Friday, March 30, 2007
Thought / question for today
Is there any difference between a woman having to wear a scarf in a Muslim country and women having to wear scarves and have their ankles covered in order to enter churches in Italy and France? When I travelled to Europe, we always brought scarves and slacks so we could visit cathedrals, regardless of our own religious or societal practices.
In that regard, there's an impassioned, interesting piece at Roger L. Simon today on the covering of women in Muslim countries. He is absolutely outraged that no so-called feminists (Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.) have expressed outraged at the treatment of the British woman soldier being made to cover up and parade in front of cameras. My first reaction was to agree and be pleased that he spoke with such force. My second reaction is to wonder why it infuriates him so much that the woman in particular is being treated badly. For men, there is nothing as obvious about the demeaning attitude the captors have for them, but when the young man spoke about how wrong they had been, I believe it was every bit as difficult and certainly just as repellent.
I wholeheartedly agree that women going along with covering up may have been interpreted and seen as capitulation. Unfortunately we can't go back and refuse to do so. As a child and adult tourist, I hated wearing scarves and slacks because we "had" to and I felt it was not a mark of respect but a capitulation to irrational demands, a way of making us feel subject to their will rather than our own. I understood that tourists generally felt they should "be polite" but it didn't seem as if that was the point and I vehemently disagreed with it. Nonetheless. . . .
Anyway, I can't help but wonder where the outrage about Faye Turney's treatment is coming from. It seems sudden and larger than the provocation. There have been so many; why this? Is it a remnant of sexism (i.e. separatism), just in egalitarianism clothing? What do you think?
In that regard, there's an impassioned, interesting piece at Roger L. Simon today on the covering of women in Muslim countries. He is absolutely outraged that no so-called feminists (Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.) have expressed outraged at the treatment of the British woman soldier being made to cover up and parade in front of cameras. My first reaction was to agree and be pleased that he spoke with such force. My second reaction is to wonder why it infuriates him so much that the woman in particular is being treated badly. For men, there is nothing as obvious about the demeaning attitude the captors have for them, but when the young man spoke about how wrong they had been, I believe it was every bit as difficult and certainly just as repellent.
I wholeheartedly agree that women going along with covering up may have been interpreted and seen as capitulation. Unfortunately we can't go back and refuse to do so. As a child and adult tourist, I hated wearing scarves and slacks because we "had" to and I felt it was not a mark of respect but a capitulation to irrational demands, a way of making us feel subject to their will rather than our own. I understood that tourists generally felt they should "be polite" but it didn't seem as if that was the point and I vehemently disagreed with it. Nonetheless. . . .
Anyway, I can't help but wonder where the outrage about Faye Turney's treatment is coming from. It seems sudden and larger than the provocation. There have been so many; why this? Is it a remnant of sexism (i.e. separatism), just in egalitarianism clothing? What do you think?
Labels: places, politics, reflections
There's a difference to me in covering up the whole time you are in a country that practices strict Muslim beliefs, and covering up when entering a house of worship. Some religions request that you not only dress modestly when entering a house of worship, but remove your shoes, not bring leather in, etc. Would you resent being asked to remove your shoes before entering a Hindu temple?
< home >