In the news: women and filmmaking in Afghanistan

After we've been talking about hijab and women's rights in various interpretations of Islamic literature, I thought it worth sharing this NYT article that popped up on my iGoogle this afternoon. It focuses on an Afghani female filmmaker who's just completed a movie that's extremely critical of the Taliban and its influence in the country. It's a good reminder of the privilege I mentioned in my last post about the role choice can play in religious garb- that the ability to choose one's expression of religion should be a right, but in many parts of the world is not.

Islamophobia or women's rights? Another perspective.

This post is partially in response to Emily's post earlier, but is also intended to highlight another question about feminism and Islam: privilege.

In her post, Emily mentioned that a positive impact of the French law is that "The law will discourage Muslim women who are debating about wearing the veil from doing so, since a Muslim woman who is only considering wearing the veil is unlikely to feel strongly enough about it to risk legal issues." To be honest, I completely disagree. Let me explain.

While I was in my undergrad, I was fortunate to take a class entitled "Women in Judaism and Islam," and for a class that had limited time to discuss some pretty complex topics, all of us- the vast majority female, the vast majority either Muslim or Jewish- had a great opportunity to start digging into some of the material that we'd never really encountered before in studying either religion. As you can imagine, hijab- the practice of modest dressing and comportment- came up quite frequently. Several of my Muslim classmates, who were from Toronto, Pakistan, and the States, wore hijab by choice; many of those who weren't were considering it.

The history of hijab is, of course, too complicated to explain here. This website offers a decent background in a nutshell, though. Essentially, the practice of hijab comes from a small and obscure phrase in the Qu'ran that instructs women to "draw their veils over their bosoms" when meeting men in the street. There are other passages that instruct modesty for both men and women, but this is the clearest one. Over the centuries, male and female scholars have debated the meaning of this phrase, and the answer has been everything from polite behaviour to segregation of the sexes to burkhas for women. True to the diversity in the history of hijab, my classmates all practiced hijab in different ways- they wore scarves around their neck and long pants, they only wore black and wore a scarf over their head, they wore a burkha without a niqab (face veil).

The women in my class who were wearing hijab had chosen to do so for a variety of religious reasons- daily reminder of one's faith, encouraging the self towards fuller religious participation and life- but a lot of additional reasons had nothing to do with religion at all. Rather, they were political. For many of the women from the States and Canada, especially, wearing hijab was an election to visible practice of a faith that's been taking a savage beating in western media. It was a way of defying the all-too-common assumption that hijab is an oppressive practice that's only imposed by men (a classmate from Pakistan, for example, told us about her aunt who elected to wear a burkha and niqab daily). My classmates also spoke to the unification they felt with Muslim women in the Middle East, for whom religion could be a struggle between personal faith and imposed politics, and how they felt that wearing hijab wasn't just a sign of faith, but also a sign of the diversity and empowerment that that faith has to offer. My classmates wore hijab as a reclamation of their Islam from a mass media massacre.

For me, when I read things like what I quoted from Emily, the first thing I think of is the passion that my classmates expressed when they spoke about their faith and the decisions they'd made. I don't want to imply that their choices were reactionary in North America, because many of them had chosen hijab in other cultural contexts and other political times. But the point remains that viewing hijab solely as an imposed patriarchal tool misses the variety of ways in which people interact with their faith, regardless of what their faith may be. I can only envision the women of France choosing to wear hijab specifically to defy the French government for presuming that it was the French government's choice to "liberate" them. "We don't need to be liberated!" my classmates are probably saying, wherever they are now. "We've made our choice. Stop assuming we're ignorant, or terrorists, or abused."

This, in turn, raises another question. My classmates were from around the world- Pakistan, Dubai, Toronto, etc.- and had all had the opportunity to make this choice. At the same time, they were also at one of the world's best universities and studying for their bachelor's degrees. The element of choice, for them, was probably more obvious and more accessible than for women growing up in families with different attitudes about women's education. This isn't to say that women at universities in the Middle East aren't experiencing similar feelings about hijab, but to say that education can make a world of difference in how someone interacts with her faith. The outcome may be the same as for the woman who wore hijab by command, but the fact of choice means everything. The privilege in being able to make that choice is, for me, the critical question.

Islamophobia or Women's Rights?

Just a couple days ago the French senate voted to ban face veils in public. The vote was nearly unanimous, with only one vote of dissent. Proponents of the legislation are saying that this move is constitutional and that it protects women's rights - arguments that I of course sympathize with. Opponents say that the law is driven by Islamophobia and that it impinges upon freedom of religion and personal liberty. An argument I also sympathize with. But let's put  aside theoretical, principle-based, moral values - just for a moment. Let's also forget about abstract statements about how the legislation will affect society (ie: "increase liberty," or "steal liberty"). Let's consider instead what the practical outcomes of this law will be.

What positive benefits are likely to stem from this law?

• The law will discourage Muslim women who are debating about wearing the veil from doing so, since a Muslim woman who is only considering wearing the veil is unlikely to feel strongly enough about it to risk legal issues.
•  Ditto for men who are only considering pressuring their wives or daughters into wearing the veil, since the legislation has much harsher penalties for people who force a woman to wear a face veil.
• French citizens and tourists who feel uncomfortable with people hiding their faces in public will enjoy not seeing  full-on burqas in the streets.
• Women whose self-esteems are damaged by hiding their faces in public will probably enjoy stronger emotional health.
• Extremist Muslim groups are more likely to avoid living in France as a result of this legislation, a result I strongly suspect the legislators had in mind.

Now, what negative results are likely to stem from the law?

• Muslim women who believe they would be disrespecting their faith by not wearing a face veil in public will face heavy fines or stay home to avoid paying fines(or attending a "citizenship" class).
• Muslim men who don't want to face legal repercussions for forcing a wife or daughter to wear a veil may confine a wife or daughter at home.
• French citizens who practice Islam and yet don't believe in face veils may feel misunderstood by the law - by creating a law that specifically targets a practice associated with one religion, the legislation makes latent (and unintentional) implications about that religion.
• The law will likely cause a backlash among the sects of Islam that believe in the face veil.
• Insofar as Muslim women who've been taught to hide their faces are victims, the law would risk victimizing the victims since its primary form of enforcement involves punishing the women who wear the veils. 

So, while I do not personally support the belief that women should hide their faces - it's in fact a belief that horrifies me - I think this legislation is misguided, and I am 99% sure it'll backfire.

For an alternative viewpoint, check out Carl the OMC's post on I Feel Like Schrodinger's Cat.

Any of our contributors who live in Europe care to weigh in? (That's right, Erica, I'm talking about you).

Call for Papers

Femministas is looking for submissions about marriage, written by Mormon women. They're looking for submissions of all sorts, from all types of Mormon-identified writers, be they married or unmarried, happy or unhappy, lesbian or straight. Please excuse my use of binaries. They make such nice-sounding lists that I use them more than is healthy.


For our readership to whom this CFP doesn't apply, we'll keep an eye out for other CFPs.

Religious Tolerance: September's (Belated) Theme of the Month

This is a theme that deserves more than half a month, so we will either extend it into October or revisit it in the future. But in light of the recent controversy (some would say "controversy" is just a euphemism for "Islamophobia") over the planned Islamic Cultural Center/ Mosque, we at NAW think it's time to discuss religious tolerance.

Your posts can address this theme in many different ways. Perhaps you have a personal story about how religion has played a positive role in your life, or a survivor story about facing religious persecution, or even a story about  spending time amongst a religious group not your own (cough cough Carl). Or maybe you have strong opinions about how we can show religious tolerance for one group without impinging upon the rights of those who belong to other religious groups. Or maybe you want to look at the role gender plays in religion.

The sky isn't even halfway to the limit on this one.

So, who wants to guest post on this topic?

In the Blogosphere (aka Emily sighs and bemoans the imperfection of the world)

First up, Racialicious brings us a post dissecting the problems with well-intentioned "Colorblind" programs. As Tim Wise points out in their interview with him, if we try to entirely ignore race, we often support subtle forms of racism, because we simply haven't admitted that the racism is there. For instance, let's say a hiring committee says "we hire the best candidate, period," but a study finds that when two candidates have similar qualifications, the job is more likely to go to the one who isn't black. But the hiring committee is certain that they just chose the person who seemed the most pleasant, friendly, nice, or whatever. Is that racism? Maybe. 

Or, let's say a young couple is anxious to adopt. They adopt a child of African descent, proud of how "colorblind" they're being. Then, as good parents, they shampoo the poor child's hair every single day and wonder why the kid's hair is all poofy and damaged. Or they misunderstand the child in some other, more significant way, as a result of ignoring the child's different heritage. Obviously we can't just ignore race and hope racism and racial ignorance will simply disappear. 

Mind you, as much as I loved the points that came up in that Racialicious post, I'm growing increasingly irked with articles that criticize another group's viewpoint, but without offering any suggestions on how the group can change their behavior in a positive way. It wouldn't irk me so much, except that I've started posting questions like "Ok, so what color-aware programs should we use, do you think?" only to have such questions ignored. Frustrating. Very frustrating. Is it so unfair of me to want someone from the Womanist community to let me know what they would like to see white feminists doing? I'm sure there are many people in the Womanist community saying just that, but I can't seem to find them. If they never articulate what they'd like to see white feminists do, I'll always feel like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. Would my lifelong concern over inner city poverty cycles make me condescending in the eyes of womanist writers? I don't know. I really don't know.

Sigh. Big sigh. 

But while I'm on the topic of womanism, it's also worth checking out this Womanist Musing's post on the problems with writing-the-body. What is writing the body? Well, to put it in a nutshell, this is a theory that says, "Yeah, men and women are anatomically different. But instead of men using those differences to make women seem like a dangerous and scary Other, let's explore our own bodies in our writing." It's a philosophy that goes hand-in-hand with the classic feminist mantra that the personal is political. And there's a lot to be said for breaking away from the idea that men represent all of humanity, including women. But, as this post points out, this approach to writing has its limitations.

And while we're considering less prominent feminist voices, here's a piece from the folks at Feminist Mormon Housewives, questioning the writer's guilt about being a stay-at-home mother. As a (somewhat recovering) workaholic, I feel like I know her confusion. I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I were married, and the portion of work that I had been doing compared to my husband suddenly decreased. I don't think it's healthy to base how much work you do on how much your husband does, but on some level how can you not try to keep the work distribution even if you're married? But then how do you keep the work even, when you're performing different types of work? 

Solution: I will never get married, and I will instead live a wonderful life with my kitty cats.

Putting the Men in Engagement

From Carl the Open-minded Chauvinist

So I was wondering how I could best contribute to the August theme of “masculinity” but was rather busy doing some other things, namely getting engaged. Yay!

Anyway, I was just busy getting things organized (we’re getting married in three short months) and just didn’t think I was going to have time to post something. But then something happened.

I wasn’t having ANY fun. In fact, I was having a distinctly bad time. Why? Well, you see, I had bought into the traditional idea that the wedding is HER day and that I, the guy, should simply pop the question then shut up and let her do her thing.

As a friend of mine once said, weddings are for the bride, and honeymoons are for the groom.

So as I watched my fiancé suddenly tackle all of the plans, occasionally asking my opinion but not really involving me in any of the planning, and as I watched her stress levels rise and rise and rise, and as I watched me suddenly turning into nothing but the guy who will run his hands along her back while she surfs the internet to look for invitations, or venues, or whatever, I was suddenly thinking, “Well, this is a new side to Susan I’ve never seen before.” And those 36 hours weren't that fun. I had visions of her being this stressed over the next 3 months, and I wasn’t that happy. So as she bounced around between several different windows on her computer, looking at venues for our reception, I finally asked if she would rather I run the computer and she do the talking and selecting. It would give me something to do, and maybe it would help her stress levels decrease.

So we switched spots, she leaned on my back, half cuddling with me, and I began taking a more active role in the wedding planning, ostensibly just by operating the computer. Within twenty minutes, her stress levels had decreased a lot, and I was assigned the tasks of finding a venue and an apartment for us to live in, and I was becoming heavily involved in the other wedding planning tasks.

And you know what? Sorry. This is 2010. Men, suck it up and help with the wedding planning. Once again I had bought into the culturally ingrained stereotypes, this time that men shouldn’t be involved very much in the wedding planning, and I found that stereotype to be actually damaging. So I kicked it in the teeth and moved on.

Susan has been nothing but happy and pleased I’ve taken a more active role. It’s more fun for me. And our wedding planner has been so gracious to the two of us, I think largely because we’re not Groomzilla and Bridezilla. I wonder if the other couples are more demanding than we are, and I wonder if Bridezillas are sometimes created in part by the lack of support from their male counterpart, and I wonder if that lack of support sometimes comes from buying into the myth that it’s the bride’s day so the guy should just shut up and let her do her planning thing.

But you know what? That day is going to be OUR day now, more than if I hadn’t decided to try and help. Now we’re both planning it. And it’s going to be a great day to start our life together—because we planned it together.

For more open-minded but chauvinistic writings, please visit Carl the OMC's blog, I Feel Like Schrodinger's Cat.