture. I don't think it's the job of communists to reform culture in our image. All the ubermensch type shit you have to say is corny as hell and has nothing to do with the real world. Your attitude towards culture reminds me of Mao Zedong, and look at what he did to culture.
Your whole writing style is really off-putting and at times unintentionally funny. It's almost as if you're completely lacking in a sense of humor or self-awareness.

Rafiq

12th January 2014, 22:11

As defined by whom?

By the "western" conception of sexism. If you do not recognize it as purely and exclusively legitimate, you are a sexist and reactionary. If you do not recognize the necessity of female sexual emancipation, you are a sexist. The ability for females to freely sexually express themselves without facing abuse, ridicule and harassment is what we aim at. Further, the ability for females to dress however they please without being sexualized is what we seek. This has it's roots in a western conception of sexual relations, just as Marxism itself is innately western. And by western, I mean it has it's origins in the west.

Ties are banned in Iran. What's your point?

The Iranian state is reactionary.

Yes shame on us for thinking we can wear shit on our heads. :rolleyes:

Are you guys being serious or fucking with me? lol

You're a moron if you think the veil is simply just a piece of cloth that by choice Muslim women decide to wear for cosmetic preferences and not something with sexual and political connotations.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2014, 22:14

Regarding religion and feminism, I don't think that personal religious or spiritual views are necessarily incompatible with feminism, but organised religion tends to be very patriarchal and sexist, so I do think that supporting religious institutions is incompatible with feminism in the same way that supporting a company with a policy to fire pregnant women is incompatible with feminism. It is contradictory to support something which contributes to your own oppression.

I think this^^. Basically a less rambly version of what I was trying to say.

I guess there is a dilemma here too, though. For example, if we are starting from the point of view that institutionalised religion = bad, and personal religious/spiritual views = compatible with feminism, there is then a problem that, in order to exercise one's personal religious views, a person may feel culturally compelled to join a religious institution. To pray, to socialise with others (even if it is with other liberals/moderates).

Something we could encourage is the de-institutionalising of religion; turning religious evocation from an institutional activity, to a social activity, outside of formal organisational structures. In fact, in Judaism there is the possibility for this already; a minyan (basically a group of 10 adults) can be called for public prayers. As long as there are 10 adults, then public prayers are valid in that space where the minyan is gathered. If this sort of activity is encouraged, then it will be at the expense of organised religion, and can start to bridge the gap between religion and social issues that have been denied a hearing under the patriarchal institutions of religion.

Trap Queen Voxxy

12th January 2014, 22:17

By the "western" conception of sexism. If you do not recognize it as purely and exclusively legitimate, you are a sexist and reactionary. If you do not recognize the necessity of female sexual emancipation, you are a sexist. The ability for females to freely sexually express themselves without facing abuse, ridicule and harassment is what we aim at. Further, the ability for females to dress however they please without being sexualized is what we seek. This has it's roots in a western conception of sexual relations, just as Marxism itself is innately western. And by western, I mean it has it's origins in the west.

OK and all of this has what to do with anything that I've said or the tea originating in China?

The Iranian state is reactionary.

K, and you didn't answer my question.

You're a moron if you think the veil is simply just a piece of cloth that by choice Muslim women decide to wear for cosmetic preferences and not something with sexual and political connotations.

Considering I'm a Muslim woman I think I know what said item of clothing means to me and why I chose to wear it, thank you. :glare:

For fuck's sake.

Devrim

12th January 2014, 22:18

I think it's important to look at the choices we make in the context of the patriarchal society in which we live. I think there are a lot of "choices" that we convince ourselves we are free to make, but are actually harmful and perpetuate patriarchal values. There are loads of examples of this: shaving our body hair, the way we dress, whether or not we wear a bra, etc. Some people do make those choices freely, and that's okay, but I'd wager a majority of people don't.

I don't think that these are really good analogies. In the Middle East this is not an issue of "choices" in inverted commas. Until very recently, you could not attend university in Turkey if you wore a headscarf. Alternately, in Iran, a neighbouring country, you could not walk down the street if you didn’t. In these cases, it is not that somebody makes an 'unfree choice', but that it is something dictated by law.

I am not saying that there aren't women who choose to wear the headscarf. I personally know people who were both forced to wear one, and were forbidden from wearing one. It is a bit different from whether, or not you shave your legs though.

yeah, of course, i just think this thread has been full of so many people missing the point - either willingly or otherwise - that i have to make it clear that my intention isn't to support such bans in the west, or attack muslim women, but to discuss the response(s) of western leftists to the issue. but people keep missing that so i end up overcompensating. it's frustrating.

Yes, I can understand your frustration. I don't really know much about what the Western left have to say about it. I am able to draw contrasts with the Middle Eastern left, but I don't really have any knowledge about the topic you want to discuss.

Devrim

Quail

12th January 2014, 22:20

Quail

12th January 2014, 22:24

I don't think that these are really good analogies. In the Middle East this is not an issue of "choices" in inverted commas. Until very recently, you could not attend university in Turkey if you wore a headscarf. Alternately, in Iran, a neighbouring country, you could not walk down the street if you didn’t. In these cases, it is not that somebody makes an 'unfree choice', but that it is something dictated by law.

I am not saying that there aren't women who choose to wear the headscarf. I personally know people who were both forced to wear one, and were forbidden from wearing one. It is a bit different from whether, or not you shave your legs though.

Of course. I was thinking more in the context of somewhere where it is not dictated by law, but that is a valid point.

Sabot Cat

12th January 2014, 23:04

This is equally as stupid. You know it is possible to speak of an American Islam or Russian Islam or European Islam nowadays considering oh, I don't know, history.
Wearing the hijab is a practice in which Muslim women all over the world have observed throughout the history of Islam and it's spread.

You didn't say you wore it out of observation of religious practices, but as a symbol of defiance in the specific context of Western culture. I'm not trying to hold you to that, but that's what I was replying to.

It's no longer specific to one specific culture or set of similar cultures within a specific region but one apart of religious tradition. Not only this, head covering is also practiced and observed within Christian Orthodoxy, which is where my background is prior to my conversion.

I don't know if I broadly support the cultural appropriation concept and I don't think it's applicable in this context; nonetheless, that is not the purpose you stated. I don't think I could've accounted for these factors because you didn't originally mention them at all.

It's really not that "culturally foreign." The whole idea of such an argument seems racist, tbh. Coupled with the fact that this seems to be a veiled (ha) attempt at guilting me into not wearing an article of clothing of my choosing and thus dictating what is and isn't appropriate for me to wear; which is sexist. I'm pretty sure I have the right to wear a piece of fucking fabric on my head and talk about it on a internet discussion board thread about that very thing without being subject to a slew of negative adjectives and e-hardasseries.

I'm not trying to guilt you into anything; you seemed confused by Sea's general viewpoint and I was trying to explain the logic behind it. Cultural appropriation is a real thing that happens; Vishnu on lunchboxes, white people dressing up like Generokee stereotypes on Halloween, and other bullshit that is definitely a negative thing from the vantage point of the people whose cultures are being pillaged for these disassociated symbols. I know what you're doing isn't like that, but I don't think labeling the concept of cultural appropriation racist is a good way to go about it. Again, I'm not trying to condemn you or accuse you of anything.

Devrim

12th January 2014, 23:14

Of course. I was thinking more in the context of somewhere where it is not dictated by law, but that is a valid point.

But even then in countries like France or the UK it is still an issue on a different level. At worst if you don't shave your legs people might think you are 'unfeminine' or whatever. I don't imagine that people' parents or grandparents, who often come from these countries where there are laws, or social enforced customs about how women should dress, would have deep held convictions about whether their daughters shave their legs but they often do about whether they cover their hair.

It is not a good analogy, not that it was you who first introduced it.

Nor do I think that the headscarf is particularly the issue that the OP wanted to raise here. What I feel he was talking about is the attıtude of the left towards Islam in the West. The headscarf is just one practical application of this approach into practice.

Devrim

Quail

12th January 2014, 23:36

ed miliband

12th January 2014, 23:44

I think maybe the analogies don't work properly because the things I mentioned aren't specific to a particular religion or culture, but there are probably analogous cultural pressures on women who follow other religions. I don't actually know a lot about religion so those were some of the first things that came to mind on the topic of "choices" women make.

Something I forgot to put in my initial post that I'd like to add (which might be more relevant to the OP) is that I don't think there should be a predetermined "leftist" position on any choice that women make. There isn't really a black and white "choice x is correct" and leftists really have no place telling women what they should or shouldn't do. People make choices for different reasons, so it depends on the woman making the choice, and in what context, as to whether it is perpetuating the oppression of women or not. On the other hand, it is always oppressive to dictate to women what they should do or wear.

i don't consider myself a leftist and so it follows i'm not looking for a right / wrong position for leftists to take.

but devrim is right, it's not really to do with the headscarf. another example could be the 'gender segregation' proposals outlined by uk universities, which laurie penny essentially defended on account of its opponents apparently being "islamophobic white males", and had to backtrack because she completely ignored muslim women voicing their objections to such proposals, for example:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-shameful-that-our-universities-have-accepted-gender-segregation-under-pressure-from-the-most-oppressive-religious-fanatics-8991593.html

Trap Queen Voxxy

13th January 2014, 00:12

You didn't say you wore it out of observation of religious practices, but as a symbol of defiance in the specific context of Western culture. I'm not trying to hold you to that, but that's what I was replying to.

Yes, I did. From my OP...

Me choosing to wear the hijab as a rejection of Western decadence, sexism, objectification, etc. along with religious expression is

It was literally in the same sentence, lol.

I know what you're doing isn't like that, but I don't think labeling the concept of cultural appropriation racist is a good way to go about it.

I'm not saying the concept itself is racist more the whole sort of argumentation that was used by Sea was.

Also, my bad Ed if I derailed your thread and stuff, didn't mean too.

Quail

13th January 2014, 00:15

i don't consider myself a leftist and so it follows i'm not looking for a right / wrong position for leftists to take.

but devrim is right, it's not really to do with the headscarf. another example could be the 'gender segregation' proposals outlined by uk universities, which laurie penny essentially defended on account of its opponents apparently being "islamophobic white males", and had to backtrack because she completely ignored muslim women voicing their objections to such proposals, for example:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-shameful-that-our-universities-have-accepted-gender-segregation-under-pressure-from-the-most-oppressive-religious-fanatics-8991593.html

That's kind of why I put "leftist" in quotation marks and I know you're not looking for a predetermined position, but I think there is perhaps a tendency to see things in black and white terms. Because islamophobia is a problem in the UK and of course discriminatory, it stands to reason that leftists don't want to be islamophobic. I think this means that some people will defend Islam fairly uncritically, without considering the wider implications of what they're saying. Of course, there are ways of criticising religion without criticising religious people, but I can understand why people might feel reluctant to criticise Islam in the current political climate.

Sabot Cat

13th January 2014, 00:47

Yes, I did. From my OP...

It was literally in the same sentence, lol.

I'm sorry for not reading what you said very well and constructing faulty arguments based upon my misconception of what you said. ^^"

(I thought "along with religious expression" was a part of the list of the Western things you were rejecting. >>")

I'm not saying the concept itself is racist more the whole sort of argumentation that was used by Sea was.

Also, my bad Ed if I derailed your thread and stuff, didn't mean too.

I don't think you should feel you have to apologize, because you have direct experience with the topic at hand; I shouldn't have been so quick to try to draw conclusions about what you were trying to share. :(

Sea

13th January 2014, 02:12

There's critiquing something and using the facade of critique to air out all those racist stereotypes you got from 1994, like, seriously, wtf? But, even with this aside, what the fuck are you really trying to get at? It's not my fault when you read "Muslim women," you assume it means this...If someone came up to you and told you they were going to start wearing a veil to combat "Western decadence" (lol) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they're engaging in orientalism, especially if one has the expectation that their own thought is developed enough to have lead them to athiesm. In such a case, the guilt for racism is already on the part of the orientalist; the observer is merely calling them out for it. That's essentially what I thought was going on; I had no idea you were a religionist. If that is the case (and if you have actually read the texts you uphold), I should not have to explain why it is pointless to talk about sexism with, well, almost any religionist.

You're essentially using the same flimsy arguments to claim that the veil represents liberation as the men who believe that women should be forced to wear one -- for the sake of their own liberation, of course!

edit: also I never even watched alladin, rofl
Considering I'm a Muslim woman I think I know what said item of clothing means to me and why I chose to wear it, thank you. :glare:

For fuck's sake.I'm going to tell you a story, and it's a true story. It's a good one, so you might want to hold onto your seat lest you be whisked away into the magical captivating land of Sea's Adventures. Once upon a time (a month or so ago) in a place far far away (a certain establishment that I hang out in from time to time where debates often happen) I encountered a Catholic woman who, though I'm sure she was a very nice person, was insistent that abortion must be made illegal to protect human life. Any attempts to convince her of the sexism behind the pro-life position were met with the following -- "Considering I'm a Catholic woman I think I know what said position means and why it is not sexist, thank you. :glare:". Well, that's not exactly how she phrased it, but it really echos the crap you're pushing. The end. Story's over.

Needless to say, such an excuse is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I'm not saying the concept itself is racist more the whole sort of argumentation that was used by Sea was.How so? You're the first to mention race. I abhor racism so if I said something racist I'd really appreciate it if you could correct me so I can avoid making such a mistake in the future.

Rafiq

14th January 2014, 04:16

All the ubermensch type shit you have to say is corny as hell and has nothing to do with the real world. Your attitude towards culture reminds me of Mao Zedong, and look at what he did to culture.
Your whole writing style is really off-putting and at times unintentionally funny. It's almost as if you're completely lacking in a sense of humor or self-awareness.

This is a website for political, or philosophical (or whatever) discussion. I do not know any of you on a personal level, nor do I seek to. All that I am here is what I espouse intellectually, so you're right, I don't have a sense of humor, not here at least. These are matters I take seriously, when I discuss them. If that "off-puts" you, to be quite frank I am not inclined to care. I don't see humor in my posts, if you do I'm sure you're just a load of fun in the real world, if that truly is what you find comedy in.

But then, I don't care about you or your existence in the real world, as far as I'm concerned you're not even a person, you're just an entity on the internet from which ideas, casual, meek and worthless ideas are expressed. Nothing is more erroneous than to mix casualness and politics. You may have casualness, and you may have politics, but the two have no place being in the same room.

Mao Zedong was a third worldist who sought to politicize, not destroy, the cultures of the world for a larger 'anti-imperialist' struggle. The retention of the world's cultures means the retention of patriarchy, class society among other vestiges of what we would call in industrialized countries reaction.

Sabot Cat

14th January 2014, 04:57

But then, I don't care about you or your existence in the real world, as far as I'm concerned you're not even a person, you're just an entity on the internet from which ideas, casual, meek and worthless ideas are expressed.

I wonder if you have this overflowing empathy for the world's proletariat, who aren't even as available to you as your fellow forum members for the most part due to the sheer size and distance involved. I'm unsure as to why you would even adapt an intentionally dehumanizing stance towards another person as if you are proud of doing so, without an accompanying justification for its alleged necessity in the context of the class struggle; this is most likely because it has no necessity, and you are just being a callous jackass in an overly ornate manner.

Sea

14th January 2014, 07:11

Sabot Cat

14th January 2014, 08:02

Don't rag on people for refusing to get all hung up in silly sentimentalism.

Empathy and a spirit of camaraderie, especially for the stratified proletariat, is the mortar for building a revolution. I'm not saying this is as grave and grand as that, but regarding someone as nothing more than an online entity that produces "casual, meek and worthless ideas" whilst being aware that they are in fact a person to emphasize just how little you care about them, is mean-spirited. I'm all in favor of harshly vocalizing one's dissent and opposition to aggressors and oppressors but there was no apparent point to it or worthy goal to be achieved there. I'm also not saying it was evil or that it made me weep bitter tears; however, I think I'm correct in calling it out as kind of dickish.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

14th January 2014, 22:03

I agree with the OP - it's not that we shouldn't stand against the way the veil is used by Western racists and imperialists as a symbol of Islamic oppression, and it's not that all women who wear veils are oppressed or not exercising their freedom, but I think it's also fetishistic to say that the veil is some inherent part of another culture that is beyond criticism. On the contrary - any culture has reactionary elements open to critique. What I don't like though is the patronizing tone some Western critics of the veil have. It's like they've completely ignored the first person narrative of Muslim women who chose to wear it.

As a completely off topic point - Obviously talking about the way women dress is important for addressing patriarchy, though I find it interesting that the norms for men are never addressed at all. Men are expected to live up to certain patriarchal dress codes, and incidentally most leftists historically followed it. Dress codes for men are also used to reinforce class divisions (the ruling class wears suits and ties, the proles wear jumpsuits or dirty overalls), as well as the division between men and women and masculine men and emasculated men.

But even then in countries like France or the UK it is still an issue on a different level. At worst if you don't shave your legs people might think you are 'unfeminine' or whatever. I don't imagine that people' parents or grandparents, who often come from these countries where there are laws, or social enforced customs about how women should dress, would have deep held convictions about whether their daughters shave their legs but they often do about whether they cover their hair.

It is not a good analogy, not that it was you who first introduced it.

Nor do I think that the headscarf is particularly the issue that the OP wanted to raise here. What I feel he was talking about is the attıtude of the left towards Islam in the West. The headscarf is just one practical application of this approach into practice.

It can be a good analogy however (albeit contingently). Women can be hired or fired based on judgements about their "femininity". It's probably pretty shitty to get arrested by an Iranian copper for going out without a scarf, or get kicked out of your Turkish university for going in there with a scarf, but it's also shitty to get fired from your job in the West because you look over 35, don't wear heels and don't show enough cleavage.

Women are forced through economic incentives in the West to oversexualize themselves all the time. I think we should stop fetishizing the lifestyle of Western or non-Western women and start seeing how both are constrained by patriarchy.

Rafiq

15th January 2014, 04:05

I wonder if you have this overflowing empathy for the world's proletariat, who aren't even as available to you as your fellow forum members for the most part due to the sheer size and distance involved. I'm unsure as to why you would even adapt an intentionally dehumanizing stance towards another person as if you are proud of doing so, without an accompanying justification for its alleged necessity in the context of the class struggle; this is most likely because it has no necessity, and you are just being a callous jackass in an overly ornate manner.

No, I don't have an overwhelming empathy for the world's proletariat. I do not pity them, and I do not see the revolution as charity work. I see it as the exertion of their interests upon the social foundations of society. The difference between the international proletariat as a class and this user, is that the future of the world is in the former's hands.

Rafiq

15th January 2014, 04:29

Considering I'm a Muslim woman I think I know what said item of clothing means to me and why I chose to wear it, thank you. :glare:

For fuck's sake.

You don't speak for the women of the Muslim world, you don't represent what the veil is as a social and cultural phenomena. If I were to go about wearing the headdress of a native american chief, it would say absolutely nothing about the reality of it's cultural significance. I don't care about what you decide to wear or what religion you identify with, we are talking about a mass social phenomena.

Devrim

15th January 2014, 22:33

It can be a good analogy however (albeit contingently). Women can be hired or fired based on judgements about their "femininity". It's probably pretty shitty to get arrested by an Iranian copper for going out without a scarf, or get kicked out of your Turkish university for going in there with a scarf, but it's also shitty to get fired from your job in the West because you look over 35, don't wear heels and don't show enough cleavage.

Women are forced through economic incentives in the West to oversexualize themselves all the time. I think we should stop fetishizing the lifestyle of Western or non-Western women and start seeing how both are constrained by patriarchy.

No, I still don't think it is a good analogy. and I don't think that you really seem to understand the whole thing. It is very different from the examples that you give.

Devrim

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th January 2014, 21:51

Look nerd, it would be appreciated if you speak to me in a more pleasant manner or I will stop playing nice with you.

You don't speak for the women of the Muslim world

Where did I say i did? Can I speak for Saudi women in Saudi Arabia? No, can I speak for Iranian women in Iran? No, can I speak on the subject in terms of those in West, Europe, the Americas, etc? Absofuckinglutely, can you speak for any woman anywhere? No! Soooooooooooo....

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/have-a-coke-and-a-smile-and-stfu.png

you don't represent what the veil is as a social and cultural phenomena.

Oh rly? Why? Also, according to whom? You? Are you Muslim? Are you a woman? Do you live in the Muslim world? Who the fuck are you? lol, why should I give a shit about some opinion of some fedora enthusiast on the internet? About shit that he, himself, as no material basis from which to speak or judge on?

If I were to go about wearing the headdress of a native american chief, it would say absolutely nothing about the reality of it's cultural significance.

Feel free to demonstrate your ignorance of socio-cultural theory further, if you like.

I don't care about what you decide to wear or what religion you identify with, we are talking about a mass social phenomena.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QiHaQZKXE9g/UF14-eA4SWI/AAAAAAAACuU/VHZDNgSw3LI/s1600/jill-greenberg-crying-photoshopped-babies-end-times-17.jpg

Rafiq

19th January 2014, 00:40

If I were a Muslim, that itself would revoke any legitimacy in what I have to say about Islam. I'm a marxist, who recognizes that which you are ideologically unable to. I claim you don't represent the veils significance, you claim I am in no position to say so because I'm not a Muslim women. But it's precisely the fact that I'm not a Muslim, but a Marxist that gives me legitimacy. Also, contrary to what Islamist ideology may espouse, you don't need to have some bizarre social or cultural identity to recognize objective truth.

You claim I'm a nerd because I take this subject seriously, well then, why don't you re evaluate your presence here in the first place if you don't. I don't know why you claim I wear a fedora, you clearly don't have any notion of my appearance. You don't know me personally, so you don't need to attack me just because I threaten your ideological foundations which seemingly keep you from taking my posts for what they are rather than some attack on your "identity". The veil is a symbol of sexual oppression and slavery, you're in no position to criticize what *I* allegedly wear on my head (?).

Rafiq

19th January 2014, 00:51

"who are you?" "Why should I give a fuck lol who are you to say such things"

Reactionary, almost feudal ideology prerequisites some kind of grandiose hierarchical social standing in order to enter the kingdom of truth. The same ideology that we find in the modern Islamic religious-political revival. The Muslim revival is to Islam as a historical tendency as the American Christian revival is to Christianity as such, it's degenerate and lays no claim to even the legitimacy of it's own theological foundations. When the left recognizes this, no longer will a defense of the shit stains of this revival be considered a defense of the Muslim people as a whole.

Trap Queen Voxxy

20th January 2014, 21:09

If I were a Muslim, that itself would revoke any legitimacy in what I have to say about Islam.

In other words, no, you're not, you're not a Muslim woman, either in dar al-Islaam or in the West. Why couldn't you just answer the question and save me the time?

I'm a marxist

I just wanted to highlight this and talk about this for a second. I know that you are a Marxist. You know that you are a Marxist. I know that you know that I know, you're a Marxist, so what's the point in stating this when both users already know this information? Do you presume by virtue of this title 'Marxist' it some how magically transforms you into this infallible red brain entity because you inherit this absurd lexicon and proceed to throw a thesaurus at me coupled illogical fallacies and ideological/intellectual 'fluff' and 'filler' aka garbage? The mere fact that you feel the need to make a point to state this and confirm your own ideology (seemingly to yourself) is pretty revealing psychologically, tbh.

If you think your e-cross and garlic is going to ward me off, you're mistaken. You're still full of shit. Here is why.

I claim you don't represent the veils significance, you claim I am in no position to say so because I'm not a Muslim women.

You've provided no substantive arguments as to why I do not "represent the veils significance," aka "ur not hijabi, lololol." In fact, your whole "rebuttal," (if it can be called as such) seems like a psychological exercise of you reassuring yourself that you are right and you're Marx gym badge remains untarnished.

But it's precisely the fact that I'm not a Muslim, but a Marxist that gives me legitimacy.

So opinions held by hijabis themselves in regards to the veil are invalid and illegitimate (inherently)? As opposed to the opinions of a non-Muslim, male whom seems to think this title means a flying shit in the wind? In other words, any Muslim woman is wrong period, full stop, and is under the spell of 'Islamist propaganda' and has no right to speak whatsoever because of the very fact that she is a Muslima and by default is delusional and needs non-Muslim men to speak for her about her clothing choices and ways in which she chooses to express her spirituality? Do you seriously not see the insane intellectual disconnect between your expressed purpose and actual practical application? Wow.

You claim I'm a nerd because I take this subject seriously,

No, I claim you're a nerd because you behave as such and because are one hence why you've made Marxism your identity with cult like dedication, case and point, the general vibe one gets when reading your posts.

I don't know why you claim I wear a fedora, you clearly don't have any notion of my appearance. You don't know me personally, so you don't need to attack me just because I threaten your ideological foundations which seemingly keep you from taking my posts for what they are rather than some attack on your "identity".

Oh, so now you want to whine about things being assumed about your person?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1942867215/image.jpg

Delusions of grandeur? What "ideological foundations," are you attacking here? You're only argument is, you're a Marxist and by virtue of being a Marxist you are also right and anyone disagreeing with you, to whatever degree, despite all reason and logic, are delusional buffoons. Do you not think it's not sexist in the slightest that effectively you're telling women what to think, how to dress, etc? That you're literally saying by virtue of being a Muslima, she's wrong, period? Based upon you're own inaccurate analyses of a 'mass social phenomena'?

The veil is a symbol of sexual oppression and slavery

http://www.cringechannel.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-image-uploads/megachair2/2013/12/Karl-Pilkington-Bullshit.jpg

Originally the hijab was a symbol differentiating a free woman from a slave woman before it was adopted as a symbol of religious expression by the early Islamic community. Again, context is key here.

Quail

20th January 2014, 21:34

Vox Populi, could you refrain posting images in serious threads? It makes the pages load slowly for people who browse on slow connections or their phone and is against the rules.

Slavic

21st January 2014, 21:11

I am surprised that this counter poll to OP's poll wasn't posted yet.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-10/what-should-women-wear-public-depends-how-you-ask

http://www.pri.org/sites/default/files/story/images/858664_570617646353140_1840915660_o%20%281%29.jpg (http://www.pri.org/sites/default/files/story/images/858664_570617646353140_1840915660_o%20%281%29.jpg)

Rafiq

21st January 2014, 22:26

In other words, no, you're not, you're not a Muslim woman, either in dar al-Islaam or in the West. Why couldn't you just answer the question and save me the time?

I just wanted to highlight this and talk about this for a second. I know that you are a Marxist. You know that you are a Marxist. I know that you know that I know, you're a Marxist, so what's the point in stating this when both users already know this information? Do you presume by virtue of this title 'Marxist' it some how magically transforms you into this infallible red brain entity because you inherit this absurd lexicon and proceed to throw a thesaurus at me coupled illogical fallacies and ideological/intellectual 'fluff' and 'filler' aka garbage? The mere fact that you feel the need to make a point to state this and confirm your own ideology (seemingly to yourself) is pretty revealing psychologically, tbh.

If you think your e-cross and garlic is going to ward me off, you're mistaken. You're still full of shit. Here is why.

Because to answer your question directly would concede to it's ridiculous presumptions a certain false truth, namely that in order to properly understand the veil as a cultural or social phenomena, you must be a Muslim women. And as a Marxist, I claim there is nothing farther from the truth. We recognize the sexist and patriarchal nature of the nuclear family, imagine how ridiculous it would have been for a women before the sexual revolution to claim that such a judgement cannot be made by those who are unmarried and have no children. My point isn't that I adhere to an ideology which makes me superior to you, my point is that this isn't a subject I wish to concede to ideology, and that Marxism isn't an ideology in the first place (Though, Communism is). It is only through Marxism that one can recognize, properly, human social relations, just as it is only through Darwin that we can properly recognize natural history. Essentially, because I am not embedded or constrained by ideology (unlike you), I, along with any other Marxist (or even Feminist) can properly recognize the veil for what it is. That's all I'm trying to say.

The only thing that appears to be revealing psychologically is your constant utilization of personal attacks.

You've provided no substantive arguments as to why I do not "represent the veils significance," aka "ur not hijabi, lololol." In fact, your whole "rebuttal," (if it can be called as such) seems like a psychological exercise of you reassuring yourself that you are right and you're Marx gym badge remains untarnished.

Okay, well allow me to make myself clear.

The veil as a social, or cultural phenomena cannot be reduced to cosmetic preference or personal choice. Unlike you, most Muslim women who wear the veil are unexposed to bourgeois-liberal ideology, or western hedonism. The veil is not worn as a choice but as an expression of cultural coercion. Women in Muslim communities who choose not to wear the veil, or who choose to dress 'immodestly' risk discrimination, abuse, 'shame' and in rare cases, even death. For you to sit comfortably in a liberal democracy, presumably not in a Muslim community (though, I do not know) and wear the veil as a choice, and then claim to represent the millions of Muslim women who wear it is almost offensive, really.

In cases where the veil persists in relatively educated places in the Muslim world, as does a new form of bourgeois ideology, Islamism. Before the 1980's, the veil was uncommon in urban areas in the Muslim world, it was generally seen as backward. It's resurgence reflects a wider phenomena, just as the religious revival in the United States. The veil represents the sexual repression (not in the freudian sense) of women and their enslavement to the family structure. Make no mistake, this is a capitalist phenomena. There is no room for Romantic orientalism here, the only difference is that here in the west decades of long and hard class struggle bred a sexual revolution. Yet, the western proletariat didn't have pompous, condescending intellectuals in a distant, more progressive land constantly glorify that which strengthened the grip of their class enemy.

So opinions held by hijabis themselves in regards to the veil are invalid and illegitimate (inherently)? As opposed to the opinions of a non-Muslim, male whom seems to think this title means a flying shit in the wind? In other words, any Muslim woman is wrong period, full stop, and is under the spell of 'Islamist propaganda' and has no right to speak whatsoever because of the very fact that she is a Muslima and by default is delusional and needs non-Muslim men to speak for her about her clothing choices and ways in which she chooses to express her spirituality? Do you seriously not see the insane intellectual disconnect between your expressed purpose and actual practical application? Wow.

Well yes, because the hijab can quite simply be taken off. An educated women who chooses to wear it and claims it has no patriarchal, sexist or reactionary connotations quite simply wrong. Muslim women don't form the ideological composition of the Islam, an arm of the state apparatus, that title is reserved for (guess who!) male Muslim clerics. As a matter of fact, the hijab itself is the mark of males that constantly reminds Muslim women of male domination. It is not that Muslim women need Marxists to "speak for them", it is that Muslim women need to become a force of class struggle, as feminists in the west did decades ago. Muslim women will only be emancipated from sexual slavery when they emancipate themselves. Can the same be said about hte international proletariat as a whole? Do they "need" well-off Marxists like myself to speak for them? No, what they need is class consciousness. Class consciousness, for Muslim women, would mean the abandonment of the veil. If the veil is simply a cosmetic preference, than the nuclear family is simply a way that women "choose" to organize themselves. According to this logic, patriarchy itself is something chosen by women, since they actively engage in it, pro-feminist males like myself simply have no right to claim otherwise. A male like myself has no right to say that the choices women make are not made in a vacuum, and sometimes actively re-produce the conditions of patriarchy.

I can't possibly see that with your existing argumentative tactics, with your existing mode of thought, you could possibly properly address this. You won't. You'll look past it and continue to trivialize the whole thing as ridiculous and "lol too much lol its so simple". Because you're a moron and an ideological degenerate, you could spout all of your dribble a million times over and the validity of Marxism would remain completely untouched. There is no room for religion in Communism, Vox. Communism will triumph as the one true religion, the one universal truth, this is the basis for our social myth. Of course universal truth does not exist, but this will be the expression of the revolutionary proletariat, it will be valid insofar as it reflects a wider social revolution. The veil, patriarchy, the commodification of sex, will all be thrown to the wind.

Under the spell of "Islamist propaganda"? What a profound conception of ideology you have! To Vox Populi, the ideological state apparatus, ideology itself is simply a result of intentional "propaganda" expressed in a conspiratorial manner. According to Vox Populi, direct political or religious propaganda is all that ideology is composed of. This is why I mentioned I am a Marxist. You may know I am a Marxist, but you have absolutely no notion of what Marxism actually is.

No, I claim you're a nerd because you behave as such and because are one hence why you've made Marxism your identity with cult like dedication, case and point, the general vibe one gets when reading your posts.

Oh, so now you want to whine about things being assumed about your person?

I don't think you're an idiot and a waste of life because you wear the veil, Vox, I think you are because you claim to know how I behave when all that you know about me is through my posts on a website. You can't possibly argue that I'm a nerd because I am one (?). What does that even mean? How can you argue with that? You're acting like a child. Marxism is my identity as far as this site goes, outside of this site, it's none of your concern. All that I am on this site are my posts, all that you are, are yours. I've explained this before. I don't care about you personally, I am addressing what you've decided to post. Isn't it ironic that you claim I have a cult-like dedication to Marxism, even though you couldn't tell I was a Marxist visually? I don't wear Che Guevara T-shirts, I don't dress in military fatigues, I dress casually. Wouldn't such an accusation be better leveled against you, who wears the veil and through physical and cosmetic means constantly has to reaffirm her ridiculous ideological convictions to the world? Isn't that cult-like?

Vox, I detest the harassment of Muslim women who wear the veil. I recognize Islamophobia and the necessity of the Left to combat it properly in the west. Islamophobes only further the oppression of Muslim women. But you don't strike me as a culturally or ideologically coerced Muslim women. You sound like you're capable of forming your own political views on your own. And while I wouldn't dare criticize you for wearing the veil, what I will attack is your intellectual defense of it, which is complete garbage.

Delusions of grandeur? What "ideological foundations," are you attacking here? Do you not think it's not sexist in the slightest that effectively you're telling women what to think, how to dress, etc? That you're literally saying by virtue of being a Muslima, she's wrong, period? Based upon you're own inaccurate analyses of a 'mass social phenomena'?

I'm attacking the ideological foundations of Islam. Vox, four years ago I was a Muslim. I've come a long way. I recognize the function of Islamist ideology, and I say Islamist simply because it is a modern, political phenomena. You see this as an attack on your identity. You see it as an attack on the Muslim community as a whole.

While I do think it would be sexist to tell a women what she ought to wear, I will tell anyone, man or women, 'what to think' in the sense that I will constantly attack the views they espouse so long as they are reactionary. I don't see why you claim this is a sexually exclusive problem, I think that by 'virtue of being' a Muslim man, you cannot completely understand Islam for what it is. Because part of understanding Islam is understanding it's function and origins as an ideology as well as it's relationship to the social order of things. I do not exclude Muslims with this regard. Only through Marxism can we understand religion. Only through Marxism.

Originally the hijab was a symbol differentiating a free woman from a slave woman before it was adopted as a symbol of religious expression by the early Islamic community. Again, context is key here.

You claim that context is key, and yet the "origin" of the hijab (if we assume it is correct) has absolutely nothing to do with it's modern significance or modern context.

But let's take your supposed origin and throw it down the shitter where it belongs, anyway. Virtually everyone who has done even a decent amount of research on Islam agrees that the veil was worn as a means of combating sexual attraction. In other words, the veil was used in order for women to hide their sexual differences, that which made men attracted to them. Even in it's origins, male objectification of women was blamed on women for not "covering up". Rather than attempting to change the accepted conception of sex all-together, women were forced to cover up, and those that did not (to this day) face risk sexual harassment and abuse (often rape), because the standards for sexual attraction are so profoundly ridiculous as a result of i'ts modern resurgence. Islam does not recognize the necessity for females to safely wear whatever they desire without risking abuse or harassment, but that's hardly surprising, it's a religion of the ruling class. The veil was adopted as a remnant of Byzantine culture.

Vox, no longer can condescending identity politics stand in the way of the struggle for Communism. The phenomena of class struggle will spare no exceptions globally. I want to do what western conservatives detest, to open space which was previously exclusive to the west to the people of all corners of the globe.

You can go ahead and ignore what I can only express here through language, you can make personal attacks from which you have no basis, and you can make an ass out of yourself by calling me a sexist or whatever. You can try and make Islam as an intellectual category off-limits to Marxists with accusations of racism and western chauvinism, but it won't work. When Muslims attempt to politicize their religion and enter intellectual space with it, they will be crucified like the rest of the reactionaries. No exceptions.

Tim Cornelis

21st January 2014, 22:51

I wish I could thank that post more than once
(save for the horrid grammar and "communism as on true religion").

Lensky

22nd January 2014, 03:19

I wish I could thank that post more than once
(save for the horrid grammar and "communism as on true religion").

What do you find wrong with the statement "communism as the one true religion"?

Alexios

22nd January 2014, 04:48

What do you find wrong with the statement "communism as the one true religion"?

Religion is faith-based so if u think communists should base their theory supremely on faith then you're going to have trouble

Rafiq

22nd January 2014, 15:35

Religion not in the sense of faith, but a universal truth, the summation of cosmic justice to which it's followers give utmost devotion. Religion in the sense of world legitimacy.