This is an essay I wrote for my College English class.
A young attractive woman walks down a big city street. The next block hosts a construction site, a new office building investors are pinning their hopes on. Men between the ages of 18 and 58 work on this site, carrying out the stereotypical spectacle of lots of workers but seemingly little work getting done, with not a few of them apparently standing around, talking. The truth is that their work was largely done by the time most people are getting to work. So, as this young woman passes by, it happens to be their lunch hour and they’re sitting and eating while spectating the wide variety of femininity that promenades by their site. Cheers, jeers and sneers accost many young and sexy women who dare to pass by this block. But this particular woman is different and the most that these men will say to her is “ ‘I like your skirt’ or ‘Girl, I would marry you!’” According to author Maysan Haydar, the reason these typical construction workers behave atypically is because she wears a Hijab, a Muslim headscarf.
Haydar, a young American Muslim woman, describes this everyday event in her essay entitled “Veiled Intentions: Don’t’ Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Cover,” to show how the practice of wearing a headscarf to signify the type of modesty which is called for of a woman by the Islamic faith is a good thing and not the coercive, oppressive practice some believe it to be. The practice is called the Hijab. However, her argument ceases to be a validation of a personal religious choice and becomes weak logic when she extends her argument to say that the practice is good because it helped her avoid negative interactions with men and made it possible to be respected as a person, and not just a woman. Her argument becomes a pernicious variation of the “blame the victim” mentality that permeates American culture, particularly as seen in so many rape cases.
In present-day America there are many conflicting thoughts about morality, sexuality, personal freedom and the various religious beliefs that exist in our country and around the world. It is difficult and volatile to criticize religious beliefs and practices, particularly doing so here in the United States which, despite it’s nondenominational origins designed to protect and promote all religious beliefs, is currently considered a Christian country, whatever that means. Religious commentary or critique therefore is heard as inherently biased in favor of Christianity. That is neither my intention nor my inclination. I believe Christianity has many abhorrent beliefs and practices, but that is for another time. In short, “organized religions,” particularly those of the Abrahamic variety—which means Judaism, Christianity and Islam—, are patriarchal and strictly dogmatic expressions of them frequently espouse practices that severely limit women; which begs the question: are they glorifying God or just empowering men over women? Critiquing Islam can therefore be seen as politically motivated, but that is not the case in this essay. The intention of this essay is to show that Haydar is misplacing the onus in this issue.
Haydar describes her own personal experiences with wearing the Hijab and how it helped her while growing up to avoid the “self-loathing, body hang-ups and sexual harassment” that seems to be commonplace for women in modern culture. In her haste to own and reconcile her religious observance with her own feminism, Haydar is ignoring the most fundamental flaw in the notion of a woman altering her appearance to get by in life or society. Placing the responsibility on women to adjust their behavior and their appearance so as to not distract men with their physicality, avoid their depredations and therefore be taken seriously for their inherent, deeper-than-skin value is simply a subtle form of blaming the victim.
Archconservative Christian David Kupelian in his condescending essay, “Killer Culture,” makes a similar logical mistake in proposing a solution to one of our cultural problems while clearly believing that we as humans are fundamentally imperfect and incapable of knowing better without the Godly guidance of someone like him to lead us. The tone of his essay is clearly belittling as he positions anything that isn’t Judeo-Christian in origin, form or belief as something from “Sodom and Gomorrah, and other perverse societies.” In his bias there are no humans who can successfully make their own decisions because if they try, they’re only trying to be “their own gods and make up their own rules.” Kupelian doesn’t seem to realize that since all cultures reuse the same motifs throughout all of their religions, including Christianity and the Bible, that proves that humans created these manifestations of god, one of which he believes is the only pre-existing unique eternal entity. In her advocacy of the Hijab, Haydar’s mistake is less perhaps egregious (or is it?) but similarly faulty in placing too much of the responsibility of physical safety on women.
Haydar appreciates the “saving grace” that her headscarf is and attributes to it the ability to be seen as “a whole person instead of a twenty-piece chicken dinner.” Who are these men she’s dealing with? She seems to be clever enough to parse subtleties. But in making such statements she seems to disregard that, despite prevailing attitudes, all men may not be looking at her because of her crispy fried exterior and instead may be looking at her from a more sincere and authentic motivation. Instead, it seems that her world is made up of men who are little more than testosterone-fueled knuckle draggers. I admit that there’s a surplus of knuckle draggers. But assuming that all men are such is simplistic and a mistake. Even misguided men are more than the sum of their behavior and when enlightened as to the impact of their worst actions can evolve and transcend their cultural upbringings. This is not to say that it is her duty to be the only one to change the way whole generations of men treat women. It’s just that her claim that the hijab is good goes too far.
In describing her progressive and enlightened upbringing, thanks to her parents, Haydar cites the Quranic verse that says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” She cites this to make the point that wearing the Hijab out of a sense of obligation is not what she is doing nor is it what is asked for by her religion. She claims that her practice is not only voluntary but an enthusiastic choice on her part. But Moroccan sociologist Fátima Mernissi, in her book “The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam,” points out how the real intentions of the hadiths, or rules set by the prophet Muhammad, were frequently compromised by the political and military situation at the time. The prevailing attitude in Medina toward women was that men could rape them in the streets if they felt so inclined. Umar, a military leader and chief adviser to Muhammad, was the one who sought to institute the hijab to distinguish free women, who were protected by law, from slave women, who could be used as prostitutes. Mernissi claims that for a religion that prides itself on valuing intellect the hijab represents the opposite. “In the logic of the hijab, the law of tribal violence replaces the intellect of the believer, which the Muslim God affirms is indispensable for distinguishing good from evil…The hijab reintroduced the idea that the street was under the control of the sufaha, those who did not restrain their desires and who needed a tribal chieftain to keep them under control.” Muhammad felt that it was self-control that should have protected everyone, not just women and not just slaves, from violence.
According to the U.S. State Department’s November 17, 2001 report on Afghanistan, “The Taliban’s War Against Women,” this sort of tribal law has been taken further. “The Taliban ended, for all practical purposes, education for girls. Since 1998, girls over the age of eight have been prohibited from attending school…Under Taliban rule…in most hospitals, male physicians could only examine a female patient if she were fully clothed, ruling out the possibility of meaningful diagnosis and treatment.” How can an Afghani woman find a woman doctor if that woman’s education ended at the age of eight?
Haydar claims that the notion that Muslim women covering themselves either with headscarves or full-body burqahs does not mean that Muslim women do not appreciate or value their bodies, their physical beauty or their sexuality. Instead, she explains that their physical beauty is so valued by Muslim teachings that it is reserved for intimate relationships such as between “husband and wife, mother and baby, among women” or with one’s doctor. Clearly this is arguable. Haydar takes pains to point out that she is a modern woman, not only a feminist who has multiple cleverly disguised piercings but also a woman married to a Christmas-observing Catholic. But this seems to be beside the point when compared to the basic fact that it is the woman who is being required to change her behavior rather than wrong or misguided men or even society. If modesty or piety were truly the intent, then why is it that men are not also required some forms of covering? As for the purpose of the Hijab, if women don’t wear it, they risk suffering violence and rape, if they do wear it, they still risk violence and even rape.
Societies around the world are unfair and in some cases openly hostile to women. In her essay, “ ‘Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt’: Advertising and Violence,” Jeanne Kilbourne states “that all girls growing up in this culture are sexually abused—abused by the pornographic images of female sexuality that surround them from birth, abused by all the violence against women and girls, and abused by the constant harassment and threat of violence.” If we accept this notion for a moment, which is not difficult to accept, then it must be clear that any defensive tactic that calls for women to protect themselves against this sort of toxic environment is wise in the short-term but cannot be considered sound in the long-term. In his review of the film “The Accused” about a woman’s experience of struggling to get the judicial system to prosecute the men responsible for gang-raping her in a bar, movie critic Roger Ebert said, “for some men, the movie will reveal a truth that most women already know. It is that verbal sexual harassment, whether crudely in a saloon back room or subtly in an everyday situation, is a form of violence—one that leaves no visible marks but can make its victims feel unable to move freely and casually in society. It is a form of imprisonment.”
Changing a society does not happen overnight. The civil rights struggle in this country is not over and won’t be over until whole groups of people who currently are institutionally described as “disadvantaged” cease to be (or described that way). Likewise, sexual mores and respect between the sexes and individuals is something that is slowly changing and not necessarily in a continuously clear or positive direction. Brittany Spears sadly is more of an icon of the over-sexualization of youth rather than a musical sensation. The notion of “fucking like a porn star” has become the standard used by some young people to measure the success of their relationships. So, getting “men,” to use a generalization, to respect women universally and for the sole reason that it’s the right thing to do, rather than as a ploy to ingratiate themselves with women as sexual conquests or as an inauthentic behavior to avoid getting in trouble, is asking for a lot and unrealistic in the short term. However, that unlikelihood should not keep us from placing the responsibility firmly where it belongs and striving to make these changes nonetheless.
While most people agree that one’s relationship with one’s god is a personal matter, few truly live by that creed. Devoutly religious people tend to see their relationship with god as having less to do with them and more to do with their deity. It’s almost as if they don’t really have a say in the matter, only God does. It’s frequently easier to find ready acceptance of this concept when people are observing someone else’s religious practice: “They have a personal relationship with their god.” But it’s still universally true, particularly if you believe the literal readings of the various texts; it is the individual person who will be standing in judgment on that fateful day. So, if someone chooses to behave a certain way that their religion asks for, they should be free to do so. But to claim that it is a good practice because it helps women avoid the negative experiences they otherwise would have to live through is a specious argument. So then, how do we improve on hostile male attitudes and behaviors? Accurately placing blame and creating real accountability are the first steps. And as for those construction workers cheering, jeering and sneering, they should be told to “grow the fuck up.”
Works Cited
“The Taliban’s War Against Women.” Report on the Taliban’s War Against. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm. Web. 17 December 2009.
Ebert, Roger. “The Accused.” Rev. of The Accused, dir. Jonathan Kaplan. Rogerebert.com. Sun-Times News Group, October 14, 1988. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19881014/REVIEWS/810140301/1023. Web. 17 December 2009.
Kilbourne, Jeanne “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt’: Advertising and Violence,” Rereading America. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford Books/St. Martin’s Press 2007.
Kupelian, David. “Killer Culture.” Rereading America. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, Bonnie Lisle, Boston. Boston: Bedford Books/St. Martin’s Press 2007.
Mernissi, Fátima. “The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam.” Mary Jo Lakeland. Basic Books, 1991. Web. 17 December 2009.
