Tag Archives: Religion

Outlaw Clothing: Burqas, Islamophobia and Women’s Rights

The ongoing quest of the French government to preserve their country’s “secular traditions” came to the fore once again Tuesday when the lower house of France’s parliament voted to ban women from wearing any face-covering veil, such as the infamous burqa or the less “extreme” niqab — a move obviously targeting French Muslim women, of which perhaps 1,900 wear a face-covering veil. France has the highest population of Muslims in Europe, comprising about 5 million of France’s population of 64 million people.

I’m sure you remember the “no hijabs in public schools” ban France passed in 2004 after almost a decade debating it, barring students from wearing a headscarf or any other piece of clothing that would indicate the religion of the student wearing it. To be fair, that does include Jewish yarmulkes and cross necklaces, however, the surrounding debate was particularly focused on the Muslim hijab. It just seems that since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Western countries have been not-so-subtly putting their Islamophobia on display.

Of course, this is not to say that all Muslim women disagree with the banning of the burqa or niqab. Some Muslim feminists have spoken out in favor of the ban. I fully support the right of Muslim women to not be forced to wear face-covering veils. However, I think banning religious clothing at the governmental level is taking the issue in a scary direction. I believe in choices, and banning burqas and niqabs eliminates the ability of women who actually wear the veils of their own volition to continue to make the choice to wear them, however few the women may be that make that choice. The author of the Huffington Post article, Caryl Rivers, makes a lot of good points, but I really do believe that in order to truly gain equal rights for Muslim women in their culture it’s going to have to come from changing Muslim men’s “hearts and minds” and not changing Muslim women’s clothing.

In the Salon article linked above, Eqyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy states:

I support banning the burqa because I believe it equates piety with the disappearance of women. The closer you are to God, the less I see of you — and I find that idea extremely dangerous. It comes from an ideology that basically wants to hide women away. What really strikes me is that a lot of people say that they support a woman’s right to choose to wear a burqa because it’s her natural right. But I often tell them that what they’re doing is supporting an ideology that does not believe in a woman’s right to do anything. We’re talking about women who cannot travel alone, cannot drive, cannot even go into a hospital without a man with them. And yet there is basically one right that we are fighting for these women to have, and that is the right to cover their faces. To tell you the truth, I’m really outraged that people get into these huge fights and say that as a feminist you must support a women’s right to do this, because it’s basically the only kind of “right” that this ideology wants to give women. Otherwise they get nothing.

I agree with her on basically every point she makes, yet I can’t reconcile my feelings about government-enforced bans on religious clothing. I just don’t think that simply legally preventing women from wearing burqas, niqabs, or hijabs is going to cause transformative change in Islamic culture. This is a crude analogy, but it seems like banning black women from relaxing their hair. Yes, black women would be unable to cowtow to the oppressive beauty standards forced on us by Western culture, but would their minds be freed as well? Would black men suddenly stop desiring women with long, straight hair? With the banning of burqas and niqabs, are sexist, oppressive Muslim men and the governments they run suddenly going to stop treating women like second-class citizens? I don’t see that happening. Western governments using women’s rights as an excuse to ban Muslim religious garments just smells like Islamophobia couched in “progressive” rhetoric. Some leaders in the U.K. have actually voiced their concern over the “growing threat of Islamism“.

So what can we expect this ban on face-covering veils to do for Muslim women’s rights in France? Eltahawy had this to say:

What I hope it will do is that it will create a situation where a woman can say to a man, look, you know that I have to go out and work so that we can continue to live here, and I can’t go out with my face covered, even though you want me to, because that’s what the law says. I hope the law gives women this kind of out. I have no idea if that’s actually going to happen or not.

I can’t get behind legislation like this when the only benefit for women would be that you get to tell your husband that you’re required by law to not wear the veil, and the many benefits for the government and Islamophobic French people include not having to be visually reminded there’s Muslims in their communities and also stopping the spread of “Islamism”. I don’t trust the women’s rights angle at all from Western governments when it comes to Islam. We continue to ally with countries that do much more than just expect women to cover themselves head to toe when in public — we’re in bed with countries that beat and jail women who have been gang raped and impregnated because the rape constituted the woman committing adultery. I personally don’t think her lack of burqa helped at all in that situation.

So I’m not exactly joining the cheerleading squad because France decided its Islamophobia was good for women’s rights. Of course I don’t want Muslim women to be forced to cover themselves head to toe. But I firmly believe true change in the Islamic world will never come via simply outlawing certain types of clothing, and I question the veracity of France’s reasons for doing so. The fact that they’re mentioning things like “defining and protecting French values” sounds eerily familiar and to me, is more of a nationalist concern than a concern for women’s rights.

There needs to be substantive change in Muslim men’s attitudes towards Muslim women rather than superficial change mandated by a government that seeks to erase those parts of immigrant populations they find distasteful.

[This piece originally appeared on Feministe.]

Comments { 13 }

Tuesday Two-Fer: In Toothsome Condoms and Oily Prayers We Trust

*TRIGGER WARNING*

  • A doctor in South Africa, a country with a very high rape rate, has developed a condom she believes will help reduce the amount of successful rapes in her country. Check it out:

    While of course this sounds great in theory, getting some street justice and whatnot, I see a few problems with this. One, you have to go around wearing an internal condom with teeth in it, which I imagine is somewhat uncomfortable, even if the teeth are on the inside. Two, this seems to be highly likely to enrage the person attempting the rape. I can see it enraging them to the point of killing the victim, severely beating the victim, or to be blunt, simply picking another hole. I mean, once rapists know there’s a possibility their target might be wearing one of these, they can easily check before they attempt the rape to make sure the coast is clear. And if the target is wearing one, I can see repercussions possibly occurring.

    It’s a great idea in theory, and I know I wish I could have had something like that at my disposal the two times I experienced the horror of rape, but I also am kind of glad I didn’t for the reasons outlined above.

  • Sarah Palin and the Louisiana State Legislature have decided to present the spill to their god for fixin’. Palin tweeted:

    @SarahPalinUSA Gulf disaster needs divine intervention as man’s efforts have been futile. Gulf lawmakers designate today Day of Prayer for solution/miracle
    7:59 AM Jun 20th

    I always have fun thinking of all the fallacies laden in thoughts like this. What if the Christian god wants the oil there? Maybe he’s punishing BP by causing them to lose money. Maybe he’s punishing New Orleans for being a sin-ridden city. Maybe he’s punishing Obama for being a secret Muslim. Maybe he really likes oil. You just don’t know. Maybe in a few years we’re going to be glad that oil is there! Don’t question his master plan!

    Really, if he doesn’t want the oil there wouldn’t he have prevented the pipe from breaking in the first place? Or does he just feel like fucking with us for a bit before he fixes the pipe? I understand that people believe prayer works. More power to you. I have to be honest, sometimes when I’m desperate I shoot a little message out to any god that might possibly exist for a little help. I don’t really think anything’s going to happen. But I’m one of those try anything type people because you never know, there might be something out there. Maybe Palin and the members of the Louisiana State Legislature are those kind of people too. Although it sounds like they’re rather serious. It seems like the time for prayer would have been earlier on in the disaster so their god would have less to clean up. That’s kind of rude.

    Okay, I’ll stop making fun of evangelicals already. I’ve just never been, even when I was a practicing Christian, one of those people who believed god directly intervened in situations in which, say, we’ve screwed ourselves with our addiction to oil. And it’s just amusing to me that the woman famous for chanting “Drill baby drill” is now thinking we need divine intervention on this one. Perhaps BP should have prayed before they leased the rig, asking their god for guidance on how to prevent it from blowing up. A priest could have blessed the pipe and none of this would have happened. Okay, okay, I know I said I would stop. It’s just, hello, separation of church and state? A legislative body declaring a day of praying for the oil to stop flowing? How about some real, concrete solutions that people can carry out on their own, sans divine intervention. How about NOT drilling offshore? No, no. Couldn’t do that, we need that oil. It’s our god-given right to burn that oil. And now we’ve got to go get all that oil out of the Arctic. Since that’s not offshore it’s surely not going to ruin the environment in any way!

    I’m just waiting for Pat Robertson to start blaming the spill on feminists and gays.

Comments { 10 }

Fundamentally Destructive

If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m not a big fan of organized religion. Religion does not change with the discovery of new facts or the disproving of cherished tenets. That’s one good thing about science, it’s constantly changing, constantly seeking new truths, and hence why I tend to trust what reputable scientists say over what religious fanatics yell at me on the street or what some evangelical groups try to sell me on while I’m waiting for public transportation.

What is really, really dangerous about religion is the potential for fundamentalism. There is a long history of violence associated with religious fundamentalism. Wars have been fought because of it, genocide has been justified by it. It is aggressive, demanding, and narrow-minded. Fundamentalism creates terrorists, religious warriors, intolerant governments, and an oppressed populace, as you can see in many of the Mideast countries that are run by Islamic fundamentalists. We have battles here in the US over the separation of church and state, which vexes Christian fundamentalists. We fight over what should be included in our schoolbooks as far as scientific facts go because they might cause children to be confused as to who created the Universe. Evolution, we’re constantly reminded, is a theory. As an American, I’m pretty used to the constant debate over Creationism being taught in schools. But now, fundamentalists in Russia are pushing the same tired “it’s a theory” argument and advocating for Creationism to be taught in their schools. People, this is why we can’t have nice things.

The Soviet Union was an atheist state. Say what you will about Communism, I’m not trying to say it’s great and everyone should have some, but at least the USSR had the idea to constitutionally keep religion out of politics and not cover every national monument and piece of currency with quotes from the Bible and “In God We Trust”. (Unfortunately, they enforced the anti-religion laws in some pretty violent and unnecessarily brutal ways under Stalin.) During the Cold War the US naturally assumed the Judeo-Christian god was on their side, and that the Soviets were godless heathens. Personally, I’d rather be governed by godless heathens than religious fundamentalists. At least heathens can throw a good dance party. But, I digress. The Soviet Union collapsed, a clear sign that their godlessness had been punished by the divine and the US had been ordained as The Only Superpower, police force to the world. (See “American Exceptionalism”)

Now the Orthodox Christian church, the dominant church in the years before the Soviet Union was formed, is having a revival of sorts in Russia. And of course the first thing any fundamentalist religion wants to do is indoctrinate their children. Well, the Orthodox Church isn’t the only game in town anymore, and Muslims, who make up 20 million of the 141 million Russian citizens, have been expressing their concerns over what they see as the privileged position of the Orthodox Christian Church. Surely Russia, with it’s sparkling human right record, wouldn’t think to install the teachings of the Church into Russia’s textbooks without mentioning any other religions!

What really burns me, as a science nerd, is that the Christian fundamentalists who want to teach intelligent design either alongside or without teaching evolution, state that intelligent design is also a theory just like evolution, so it should be taught so that children know their options. But intelligent design is NOT a theory.

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

(via Wikipedia)

Do you see how intelligent design meets basically none of those criteria? How can you scientifically prove a theory that by its essence is unprovable? Intelligent design is one of the laziest pseudoscientific “theories” out there. Basically it says “well, this shit is here on earth and in the sky… and it seems like it would be hard to make all this stuff because it’s so complex, so someone really smart must have put this stuff here!” Intelligent design makes the most sense when you have a Bible in your hand. Then when your brain (hopefully) leads you to the question “Well who the hell created this crap and how long did it take?”, you take the Bible and look it up. Never mind that science has proven that the Universe is billions of years old as is the Earth, and any rational person could believe that over what, 8 billion years or so, nature could evolve complex creatures like us.

Not all Christians think intelligent design should be taught in schools, and that’s great. Now I just wish they’d talk some reason into their fundamental friends.

Comments { 29 }

Teaching Palestinians a Lesson

Last Wednesday, Democratic Senator from New York Charles Schumer delivered a speech to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. In it, he referenced the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s current blockade of the Gaza Strip. Now, remember how upset people were last Monday when Helen Thomas made allegedly anti-Semitic comments about European Jews living in Israel and how they should leave Palestine and return to “Germany and Poland”? You would think, hot off the heels of that debacle, public officials would be sensitive to this nuanced topic. Not Chuck Schumer.

He states:

The Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land — this is Palestinian thinking [...] They don’t believe in the Torah, in David [...] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose — obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel — but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When there’s total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, they’re going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.

(transcript via Think Progress)

Think Progress points out the factual inaccuracies in Schumer’s statements, which include the fact that an April poll showed that 74% of Palestinians actually favor a two-state solution. Besides being completely wrong on all counts, Schumer is basically engaging in the kind of behavior, while less directly and publicly, that Helen Thomas did when she made her career-ending comments. The fact that this speech has seen no air time, that there has been no outcry over its insensitivity and offensiveness, just serves to illustrate the media’s double standard when it comes to the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians.

Why is “believing in the Torah” a prerequisite for treating a group of people fairly? Why should the Palestinian people be punished for simply exercising their right to vote – a vote which the Bush administration insisted was necessary to move the peace process forward – when they vote for someone the U.S. and Israel don’t like? Schumer is not just talking about Hamas, he’s talking about the actual Palestinian people. He’s advocating for the people to be strangled economically — until what? They overthrow Hamas? It’s not clear how Schumer expects this economic strangulation to work. If Hamas is so dedicated to the destruction of Israel, surely they care more about weapons than the plight of their people. How is the suffering of the Palestinian people going to force Hamas to hand over the reins to the PA again? That’s pretty much the only other option, so as of late the Obama administration has been doing press conferences with Mahmoud Abbas, “President” of the Palestinian Authority (whose term actually expired over a year ago). Unfortunately for the U.S., Mr. Abbas has little if any control over the Palestinian people since they voted the PA out during Bush’s last term.

By ignoring Schumer’s comments, the media is telling us it’s fine to talk about the Palestinian people basically being heathens who need to be taught a lesson, whereas it is not okay to criticize Israeli policies. It’s shameful that this is allowed to happen, that Palestinian lives are viewed as disposable examples of what happens when the interests of the U.S. and Israel are ignored. Using a blockade to force the Palestinians to understand that their “democracy” is only a democracy when the voters agree with what the U.S. wants can only serve to economically disenfranchise millions of Palestinians and in turn, perpetuate the system of oppression that drives them to desperate measures such as terrorism.

Comments { 9 }

We Got It From You, Dad

By now you’ve probably heard about the gay couple in Malawi getting sentenced to 14 years in jail for having a commitment ceremony. If not, there’s the link. Now what with this happening and that scare about the Ugandan anti-gay bill that would give gays the death penalty, and all the wars and starvation, I imagine it’s hard for some not to just say “damn, Africa is all types of fucked up” and go about your day because we hear about Africa’s misfortune in passing all the time. But let’s take a second and think about why Africa is all types of fucked up.

Of course it’s ironic that the Malawi government is enforcing a law that was imposed on them through colonial rule. But think about it — hundreds of years of colonial rule here. Africa kind of has a right to be backwards on this. I mean, black people in America do some stupid shit and we’ve been free longer than Africa has been decolonized. And the colonial powers — in Malawi’s case, Britain — are the ones who taught them that a) being gay is wrong, b) being gay IS VERY WRONG, c) now being gay is ILLEGAL. And if you’ll journey to that link up there about the Ugandan bill, you’ll see that “Christian” representatives from the U.S. are telling them that being gay is a Western problem and gay people from the U.S. are coming to GET THEIR CHILDREN. Believe it or not, African countries don’t like anything that smacks of colonialism. “But Tasha, you just said the anti-gay law in Malawi is colonial” It’s complicated. Being gay is not high on most Africans’ list of things it’s desirable to be. And they definitely don’t want their children “indoctrinated” with that mess. So when U.S. human rights activists come in trying to tell them that being gay is OK, and these right wing Christians warn them that the U.S. “homosexual movement” is trying to infiltrate them, they react in a not-so-positive way because it’s seen as a large Western power trying to influence their country immorally. Regardless of whether or not they got the idea from colonialism in the first place.

It’s kind of like how we financed the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and now they’re using that training to fight us. You can’t meddle with an entire continent’s consciousness and not expect it to come bite you in the ass when you’ve decided you’re more enlightened than you were when you were doing the first meddling. For whatever reason, in colonial times it was apparently in Britain’s best interest that Africans hate gays. Now they’re just continuing on in that tradition and you’re surprised? They were taught, fully taught to believe that homosexuality was evil. Just like they were taught to despise their dark skin so they are now bleaching it, enforcing the dichotomy you wanted them to. Just like how they were taught their hair was ugly so they are now straightening it, to be what you told them was beautiful.

So before you judge the attitudes and actions of these African people towards gays, think about where they got them. It’s much like the old “Where’d you learn to smoke those cigarettes?” line. We know. At least we should.

[Ed. I was informed by two of my lovely commenters that the "gay couple" in Malawi is actually a straight couple, as Tiwonge Chimbalanga (a member of the couple) is a trans woman. So in addition to homophobia, we've got transphobia! Awesome. This is what happens when you "trust CNN".]

Comments { 10 }