by Grania Spingies
Jerry sent me this link a few days ago from the HuffPost Religion section: Afghanistan Women’s Soccer Team Unveils Jerseys With Hijabs. The article details a new uniform for the women players designed by Danish company Hummel which features a hijab that will ensure that women will remain covered in public while playing their sport.
This sort of article simultaneously fills me with hope and frustration.
I’m very pleased that more women in Afghanistan will get an opportunity to participate in a sport they love and compete in matches with their sisters around the world. It makes me sad when I see this uniform described as “very best of the country’s traditions and heritage” or as “enabling players to maintain the modesty of their dress“.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s women in Afghanistan did not have to wear the hijab or cover their limbs in public places, not even if they had very high profile jobs.
This is Dr. Anahita Ratebezad, who was Afghanistan’s first female ambassador (1978).
She graduated from Kabul University’s Medical School in 1962. She was elected to Afghan parliament in 1965.
No hijab, no talk of the modesty (or lack thereof) of her dress either it seems. In fact as has been documented all over the place, Afghanistan was a very different place in the 20th century to what it has become since that century’s closing decade.
When Western media covers these sorts of news items I wish there was a little less polite fawning over how clever it is, and a little more honest reporting pointed out the glaring regression that Women’s Rights in certain parts of the world have undergone in the last 50 years. Progress should move things forward, it shouldn’t have to try to catch up with the past.
That’s what annoyed me this week. What annoyed you?
Sub
Resub
But but…
women *choose* to:
1) never leave the house without a burka
2) never leave the house, in some cases
All because they are just so devoted to religion? Isn’t that what the identity politickers say?
I am even more troubled by the increasing proportion of Muslim women in the West who cover their heads.
I agree. It is a visible manifestation of this repressive, uncompromising belief system spreading into new places that only suffer from its presence, and eventual dominance.
Sad and I feel repressed for them as if western culture has let us down.
Right now I am feeling annoyed about a global coral bleaching event that has affected some beautiful reefs I’ve snorkeled in. It makes the tragedy of climate change hit close to home, and stirs up all kinds of well-researched despair about what a mess we are making of this planet.
Meanwhile, summer is coming. We broke heat records last year here in the Pacific Northwest, and breathed the smoke of wildfires for over a month.
In twenty years, our ecological emergency will make things like safe spaces and dogmatic headgear look like the petty absurdities that they are.
I expect that people will double down on safe spaces and dogmatic headgear as things get worse.
The conspiracy to elect Donald Trump by closing highways.
“What annoyed” me this week ?
I am going to have to add two caveats to the answer of this query, Ms Spingies.
i) I am more than annoyed. I am angered.
ii) My anger extends to way far more time than that amount of just this past week. I am utterly and perpetually pissed about this matter always, that is.
The matter ? The inability for women and girls in y2016, to travel not only nationally but also internationally and not only in multiples but also as solo seekers — safely and expectantly: we expecting to return home as safe and as sound as when I initially left home.
This so hurts and so stymies me. I finally am of an age at where I have i) the time away from earlier accountabilities to be able to go for long periods of exploration and ii) the $ with which to do it.
But, angeringly, NOT AT ALL iii) the confidence, thinking and spirit that I shall be okay the whole while of it. Away.
Just .one. such posting re this matter of this very last past week, for example:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/17/travel/viajosola-women-defend-solo-travel-ecuador-murders.
Blue
Oh man, I wish I hadn’t seen this. Had dinner last night with an old old friend whose 18-yr-old daughter is planning to trek in Ecuador with another girl in May, I believe. I hate to be the worry-wart to send this to him. Yes, this really pisses me off, too!
I look forward to seeing the strict female muslim swimmers and divers.
Don’t forget about the Muslim women’s beach volleyball team.
*coughs* Your sigh is almost answered…!
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/ms-is-launching-a-burkini-range-and-people-really-cant-handle-it–ZkgVExX7AyW
Sorry – *wish* not sigh!
Hmmm, M&S have managed to make it look almost sexy, in a James-Bond-ninja kind of way.
But – tough titties, Muslims – dontcha know some people find bare feet really sexy?
cr
P.S. Love the swirly design on the ‘swimwear’, but I thought Islam disapproved of too much ornamentation?
From whence does this constant hijab-wearing impetus come from? Is it from Afghani women themselves who wear it in deference to Islam, or is the hijab in some way forced on them?
Carl Kruse
I am sure there are many who are committed to the expectations of their religion and wear it willingly enough as an expression of commitment and virtue. But the problem is the lack of choice since the consequences for choosing to not wear it can be severe.
Witness the occasions where women in Iran rebel a little and post pictures of themselves outside, unveiled, enjoying the sun and the breeze.
There is also the “holier than thou” impetus where women judge other women as less devout if they don’t where a hijab. This accounts for some of the reasons women in the West continue to wear the hijab.
In somewhere like Afghanistan today, I’m sure, as you point out, the consequences of not wearing a hijab would be dire if not life threatening.
I notice even the medical uni students have scarves around their necks ready to put over their heads when they go out. Also the ambassador was in 1978 – when a Soviet backed Najibullah regime was in power and just a year before the Soviets invaded.
A little from column A, a little from column B, no doubt.
How about Larry Moran posing with a creatonist while dissing Lawrence Krauss?
Larry was right about both of his criticisms of Krauss. Physicists don’t always understand the complexities of biology, and often don’t realize that they don’t understand. Krauss did not understand the ENCODE controversy.
Krauss was also wrong to say that ID is not science. Larry was right to criticize Krauss about that. ID is science. Bad science, often dishonest science, but science just the same. Science does not rule out a priori the intervention of an intelligent designer.
Agreed, but Larry did not have to put down physicists in general.
“Science does not rule out a priori the intervention of an intelligent designer.”
If that’s the standard we’re going with, then there’s hardly anything science would rule out “a priori”. By that logic, ufology, parapsychology, paranoid conspiracy theories, and the Santa Claus Theory of Christmas Present Distribution can be dignified with the impressive-sounding qualification of science.
Call me old-fashioned, but something doesn’t qualify for science merely because it can limp over the “not totally ruled out ahead of time” line. ID is in exactly the same boat as those other pieces of quackery masquerading as serious intellectual work. Its entire modus operandi is to try and poke holes in evolutionary biology and then claim victory by default, which by the standard of scientific enquiry is exactly how not to go about investigating things.
Moreover, it’s had decades to provide evidence that it wasn’t wasting biologists’ time, just as parapsychologists and ufologists have had decades to provide so much as a scrap of reliable evidence for claims that over time flout more and more of the scientific facts that have reliably been discovered by actual scientists. Whatever may have been the case generations ago when natural philosophy was still considered plausible, I think it’s safe to say this century that ID – whatever its pretensions – is not science.
It rules out, a priori *and* until new notice, *now*. It wasn’t always such, as science grew, the philosophy changes. Lots of philosophical conclusions from science exist, one of them being, e.g., materialism.
Some critics of ID claim it is not science by definition. Larry says, and I agree, that there is nothing unscientific about investigating the question. ID should be criticized not by ruling it out a priori but by demonstrating that its practitioners are doing science badly.
Potentially persuasive, but I want to make sure I understand first. Are you saying that intelligent design is a falsifiable hypothesis about the way adaptations arise, albeit one that has passed and failed the test? In which case, you would categorize “ufology, parapsychology, paranoid conspiracy theories, and the Santa Claus Theory of Christmas Present Distribution” as science?
I still think the difference is between science and quackery, not science that is good and science that is quackery, but I can concede that simply being a speculative hypothesis could qualify as a part of science, albeit for the shallow end of the pool. It seems to me to give it an unearned credibility – at the very least, as easily twist-able.
It was frustrating to me to see this very topic of the hijab posted on a good friend’s Facebook post recently.
https://www.facebook.com/PopSugarCelebrity/videos/10154023684869824/
This was her accompanying comment – “For those who are incredibly scared of a piece of clothing that stands for nothing less than a personal dignified choice. You go girl!”
I didn’t comment on her post for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that I’m too afraid to have a discussion with her, or anyone, on touchy topics. She was born and bred Muslim and I am not that well versed in Islam. I would not be coming from a position of strength. Plus, I’ve made a promise to myself to not contradict someone’s post directly in the comments of someone who is a close family member or friend. I, instead, will post my own views on a subject and respond to others’ comments to that post. Mostly, no one responds to my posts, either.
I want to work toward an epistemological approach to posts and comments on Facebook with family and friends, but I’ve not yet worked out how to begin, nor have I screwed up enough confidence that I could maintain a running dialog that didn’t devolve into a non-useful debate of some sort.
So, these are my frustrations, concerns, and pipe dream approaches.
I too struggle with arguing on FB. It depends who it is. If it’s my ignorant relatives, I will let the “Jesus” and “prayer” posts go but if they says something stupid about science or slam atheists, then I argue their ignorant point.
When it comes to Muslim friends, they haven’t thus far posted such things but I know I wouldn’t want to get into a big discussion over Facebook with them because it is just too complicated to do over social media when you are dealing with something they hold so dear when you want them to see your point of view….that’s always delicate.
Exactly.
That’s just depressing.
Not too long ago I saw a woman at the local Y pool in what is called a “burkini”–what strict Muslim swimmers wear. I’m sure it cost a fair bit more than my normal swim suit and cap. Covered all of her legs and arms and head. She was in the “slow” lane at the pool, though she looked quite fit. I would bet that thing slowed her down. That’s why Olympic swimmers don’t wear them. I do remember the newspaper articles on Afghanistan in the ’70s, and Iran too, showing women not wearing burkas and hijabs, though that is all that you see today. The whole *point* is to make women less able! At the medical clinic I go to, about 3 years ago, I got verbally assaulted by (I assume) the husband of a woman in a burka–he called me “whore” and “shameless” though I was just calmly sitting there in shorts and t-shirt, waiting for my doctor. I and several other women had to call security to have him removed. The woman had 2 kids and was pregnant; you could see that even through the burka. Her youngest was still on a bottle and not walking. That’s what these terrible religions want for women–constant pregnancy and no alternatives.
Oh isn’t it awful when someone does that to you? I have had similar encounters but not verbal ones – angry and disgusted glares but not outright calling me a “whore”. It really makes me angry because these people are coming to my country and saying that to me. Saying I’m somehow wrong and that I offend them just by existing. Screw that shit!
WRT impeding women – I had a similar experience when I saw a group of burka wearing women at the train station. I realized, as I looked at them, that they were socially isolated because who could really have a conversation with them when you can’t even see their faces or body language?
I have an instinctive prejudice against women in black sacks. (A bit like my instinctive revulsion against teens with bits of metalwork stuck in improbable places). Not that it usually matters i.e. it has no immediate consequences, but I suppose if I had to interact with one of them I’d have to remind myself there’s presumably a human being under there…
Apropos Diana’s example – if I’m out walking and I meet someone on the path I usually say ‘hullo’ to them. Would I (would anyone) do that to somebody when you can’t see their faces?
cr
I once saw a woman fully dressed up, or fully covered if you want to use differet words, walked down into the New York City park pool. I was sort of surprised, the scene was so unreal. The two young guards were also surprised, they both walked to the woman, then they stopped, chatted a bit, turned back without doing or saying anything…. The NYC park system has dress code for swimming pool, such as wear swimming suit & hat, shower before going into the pool, but that woman was wearing dry dress! Perhaps, she is already a brave one among her friends & family… What can I say?
As to how some of the muslim men respect women, I don’t even want to talk about it. I shall keep myself peaceful & happy.
“Back in the 1970s and 1980s women in Afghanistan did not have to wear the hijab or cover their limbs in public places”
What angers me about this is that it is due to US meddling and interference in support of the mujahideen to overthrow the Bulla government that Afghans have actually lost so much freedom. So unnecessary.
The same process, however, happened in other Muslim countries. I am witnessing it in Turkey, next door.
Also, when the USA meddled to overthrow the Najibulla government, this resulted in Islamization, but when later the USA meddled to overthrow the Taliban government, the result was only temporary, followed by comeback of the Taliban and more Islamization. Which makes me think that we are seeing a local process largely independent of foreign influence, and Afghans lose so much freedom because the majority of them do not actually want it. Evidence: the case of Farkhounda.
First of all, the British, then Soviets also meddled in Afghanistan, before the United States.
More importantly there is an unacceptable paternalism in your “due to” viewpoint. Nothing about any Western intervention obliged Afghans to embrace reactionary misogyny. The PRC didn’t slow efforts to eradicate foot-binding because of Western meddling in China.
Right, and some of the secularization that was undone was actually originally due to Soviet influence from what I heard. Even crimes like invading another country do sometimes have selectively good results. (Doesn’t justify doing it, of course.)
The Pashtuns got to be kings for while with british help and if you include their natural territory in Pakistan (which the British divided with the Durand line) they are a clear majority ethnicity in Afghtanistan – hence they always coming from over the border. For a few years they had an enlightened Pashtun king – but most of these kings weren’t and his successors were less so – then the soviets backed a communist puppet who whilst secular was a dictator and pretty violent. There was a lot of Islamic resistance and then the Soviets invaded. Without soviet invasion there Najibullah would have been eventually overthrown and would’ve gone back to the usual dominant Pashtun culture which is fiercely Islamic and fiercely tribal.
Their Pashtunwallah ethnic tribal law code is more akin to Salafi Islam than the milder (but still v misogynist) Hanifi Islam they had long de jure embraced as a sort of icing on the Pashtunwallah cake … hence they have recently been so readily converted to Salafism.
What annoys me the most in America is that we cannot get our priorities straight or even remotely pointed in the right direction to accomplish so much more. We collect money, in the form of taxes and then spend so much of it on the wrong things. We do not build mass transit, we do not even maintain the roads and bridges we have and we do not spend nearly enough on education. We make very little effort to stop the global warming disaster but we spend billions to put people in prisons. We have more poverty and hungry kids and homeless people than any modern society while we maintain military installations around around the world, many of them in the same place for 60 years or more and accomplish nothing at all. We all live in an electronic world with our computers and cell phones and monitors and televisions and none of these things are produced here. Aside from that, I’m good.
And if we (I say “we” because I complain about the same things in Canada) put our minds to it, all these things would be easily solved, but we are so easily distracted and deceived. Good grief, threaten to take away people’s cable & there would be nation-wide riots but neglect city infrastructure and people just piss and moan without really doing anything. People remind me of the The Trees in Lord of the Rings – slow to change and so slow to act that there has to be immediate, obvious danger before they do anything.
At least in Canada you have a guy in charge that should be moving things in the right direction. Down here we cannot even spell direction.
Yeah but it was 10 years of hell before that and it could have been 5 more years. Let’s hope you get someone decent in November!
Tree Herders? Ents?
Ents.
Honestly, the hijab doesn’t really bother me. Yes, it’s pointlessly making women cover up a part of their body that men do not have to cover up… but then women aren’t allowed to go around with exposed nipples in the west either.
Unlike the burka, it doesn’t cover the face. The person is still recognizable, and you can have a face to face conversation with them. There’s nothing inherently dehumanizing to the hijab. And it’s not like people don’t choose to wear head-coverings without social or religious pressure, some people just like the look. I’m no fan of the hijab, but I can see why some people might be.
Obviously, I know this requirement to wear the hijab comes from a bunch of terrible misogynists, but that doesn’t make it some great act of sexism. It’s pointless, but no more so than the requirement to cover a womans nipples.
If you want to argue about the greater context… then you’ll get no argument from me. I’m sure women who don’t comply with this will be treated far, far worse than some western woman streaking through the city. I just feel the hijab gets a lot of undeserved flak because of guilt by association.
Yeah, kind of like wearing manacles as a fashion statement in an era when people who look like you are often enslaved in chains. Innocent jewelry gets politicized.
Maybe that’s a bad analogy, though.
Wha?!? So you admit the people are misogynyists, and it only applies to women, but it’s not “some great act of sexism”?
“It’s pointless, but no more so than the requirement to cover a womans nipples.”
I hate the false equivalencies that people trot out in defence of religion. You personally probably cover your nipples 99% of the time you leave your home. I doubt, barring cold weather, you have covered your head to the degree a hijab does, nor when you do cover for cold weather do you leave said covering on no matter where you are in public.
As a feminist I would love to see a gender-neutral topless law, so I don’t even support the Western law . I challenge you to wear hijab everyday in public for the next month and then report to us whether it “bothers” you.
Ontario, Canada allows bare chested women, nipples and all, to be in public spaces wherever a man would be allowed.
This has been a fairly long-standing law due to court mandated intervention in Guelph Ontario.
Look up “Gwen Jacobs”.
You really ought to put this argument to someone like Eiynah(@NiceMangos) or Sarah Haider or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Maryam Namazie, and see if they think there’s even the slightest equivalency here.
It’s not the hijab that’s the problem. It’s the fact that in some communities women don’t get to choose it. The hijab may not “bother” you, but it sure would if you were forced to don it every single day against your will.
The fact that you can point to an anachronistic minor issue about topless women in some Western societies – which at most a trivial nuisance value – doesn’t make enforcing modesty-based dress codes at a national level okay.
~ Grania
The hijab is meant to cover a woman’s most beautiful attribute (IMO) her hair. Why not celebrate beauty, not hide it. It’s actually an indictment on men. The indictment: we males are such sex freaks that when we see a beautiful woman with great hair we can’t control ourselves from ogling or fantasizing or worse. I’d like to change the whole hijab thing into a male problem, a problem subjected upon females by males. Very annoyed.
Thank you, Mark R.!
This is the logical approach.
Hope it spreads.
I think the covering of breasts is a bad example – breasts in women are sexual and they are covered = otherwise why the (now thing of the past) cover girl on P. 3?
Breasts in women are sexual? Ever see a National Geographic?
‘course they are. Used to perv over Nat Geogs as a teenager (this was long before Rule 34 was invented, of course).
cr
Afghanistan is a country embedded in a system of government that is very antique to Western eyes. Unfortunately, it seems to me we should not think that such a culture can change overnight. It take an enormous effort, patients and time to achieve western style democracy. It took the U.S. nearly 200 years to eliminate the notions dragged here from feudal Europe. In 1776 only wealthy white men were enfranchised. The average farmer had no real say. Slavery was a deeply embedded tradition. Women did not vote. Freedom was very limited. After 200 years of struggle, now we accept gay marriage, etc.
To expect a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, or any other single event, to bring them 1000 years to a modern social democracy is pretty ridiculous, it seems to me. Cultures are much, much more stubborn things that that. The hijab will be with us, I’m afraid, for a very long time.
Looking at the picture –
this is the Afghani National Amputee Soccer Team is it?
Looks kinda weird…
cr
Same thing that annoyed me last week, the supporters of Donald Trump, the 21st century Brown Shirts. We shouldn’t be worrying about repeating history like this kind of history.
Annoyance of the day for me: working around problems in software that someone should have caught before the consultant who built it signed off …
Afghanistan’s first female Ambassador was the product of a newly established Marxist government. But America soon put an end to THAT. For what happened just before and after 1978, see Wikipedia “Soviet–Afghan War” and associated links.
A propos of none of the above, this is a very witty, and fairly accurate, history of Japan:
https://youtu.be/Mh5LY4Mz15o