I also enjoyed the video, but I think it is scripted. It appeared to be an educational video made by students at a university who are "short on money but big on a dream."(Which puts just a tiny damper on it because it would've been lovely if that one woman really responded "what kind of a question is this?" when asked where in the Qu'ran the exact verse is for the hijab). Anywho I loved that it was done by students and that their message showed strong women who chose to wear the hijab on their own accord (even the girl who always responded with the statements about the fashion of the hijab).

http://www.iluvislam.com/v1/news.php thats the website thats promoted at the end of the video if anyone wants more info.

A thought-provoking video. I think it's great that the women shown are wearing the hijab for personal, religious reasons and not outwardly to conform to societal pressures. But while I have absolutely no problem about their views of modesty or covering their hair, I do wonder about the effects covering the face has on the dynamic of Moslem society. To me, a person with their face covered becomes almost a non-human, completely cut-off and unrelatable. While I definately respect the strong religious values some of these women have, the idea that a woman's face- her humanity- is innapropiate (which is not in the Quran) seems eerily misogynistic and makes me wonder about the way men in those societies percieve women.

That quote didn't say anything about covering the hair and part of the face. It said the veil must be worn over the bosom. Hell, it's unlawful to uncover our bosoms in this country, too, at least in most parts. I am assuming the end of that quote means she is not allowed to stomp her feet for fear her bosoms will shake under the veil and attention will be drawn to them.

The shame of sex. If a woman is free with her sexuality, no one can be sure whose baby it is. If they don't know, they can't enforce patrilinial passing of goods through generations. That's why it was necessary for a virgin to marry her rapist, because they would at least know who the father was. It's built into the patriarchal system. To me, it's ridiculous for any of those women to act like she is a rebel for wearing the hijab. I don't believe there is a god in the equation; there are just men (owners, handlers) to please.

manifestadestiny, I don't think it's "ridiculous" for women to choose how they practice religion. I do, however, think it's ridiculous for us to assume what other women's choices mean.

manifestadestiny, the part of the Qu'ran quote that refers to women not stomping their feet to draw attention to their "ornaments" is a reference to the practice of women wearing jewelry (with bells?) on their feet. By stomping their feet, they make the jewelry jingle, thereby drawing attention to it. (IIRC, that is.)

My takeaway from all this is that talking about Islam and veiling is talking about, what, six hundred million different women, from Jakarta to Khartoum to Dearborn or Jackson Heights? We're talking about millions of different women, in different cultures, dealing with a broad array of social pressures that intersect.

A woman who is the only Muslim in her high school, in a Christian country, whose parents are not particularly observant, has one set of facts to deal with. A Pashtun woman in Qum, surrounded by other veiled women and maybe facing violence even for showing her face, is living with a completely different set of facts.

Making grand pronouncements at the theoretical level is sort of cheap in light of those vast differences: making the connection from the theoretical to practical discussion of the lives of such a diverse group of women requires more than easy answers. A third-generation American women of Pakistani descent in Jackson Heights might wear the Hijab to stand up for her culture and religion in an Islamophobic society; telling her that she's giving in to the oppression of women by doing so seems damn close to a non-sequitur; at very best it is asking her to choose one set of oppressions over another, as though they are or ought to be separable. OTOH, trying to get women in rural Central or South Asia to take their veils off is a totally ineffective way to make change and will only convince men and women in those societies alike that feminism is a Western attack on their culture.

Real change starts with an understanding of the facts on the ground, and those are different for different people in different places.

That's what I got from it.

And if footbinding, or other more obvious forms of female oppression, was part of a woman's religious beliefs, would we be having a debate on whether she thinks her feet are sexy or not?

Whether scripted or not, it felt pretty honest and appeared to cover the range of perspectives of why a woman would wear the hijab. It was also educational for a westerner like me :)

I liked how the fashion-obsessed one has pretty much turned the whole point of a hijab on its head -- instead of covering her up so she won't get attention, she's using it as a central part of her ensemble to get MORE attention.

I've worn headscarves (not covering the neck though) on occasion, a few times even for religious reasons (usually Judaism, and once going to a very conservative Catholic church for a friend's wedding). I didn't feel particularly stifled underneath, nor freed when I took it off. I've frankly never cared much how I looked. I would probably relish wearing a hijab everyday just so I didn't have to worry about my hair :P

“A Pashtun woman in Qum, surrounded by other veiled women and maybe facing violence even for showing her face, is living with a completely different set of facts.�

Thomas, I agree with your point and I don’t want to nitpick , however (I am going to ), I think you meant to write Qom, which is in Iran, not Afghanistan, and a Pashtun woman would not be living there, and though it is quite a conservative city, a woman would not face violence for showing her face.

feminism is a Western attack on their culture.

Well, it is. Feminism is a direct outgrowth of western liberal enlightenment traditions about individual autonomy. As such it's in conflict with cultures or parts of cultures that mandate the oppression of women. This includes a lot of vestiges even in the modern West.

Now, not all Muslim influenced cultures can be so easily shoved under this description, but many are transparently so. We can talk about how to sugar-coat it to get real reform accepted, but the only way in which it wouldn't be an attack on their culture would be if their culture were already feminist.

I don't claim to speak for anyone else, which is why I said, "to me." I am a radical feminist when it comes to religion. Ridiculous was a strong word; I would amend to state that to me, patriarchal religions and their rules for women are topics worthy of feminist criticism. Respecting women's rights to believe what they want to believe would mean that we would have no interest in awaking them to the possibilities of freed minds, or making them more aware of the possibilities of the world outside of an arrangement that is restrictive. I'm frustrated by the fact that feminism is so slow to spread, which explains my wording.

I do, however, think it's ridiculous for us to assume what other women's choices mean.

What are you saying when you say that? I could assume that you are telling me that I am assuming what other women's choices mean, but then I would be assuming, and I don't want you to think I am ridiculous. But then, if you already think I am ridiculous, then I wouldn't be risking much.

SoM--I wonder why they would wear jewelry in public. Just walking makes ankle jewelry make noise. Can't win for losing.

There are plenty of testaments from Mormon women showing how wonderful Mormon style polygamy is for women. I even met one of them on a trip to Salt Lake City. There are videos from conservative Christian women telling how wonderful submitting to their husbands is. If this is compelling, then you're easily compelled.

"Respecting women's rights to believe what they want to believe would mean that we would have no interest in awaking them to the possibilities of freed minds..."

Really? I think it would mean the opposite. It's a tricky balance, because on one hand you have a woman who (by a Western feminist perception) might be brainwashed into oppressive beliefs, but on the other hand, going up to the woman wearing the hijab or walking behind her husband or who is the third wife and saying, "Oh, honey, you only believe that because you've been told to. You're not really thinking for yourself," is just as patronizing. Feminism is something that a woman has to realize--forcing it on her is as bad as forced baptism--and therefore feminism is going to look different in every woman, religious or otherwise.

Thanks for the correction Sojourner, I feel a little silly. I was grasping for a conservative southern Afghani city, and I was trying to think of Quandahar (to Americans, more often Kandahar), which I think is both majority-Pashtun and a place where uncovered women are physically endangered, but I transposed it with Q'um (of Kom or Qom; spelling is often a matter of some dispute when translating from a different alphabet and I don't know Farsi, so I can't express a meaningful opinion). Because, um, I messed up.

To manifestdestiny:

There are NO completely free societies in the world. There are always rules to follow. However, some societies are less restrictive than others. In the US women and men are free to choose occupations, lifestyles, and relationships. Having the US and some European countries on one end of the spectrum, you can see that things slide toward more rescrictions as you consider other nations. It goes all the way to the government telling you how many children you can have (China) to Mid East countries where women can't attend school or drive. Nothing can be done about this either, since these countries are sovereign and don't want interference from the west. Countries may come and go, but there is a certain dynamic they (may) follow. Here is one common dynamic: the society becomes wealthier, many prosper, women attain parity with men and delay marriage/childbirth, many minorities enjoy freedom to live how they want, and everyone overall enjoys a relative high amount of human rights. There is no rush to have kids, since we tend to live longer and we have more affluence (therefore we don't need many children to help out with manual labor on the farm) our national/societal birthrate declines. Eventually the affluent, liberal society is outmanned by the poorer, more restrictive society which produces many more children because of necessity. As we see in Europe, the affluent society is being displaced by the poorer, more conservative, and procreationally more active and robust one. So yes, the human species won't die out, but the non restrictive, freedom loving society will die out.

If you are interested, I recently read an amazing journal article on this topic for my grad school program. "Redefining Hijab: American Muslim Women's
Standpoints on Veiling" by
Rachel Anderson Droogsma. It directly relates to this topic, and tells the story from the Muslim American woman's standpoint. I *highly* recommend it, and would be happy to send you the PDF, if you'd like!!

Oh, another thing some societies are doing: places like China and Japan, where there are NO blond hair/blued eyed people but there is an amazing amount of bio conformity, these countries limit immigration and limit how many outsiders (ie people who aren't like them) live there.

Maggie, I don't know where I would be without the books I've read on feminist philosophy. My eyes have been opened so many times that I have felt actual shifts in my consciousness, shifts that I was so thankful for. Shifts I had to put down the book to experience fully; I felt myself getting free of so much nonsense that I had accepted as a given! That has been a great source of joy for me. If no one had written those words and just expected me to realize things for myself, I don't know where I would be right now--probably accepting all the abuse my ex-boyfriend handed me.

A woman was in line behind me with her boyfriend at the caucus a few weeks ago, and he kept saying, "Are you happy now? I suppose you think you're smart now cuz you're voting." He went on and on like this until she begged him to stop being unkind to her. I didn't say anything to him or to her, but I really wanted to. I restrained myself, but I said to my husband, "I'm glad you're not an asshole" just loud enough for him to hear.

I want for other women the freedom that I have. I want to be freer than I am.

I'm pretty sure Islam is a patriarchal religion, a belief system that is structured so that men are highest on the hierarchical structure. Can we agree on that?

Wow. Did I actually see the word "gaze" in that religious text? As in the male gaze? Sh*t. And all along the misogynists claimed that we feminists came up with that concept.

I'm not going to fault a woman's choice for survival. But forgive me if I can't look past the obvious.

The fact that it lists a "cast" makes me think it's scripted. Usually documentaries will list participants differently.

I'm still waiting for the video to load (slow connection) but just to note to Liza: many Malaysians have English as a second language, and since they would be more familiar with films than with documentaries, they'd use "cast" as a catchall word for "people in my film".

In Malaysia, the tudung (hijab) has become a fashion statement. There are whole boutiques and fashion industries dedicated to making your tudung stylish. You'd hardly see a burqa here.

(Hey, it's MMU! Multimedia University! I used to live right next door to them. It's likely a uni assignment, so somewhat scripted, but the text would have come from actual interviews.)

I'm still waiting for the video to load (slow connection) but just to note to Liza: many Malaysians have English as a second language, and since they would be more familiar with films than with documentaries, they'd use "cast" as a catchall word for "people in my film".

In Malaysia, the tudung (hijab) has become a fashion statement. There are whole boutiques and fashion industries dedicated to making your tudung stylish. You'd hardly see a burqa here.

(Hey, it's MMU! Multimedia University! I used to live right next door to them. It's likely a uni assignment, but it doesn't seem too scripted. They probably did interviews with their subjects first, then filmed them - maybe doing it Vagina Monologues style where someone else is reading out the responses.)

“If this is compelling, then you're easily compelled.�

Right.

It's odd that feminists who spend a considerable amount of time trying to convince women of their own culture that they are oppressed against protestations to the contrary are so easily swayed by women of other cultures making the same counter-claim.

It is an essential component of feminist theory that women are co-opted into supporting their own oppression. A great many women support FGM; no doubt women were among the strongest voices against reform of foot binding and suttee.

To test the reasonableness and consistency of your own acceptance of hijab, imagine if the religious/cultural belief and custom was the same, except applied to an ethnicity (ubiquitously distributed througout Islamic societies) rather than sex. Imagine that these dress codes for this minority were accompanied by a great many other laws and customs which make it clear that this ethnicity are second-class citizens (in the more progressive countries) all the way to effective slaves (in the least progressive countries).

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone would be arguing about the acceptability of hijab in that case; it would be self-evident that it is functionally a very important part of this systematic oppression.

Just as are some culturally mandatory appearance/dress codes for women in the US today—such as enforcement of "modesty" with regard to breasts, heeled shoes, makeup, shaving of underarms and legs, and others.

Regulation of womens' dress, appearance, and modesty rules are all means with which to sexually objectify women. They make it clear that women are primarily, perhaps nearly exclusively, objects which are to be understood, coveted, feared, and despised because of their value as objects which fulfill male sexual desire.

Unlike North American and European dress/appearance conventions for women, hijab in Islam is extensively codified in law and its rationale explained at length. And that explanation leaves no doubt that, like western dress/appearance conventions, it's about the sexual objectification of women.

Until the majority of Muslim women truly can make a choice about hijab, emphasizing a few women's choice to embrace it is obscene. It's propaganda.

Keith, taking what you said as true, arguendo, how do you get around that by saying it, Western non-Muslim feminists put non-Western Muslim feminists in an impossible position where they are accused of siding with the Westerners to destroy the culture? Do you expect them to take sides even it if undermines their effectiveness in their own communities, or do you just hand-wave away the problem because it's easier for you if the answers are all easy?

It's odd that feminists who spend a considerable amount of time trying to convince women of their own culture that they are oppressed against protestations to the contrary are so easily swayed by women of other cultures making the same counter-claim.

Exactly. If we accept this at face value than there is no reason not to accept a Mormon woman's arguments for polygamy or wives arguing for submission in Christianity or in Islam taking it further, arguments for 6 yr olds marrying 50 yr old men.

If putting women on par with men destroys their culture, then so be it. I don't think all cultural practices are sacrosanct. Would you argue for preserving FGM because otherwise African tribal culture would be destroyed?

I have a hard time seeing how forcing a woman to wear a hijab is any different from forcing me to wear a shirt. Legally*, I have to cover my chest.

Or, in cases where it's just a matter of social mores, how wearing a hijab differs from wearing a bra. I mean, I don't like bras, but I wear one when I go out in public (I'm too large for it to be not obvious). It's expected of me at a societal level.

It's very likely I'm missing something here. I admit to a lot of ignorance on the topic. If someone would like to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. :)

*Sorta. I'm not sure what my rights are on that one. AFAIK, we can go topless by law, but I'm not sure anyone knows that, and I'm sure someone would call the cops if I challenged it.

Here's the thing. There are times and places where I enjoy covering my hair, dressing modestly, etc. But there are also places where I just want to slip on a tank top and some short shorts and go swimming.

Women who wear the hijab for religious reasons would be horribly discouraged from making that transition by their family. I do feel extremely sorry that they are under PRESSURE to do it, not that they make the CHOICE.

And yes, no matter what these women say about not being oppressed, ONCE they start wearing hijab outside mosque, I think they would be heavily discouraged from removing it. This is at least what I observe from the Muslims in the US.

i DID wear hijab for four years...believe it or not i did it for my own personal reasons that i now realize had little to do with religion.

during those four years, wearing hijab was very empowering for me. as a pakistani teenager growing up in a wisconsin suburb, non-conforming was essential to my feminism.

but when i moved to a big city, i didn't feel the need to wear hijab to rebel against the system anymore...i found new ways to do that! and yes, my parents did pressure me extensively to keep the hijab on...but that had to do more with cultural issues than religious ones.

all in all, its a really complicated issue. i mean, you have issues of immigration, assimilation, patriarchy, feminism, empowerment, personal agency, cultural ideals etc...its never going to be a black and white issue.

and from some of the comments i see here, i fear that some of you are falling into this binary thinking that hijab is either great or really horrible...there IS a gray area. and im living proof of it!

I have a hard time seeing how forcing a woman to wear a hijab is any different from forcing me to wear a shirt. Legally*, I have to cover my chest.

The question is would you be physically punished for not wearing the hijab? Would your male relatives beat you to make you conform? Yes I know you are "forced" to wear a shirt but are you physically harmed when you break the rules? That is the question.

"Thomas, I agree with your point and I don’t want to nitpick , however (I am going to ), I think you meant to write Qom, which is in Iran, not Afghanistan, and a Pashtun woman would not be living there"

Nitpicking the nitpick: Really? I've heard of some Iranians being Afghani, Armenian, Kurdish, etc. too.

"and though it is quite a conservative city, a woman would not face violence for showing her face."

I heard that niqab's alien to Iran - is that true?

"and from some of the comments i see here, i fear that some of you are falling into this binary thinking that hijab is either great or really horrible...there IS a gray area. and im living proof of it!"

Yeah, I try to avoid the binary. To me, forcing people to wear hijab is horrible and hijab itself is mundane - just yet another type of garment.

Manifestadestiny:
"My eyes have been opened so many times that I have felt actual shifts in my consciousness, shifts that I was so thankful for. Shifts I had to put down the book to experience fully; ...If no one had written those words and just expected me to realize things for myself, I don't know where I would be right now"

Absolutely. Perhaps I didn't word my post right... What I was getting at was the "lead a horse to water" argument. Ideally, women should be afforded the opportunity to make decisions, and that means knowing what the available choices are. Ideally, Muslim women should not be required to wear the hijab in order to remain faithful. Ideally, women should not have to be housewives. But sometimes they want to. Just because I chose to go to grad school rather than have children right out of college, I have no right to tell a woman who made a different decision that she just wasn't thinking for herself.

And, yes, I agree that Islam, like any other monotheistic religion, is founded on patriarchal assumptions, but the great thing that I've learned from studying religion is that it changes to adapt to the time and place that it finds itself in, and that change doesn't happen overnight. The fact that some Muslim women can even talk about the hijab as an option is important.

First, this is not a documentary feature. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of film knows that these people rehearsed their lines, and are performing, not speaking candidly. Still, that in and of itself doesn't dismiss what they're saying.

However, take Malaysia and replace it with the United States. Now replace "hijab" with "purity balls". Let's speak out against religious discrimination of women everywhere, not just in our own country. Saying women "choose" the hijab is like saying women "choose" to be housewives in these Muslim countries. When no other options are offered to you it's not a choice, it's an ultimatum. Now, wearing the hijab in Western countries, depending on your culture, is a bit different, and when wearing the hijab is a CHOICE it's perfectly empowering to choose it. However, when people are indoctrinated to believe they're inferior, and that they should feel uncomfortable when their head isn't covered is not choice.

Now I'm going to go laugh at the saving my hymen for Jesus video in the post after this one. Oh delicious irony.

"Feminism is a direct, outgrowth of western liberal enlightenment traditions about individual autonomy. As such it's in conflict with cultures or parts of cultures that mandate the oppression of women."

Aaron Denney-- check out http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/, read about their programs and beliefs, and see what you think.

Their mission statment starts out like this: "Sisters in Islam (SIS) is a group of Muslim women committed to promoting the rights of women within the framework of Islam. Our efforts to promote the rights of Muslim women are based on the principles of equality, justice and freedom enjoined by the Qur’an as made evident during our study of the holy text. ... "

What another hijab post?? Look, whatever these women say, the hijab is prescribed by religion as a unique constraint on women. Were I muslim, I'd have a hell of a problem with my daughter being pressured to wear it.

And yes, some very compelling arguments can be made for how it's voluntary. I even know women who have explicitly disavowed feminism, and babbled on about how their role is to support their husbands, blah, blah. Bully for them, I guess.

Except that I do not believe anyone can naturally grow up to believe they should have fewer freedoms than others.

I don't know if it amounts to fewer freedoms to wear hijab- certainly fewer if it's forced on one, but that's not something Islamically justifiable for an adult. I do wear hijab, and I prefer wearing hijab to being required to change my name, or earn as much money as my husband, some expectations being pressed on me by the non-Muslim side of my family, which aren't expected among Muslims. So it's a bit of a trade off- you select the freedoms that are most dear to you.

“Nitpicking the nitpick: Really? I've heard of some