Feminism and the power to be (un)recognized
by zunguzungu
O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted.
The Quran, 33:59 (or, some other translations here)
In comments to the Hitchens post, JR pointed out this Amanda Hess response to Hitchens, a column in “The Sexist” which places Hitchens’ ridiculous “right to see your face” in the context of the generalized authority which (Western) men presume to have in demanding that women‘s bodies in public be sexualized and available to their gaze:
In an essay condemning a cultural institution that prevents men from looking at the faces of women, Hitchens instead argues that men have an inalienable right to stare. Of course, Hitchens phrases this in gender-neutral terms—”My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine”—that assumes social equivalence between the gazes of women and men. In fact, the gender-neutral approach fails to acknowledge the sexist cultural institutions that allow men to exert ownership over women’s bodies through their gaze—like street harassment and sexual objectification. When a guy passes a woman on the street and tells her to “smile, baby,” he’s asserting authority over her face, her feelings, and how she chooses to express them—or not. Those who would declare their “right” to look at women should first note the social context in which women’s faces are often examined. Forcing a woman to wear the veil is one way to own women’s bodies; declaring that it is your “right” to force her to take it off is just another tactic in the same vein.
This is exactly the right thing to say; a solicitude for the right of women to be commodified as sexual objects of a male gaze is not feminism. Look, for example, at the picture used to illustrate the documentary (un)veiled: Muslim Women Talk About Hijab; even what looks like a reasonableand evenhanded documentary about the variety of ways Muslim women wear and regard different forms of head covering cannot help but advertise itself by selling a sexualized female body. But while people like Hitchens decry the misogyny of hiding a Muslim woman’s face from sight, they have nothing to say about the misogyny of images like this, which hide the woman’s face in our own, very special Western way, cropping the face off camera so that we can focus on her (near) naked body.
But as The Sexist’s next column illustrates, it isn’t just photographers that do this:
At Duke University, reports sociologist and gender studies scholar Michael Kimmel, “the frats have these big benches (as in gigantic and oversized), and they face the major walkways on campus, and so the guys gather and hold up numbers rating the women walking by, or loudly evaluate them.” My mother remembers experiencing something similar when she and a few hundred other women became the first women to attend Yale as undergraduates in 1970: As the women walked through the dining hall with their trays, the male students would hold up score cards to indicate how attractive they found them. Clearly, the harassment that I endure on the streets New York doesn’t just happen in rough neighborhoods or in foreign countries; it happens on the manicured green lawns and crisscrossing walkways of some of the nation’s most exclusive universities, too.
To turn back to veiling, the thing people have to understand is how utterly derivative everything a vacuous shell of an intellect like Hitchens says is from the century old Victorian racist and sexist playbook; if you put your ear to his column, all you hear is the echo of the Orientalist ocean. And just as those old-school anti-Islamists went on and on about how Islam degraded women as a way of arguing for European domination of the Muslim world (while denying European women the right to vote, by the way), the hypocrisy of an Iraq war cheerleader like Hitchens is nicely demonstrated by his overwhelming concern for the rights of Muslim women to show their bodies to him but not so much for the rights of, say, Iraqi women not to have bombs dropped on their bodies.
Instead of reading him, then, read Lila Abu-Lughod on the stupidity of equating any and all forms of Islamic facial covering with the Taliban’s particular mode of misogyny;
“The modern Islamic modest dress that many educated women across the Muslim world have started to wear since the late 1970s now both publicly marks piety and can be read as a sign of educated urban sophistication, a sort of modernity. What many people in the West don’t realize is that the women in Egypt who took up this new form of headcovering, and sometimes even covering their faces, were university students – especially women studying to become medical doctors and engineers.”
After all, as she goes on to point out, it’s only when we’re dealing with other cultures (and particularly Islam) that we presume a monocausal cultural origin for everything and anything pernicious:
“Even if we are critical of the treatment of women in our own societies in Europe or the United States, whether we talk about the glass ceiling that keeps women professionals from rising to the top, the system that keeps so many women-headed households below the poverty line, the high incidence of rape and sexual harassment, or even the exploitation of women in advertising, we do not see this as reflective of the oppressiveness of our culture or a reason to condemn Christianity – the dominant religious tradition. We know such things have complicated causes and we know that some of us, at least, are working to change things.”
Read her entire essay here, or her book Veiled Sentiments about veiling in Western Egypt Bedouin communities. Or read Saba Mahmood’s incredible Politics of Piety which suggests that the Islamic Revival can and does provide a language through which some women are able to control the ways they’re formed as feminine subjects, exerting an important measure of agency over how they’re constituted as female in public (a a measure of control that female students at Duke and elsewhere, for example, seem to quite flagrantly lack), but which, at the very least, prevents us from glibly dismissing something like veiling while excused from the burden of actually knowing anything about it.
Or read Leila Ahmed’s account (which I’ve reproduced below at length) of the historical context in which the discourse that Hitchens is mindlessly repeating comes from, the imperial employment of pseudo-feminism to legitimize imperial aggression:
The peculiar practices of Islam with respect to women had always formed part of the Western narrative of the quintessential otherness and inferiority of Islam. A detailed history of Western representations of women in Islam and of the sources of Western ideas on the subject has yet to be written, but broadly speaking it may be said that prior to the seventeenth century Western ideas about Islam derived from the tales of travelers and crusaders, augmented by the deductions of clerics from their readings of poorly understood Arabic texts. Gradually thereafter, through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, readings of Arabic texts became slightly less vague, and the travelers’ interpretations of what they observed approximated more closely the meanings that the male members of the visited societies attached to the observed customs and phenomena. (Male travelers in Muslim societies had extremely limited access to women, and the explanations and interpretations they brought back, insofar as they represented a native perspective at all, essentially, therefore, gave the male point of view on whatever subject was discussed.)
By the eighteenth century the Western narrative of women in Islam, which was drawn from such sources, incorporated elements that certainly bore a resemblance to the bold external features of the Islamic patterns of male dominance, but at the same time it (1) often garbled and misconstrued the specific content and meaning of the customs described and (2) assumed and represented the Islam practiced in Muslim societies in the periods in which the Europeans encountered and then in some degree or other dominated those societies to be the only possible interpretation of the religion. Previous chapters have already indicated the dissent within Islam as to the different interpretations to which it was susceptible. And some sense of the kinds of distortions and garbling to which Muslim beliefs were subject as a result of Western misapprehension is suggested by the ideas that a few more perceptive Western travelers felt themselves called upon to correct in their own accounts of Muslims. The eighteenth-century writer and traveler Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, for example, attacked the widespread belief among her English contemporaries that Muslims believed that women had no souls, an idea that she explained was untrue. (Montagu believed that many of the misapprehensions of her contemporaries about Islam arose from faulty translations of the Quran made by “Greek Priests, who would not fail to falsity it with the extremity of Malice.”) She also said that having herself not only observed veiled women but also used the veil, she was able to assert that it was not the oppressive custom her compatriots believed it to be and in fact it gave women a kind of liberty, for it enabled them not to be recognized.
(ZZ: compare her interest in being unrecognizable in public to Hitchens’ statement that “all citizens and residents, whatever their confessional allegiance, must be able to recognize one another in the clearest sense of that universal term.”)
But such rebuttals left little mark on the prevailing views of Islam in the West. However, even though Islam’s peculiar practices with respect to women and its “oppression” of women formed some element of the European narrative of Islam from early on, the issue of women only emerged as the centerpiece of the Western narrative of Islam in the nineteenth century, and in particular the later nineteenth century, as Europeans established themselves as colonial powers in Muslim countries.
The new prominence, indeed centrality, that the issue of women came to occupy in the Western and colonial narrative of Islam by the late nineteenth century appears to have been the result of a fusion between a number of strands of thought all developing within the Western world in the latter half of that century. Thus the reorganized narrative, with its new focus on women, appears to have been a compound created out of a coalescence between the old narrative of Islam just referred to (and which Edward Said’s Orientalism details) and the broad, all-purpose narrative of colonial domination regarding the inferiority, in relation to the European culture, of all Other cultures and societies, a narrative that saw vigorous development over the course of the nineteenth century. And finally and somewhat ironically, combining with these to create the new centrality of the position of women in the colonial discourse of Islam was the language of feminism, which also developed with particular vigor during this period.
In the colonial era the colonial powers, especially Britain (on which I will focus my discussion), developed their theories of races and cultures and of a social evolutionary sequence according to which middle-class Victorian England, and its beliefs and practices, stood at the culminating point of the evolutionary process and represented the model of ultimate civilization. In this scheme Victorian womanhood and mores with respect to women, along with other aspects of society at the colonial center, were regarded as the ideal and measure of civilization. Such theories of the superiority of Europe, legitimizing its domination of other societies, were shortly corroborated by “evidence” gathered in those societies by missionaries and others, whose observations came to form the emergent study of anthropology. This same emergent anthropology—and other sciences of man—simultaneously served the dominant British colonial and androcentric order in another and internal project of domination. They provided evidence corroborating Victorian theories of the biological inferiority of women and the naturalness of the Victorian ideal of the female role of domesticity. Such theories were politically useful to the Victorian establishment as it confronted, internally, an increasingly vocal feminism.
Even as the Victorian male establishment devised theories to contest the claims of feminism, and derided and rejected the ideas of feminism and the notion of men’s oppressing women with respect to itself, it captured the language of feminism and redirected it, in the service of colonialism, toward Other men and the cultures of Other men. It was here and in the combining of the languages of colonialism and feminism that the fusion between the issues of women and culture was created. More exactly, what was created was the fusion between the issues of women, their oppression, and the cultures of Other men. The idea that Other men, men in colonized societies or societies beyond the borders of the civilized West, oppressed women was to be used, in the rhetoric of colonialism, to render morally justifiable its project of undermining or eradicating the cultures of colonized peoples.
Colonized societies, in the colonial thesis, were alike in that they were inferior but differed as to their specific inferiority. Colonial feminism, or feminism as used against other cultures in the service of colonialism, was shaped into a variety of similar constructs, each tailored to fit the particular culture that was the immediate target of domination—India, the Islamic world, sub-Saharan Africa. With respect to the Islamic world, regarded as an enemy (and indeed as the enemy) since the Crusades, colonialism—as I have already suggested—had a rich vein of bigotry and misinformation to draw on.
Broadly speaking, the thesis of the discourse on Islam blending a colonialism committed to male dominance with feminism—the thesis of the new colonial discourse of Islam centered on women—was that Islam was innately and immutably oppressive to women, that the veil and segregation epitomized that oppression, and that these customs were the fundamental reasons for the general and comprehensive backwardness of Islamic societies. Only if these practices “intrinsic” to Islam (and therefore Islam itself) were cast off could Muslim societies begin to move forward on the path of civilization. Veiling—to Western eyes, the most visible marker of the differentness and inferiority of Islamic societies—became the symbol now of both the oppression of women (or, in the language of the day, Islam’s degradation of women) and the backwardness of Islam, and it became the open target of colonial attack and the spearhead of the assault on Muslim societies…
Hitchens is surely a member of the male pack, one of whom will write a whining column for the NY Times Op-Ed section in which NYC women and by extension all women in the U.S. at least, are taken to task for wearing ugly footwear on the streets, such as sneakers, on their way to and from the subways, to and from work. Instead we are to be like the adorable sex worker kittens of Bangkok who hobble and skitter and totter the streets all times of the day and night wearing their sexy and flattering stilettos. “At least ladies wear kitten heels like Thai girls do,” I believe the latest letter writer on this pressing issue of national economic and environmental security concluded.
And of course, he surely would have added, “Smile!”
Love, C.
At the same time that the Victorian Brits (and Usians) are criticizing the Islamic women’s veils, they were stuffing the undressed women (and men) of the Pacific and other tropical climates into crinolines and wool.
We’re nothing but consistent, are we.
Love, C.
That’s a great point about the danger of nakedness in the colonial minds. Man oh man did those polynesians drive them crazy! An old post on that here (which reminds me how long I’ve been writing on Teddy Roosevelt; got to get that chapter out of mys system).
I would also love to add that in case you do not already have an inusrance policy otherwise you do not take part in any group inusrance, you will well reap the benefits of seeking the aid of a health agent. Self-employed or people having medical conditions typically seek the help of one health inusrance brokerage. Thanks for your short article./wp-login.php?action=registerThanks for your text. I would love to say that a health inusrance brokerage service also works well with the benefit of the particular coordinators of your group inusrance. The health broker is given a long list of benefits searched for by anyone or a group coordinator. What any broker will is find individuals or perhaps coordinators which will best go with those desires. Then he provides his recommendations and if both sides agree, this broker formulates an agreement between the 2 parties./wp-login.php?action=registerI’d personally also like to express that most individuals who find themselves without health inusrance are generally students, self-employed and people who are not working. More than half of the uninsured are really under the age of Thirty-five. They do not think they are needing health inusrance because they are young and healthy. The income is usually spent on housing, food, and entertainment. Most people that do work either full or in their free time are not presented inusrance by their work so they proceed without due to the rising cost of health inusrance in america. Thanks for the ideas you talk about through this site./wp-login.php?action=registerThanks for the strategies you write about through this site. In addition, several young women that become pregnant usually do not even make an effort to get medical inusrance because they are concerned they would not qualify. Although many states currently require that insurers present coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. Premiums on these kind of guaranteed options are usually larger, but when thinking about the high cost of medical care it may be your safer way to go to protect your own financial potential.
This is getting a bit added subjective, except I a good deal prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is unusual, has more flair, and some cool skin tone like Mixview’ that allow you suddenly spot associated albums, songs, or else additional users allied to what you’re listening to. Clicking on one of those will heart proceeding that item, and another set of “neighbors” will come keen on view, allowing you to navigate just about exploring by comparable artists, songs, or users. Dialogue of users, the Zune “Social” is also enormous enjoyment, letting you find others with common tastes and apt acquaintances with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based proceeding an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is too enjoyable. Folks uneasy with privacy will live relieved to get you can avert the civic as of seeing your personal listening lifestyle if you hence choose.
Thanks for your article. I would love to say that the very first thing you will need to peorfrm is find out if you really need repairing credit. To do that you have got to get your hands on a duplicate of your credit report. That should not be difficult, since government makes it necessary that you are allowed to obtain one free of charge copy of your real credit report each year. You just have to request the right people. You can either check out the website with the Federal Trade Commission and also contact one of the main credit agencies right away.
This is way more helpful than anything else I’ve looked at.
QuotesChimp\’ll finish our discussion of auto insurance in the next chapter, where we cover the reforms we believe are necessary in the auto insurance industry itself and within each state\’s regu�latory process if rates are to be permanently stabilized.
The point of which, at least one of the points of which, is that women are always wrong and doin’ it rong and men get to tell them so, no matter who the man is or the woman is, or where we are.
That way we’re always anxious and never allowed to be happy. A happy woman is a powerful woman and she will ignore you when she feels like it and We Cannot Have It!
Love, c.
I like the article and understand the right to veil is an important one to maintain. However, it seems that like your post on female genital surgery, Abu-Lughoud is applying the customs in Egypt and Afghanistan to all the other countries. Take Sudan for instance:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/08/13/lubna-ahmed-hussein-if-the-law-is-constitutional-im-ready-to-be-whipped-not-40-but-40000-times/
As I said, “read Lila Abu-Lughod on the stupidity of equating any and all forms of Islamic facial covering with the Taliban’s particular mode of misogyny.” The point is that different forms of veiling (and clothing, for that matter) mean different things in different places. But a law requiring women not to veil like France’s is not so dissimilar from a law requiring women not to wear blue jeans; both are forms of controlling women’s conduct. The point is not the clothing itself, but who gets to make the choices, as Foxessa points out.
I must show appreciation to you just for renucisg me from this particular difficulty. As a result of looking out throughout the internet and coming across ways which are not productive, I thought my entire life was well over. Existing minus the approaches to the difficulties you have solved by way of your good report is a crucial case, and the ones which may have negatively affected my career if I hadn’t encountered your blog. Your own ability and kindness in taking care of a lot of stuff was valuable. I’m not sure what I would have done if I had not discovered such a subject like this. I can also at this time look forward to my future. Thanks a lot so much for the professional and effective guide. I won’t hesitate to suggest your web blog to any person who needs direction on this topic.
I just want to say I’m new to blogging and seorlusiy liked this website. Very likely I’m planning to bookmark your blog post . You surely come with awesome well written articles. With thanks for sharing your web page.
I needed to craete you that very little observation to be able to say thank you the moment again for those beautiful strategies you have shared in this case. It was certainly tremendously open-handed with people like you to offer openly what exactly most people would’ve made available for an electronic book to earn some cash on their own, principally now that you might well have done it if you ever considered necessary. Those secrets likewise acted like a good way to be certain that many people have a similar dreams just as mine to learn great deal more around this matter. I know there are several more fun opportunities up front for individuals who read through your blog.
Thanks for the great info dog I owe you biggity.
I am uncomfortable with the assertion that the reason Hitchens or anybody else would prefer these veils not to be used is that he or anybody else just wants women’s bodies to be available to their gaze, so that they may be available for appraisal. I definitely don’t agree with Hitchens on a lot of things, I don’t think it’s a matter of a ‘right to see someone’s face’. I think people should be free to cover or expose whatever bits of themselves they want to!
I can see how the veil could feel like a liberating thing, definitely. I am female, I am a feminist, I have sometimes felt, after experiencing street harassment, that maybe I’d be better off if I was entirely covered. But I don’t think that’s exactly fixing the problem, is it? I might feel safer in one way, but I doubt I’d feel satisfied that everything was ok.
Sometimes hiding is necessary for self protection, but I can’t believe anyone would suggest that it’s really a good thing in the long term. Attitudes need to change. Why should anyone have to do anything to their appearance in order to be considered ‘righteous’?
[…] recent conversations on the Muslim veil—an interesting one is going on here in response to Christopher Hitchens, on people’s rights to be unrecognized—it’s […]
GIRLS UNITE AND FIGHT!
[…] ST: more reading: http://bit.ly/fDKvi8 […]
Another scholarly and informative post, ZZ. I must apologize for misreading the intro as -“institution that prevents men from looking at the feces of women”- but once i woke up i was unable to leave off reading to the very last word. Recently i went to the bank in a hurry and wore a hat and sunglasses when approaching a teller; i was told that sort of covering was not allowed. Since i am of a generation that generally obeys orders, i obediently cancelled my planned hold-up, and complied without offense. I expect the fear of people who hide their identity in public is not altogether sexist, but largely because in many assaults or hold-ups, the assailants, like guerillas, cover their faces. Would the bank guard prevent my wearing a full burkha? I’ll try that next time i plan a bank robbery; i could hide my face, my sex and my uzzi. That said, i admit that objections to my hat and dark glasses don’t occur on the street, at least not overtly; a burkha on the street shouldn’t be any different. I once came alone to a halloween party in a private home, completely incognito, and remained silent when people asked who i was. Soon i realized people were so uncomfortable that i relented… there are times when anonymity is aggressive. This discussion reminds me of the story of the golfer who realized from the women’s coversations he overheard while taking a shower that he was in the wrong bathroom. So he put the towel over his face for his exit. Now, that is a nice sexist reason to cover up. The story goes on about the women’s comments as to Who it was. But that is so sexist, i leave it to your imagination.
What a delightful comment!
[…] Feminism and the power to be (un)recognized […]
Is scotch- neck a deprtiscion of how someone’s neck looks who likes to neck scotch? I don’t see anything similar between Hitch’s neck and Edward Kennedy’s. Don’t call him the Hitch’, please, for it is not his name. Hitch it is, and he was extremely handsome in his youth, now he is good for his age. Hope that’s not insulting. Certainly not meant to be. His writing is exhilaratingly lively and he has a brilliant way with words. Not in agreement with his neo-con views on fighting the fight against terrorism using conventional wars; but he is an honest and passionate man; qualities which I deeply admire. This unforgiving illness is devastating and I hope he does not suffer massively. I, too read everything he writes that I am aware of and love to watch him on youtube arguing the anti-theist stand which I am not able to fully embrace. There is no evidence of a god I say, but until there is proof offered that there isn’t one I’m in the agnostic camp. The atheist alternative does not yet offer the science to provide me with the story of how the world began. I accept the Big Bang but what happened before that?
I’ve been browsing on-line gretear than 3 hours these days, but I by no means discovered any interesting article like yours. It is lovely value enough for me. Personally, if all website owners and bloggers made just right content as you did, the net shall be much more useful than ever before. Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical. by Lawrence Peter Berra.