I came across that this morning as well... and left at the first sign of the excessive use of scare marks... on the upside, this lovely person lives in Wash DC!

Yay.

I hate this idea that you can understand the experience of 'the others' by trying to pass as something you aren't a couple of times. As though all people who belong to a certain racial or cultural community are monolithic in their views and experiences, and that you are capable of understanding the complexities they face by playing dress-up.

What is with Slate recently? I used to think of them in the same category as being similar to Salon, but no more.

Oh. I hate trend of putting on black/gay/Muslim/homeless/woman/ugly/fat -face and "experiencing" oppression. My partner is a professor of social psychology, and he said these kinds of pop-experiments can not make someone understand years of dealing with oppression, and generally make people feel the OPPOSITE of what they are intended to feel. They either feel sorry for the group they were trying to portray, or more likely, just are glad that they AREN'T in the group that they portrayed.

in crittendens stupid ass article she writes:

“… what the Klan outfit represents to someone of African-American descent is exactly what the burka should represent to every free woman. Those who impose it upon women believe that a whole category of human beings can be treated as property; that this category may be beaten, sold into marriage, divorced at whim, denied education and work, raped with impunity, and stoned to death for offenses that would be pardoned in a man.�

umm thats a HUGE fucking jump in logic. i agree that ANY type of clothing should never be imposed on anyone, duh. but to say that when a woman wears a burqah she is automatically accepting the idea that she is property...i dont think so.

the difference between a Klan outfit and a burqa is that a Klan outfit would NEVER be empowering to an African American or Black person.

but, as a muslim, i know SOOOO many people who wear hijab who find it so empowering. it personally does not feel right to me so i dont wear it. and thats that. but for the women that do, they feel like their hijab is a personal statement against patriarchy and female oppression.

afafakfjkaljfa i just CANNOT handle people DISEMPOWERING women by assuming that just because they are choosing something "different", that they must be forced into it.

ps. nerdalert - that reminds me of tyra banks stupid show where she put on a fat suit and then cried about how horrible it was. her conclusion was basically that shes so happy that she is thin. UGH.

Why does anyone with a brain read Slate? Shallow trashy journalism.

I prefer to read from actual Muslim women what the burqa/hajib/head coverings mean to them. I don't think it is helpful to project our (Western) assumptions.

Size Six, The Western Women's Harem raises an alternative perspective.

http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/6/size_six_the_western_women_s_harem

I found this one interesting as well.
http://www.zawaj.com/articles/identity_burka.html

I went to college with several "covered" women, ranging from headscarf the eyes-only sort of covering. The had remarkable personalities that seemed to illuminate the room, perhaps because when you actually have discourse with a women in a veil, you can actually "see" her mind.

The whole discussion about burqas and head coverings amounts to freedom of choice. No human is free that cannot choose how he/she expresses that freedom.

There are people who do this right, as you say. Heck, there are non-Muslim journalists who traveled to Saudi Arabia and wrote about what it's like to live under strict laws like that. But they never claim that they know what it is to be a Muslim women; they know that they are NOT Muslim and thus they cannot truly understand how a woman who truly believes in Islam feels about the life they live.

Sometimes these experiments can be closer to reality-- I heard about a college professor who lived on the streets for a month with no money at all, eating at soup kitchens (he got permission from them first) and sleeping under a stairwell. But people who do it right start by researching-- talking to people who live that way, and listening to what they think of their lives.

Even I, a middle-class white college girl, can see that niqabs are not oppressive in and of themselves, and rather it is why you wear them that makes the oppressive.

While the author is a crude writer and was obviously going for shock value, I will never "take offense" if someone attacks the anti-woman culture of conservative Islam. Never.

It needs to be attacked. Repeatedly. Constantly.

Any self-described "feminist" who turns a blind eye to the savage injustices wrought on Muslim females simply because of political correctness... is not a real feminist.

The Middle-Ages mentality of much of the Muslim world leads to a coarse society that mutilates girls, imprisons rape victims, stones female adulterers, forces women into a hajib or niqab (note: there is rarely any "choice" or "personal expression" about such attire if it is enforced by the police)...

It basically makes our home-grown, FoxNews-watching, Republican misogynists look like contributors to Ms. magazine by comparison.

i agree with lilorphant. what these articles assume is that no muslim or transgender person could possibly fully explain their situation and oppression because they don't know what it's like to be "NORMAL". it takes a "normal" person to experience it for them and relate it back to the rest of us god blessed freedom lovers.

and while there are some things fundamentally wrong with muslim ideas about women and feminism (re: forbiddencomma), supporting this type of attack just perpetuates stereotypes that women have no agency. that they need "outsiders" to offer new insight to their situations. we can critique the limits of every great religion but saying that THEY NEED OUR HELP is a bit too imperialist for my tastes, and i think most "real feminists" will agree.

ForbiddenComma: I believe the objection is not speaking out against violence and oppression against women in Islamic culture, but rather that she is doing it by attacking the process of wearing a veil at all; wearing a veil can be a positive expression of one's religion and faith as well as a statement against cultures that objectify women through sexualization. While it is important to understand that veiling is often forced upon women by the government or their family, many women also chose to wear a veil and by attacking veils, we are marginalizing those women.

Also, I think that the Western treatment of veiled women can be far more oppressive and dehumanizing than the Middle Eastern view. At least women in the Middle East who wear veils aren't lumped into one giant category of "oppressed," identified only by the cloth on their head.

that they need "outsiders" to offer new insight to their situations. we can critique the limits of every great religion but saying that THEY NEED OUR HELP is a bit too imperialist for my tastes, and i think most "real feminists" will agree.

For an excellent "insider" look into Islam by a woman who was raised in Somalia, I'd highly recommend The Caged Virgin, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

sheeba:

Just what kind of agency do you think that Saudi women have? They can't vote (political) can't work (economical) can't leave the house without a man's permission (social) and can't travel without a man's permission (opt out). They no agency because their culture has systematically taken it from them.

"Also, I think that the Western treatment of veiled women can be far more oppressive and dehumanizing than the Middle Eastern view. At least women in the Middle East who wear veils aren't lumped into one giant category of "oppressed," identified only by the cloth on their head."

True, women who wear the veil in America or France may be the subject of some rude comments.

But on the other hand, I wonder what would happen to a woman if she took a stroll in Riyadh or Tehran in a t-shirt and shorts. I believe rude comments would be the least of her concerns.

"For an excellent "insider" look into Islam by a woman who was raised in Somalia, I'd highly recommend The Caged Virgin, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali"

Be careful invoking that name. A lot of leftists who only pretend to be feminists revile Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters because she makes politically inconvenient points about the status of women in that part of the world.

Be careful invoking that name. A lot of leftists who only pretend to be feminists revile Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters because she makes politically inconvenient points about the status of women in that part of the world.

Well, too bad. I like her stuff. I think she's brave as all hell and quite a stand-up woman. I'd be proud to get to meet her someday. I figure: if she wants to criticize the culture she was RAISED IN, more power to her.

I really dislike reading all the comments judging the situation of women in Islamic-governed countries. I teach English to a large student body, many of which are Saudi girls. These women don't are amazing feminists who wear the hijab and don't need American/Western feminists explaining oppression to them. We can only look at it through our cultural lense.

One of my amazing chicks explains the hijab as thus: it's only oppressive if you're looking at it that way. If you grow up with it, it's not any more oppressive than any other clothing like pants. She, living in America, has the choice to remove it but chooses to keep it on because it's her style, her identity and it feels good on her, just as I like wearing earrings.

I know that we say, "Oh, but the problem is in the legal requirement of it." Cultural overrides. Isn't it a law for us to wear pants?

I'm not saying Islamic government isn't oppressive, and more so to women than men, but I also think it's crucial to accept that the only things we understand best are our own lives and cultures.

ForbiddenComma: I am not saying that Middle East women should be forced to wear such attire, but we, as Westerners, look at Muslim women as oppressed and make little to no effort to understand who they are, how they live, etc beyond the fact that they are wearing a veil and thus are the poor oppressed women who can't stand up for themselves.

It's not about rude comments, it's about a mentality. People don't respect women who wear veils in this part of the world. They don't care about their choices or their personality, they just care about the veil and what they believe it symbolizes. We dehumanize veiled women, especially those in niqabs; they are symbols of oppression, not people.

If we truly wanted to make a difference in that area of the world, we have to find out what is truly oppressive and what is only "oppressive" because we personally think it is. And the way to do that is not to wear a niqab for a few weeks-- it's to talk to women who live there and find out what THEY think on the matter.

Tara K: Exactly.

ForbiddenComma -- While I agree with much of what you're saying about oppression of Islamic women, it seems rather inappropriate to judge the women on this board as not "real feminists" because they think Crittenden's piece is written with shallow intentions and an intolerant spin. One can support a woman who chooses to cover herself for religious purposes without condoning the entire history and culture that goes into that headcovering.

While the author is a crude writer and was obviously going for shock value, I will never "take offense" if someone attacks the anti-woman culture of conservative Islam. Never.

Conservative Christians believe pretty much the same things about women as conservative Muslims. If I tried alienating all Christians and their "modesty" rules the way this woman does the burka etc it would not go down well at all.

And most of the truly oppressive rules in Islamic countries come from their culture, not their religion. Religion can be interpreted pretty much any way you like unfortunately.

And I say all this as someone who is genuinely revolted by all and any organised religion and gets less tolerant by the day - though I respect individual's choices, my patience about it influencing my life AT ALL is thin.

ForbiddenComma: THANK YOU. Your first post pretty much summed up my thoughts perfectly.

liloprphant, I found this part of your post troubling "perhaps because when you actually have discourse with a women in a veil, you can actually "see" her mind."

I mean, really, I don't even know where to start. First of all, if being able to see someone's full body and/or face somehow detracts from their message, then why shouldn't men have to wear them also? Otherwise, how does anyone ever understand each other? Furthermore, I have conversations with women not wearing veils every single day, and it never seems to cause any confusion...in fact, I'd go so far as to say that an unveiled person has the power to be more expressive since so much of human communication is non-verbal.

This isn't an attack on people who choose to wear veils... but, what if there were some religion or social construct where, say, black people had to be covered to be in the presence of white people? Surely most would do it only because they HAD TO due to law or fear, but what if some said they LIKED it? That it was EMPOWERING? Would we believe it? Or would we understand that choices aren't made in a vaccum and still rail against the system which would ever even concieve of covering human beings with black cloth for the sake or "propriety," "morals," or "faith."

The answer, for me, is simple.

Tara K, sure, you have to wear pants in public by law(or, you know, at least something which will cover the external portions of your reproductive and excretory organs) but you get to choose the pants... the color, the length... hell, you can wear a micro mini skirt with no underwear if you want with nothing but a swim suit top to cover your breasts. You can wear a T shirt with a picture of your favorite band. You can even wear a veil which covers your entire body. But you don't HAVE to. There is a huge, huge difference between a law requiring pants and a law requiring full body coverage.

Argh.

Islam != Saudi
Islam != Middle East

There are Muslims in every corner of the world and each country expresses Islam differently. In Malaysia or Bangladesh, you will rarely, if ever, see a burqa. Malaysian Muslims wear tudungs that cover their hair; Bangladeshi Muslims just loosely wrap a scarf around their head (if they ever wear one at all).

Even though Malaysia's flavour of Islam is slightly more conservative than Bangladesh's, both Islamic cultures provide full freedom to women. Women in both countries can vote, can go anywhere without a guy following them, can run in office (the past Prime Ministers of Bangladesh are women!), can do whatever the hell they want really. They've got plenty of agency for themselves.

There's no FGM, there's no mass oppression that you guys seem to think Islam has universally. It's not perfect, true, and there's a lot of things in both countries that need fixing. But it's NOTHING like the Middle East. It's NOTHING like Saudi Arabia.

And that's just those two countries. There's tons of other examples out there of Muslim women living free.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't equate Islamic culture with Middle Eastern or Saudi culture. Doing that does a disservice to the 90% of Muslims that live elsewhere.

Also, Alya: In other Muslim countries you can choose what sort of veil you want to wear. Heck, in Malaysia it's become something of a fashion industry.

Tiara, can you choose NOT to wear a veil EVER, at all without fear of retaliation, legal or otherwise? If not, then it's just as bad in my opinion. Allowing someone to choose the color of their handcuffs doesn't make them any less of a prisoner.

Dress up can be interesting and telling. I once read a piece by a woman who went into the same store twice, once as herself and once in a fat suit, and measured how she was treated by staff. As excepted, she was treated much worse in the fat suit.

Tiara- THANK YOU! People tend to lump "the Islamic world" all together, forgetting that Islam stretches from Morocco to Indonesia and tons of other places in the world. 10% of France's population is Muslim. There are many wonderful places in the world that practice Islam in so many different ways. Turkey has banned headscarves in all government buildings, and yet some people still go on and on about the Middle East like it's got the monopoly on Islam. Guess what? Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims, NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course this doesn't excuse how women are treated in certain Islamic countries, but PLEASE do not sweep all majority Muslim countries into this category. It's ignorant and frankly, it's racist too.

I haven't read Self-Made Man precisely because of all the bad things I've heard about it. So I was just surprised to see praise for it, because I heard that Vincent turned out to be quite the self-loathing misogynist and have read an excerpt where she basically explains away rape with compassion towards men who just feel so sad and powerless that they feel the need to commit a horrible attack on another person's body.

But, again, haven't read it.

And in any case, at the moment I'm a lot more concerned about the racism going on in this thread. You do realize that this is precisely what women of color are talking about when they say that white feminists don't give a shit about their issues? When they say that they're more concerned about "saving" women who haven't asked to be saved than actually listening to them?

I understand Tara's point and think that there is some validity to it but ultimately disagree. But the fact of the matter is that very few people are arguing that requiring women to be fully covered by law or for fears of safety is a good thing. It's quite the strawman. We're simply saying that there is not anything innately oppressive about these various garments, and to suggest that there is is rather infantalizing to many women who do choose to wear them of their own free will. I say that as who is personally uncomfortable with the practice but understands that my personal comfort is not the issue. When living in Australia, my prudish American upbringing caused me to be mildly uncomfortable around topless women on the beach. And yet I still managed to not call them names or rant against their culture and actually strongly believe that this should be a right for women anywhere that men are allowed to go topless. Because with a few exceptions, like a Klan hood, how people dress has absolutely zilch to do with my personal comfort.

I also think that if you talk to actual Muslim women living in these conditions, how they're required to dress probably wouldn't be among their main concerns. To talk about a fucking head covering while all but completely ignoring the fact that women in some of these same countries aren't allowed to hold jobs and therefore live in abject poverty, again, shows what this is really about: the personal comfort of Western people and not what is actually in the best interest of Muslim women.

Tiara:

You're right, my reply has a scope mismatch. Sheeba's post does not specify Saudi Arabia.

The drag article is so completely fucked up and inane.

"I realized that though real bearded ladies are sad and pitiable..."

Really? Really?! I'm so pissed off that all I can do is swear - fuck right off, Emily Yoffe. Seriously.

Also, who actually has a thing for Tom Jones? He's completely skeevy. Hmmph.

To the person who mentioned it above, yes, you can choose not to wear any sort of veil in Islam and not have any repercussions. If there are any negative repercussions, it is a cultural thing (i.e. women in the Middle East being pressured to wear it or having stones thrown at them if not), but in other less extreme places in the world, it is a CHOICE.

I am a Muslim, and I chose not to wear it. My father, formerly a very strict Muslim, respects my decision. People are generally shocked to hear that I'm a "liberal Muslim", but there is liberal and conservative in EVERY religion.

I want to throw in a quick aside (I didn't notice anyone else mention it) regarding the "grammatical horror" that is the title of the article-in-question:

Obviously it's an allusion to "Black Like Me," by John Howard Griffin. The book, you know, was kind of a big deal...

So whatever problems you may have with the article, don't mention the grammar. The grammar was legit insofar as it had a purpose.

Whisk with a Fish, thanks for clarifying that veils aren't required as part of Islam. My question was about the countries that Tiara had mentioned above where women choose from various veil styles. I'm wondering if one of the options is no veil at all in those countries specifically.

The scope of my posts, however, is really directed at places where veiling of one form or another is REQUIRED, either through actual legislation or intimidation and torture tactics. If there is non-Muslim place where veiling is required then I'm against that as well. I

I'm not sure if the posts expressing dismay about the "lumping together" of Islamic countries and cultures were directed at me, but if so, make no mistake. I'm talking about people being forced to do things, not people who have the power to choose. I understand the difference quite well.

Ayla: "There is a huge, huge difference between a law requiring pants and a law requiring full body coverage."

Okay, I don't think there should be laws about hijab because many women chose to wear lesser versions of hijab than the norm, and many women prefer to wear more hijab; what's more, no one seems to think of hair as something that can never be SEEN, just something that Muslim women shouldn't show. They aren't offended to see Christian or Jewish women not veiled. So I agree it's not quite the same.

That said, there is still a strong cultural move in the Middle East to cover up the body itself, avoiding things like cleavage or stomach showing or short skirts, and that is simply culture. Many cultures do not require women to wear anything covering their breasts. Our laws require us to cover them, at least the nipples. Are we oppressed because the law requires us to cover our breasts? If we as women want to cover our breasts, are we tools of the system? Should we be protesting? It's because of propriety, morals, and faith that we do not expose our nipples to the world. Clearly we are oppressed, and should be allowed to go topless everywhere; what's more, anyone who wears a top should be pitied and we should convince them to throw off the sign of their oppression.

We not too long ago had decency requirements much like theirs, sans the veil. The transition has to be natural, and come from within, as it did with the Western world. We can't force it on them. Telling them they can't make laws against women showing cleavage would be about like telling people here that they can't make laws against women showing their nipples. Culturally, people would have trouble adjusting.

Hooter21: The problem is not the grammar so much as the misuse of the word "Islamic." The proper term for a person who practices Islam is "Muslim."

ForbiddenComma-

I can understand where you come from, as there are many conservative commentators and MSM journalists who give us this impression of "Muslims" or the "Muslim world."

For these people, painting a black and white picture (WEST = GOOD, ISLAM = BAD) is not only simpler, but often politically expedient. Their sudden concern for this particular injustice is suspicious, when one takes into account that it is aligned with a certain US ideology and the fact that they manage to suppress their outrage when other, less expedient injustices occur.

Rightfully so, many Muslim women view people promoting this perspective with suspicion. Western feminists have already been thoroughly critiqued for swooping into non-Western countries and cultures and trying to force their perspective on the local people because it is "better." It is now acknowledged by all responsible feminists that this is an imperialistic method of working for change, and ends up doing more harm than good.

Instead of critiquing Western feminists for not swooping in or not sufficiently infantilizing all Muslim women, why don't we listen to what actual, living, breathing Muslim women want? Because you know what- they have opinions, ideas and suggestions. Yet inevitably, when discussions about Muslim women crop up in Western discourse, Muslim women are not even asked for their side of their own story.

Speaking of horrible gender specific crime, I believe that we Westerners have a very Western perspective on this matter, and we are often called hypocrites by our non-Western sisters. For example, if genital cutting is abhorrent, why are plastic surgery or foot-deforming stilettos not condemned? If modest clothing such as the hijab is oppressive, why don't we spend more time worrying about the mandatory modest underwear that Mormons wear? If men oppressing women is so against our values, why are domestic violence and rape so prevalent in the US?

Don't laugh (or maybe do), but there is totally a bible quote that suits this situation. "Thou hypocrite, first cast the [dirt] out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:5.

One of my dear friends who studied in Jordan and has studied the Middle East quite deeply will not come out and say she is a feminist for the beliefs that are represented on this thread. People have a hard time separating Islamic Regimes (ie government) from the Islamic religion and Islamic women. A fundamentalist Christian government would no more represent Christianity than these governments. Being able to separate the laws that oppress women and a culture/ religion is imperative. I have been telling my friend to visit this blog for a long time now and I really hope she didn't choose today because this post and the racism within would have ended any hope of her jumping on the feminist bandwagon.

I also have an Afghani friend who wears a head scarf and covers her entire body who feels that men respect her more because they respect who she is before appreciating how she looks. She is studying in the US, pursuing a career and has found her independence and agency and she too would be appalled that people are attacking a head covering when the real issue is women's rights and the laws that block those rights.

I just want to point out that for many women in Middle Eastern countries, a much bigger day-to-day concern than head coverings is state-sanctioned violence. Can you really tell an Iraqi woman about how oppressive you find her hijab while our country is bombing her home? Or a Palestinian woman living in an occupied country? Women's freedoms in general have been declining drastically in Iraq since the start of the occupation; it comes with the territory of nationalism.

idyllicmollusk: "if genital cutting is abhorrent, why are plastic surgery or foot-deforming stilettos not condemned?"

I agreed with all other points of yours, HOWEVER.

FGM, besides being performed on very young girls (unlike stilettos, which most women don't wear until their teens at least, or non-reconstructive plastic surgery, which again is uncommon until early adulthood), drastically decreases a woman's sexual drive, makes sex painful and rarely pleasurable, causes difficulty with childbirth, and often results in immediate and long-term debilitating effects with absolutely no health benefit to the woman. It is far closer to foot-binding than high heels. What's more, people in FGM-practicing societies are already working to fight FGM, much the same as happened in China with footbinding. Even if you dislike high heels and plastic surgery (and I also dislike surgery) the medical effects are nowhere near as severe, long-lasting, and detrimental to mental and physical well-being as the process of FGM.

We should fight FGM because girls are not given a choice in the matter. If they were adults, perhaps you would have an argument. Most victims of FGM, however, are pre-pubescent children and infants who are permanently injured, emotionally and physically, without ever having a choice in the matter.

Ayla: Tiara, can you choose NOT to wear a veil EVER, at all without fear of retaliation, legal or otherwise?

Most definitely. In Bangladesh, veils are uncommon - you'd probably put one on for religious or super formal functions but that's about it really. In Malaysia no one except the "super religious" (or rather, those that care too much about appearances instead of actual faith) really cares all that much. It is a matter of oft debate here though, with the growing conservatism of the country.

The problem [with the title] is not the grammar so much as the misuse of the word "Islamic." The proper term for a person who practices Islam is "Muslim."

I think the word "Islamic" here was intended as an adjective, not a noun or pronoun. In the sense that you can say "I am a Muslim who is Islamic", it's also possible to compare yourself to others who are "Islamic like me". The same usage is possible with the word "Black" in the title of Griffin's book ("I am black; you are black like me").

The problem is that "Black" can also be used as a noun or pronoun ("Blacks protested against Giuliani's racism"), while "Islamic" cannot. So whether "Islamic Like Me" is an accurate parallel to "Black Like Me" depends on the sense in which Griffin meant his term.

Personally, I always thought he meant it as an adjective (referring to his darkened skin), which would make "Islamic" a properly grammatical parallel. But perhaps not.

"Are we oppressed because the law requires us to cover our breasts?"

"The obvious answer to this, to me, is yes. In places where men can be topless, women should have the right to go topless as well. Actually, I have no hang ups about the human body and I really don't care if people go around naked, but that's me and there are certainly instances where nudity is not a good idea. (the subway comes to mind...eww...)

I don't want to take away someone's right to wear a veil, I just want them to have the right to not wear it, too.

"Telling them they can't make laws against women showing cleavage would be about like telling people here that they can't make laws against women showing their nipples."

You're right. I don't think there SHOULD be laws about women covering their nipples. If it goes for both sexes, maybe, though I think that taboos about body parts are bad generally. (but that's a topic all on its own)

You do realize that this is precisely what women of color are talking about when they say that white feminists don't give a shit about their issues? When they say that they're more concerned about "saving" women who haven't asked to be saved than actually listening to them?

THANK YOU. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

This is exactly what pisses me off about many "feminist" communities based in the Western world. For one thing (and apologies to you Cara because I ultimately agree with you), I hate being lumped into some sort of "women of colour" abstract. What makes you think I have the same opinions as other people just because we have "colour"?

I got so annoyed with the feminist community on LJ when they defined racism as "power + prejudice" - and then went on to assume that "power" = "white". All our stories and experiences of racism by non-white communities (which are common everywhere sadly) were shot down, and we were told that our experiences
weren't racist enough. What the hell? Does it only matter to you if a white person got involved?

"Can you really tell an Iraqi woman about how oppressive you find her hijab while our country is bombing her home?"

Whether or not the US government is waging a war on a certain country has no bearing on whether or not I will speak out for freedom of the citizens there. I think both the war and forcing people veil are wrong but the one really has nothing to do with the other.

Kevin T. Keith: Muslim is an adjective; ie a Muslim woman. Islamic refers to history and culture, not people. Click on the link, Muslimah Media Watch explains the objection far better.

Ayla: The point is, though, that our society would be outraged and horrified at the concept of women going topless on the street, at the gym, etc. And if such a law was put into place, you know what would happen? First, there would be widespread condemnation and rejection; then eventually, acceptance by some-- and breast enlargement and plastic surgery would go up, and we would all have to have "perfect" breasts to go out in public without a top, and if we didn't, we would be mocked. Our culture sexualizes breasts to the point where a woman not wearing a shirt will be seen as a sexual object, or if she isn't "perfect," disgusting. Their culture sexualizes things like a woman's curves, cleavage, etc. Their cultural morals are as strong as ours and stronger, because they are not a cultural melting-pot as we are. If they feel that a man's thighs, a woman's stomach, etc are private, they should be allowed to make the transition on their own as we did, or perhaps not make the transition at all.

Clothing cannot oppress you. Even decency laws can't really oppress you as long as they are chosen by the people. I would bet money that if you had a general election where you asked women in Saudi Arabia if it should be legal for them to go outside in a bikini, there would be almost a universal rejection of it. YOu know what CAN oppress you? Being forced to obey someone else's religious and cultural morals and not getting any say in the matter.

Freedom means that if the majority of people in Iran want to ban billboards of bikini-clad women they should get to. It does NOT mean everyone should have all the freedoms they could possibly want and more-- it means that people should be able to chose for themselves what is acceptable and what is not. And to tell the truth, in much of the Middle East the majority does NOT want laws requiring hijab-- but they do want laws limiting Western influence on their culture, and limiting sexualization and objectification of women.

I think both the war and forcing people veil are wrong but the one really has nothing to do with the other.

Well, when countries have some big nationalist push, like in a time of crisis or war, a lot of times they pick a pawn to push around, through culture, religion, or laws, to create a really strong nationalist identity. It happens all over, and very often to women; I think there was a review here a while ago about Susan Faludi's book about this in post-9/11 America. It happened in colonial India, where Indian nationalism needed to create a difference between Indian women and British women through tougher cultural taboos. And in this case, it's happening in Iraq in the face of US occupation.

This is not to say, at all, that women who wear hijabs or burqas are manipulated or pawns; like many posters above, I know some very smart women who feel very strongly about the hijab they have chosen to wear. But when laws mandate how people can and cannot express themselves, there's a problem--but it's usually a much bigger problem than the physical item they're being told to wear. In Iraq, again, the laws didn't exist until culture felt the need for a very very strong nationalist identity because of the war. Along with not having to wear any head covering, before the war women could drive, go to school, work, whatever; this was lost in the gendering of nationalism in response to the US's invasion.

So my point is, a law requiring a hijab or a burqa or pink pants or hoop earrings or anything--just like a law outlawing any of these things--is indicative of a larger problem. It's more complex than saying head coverings are oppressive, because that's simply not the case, and it doesn't get at the root of what's going on. In many cases, what's actually going on is nationalism and occupation or civil war, and these laws only show one way women are being used to create that national identity.

"Tiara, can you choose NOT to wear a veil EVER, at all without fear of retaliation, legal or otherwise? If not, then it's just as bad in my opinion. Allowing someone to choose the color of their handcuffs doesn't make them any less of a prisoner."

"Whether or not the US government is waging a war on a certain country has no bearing on whether or not I will speak out for freedom of the citizens there. I think both the war and forcing people veil are wrong but the one really has nothing to do with the other."

Ayla - thank you for saying what I am thinking.

Nobody here wants to deny the choice of Western Muslims to wear a headscarf, or robe, or perhaps a t-shirt or jeans. That's the whole point. We don't want to make any regulations at all about a person's choice of attire -- unlike the brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I don't mean to equate the entire Muslim world with Iran, and I apologize if I gave that impression. There are certainly tolerant, culturally sensitive Muslim nations out there. But many other Muslim nations represent the worst this planet has to offer in its treatment of women, and we should not let that fact go uncommented just because we are afraid of seeming "culturally insensitive" or whatnot.

And just because Bush and his buddies have Iran in their crosshairs does not mean that we should ignore Iran's human rights abuses and its obscene violations against women. We should not stay silent just out of fear of giving ammo to our political foes. After all, if Bush goes to war with Iran, the abuses against women will be the least of his concerns either way.

If an American Muslim chooses to wear the veil, I am fully in support of that choice. Because unlike in much of the Muslim world.. she had a choice to begin with.

The point is that the wearing of hijab is not a concern to the vast majority of Muslim women and that they, and not we, should direct their own fate and freedom.

We should be their tools and their aids, if they want us to be, but we should not tell them what is oppressive about their culture. It is not our discussion to have, it is theirs.

"We should be their tools and their aids, if they want us to be, but we should not tell them what is oppressive about their culture. It is not our discussion to have, it is theirs."

This comment smacks of me as saying, "Free-staters should not tell black slaves what is oppressive about their culture. It is not our discussion to have, but theirs."

It is oppressive on its face. There is no "discussion" to be had. We do not have to "dialogue" about whether it is right or wrong that women who were raped are being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, or honor killings, or FGM. There is no debate to be had, no discussion to be held. It is wrong. It is evil. That is all there is to it.

I am rather surprised that this is a controversial position.

If a person loses sight of this due to political correctness... then that person does not truly care about the welfare of women, and they are most certainly not a feminist.

We do not have to "dialogue" about whether it is right or wrong that women who were raped are being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, or honor killings, or FGM.

I don't think this is what anyone was arguing. Most of the discussion was about head coverings; there's a huge difference between a law telling you to wear a fabric on your head, and being held down while your genitals are sliced. No one's been saying something like FGM is a practice that is good to women.

However, while you can say a certain practice is harmful to women, you can't really say that an entire culture (or worse, but what seems to be happening here, the generalized cultures of many countries throughout the world linked very loosely by religion) is bad. FGM, based on empirical evidence, does damage to women; honor killing, from empirical evidence, obviously kills women; hijabs do not. It's not politically correct to refuse to tell a person how their culture, of which you are not a part, affects them; it's arrogant and foolish to do so.

Danielle Crittenden was the one who wrote that book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, claiming that feminism made women unhappy by claiming that women could find fulfillment outside of marriage and homemaking. So it doesn't surprise me that she's up to more bullshit.

"Freedom means that if the majority of people in Iran want to ban billboards of bikini-clad women they should get to. It does NOT mean everyone should have all the freedoms they could possibly want and more-- it means that people should be able to chose for themselves what is acceptable and what is not. And to tell the truth, in much of the Middle East the majority does NOT want laws requiring hijab-- but they do want laws limiting Western influence on their culture, and limiting sexualization and objectification of women."

Just to indicate I've had my eyes open. I like this poster's comments, on the condition the decision makers or voters include the women, and minority opinions ("But I like reading Maxim"/"I like to be covered") are respected, of course.

I have to wonder, as both a western woman and a feminist, how it is that we can get so sidetracked by dress codes. We have them at work, we have them, unvoiced yet in force, in our daily lives, and still we focus our comments on oppression in other cultures around their dress codes. Think about what it would be like to walk down the street, go to work, go out with your friends, in the "wrong" clothing. I understand that we have broader choices than some societies. Nonetheless, can any of us truly say that the way we dress is not influenced -positively or negatively- by our own society's dress code? Again, referencing the posts on active oppression, I know that there is far stricter enforcement (to put it mildly) in some other societies, but is the question maybe that we are uncomfortable with the paradox of being free while not ourselves seeing a truly open set of options? (Forgive the multiple asides and parenthesis but orthodox jews and fundie christians come to mind as accepted belief systems which we rarely seem to confront in the way we seem to be willing to confront muslim ideology when it insists on women covering themselves.)

ForbiddenComma, it's nice to meet another feminist who isn't afraid to take a stand on this.

Just some general comments and then I have to go for the night...

I understand that wearing a piece of cloth over your head or body is not exactly a horrific prospect on the surface. And certainly in places where there is a war going on or misogynist assholes who would physically harm you for going what you want to wear, there are more pressing issues like food and safety. However, mandated dress codes which require women to completely cover their face or body or otherwise control what she can do with her own body are part of the bigger picture... the machine of oppression isn't just made of large, scary parts like murderers, rapists, abusers, etc... but also smaller, more innocuous seeming parts... like having separate rules for how men and women must dress in public, whether the difference is covering nipples or covering your face.

In primary school, we once had an experiment where we were blindfolded and led around the school for the day simulating what it felt like to be blind. Having a scratchy polyester black scarf around your eyes is nothing like what it is like to have nothing there and still being unable to see!!
I am quite dubious about these short stints in another person's moccassins as enlighting the person very much as to the in-and-outs of this person's reality. Life is made up of so much and habits and activities reflect the person's abilities. In the case of wearing the full covering of an Iranian woman, I am sure they have developed different ways to do the washing, play vollyeball, walk with bags or a pram. That may sound barbaric, but it is no different to a person learning to use only their one arm. It is part of their life, whether imposed through accident, illness, religion, cultural beliefs etc.
I find these stints often make people biased against the person or their life. They only get a taster, they dont see what it is really like and they are doing it as sort of a 'day-in-the-life'. In reality, you would have to spend months or a lifetime in order to really understand. I find it offensive that just because Crittenden was wearing a niqab, she sees situations as Muslim-ised, i.e. the bomb site of her kitchen. Just because you are Muslim doesnt mean you see things any differently: a shell of a kitchen is a shell of a kitchen!!
It is worrying that Yoffe didnt address the daughter's reactions. To choose between taking her to a beauty pageant and a drag show...at least the latter is about these people celebrating who they are, not primping for a contest and then sexualised based on physical beauty. Sigh, what they will do for readership..

reading back over mine, I am thinking I might be misunderstood. Sure, this malicious differentiation of class, ability and gender based on clothing is terrible. It is something I cant understand and it is something that I see as a lifelong, all-pervasive opression. However, if you are going to try to understand and put yourself in someone else's shoes, bias needs to be suspended and life needs to be analysed based on how it works for that person. I dont think these journalists managed that even in small measure. Vincent however produced a quite open-hearted look at life and really brought home some of the difficulties involved

Cara says: "And in any case, at the moment I'm a lot more concerned about the racism going on in this thread. You do realize that this is precisely what women of color are talking about when they say that white feminists don't give a shit about their issues? When they say that they're more concerned about "saving" women who haven't asked to be saved than actually listening to them?"

YES YES YES! The racism in this thread is disgusting. The fact that FGM got brought up right away speaks to what some people think of when they start talking about women who are Muslim or from predominantly Muslim countries.

As for Emily Yoffe: I have no words to express my anger about her right now.

I'm with ForbiddenComma and Ayla. I find it a tad bizarre that so many feminists are sticking up for these misogynist customs. I find myself thinking about Atwood's fictional dystopia of Gilead--would you stick up for those handmaiden costumes? I'm honestly perplexed by this.

Basiorana: "Our laws require us to cover them, at least the nipples. Are we oppressed because the law requires us to cover our breasts?"

Many progressives do believe so, which is why these laws have been changed in some "blue" cities IIRC.

"Freedom means that if the majority of people in Iran want to ban billboards of bikini-clad women they should get to."

No, that is not a correct understanding of freedom. Civil liberties are about protecting unpopular positions held by a minority of the public, not about a tyranny of the majority as you describe.

idyllicmollusk: "if genital cutting is abhorrent, why are plastic surgery or foot-deforming stilettos not condemned?"

Who says they are not condemned?!? I most certainly condemn them (including male circumcision, btw).

Alan

I think people like Danielle Crittenden approach the issue of Muslim Women from a very shallow perspective. She mocks and dehumanizes a complicated and complex religous and cultural issue. Let's not get caught doing the same thing.

I don't think anyone here at feministing would disagree with the idea that women's bodies are battlegrounds, in every society. There is always punishment for deviating from the norms and although I think we have every right to be appalled by the violence and brutality that is the punishment for women in a place like Iran for deviating from the accepted norm (being beaten/raped/killed for going without a veil, for example) it doesn't mean we should condem the clothing that violence reponds to.

Ideally, veiling or covering your head should be treated in Islam like keeping Kosher is treated in Judaism. There are Jews and denominations that require it and most Jews chose to follow it or not, depending on how they interpret their faith. It should be a sign of faith and devotion to God and, as feminists, we should be able to respect that. We should not be making more women's bodies into a battleground of our own. The patriarchy is already fighting the battle there.

So when we want to experience wearing a viel or covering our heads, it should be done in a mindset of faith. If we are going to talk about closed, totalitarian governments and societies that force standards are women, that is a different thing. What we are talking about is not covering the body specifically, but about the LACK OF CHOICE. We are talking about violence and force and what it means to not own your own body. (A conversation we should not limit to Muslim women wearing the viel, but also to strict fundamentalist Christians who don't allow women in their communities to dress as they please or have lives outside the home, etc...)

But FREELY taking up a niqab and walking around is not a part of that conversation. And FREELY condeming an act of religous devotion as always oppresseve is not part of that coversation, either.

"Free-staters should not tell black slaves what is oppressive about their culture. "

Oh, okay, if you are a Muslim man, go ahead.

The thing is, the free-staters essentially had the same culture as the oppressors. That, and there weren't a lot of slaves defending slavery unless they themselves were slaveowners, which was increasingly rare the closer the country got to the Civil War. There are a LOT of women who defend the right to wear hijab-- and the right to keep elements of their culture, including a certain level of modesty, free from Western control.

Also, I specifically argued that FGM was something needing stopping earlier in the thread, as are honor killings and imprisoning rape victims. What's more, most cultures where Islam is predominant do not practice FGM, and many of them will not arrest rape victims and will arrest those who perform honor killings. We are not talking about any of that. We are talking about modesty laws and culture.

A male: The primary thing that they need is a way to have a say in their government. Maybe not a true democracy in some areas, but a constitutional monarchy at least.

SlackerInc: There is a fairly significant minority who believes there should be no problem with beating one's own wife or children, including the wives. There is a fairly significant minority who believes in providing for only their sons' education, not their daughters. There is even a small population that believes a man should be allowed to marry his sister and have children without censure and another population who believes that since no living creature is harmed in necrophilia, that should be legal as well.

You can't protect everyone's unpopular position. Who decides that it's fair and moral for people to wander around topless in the streets, but not fair and moral for two consenting siblings who grew up together to have biological children? Who decides that it is fair and moral to have a giant picture of an artistic nude but it's not fair and moral for a plastic surgeon to advertise his wares through painting women with small breasts as inferior?

Sometime, you have to say "your minority opinion is wrong." And the ones who get to say that are the majority.

Basiorana, how in the world are you confusing the concepts of "freedom" and "majority rule?"

SarahMC: So, do you think that as long as no one is harmed without their consent, we should allow anything?

If the majority gets to decide how much freedom the minority has, then the minority doesn't have freedom. They have not consented. The majority has decided for them.

So, consensual cannibalism?

Assisted (non-euthanasia) suicide?

Cults?

What about women who chose for cultural reasons to get FGM as adults, thus perpetuating the concept of FGM as a beauty standard?

If you allow majority rule and then provide economic stability to a region, eventually people become increasingly liberal and laws loosen, they allow more and more. There is no harsh transition, violence against taboo violators is decreased. There is still a line that is drawn that prevents behavior which the people are not ready for. They do not rebel against their laws; there is no backlash, no swing back to extreme conservatism because they have been pushed when they did not want to be pushed.

Cannibalism? What are you talking about? Did I say anything about anarchy? No. There must be rules to protect people from one another.
I realize that majority rule is the most effective method of decision-making (that I know of), but tyranny of the majority is unacceptable. There are certain things the majority should NOT get to decide because it has no business deciding.

"There must be rules to protect people from one another." In consensual cannibalism, both parties agree-- one to eat, and one to be eaten. It's a sexual fetish.

Who decides, pray tell, what the majority does not get to decide because it has no business deciding?

You? The minorities, even if they are doing something that the majority thinks they need to be protected from, like a suicide cult? A tyrant? Or... the majority? Just because it's a worldwide majority, or a European majority, does not mean it is any less of a majority.

We are getting off track. I was merely pointing out your incorrect conflation of "freedom" and "majority rule."

I agree, this has gotten off topic, and it should probably be allowed to die so I can go study. My ultimate point-- if you impose your own cultural beliefs about right and wrong on people in completely different cultures than your own, you are simply freeing them from the oppression of the minorities that rule them only to oppress them under a more universal majority. They will resent you and there will be a push in the culture to get away from foreign ideas, resulting in a swing back to extreme conservatism.

If they are instead given the ability to chose their own government and laws by majority rule, they will be moderate at first, dipping into conservatism or liberalism from time to time, with a net swing to liberalism. Eventually, they will give themselves all the things you want them to have, and the majority will be happy, and there will not be a backlash (well, a lesser one).

So if we want the Middle Eastern countries to have our ideas of freedom-- and freedom is NOT a universal constant, contrary to popular belief, it is as much shaped by the majority society as any concept-- we can't just tell them to have it, we need to encourage them to decide for themselves and to control their own government, and then we need to sit back and wait about 100 years while they rule themselves, only helping if they ask us or they start committing mass genocide or something.

And now, I should bow out gracefully.

Hello, i know i'm late to the discussion. Firstly-i dont understand the arguments about women being covered up and men not being covered up-islam asks that both women and men dress modestly. Also-i apologise if this is apparent to posters as from what i've read it does not seem to be-saudi arabia, as it stands today-is not representative of islam or muslims across the world. and i dont understand the fuss about the veil-i'm a muslim and i have never been forced to wear the veil-and i dont feel any less of a musim for not wearing it.

"We should be their tools and their aids, if they want us to be, but we should not tell them what is oppressive about their culture. It is not our discussion to have, it is theirs."

This comment smacks of me as saying, "Free-staters should not tell black slaves what is oppressive about their culture. It is not our discussion to have, but theirs."

It is oppressive on its face. There is no "discussion" to be had. We do not have to "dialogue" about whether it is right or wrong that women who were raped are being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, or honor killings, or FGM. There is no debate to be had, no discussion to be held. It is wrong. It is evil. That is all there is to it.

Spoken like a privileged Westerner.

Thing is, white free-staters weren't telling black slaves what was oppressive about their culture, they were telling other white slave owners. The slaves were well aware that they were slaves, and well aware that they were sold and beaten into submission. Using slavery as an example to justify speaking for hijab-wearing women in the middle east is a really extreme, unequivocal comparison. (Plus, it smacks of racism in the same way that bringing up FGM to show how fucked up "other" cultures can be is.)

Also, rape and honor killings aren't cultural customs. They're violent forms of retribution, and even people in those countries were protesting in the streets to speak out about those instances.

To imply that wearing a hijab is a misogynist custom is to put an imperialist, racist slant on an entire culture.

Read some transnational feminist theory. This isn't our discussion to have.

Sorry, i know i'm late to the discussion. It appears some (but not all) of the posters on this board have taken a leaf out of Danielle Crittenden's book. its appears that just because, in saudi-women cannot vote or drive and wear full body veils its automatically written off as islams doing-which i mention as this kind of mentality stops women in these countries from obtaining their God given rights. Islam quite clearly states that despire being different-men and women are of equal value and if these truths were highlighted as they should it might put pressure on the saudi government to give women their rights.

My favorite parts of this series weren't the initial articles--which were silly enough-- but the follow-ups in which Crittenden would bring up objections to her piece ("But shouldn't it be their decision?" and so on) and basically say that no, wrong, Muslim women are far too benighted/brainwashed to be trusted with something like headwear decisions. Yeesh.

I was going to vent my irritation re: Emily Yoffe's stupid and remarkably offensive Drag-King-for-a-Day article, but after reading 60-70 comments arguing about whether or not Islam is teh most evillest religion evar, I just don't give a crap.

What I learned from this thread:
1) People would rather talk about Muslim women than listen to them.
2) GBLT poeple and issues are invisible and unimportant. Do they even exist?

Cara & Tiara, your comments were the highlight of a long, depressing read. Thanks.

"if genital cutting is abhorrent, why are plastic surgery or foot-deforming stilettos not condemned?"

"(Plus, it smacks of racism in the same way that bringing up FGM to show how fucked up "other" cultures can be is.)"

There it is again. Let's step back for a moment and see what's going on. We have posters here... probably ones who think of themselves as feminists... becoming apologists for *female genital mutilation*.

Not the hajib. Not the burkha. They are defending FGM, one of the most monstrous anti-woman customs ever devised on this planet.

And why? Because it is "racist" to criticize anything going on in another culture, that's why.

Some posters here need to step back and re-examine whether or not they are truly feminists. There are situations where feminism runs into conflict with certain leftist tropes such as "OMG white people are racists." This is one of those situations. It is wedge issues like this that differentiate true feminists from poseurs. It's damn easy to condemn the misogyny of evangelical Christianity, after all... the real challenge is taking your feminism to more controversial topics such as Islam.

Are you willing to speak out against all injustice inflicted on women, even those of other cultures... knowing full well that speaking out will inevitably cause some kneejerk leftist to unload the r-word on you without thinking? If protecting your own delicate sensibilities about "racism" is more important than the chattel slavery of some women in some Islamic societies... then I guess you and I have different ideas of what "feminism" means.

"GBLT poeple and issues are invisible and unimportant. Do they even exist?"

Well, there is little disagreement that the drag-king article was a work of complete asshattery... and this agreement is why it is not being discussed much here. Apologies.

Vervain : That's exactly what I thought when I read (then skimmed) through the comments.
*high five*

Why does having an opinion about a custom from a culture to which you don't belong automatically have to mean "othering" that culture? I have an opinion about the hijab, but that doesn't mean I view all Muslim women in a distinctive category and look down upon them. Racism is a huge problem, but it bothers me that the people posting here are so eager to pin that label on anyone who dares to put their two cents in but doesn't belong to whatever culture we are talking about. When people like bell hooks wrote about how white feminists had left their voices out, she wasn't saying white women should just leave all black women alone, she was saying that white women needed to LISTEN to them. Why does everyone here seem to think that listening and having an opinion have to be mutually exclusive?

I don't think that the issue is listening but not being able to voice an opinion. The issue is separating fundamentalist Islamic regimes and Islamic culture. Making blanket statements about the culture is wrong. Condemning the fact that some fundamentalist regimes don't give women freedoms is okay, although we cannot march in there in the name of freedom without support from the women within (Bush imperialism anyone?). I am proud to call myself a feminist but I acknowlege that we need to separate the government from the religion and support women's rights movements internationally, not direct them. The governments are responsible for mistreatment of women, not the Muslim religion. Attacking aspects of the Muslim religion (ie the hijab) is shallow and placing a blanket over a complex history and recent problems. It has been a while since my History of Islam class, but I do believe at the beginning of the religion it was a much more tolerant and inclusive society than any other in the world (ie Christian empires). Fundamental Islam is largely a recent historical phenomenon. Therefore, we should separate the vast, rich, and historical Islamic culture from these relatively recent governments. To not do so is extremely offensive.

"When people like bell hooks wrote about how white feminists had left their voices out, she wasn't saying white women should just leave all black women alone, she was saying that white women needed to LISTEN to them.

This is exactly what I was getting at. I'm not "defending" FGM, or anyone who uses their religion as an excuse to treat women as subhuman just so they can scream "You're disrespecting my beliefs!" when someone objects. What I took issue with in this thread was the fact that actual Muslim women (and those who suggested we listen to what they have to say about the issue) were essentially ignored or shouted down. It smacks of "Shut up, you savages, we're going to save you from yourselves!"

It's not about being too timid or conciliatory to question another culture's traditions or beliefs. It's that we shouldn't be saying "Here's how we're going to help you," we should be asking, "What can we do to help you?" and then actually listening to the reply.

Vervain -- you are awesome, and I totally agree.

I think most would agree that yes, it would be better if men didn't require women to wear headscarves or full body coverings, but I think it's more of an easily-recognizable symptom of gender-based hatred, and certainly not a cause of the hatred, nor the most disturbing part of it.

And ForbiddenComma -- I'm suprised nobody on this board has called you on the insessant "If you don't agree with every word I say, then you're not a feminist" line.

ForbiddenComma: "Some posters here need to step back and re-examine whether or not they are truly feminists. There are situations where feminism runs into conflict with certain leftist tropes such as 'OMG white people are racists.' "

Right on the money. This is an area where I dissent strongly with many others on the left: that is, I reject the idea of cultural relativism. I'll say it straight out: some cultures are better than others. When it comes to civil liberties, I'm sorry, but Western culture on the whole is--though far from perfect--better than most others. Particularly in places like the Netherlands or Scandinavia.

And Sarah Connor, I have studied Islam in school (took courses from a Muslim professor), have read the Qu'uran and other books on Islam (my favourite author on the subject being Maxime Rodinson, who was a Marxist atheist who made no pretense of giving any credence to the supernatural claims Muhammad made).

And while it is true that the Qu'uran provided women some protections they did not have previously (like the right to inheritance--albeit less than for sons), and it is also true that the religion's texts do not directly call for extreme gender apartheid like that in Saudi Arabia, it is simply *untrue* to claim that "true" Islam is egalitarian toward women. Look at chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur'an:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

There are some equally offensive portions of the Bible (Deuteronomy is a real peach); but the thing that makes the Western societies I've referred to superiour to many parts of the Muslim world is that they have mostly abandoned these religious traditions and have become very secular (we in the U.S. are a little behind the curve in this respect, but we're getting there).

Alan

describes himself as a "non-op female-body transgender person"—essentially a lesbian who identifies as a male but is not doing anything surgically about it.

this really really really pisses me off. nothing about his identity is that of lesbian.

this entire stint as 'other' is ridiculous and dumbs down real issues. simplifies things that cannot be simplified. ugggggh.

The idea that stability and majority rule breeds liberalism is just plain wrong.Look at the deep South. For a long time it had a very stable system of oppression condoned by the "political" majority. And many rules of Jim Crow were not codified in law books but enforced by the insidious threat of violence just like in many Middle Eastern countries even if there isn't a law requiring covering it is obligatory by means of social approved violence.

And I think about these fanciful ideas that Islam will come around and join us in the 21st century. We haven't been able to uproot such ideas about women here in America, a "shining beacon" of human rights. How are we gonna make this happen in the Muslim world with the full weight of cultural and religious forces going against it. And for the record I consider mainstream Islam a tenfold more dangerous than mainstream Christianity(which at least has taken a more diluted form). Add to that the spread of radical Islam fueled by Saudy Wahhabism across the world that is slowly transforming more moderate local forms of Islam. And for those who think I'm culturally insensitive talk to me when there is a gay pride parade in Saudy Arabia or Iran and I'll listen.

I'll say it straight out: some cultures are better than others.

This has been the logic behind centuries of racism, genocide, imperialism, and colonialism around the world. I know Cara mentioned this once, but I gotta repeat: Please don't wonder why women of color so often feel unwelcome within western white-dominated feminist movements.

"I'll say it straight out: some cultures are better than others."

Really? I mean really? I can't even believe this was posted. So, Islam is the modern-day "White Man's Burden?" Thanks Rudyard Kipling, but I think I'll take my cultural relativism. This is NOT a cultural problem. It has to do with vested interests of elite leaders and the best way to maintain those interests is subjugation. Subjugation is much easier when you can justify it with a story. The MAJORITY of Islamic history and culture does not believe in atrocious human rights abuses, but it is the story being told and like I said before, it is a relatively new historical position. Western culture is also founded on religion and, like you said, the Bible has some really incriminating passages on women's inferiority to men's. One culture is not better than another and it is extremely offensive to say so.

For the record, just in case it somehow wasn't clear from my prior posts... I am in no way trying to say that people shouldn't be able to wear a veil if they want... or even that I find the act of wearing one inherently oppressive. I am also in no way trying to say that all Islamic countries have the same laws and rules. I'm only saying that forcing someone to wear a veil IF THEY DON'T WANT TO is wrong. And I'm really not sure how anyone interested in equality can think it's OK... at all... ever. My opinion covers people of all races. How is wishing for people to not be FORCED to do something racist? I reject that.

Balom, great analogy to Jim Crow. Both in the Reconstruction era, and the civil rights era a century later, it took federal troops to change things and protect the rights of African Americans. But I guess hopeisawakingdream would find it offensive to claim that the dominant culture of Mississippi (where they reelected Trent Lott after he infamously praised a segregationist presidential campaign) is not every bit as laudable as that of, say, Illinois (which has sent two African Americans to the U.S. Senate in the last fifteen or so years, including the only black woman ever to be elected to that body).

Whatevah...

Alan

SlackerInc: Oddly enough, only Europeans think European/Western culture is the best. Outside observers? Not so much.

Every time Europeans have tried to impose our own way of doing things on another culture it has ended in disaster. We decided farming "civilized" crops was superior to gathering food and hunting. As a result, the ecologies of Africa and Brazil are crumbling and farming is difficult or impossible and people are starving. We decided that any language that didn't have a system of reading and writing was "uncivilized" and made people learn English; now all around the world languages are dying out and people are losing their linguistic heritage. We decided our "civilized" Christian was superior to tribal religions and induced mass-conversions, forcing people to reject their native religions. Alcohol was a "civilized" concept and look what it did to the Native Americans.

You, my friend, might as well put on your "safari clothes" and go "educate" the native South Africans about how they are inferior to the excellence that is European.

In revolutionary Iran, the burqa became a form of protest; women who opposed the Shah wore it. In the heady days before the fist of conservative/misogynist Islam came down, going veiled was liberating and empowering to many women. Women still go veiled or headscarved for many reasons, and it's demeaning, disgusting, and yes, racist to consider their choices as merely self-deception or giving into institutionalized misogyny. Thanks to honkifyoulike, Cara, and the others calling people out on their 'it's just because I'm better' bullshit.

And I normally enjoy Yoffe's forays into the unknown, but the drag king article was off on so many levels, not least of which was her total willful ignorance of drag culture as anything more than a fun Saturday night stunt.

faerietails - who gets to decide if it's "our discussion to have?" We've decided that it is. We're having it. Heck, you're having it for that matter. What's wrong with discussion?

Basiorana, I too have read my Zinn and my Chomsky--though I didn't need to since I have a great example within my own family. My grandmother was Omaha and Pawnee, raised on the Omaha reservation and forced against her will to go to an Indian boarding school where students were punished for speaking their native languages or practicing their culture.

I'm talking about the West of the past forty years or so. More in some places than others, and there is still a long way to go...but it seems obvious to me that a progressive feminist who strongly valued civil liberties would have few places to live that beat the West, though perhaps some that match it or come close to doing so (for instance, the Latin American nations that are electing progressive female leaders).

Alan

Alan (aka slackerInc), you proved my point. Our culture accepted slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, etc. and still engages in many forms of oppression, which is why us feminists exist. Also recall that the civil rights movement was championed by people within our Western culture and within the south. There may be aspects of a culture that are bad, but I am saying that to call one entire culture better than another is dangerous. They all have problems and this view is extremely ethnocentric. Do I think that women should be forced to wear veils? Of course not, but the choice has been taken away by the governments of extreme regimes, not by the Islamic culture.

And surprise, surprise those extremist governments just happen to be in Muslim countries.

Hopeisawakingdream: "Also recall that the civil rights movement was championed by people within our Western culture and within the south."

Yes, black people in the South. The white majority...not so much (the white people working for civil rights mostly came from the North). Had we decided to allow "majority rule" to play itself out in that region, black people would still likely be in (metaphorical) chains. It took, as I said, federal troops to enforce civil rights.

"There may be aspects of a culture that are bad,"

Aha--now we are getting somewhere.

"but I am saying that to call one entire culture better than another is dangerous."

If you took me to mean that "every aspect of Western culture is better than every aspect of Arab culture" then I apologise: this is certainly not the case. But if there can be bad aspects about cultures, then they cannot be exactly equal. Maybe I should have been more precise and added caveats about "in this particular aspect of culture, Western culture in 2007 is more just/fair/egalitarian/etc." Would that work for you?

The irony of all of this is that when I get involved in debates about Israel I am often assumed to be Arab myself because I strongly criticise Israel's apartheid actions.

Alan

Well ForbiddenComma, if you choose to read what I wrote as apologism towards FGM (which is not anything near what I wrote), then go right ahead and revoke my "true feminist" card. I'll try my best to get past the devastation somehow.

And Ayla, I was referring to an earlier post. Of course we can (and are) discuss this as much as we want. But we have no right to get into this ridiculous Savior of Islamic Women mode, nor should we have the right to declare certain customs "pure evil" while completely disregarding the cultural framework (not to mention the women's voices) behind those customs.

You know, there are and there have been extremist/oppressive regimes elsewhere:

Germany during WWI and WWII
Serbia
Rwanda
Burundi
South Africa pre-apartheid
Sudan

The problem is the governments, not the culture. I recommend reading From Voting to Violence to see how different governments create stories to oppress people.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/snyder-voting.html

For years the South justified slavery through Biblical terms. I would argue that the Bible does not promote slavery, but that it was used to promote it anyway. This is the same thing occurring in these countries. It is a HUGE jump to go from, "those extremist governments just happen to be in Muslim countries" to "Western culture is better than Islamic culture." This sounds a lot like the "Clash of Civilizations" bullshit.

I never made any comment about "majoritarian rule" so I am not sure where that criticism is coming from. I am well aware of the dangers of majoritarian rule in any society or culture. Hence being a great supporter of the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Movement:)

My critism involved the blanket statement that, "I'll say it straight out: some cultures are better than others."

"Women still go veiled or headscarved for many reasons, and it's demeaning, disgusting, and yes, racist to consider their choices as merely self-deception or giving into institutionalized misogyny."

Why does someone who thinks of this practice as demeaning towards women automatically have to be assuming it's "merely self-deception" or "giving into insititutionalized misogny?" People ARE allowed to have opinions about other cultures -- it doesn't automatically mean they are degrading or disrespecting them. It means they have a different opinion about the implications of a given custom.

I don't think that you're not allowed to have an opinion. I just think it's really important to remember that your opinion is an outsider's opinion, which is a product of your culture and upbringing rather than of someone who actually lives that life and has since they were born. Any issue is rarely able to be broken down into black and white, or in this case, East and West or Islam and Christianity, and that's what I see going on in this thread.

"Sometime, you have to say 'your minority opinion is wrong.' And the ones who get to say that are the majority."

Under the US constitutional standard, anybody can say anybody else is wrong. [Even if it is clearly they who are wrong, like pre-Iraq Bush.] And to go #^%$ themselves, as well, unless you are in a courtroom.

Just because someone is perceived as "wrong," does not mean we automatically do not need to respect their rights. Thus a woman who would like to go covered in a covering optional society should be respected, as well as the occasional reader in a conservative Muslim culture might want to see examples of western culture like Maxim [note I do not say Hustler or choking videos] in the privacy of their own homes. I forget which Muslim country it was, but some former coworker went there - by presenting their foreign passport at a bar, they were able to buy alcoholic beverages. They were respected. [A search shows some interesting regulations on alcohol in Utah.]

I believe certain *aspects* of a culture are better than another's. Like universal health care, extended maternity/paternity leave, or being highly ranked on the UN Human Development Index, which are qualities seen in some progressive European countries. Even patriarchal Japan has a national health system, government cash benefits for childbirth (which may cover the entire cost of hospitalization), and financial assistance for low income families with children, as well as free medical care for children under 3, until six in some areas. America could use a lot of those, and I am not offended if a foreigner says so.

For those who favor enforcing feminist or egalitarian values upon "Islamic" cultures, what are you really proposing? War like in Afghanistan or Iraq? Those Iraqis love the prospect of US style democracy, enforced by a prolonged US military presence, no? The other Middle Eastern or "Islamic" countries like Iran are eagerly waiting for the US to come their way to share the benefits of western democracy, no? You have seen how international shaming does not stop the practices you describe. So a king decides not to have a rape victim whipped, but neither does he have the rapists stoned. Is he now going to change the laws? Who can change Saudi law?

yesthisismymajor, nerdalert says it nicely. And I'd also (in my dream world!) like people to keep in mind that people may don that 'demeaning' garb for a lot of reasons-- be it political statement, societal pressure, or internalized misogyny, we need to know that people's choices are more than our reaction to them.

I agree with Basiorana pretty much -- except i am atheist so i think religions on the whole have been bad for women, while they've been leaders in spirituality divorced from the dominant structures. I think Western women should think about what the experience of living under a gigantic piece of heavy fabric must be like. It seems some people are more wedded to their own concepts of fairness and identity than interested in exploring that experience -- even though yes, we can't replicate it for ourselves.

I find the original post more anti-feminist and academic than anything. People like nerd alert sound like naive lecturers.

I agree with Basiorana pretty much -- except i am atheist so i think religions on the whole have been bad for women systemically and historically and offer little but the delusion of psycho-candy... while they've been leaders in spirituality divorced from the dominant structures.

I think Western women should be thinking about what the experience of living under a gigantic piece of heavy fabric must be like. Placing themselves under the veil even though we know we can't ever replicate that experience. It seems that Ann and those who agree with her are more wedded to their own concepts of fairness and identity than interested in exploring that experience.

I live in Brooklyn where i sometimes see berkas and i have to say it jolts you to see one walking down the streets of America. On one hand, i can draw similarities with my own experience of having to wear a bra because nipples are socially unacceptable here (which obviously is screwed up.) On the other, i have no idea what it is like to be that woman i see passing me, behind the black tarp with a little girl in a carriage. It is human and okay to wonder and explore.

The attitude here feels hostile, negative towards ANY western consideration of other oppressive cultures.

OK, Typepad sucks. Terrible system.

One last thing: Did i read someone calling Norah Vincent a misogynist? Please! i read the book and heard her talk about it. It's an honest attempt to point out the repressive gender constraints women and men are under. It's very interesting and she nearly had a nervous breakdown doing it. Not the same thing as went on with Crittenden. It is 'immersive journalism.' and yeah, it's a touchy concept -- but the short-sighted-self-righteousness of people like NERDALERT preclude a real consideration of it.

I'll say it straight out: some cultures are better than others. When it comes to civil liberties, I'm sorry, but Western culture on the whole is--though far from perfect--better than most others. Particularly in places like the Netherlands or Scandinavia.

*gag* You wish.

Also: South European culture is VERY DIFFERENT from Scandinavian culture which is VERY DIFFERENT from UK culture which is VERY DIFFERENT to Australian culture...you get my point. Even with your precious "western culture", which is NO WAY BETTER than anyone else's so get off your high horse, there are vast differences.

All this "Islam is horrible! Look at Iran!" nonsense is similar to me pulling out American obesity rates and going "ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE FAT HARHAR! THEY SUCK!" Hell, I could make a case that Western cultures haven't the slightest clue how to cook, because food is not as respected. I could argue that my Malaysian/Bangladeshi culture respects food, therefore it's better. Would that be a strong case?

And again:

Stop equating Islam with the Middle East.
Stop equating Islam with the Middle East.
Stop equating Islam with the Middle East.

this discussion is starting to disgust me.

nerdalert and Bwrites, I agree with you. I was not claiming that people outside of a culture understand it as well as people living within it. I was just responding to the statements made on this thread about racism which implied that those people have no right to contribute to the discussion. I am also definitely not excusing the people on this thread who were making blanket statements about Islam as misogynist, etc. I guess what I was really trying to say is that there are many people who exist in the middle; it IS possible to have a complex understanding of the cultural practices involved without being condescending even if you do not personally practice them.

Tiara,

I would agree that traditional elements of Western (at least American and British) culture leave much to be desired food-wise. However, we see that starting to change with publication of books like Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore's Dilemma. And that underlines the thing that makes Western culture superiour in my opinion: the freedom to promulgate ideas without fear of repression.

Islam, as you must know, is centered around the Middle East. It not only began there, but spread through violent conquest from there, and Muslims are still to this day supposed to make pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia.

Please don't come back with "Christianity" this or that. I am an atheist, not a Christian. But in modern day Western society, one can reject religion altogether without paying a heavy penalty for it (though this is more true in Europe than the U.S. when it comes to politics). I shudder to think what would happen to someone like me in most Muslim countries.

Alan

SlackerInc,

Before making assumptions about the religion/cultures and nations that are not your own, I suggest doing some reading. Some fantastic memoirs from Iranians include:

Funny in Farsi
Iran Awakening
Persepolis I and II

All of these books show how secular and free Iranian culture was before the Iranian Revolution. Many of these women had never worn the headscarf or covered up before except for special occasions. They listened to Michael Jackson, wore miniskirts, and Shirin Ebadi, the author of Iran Awakening and 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, was a lawyer and a judge as a women in a predominantly Muslim country before the Revolution. This goes back to my original point that the Muslim religion and Islamic culture is not inherently worse than Western culture. In fact, each of these authors write about how they were not very religious at all. They never even thought about a pilgrimage (at least they certainly didn't write about it). Their religion before the revolution mirrored the US citizens who show up for Christmas and Easter and otherwise disregard it. The governments brought about the oppressive change and we should be criticizing the governments, not the culture. Granted, this is only one Islamic country within many, but it is a clear example that it is not the culture we should be discussing or claiming is not on-par with Western culture, but the government.

Hopeisawakingdream, how did the revolution succeed if it had no support among the people? This is the same question I would wonder about Afghanistan.

Your larger point seems to be that the less religiosity in a society, the better its culture. I don't disagree with that--and it's one reason why American culture (particularly in "red states") does not measure up to that of northern Europe and Scandinavia. The Pew Center studied religiosity and tolerance of homosexuality in a number of nations (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf):

"Throughout much of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East large majorities feel that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values, and similar majorities believe society should reject homosexuality...[In] Western Europe, large majorities suggest that morality is possible without faith and believe that homosexuality should be accepted."

If you read further, you will discover that among two thousand people surveyed in Egypt and Jordan, only one single person (in Jordan) disagreed that belief in God is necessary for morality. (That's, what, one twentieth of one percent? Egads.)

But what about Islamic nations outside the Middle East, you ask? Quoting the report again:

"In the four predominantly Muslim Asian countries--Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia--huge majorities also believe morality requires faith in God. Elsewhere in Asia, however, opinions are a bit more mixed."

I think this evidence is rather compelling in support of what I've been saying.

Alan

If you want to put an end to FGM and the likes you are already assuming that certain cultural practices deserve to be stamped out. Which means that you do believe some cultures have practices that are inferior to not having those practices. I don't see any way of saying that a culture in which women's sexual organs are routinely mutilated without consent as children is better than a culture in which they are not. I don't see why this is so hard.

Great points, Farhat. (And this btw would be another illustration of why Western European culture is superiour to American culture: Americans are still doing way too much male circumcision, even if it's not as universal as it used to be--declining particularly on the West Coast.)

The only caveat I'd add is that it could be possible that the culture without FGM features other, even worse practices that the culture with FGM does not. (Think of comparing Nazi Germany with some northern African society of the time.) In 2007, though, I don't think this is the case.

You close by wondering "why this is so hard". I think the answer is that progressives have rightly reacted against the Western cultural imperialism of the colonial era, but as so often happens many of them swung too far the other way. Just because a group of people were wronged at one time by Western imperialism (or may still be wronged by global capitalist exploitation that originates in the West), does not mean we should not be able to critique their cultural practices. It exposes, I suppose, the paradox that while some of the greatest wrongs to our planet originated in the West (including environmental destruction), the West is also the place where pluralistic, open societies exist that can uncover, publicise, criticise, and attempt to right those wrongs.

We should also remember that just because a group of people (an ethnic minority, a Third World nation, etc.) has historically been dominated or exploited by another group, it doesn't make them necessarily better. It just means they are weaker--perhaps they'd do even worse things if they had hegemony.

Alan

*Islam, as you must know, is centered around the Middle East.*

I dont undertand what you mean by this statement. could you please explain? Islam was not made to comply solely to people who live in the middle east but to people worldwide. Is that what you mean or-somthing else?

Sarah Connor,

My statement was in direct response to Tiara's having written:

Stop equating Islam with the Middle East. Stop equating Islam with the Middle East. Stop equating Islam with the Middle East.

When in fact Islam was conceived of as not just a religion, but an empire with its headquarters in the Middle East. Now we find that nations that are predominantly Muslim--whether in the Middle East or outside it--are among the most repressive of women, the least tolerant of homosexuality, least tolerant of atheism. As a feminist atheist who is pro-gay rights, why then should I be anything but scornful of Islamic culture?

Alan

The Iranian Revolution appealled to popular support through advocacy of human rights and removal of the puppet leader the United States had put in place. After they succeeded in gaining power, the fundamentalist jailed many of the people who supported them and immediately turned against the people. There have not been real elections since because they have no popular support. Again, read the books on that list and you would have a much better idea of how the Iranian Revolution occured. The books I listed are memoirs, but there are many more academic accounts as well.

In consideration of Afghanistan, fear is often the way these revolutions occur, not popular support.

And yes, I agree that horrible things are done in the name of religion and being able to chose to follow religion or not follow religion is essential to human freedom. However, ideas of religiousity do not make one culture better than another. This debate will go on and on, but I really just get an overwhelming sense of arrogance and disconnection from your point of view. Because you have not connected with people within the culture you are criticizing, it is much easier to criticize. People in another culture are are human. Often, they think our culture is crazy and they are not off-base in thinking so. There is no objective measure to "rank" culture as you seem so intent on doing. In addition, "ranking" culture simply alienates those who are not like you and does nothing to further feminism or progress past rituals of FMG and female oppression. From and activist standpoint in the context of making progress, it is self-defeating. I really recommend reading to comments to the original "Islamic Like Me" blog that Ann links to because there are some Muslim comment posters that articulate this rather well.

Hope,

There is a certain amount of logic to what you are saying. But couldn't you apply the same attitude to other groups, like Southern Baptists or other members of the American religious right? I guess ultimately I'm not down with the "catch flies with honey instead of vinegar" way of going about things. And in general, that doesn't seem to be this blog's M.O. either--it's pretty confrontational. So it seems to me we're back to some kind of reflexive white liberal guilt: "people who live in Muslim nations have brownish skin and were the victims of colonialism, so we shouldn't criticise them." But white male American Christian fundamentalists are not the only bad people in the world!

-Alan

I have muslim friends who are covered and prefer it that way.

And I think it's interesting that only a hundred years or more ago did women of respectible society have to ware full length dresses, gloves, vails....

I have my own moral choices of waring long skirts and not showing my legs and so on in public. Why I have not gone so far to ware a vail I have considered it at points because I find the long skirts and kind of clothing I ware more of a protector than a forced thing. Not Every woman is comfortable dressing in short skirts or tight pant's or the things we obviously see on tv and so on so forth. I'm not being forced to ware my skin covering garments anyless than Britney Speares is forced to go without them on a regular basis.

Dressing up like someone for a day isn't going to do anything for you because your still going into it with your idea's of who thease people are and why they ware what they ware.

as my Muslim friend said as we spoke about or choices of dress, laughingly "i'd never be caught out in the street without covering up" I laughed and said the same thing. I wouldn't either. We prefer it that way.

White Baptists aren't all bad either. They do teach things like not to lie, steal, cheat on your husband, etc. Like I said before, every culture and religion has it's negative and positive aspects. I am simply saying that criticizing an entire culture will get you nowhere. Making grand assumptions about a culture you don't know or have never experienced will also get you nowhere. I convinced my white, Christian, religious right mother that banning gay marriage was bad not by telling her that her entire religion/culture was bad, but by appealling to her sense of equality and compassion which are supposed to be part of her religion/culture. Of course White Christian Fundamentalist males are not the only bad people (and not all of them are bad). There are "bad" people in every culture/religion. White guilt...no. Criticing/ranking entire cultures...not good. Finding where cultures overlap and appreciating differences in order to create change...yes. Muslim women don't want to be forced to do/ not do things any more than we want them to. However, telling them their entire culture is less than that of Western Europeans will not help promote rights in the least and will make those Muslim women reject everything you say, even if you think you are saying it to help. Telling them you support their fight for the right to wear/not wear what they want, vote, go out without a male escort, etc, is something different entirely. There are times when being confrontational is necessary, but there is a difference between "ranking" culture and being confrontational. It isn't white guilt, it is empathy. Do you think you would listen to someone who told you your culture was lesser and that you needed to catch up? It would be difficult to be anything but defensive. With this understanding, feminists can work within the cultures to create change, not confront them with the assumption that one culture is better than another. We should be confronting the laws that limit them, not the history and culture that make up their identity.

I am stopping now. I think we have killed this topic all together, and I am guilty of not being able to stop so I have set a limit for myself here. I do appreciate the debate with someone who makes good points and presents a good challenge and would welcome a final rebuttal if you have something else to say.

Hope,

I too enjoyed debating this with you. You make some great points; really, it comes down to the larger question, which applies to almost any contentious issue, of whether to engage it in a confrontational or non-confrontational manner.

For instance, I used to be a regular on the Babycenter "breast vs. bottle" debate board (until I was banned). Aside from debating the issue itself, I would often find myself being chided by others on the pro-breastfeeding side of the issue (the same side I was on, just to be clear) who would say that my aggressive "lawyerly" approach would not change any minds and would just harden attitudes. I think there may be some truth to this (Dale Carnegie makes similar points in his famous book). OTOH, I think of how the confrontational approach has had its successes: movements for civil rights (including the right to vote for women: the "suffragettes" chained themselves to the White House gates and so on), the isolating of South Africa internationally, the gay rights movement post-Stonewall (though some argue that it is too confrontational for its own good, so maybe that is not an unequivocal success).

Perhaps both types of people are needed: people like me to put pressure on, and people like you to reach out and bridge the gulf between cultures? That seems like a nice way to end this, especially early on Christmas day (I'm not religious, but culturally I enjoy a secular version of "Christmas spirit"). :)

So...Merry Christmas!

Alan