The French government really needs to stop dressing up their Islamophobia as "concern" for Muslim women. Believe it or not, mes amis, some Muslim women really do choose to wear a burqa or niqab, and it's none of your damned business, comprenez?

I'm in Florida, and it was 94 degrees today. If someone had walked by me on the street wearing a burqa, I would definitely be concerned. Does that make me Islamaphobic?

In Montreal, I've seen a man leading a woman in a burqa on a leash. It offends my sensibilities. If I'm in favor of outlawing such practices in the streets of my city, am I Islamaphobic, too? I would never go to a Muslim country that frowns upon it and walk around in a mini-skirt and a huge cleavage out of respect for people's feelings. Why shouldn't my sensibilities be respected at least in some places?

Also, the way the French government is talking is very broad and totalitarian/1984/ Brave New Worldish.
They are thinking about banning all long gowns and outfits that completely cover a woman? WTH? That is just scary. In other words women should be told how to dress by the government and the government has the right to dictate to women that they show a certain amount of skin and/or reveal their shape. That is BS.

In many European countries the Burka is already banned because you must be recognizable in public.

You know, there is plenty of room for debate about the role the burqa and other Islamic practices have in the oppression of female practitioners. Let me make it clear, I hardly see the burqa as a shining of beacon of women's freedom.

However, the idea of "liberating" women by legally denying them the right to something they likely see as an important religious observance in a country where they do so by choice is completely backwards. Particularly when that country has very serious problems with xenophobia and racism towards Muslim immigrants. Threatening religious practices has a tendency to create a backlash which results in even more strict, orthodox forms.

If the concern is that some women within Islamic enclaves don't really have a choice because of pressure from the community and family, then why not use the resources that will go towards pushing and enforcing this ban to form organizations that can help women who want out. And really, if the community or men in the family are exerting that sort of control on the women then there are a lot of other concerns that need to be addressed long before attire. In fact, in extreme cases where a woman is experiencing that kind of pressure, banning the burqa could severely limit what freedoms she has.

I'm actually a little bothered by Senator Boxer's comment. I don't think she handled herself very well. On the other hand, I feel as if the General handled himself very well and did a good job of being respectful.

My whole opinion would have been different if she had said "General, could you please call me Senator..." Then, I would take no issue at all with it. She has every right to be asked to be called Senator, but she could show the same respect back to General Walsh. I don't know how difficult it is to get to be a Senator, but I know it's no cakewalk getting to be a General either.

Also, in the army you are trained to call everyone Ma'am and Sir, right up to the President of the United States. He certainly meant no disrespect to her, though she seemed to be quite disrespectful to him.

I think she owes General Walsh an apology.

I didn't think the article about pregnancy past age 35 was at all offensive or un-feminist. Within the context of the piece, the comment on an "epidemic of pregnancy" in that age group of women was a perfectly sensible remark. The focus of the article was on the ways in which the health of both the woman and the baby can be harmed when "older" women give birth. This is, quite simply, a true scientific statement. It is NOT an anti-woman statement by any means. The article argues that the ideal childbearing age is between 20 and 35. Yes, this may not fit into the aspiring professional woman's perfect vision of success, but it is a biological fact. The doctors quoted in the article make perfectly clear that they do not want to hinder a woman's choice to bear children at whatever age she choses. They simply want to let women know that they and their baby have a much lower risk of complications when they give birth in that 20-35 age range.

I truly don't mean any offense by this, but one thing that really frustrates me in the feminist community (of which I am a proud member myself), is when certain facts get distorted to be seen as anti-feminist, when in reality they are just that: facts. This "childbearing age" is one prime example of it. The other big example is when feminists argue against the anti-choice claim that women who have abortions become depressed and regret their decision. Obviously not all women who have an abortion will suffer from depression as a result, but it cannot be denied that some women will indeed be depressed after terminating a pregnancy. Of course, this is not a reason to dissuade women from choosing an abortion. But, it is a reason to fight for more pro-woman policies and laws that help women afford post-abortion counseling if necessary.

And in relation to this UK article on childbearing age, it would be anti-feminist to force or try to persuade women to have children before 35. However, it is very pro-feminism/pro-woman to give women the facts about the risks of bearing children when they are older than 35. This is providing them with some important health information, that has been largely ignored in our society. If more women knew about the risks of later-age childbearing, more women would be having children earlier. This does not mean that they would have to sacrifice their career to do so. Therefore, I think the feminist community loses a lot of credibility when it tries to make arguments against certain biological, women's health, or mental health issues. It goes against the very meaning of feminism.

Sorry if this post was long and rambling, but I hope you will understand the point I'm trying to make. Just to make very clear, I am a proud feminist, always have been, always will be. But facts are facts. And when it comes to women's health, the facts should not be ignored or misconstrued.

Some men use intimidation and fear to force their wives under the burqa.

Not all middle eastern women - even living in the West - are still not severely oppressed in the home and afraid of their husbands of fathers.

I hope they ban it. It is meant to be nothing but a marker of their virtue and, therefore, their worth. The reason behind the burqa is only by extension "religious" - Islam defines the value of women in terms of how many of them "equal" men in judicial affairs, inheritance affairs, etc. The burqa is meant to to externalize that "value".

I no I've made several posts but it really ticks me off how "concern" for women is used as a reason to actually make the lives of women worse and take aware our freedoms.
People actually concerned about women who argue for these bans seem to only want to sweep something they see as a problem under the rug. How can anyone actually think this helps anyone? Seriously? Not to mention the assumptions inherient in the argument.
There are ways to actually help women who may be in an abusive situation, but banning an article of clothing is most certainly not a way to do so. This is disgusting. Some people want to be able to ignore a problem they think of when seeing a particualr article of clothing regardless of the actual affectiveness.
I am seriously disgusted that some people think taking away freedom and bodily autonomy helps anyone or that not having their sensebilities offended is reason enough to control the body of others.

You also forgot Juneteenth.

Which, to be fair, I did too. But I thought I should mention it.

On a lighter note, I noticed you said the bowlers were "Chicago state champions," so I clicked over to see whether they were champions of the Chicago city-wide or Illinois state variety. I found that they won the Michigan state championship.

The Backlash is in full swing. The major problem is the internet. Anti semitic sites can be censored, the same is not true for anti feminist sites. The way feminism is portrayed in the mass media you would not think it, but just try to go out on campus and tell a guy you are a feminist, then see his expression of disgust.

More and more people are being shaped by the internet rather than the mass media. It is the internets fault that feminism has become a pfui word. If we do not control the internet, the anti feminism might spill over into the mass media and if it does and if it becomes "cool", it could become something politicians will pander to.

So what can be done to get a better grip on the internet ?

Then why don't we just ban marriage between Muslims? Or prevent Muslim fathers from seeing their daughters? Wouldn't that get right to the root of the issue? You know, those horrible horrible backward Muslims?

They're not backwards and horrible. Forced marriage does indeed exist as well. But this isn't limited to Muslim groups.

Domestic abuse and oppression is a serious fucking issue; banning the burqa will solve it just like banning high heels will cure Western domestic abuse. This unrelenting, unilateral focus on clothing as the primary gender issue facing Muslim women does a grave discredit to the diversity and complexity of their struggles.

No one will kill me if I refuse to wear high heels, and it doesn't make me hide my "shameful" body because I am worth less than a male.

While we're at it, let's ban corsets, white wedding dresses, nun habits, and any women's clothes that indirectly or directly promulgate the valuation of their sexuality - you know, all of them. Let's create a feminist police force and patrol the streets, forcing women who wear clothes we disapprove of to slap on a "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" t-shirt and bootcut jeans. Can you really not see how forcing women to lose their burqas for "feminist reasons" is no different from forcing homemakers to be career women for "feminist reasons"? If you think the choice to wear a burqa is a poor one, that's great - don't wear one.

The whole point is that some women do not have the choice, whereas, for every other "example" you gave, women DO have a choice, and no one is threatening to kill me if I refuse to wear a corset or a nun's habit.

Oh my gosh, I can't believe the official spokesperson of Islam is showing up at Feministing!

Well I'm not the official spokesperson but I assume since I am from the region and have learned about it my entire life, I likely know more than you.

Like high heels - restrict your walking. Like sunglasses - restrict your sight when indoors. Like tight fitting shirts - restrict your breathing. And yet we aren't banning those. We aren't even considering it. Why? Because we don't patronize white women for their clothing choices, even if we (i.e., some of us) believe they are tantamount to the manifestation or perpetuation of the patriarchy.

Don't turn this into a race issue, especially since there are white Muslims as well. Again, no one will threaten to kill me if I refuse to wear high heels or call me a "whore" if I DON'T wear high heels or be allowed out of the house UNLESS I wear high heels.

Yes, there are going to some men who approve of the burqa in an oppressive manner and say it is their religious right (as opposed to women who choose to wear it). The burqa, like almost any other garment, is certainly not absent of loaded sociocultural, religious, and political implications. God knows it's a difficult and problematic garment in feminism. But that's not a good or valid reason to ban it.

Spend a day walking with one on, let me know how you feel afterwards.

Yeah! And if there is a single woman forced to have an abortion against her will, that one woman is worth the rest of them having abortions outlawed. And if there is a single woman forced to marry against her will, that one woman is worth the rest of them having marriage outlawed. And if there is a single woman forced to have sex against her will, that one woman is worth the rest of them having sex outlawed. God damn it, when will these PC pansies realize that THE CHANCE THAT SOMEONE'S RIGHTS COULD BE VIOLATED MEANS NO ONE SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS AT ALL?!!

Straw man argument. First of all, the issue of "forcing" any other human being to do anything against their will is a human rights violation, forcing an abortion (like they used to do in China) or forced to wear a burqa is no different.

But this is not a black and white issue, you cannot compare it so smoothly to another thing like abortion: a burqa is deemed necessary for Muslim women because women, by definition, to those who enforce it, are "sinful" and "dirty." have you ever asked a Muslim man who agrees with its use WHY women wear it? They will tell you it is because women are "so beautiful, they tempt men, and men are so much weaker than women that you must cover yourselves to keep us from being tempted." How's that for sugar-coating the idea that women are the cause of men's lust which, rather than having them control it, women should just cover themselves?

This is the ultimate reason behind the Burqa, even the idea of "female humility" before "Allah" leads back to that idea: that we have something inherently in us that we need to be "humble" about, specifically, our entire bodies from head to toe, including our faces. It is oppression hiding behind a veil of religiosity (no pun intended), and since it is FORCED upon women (who may not even admit it to you for fear of their lives), then it should be removed from everyone. One cannot simply escape poverty and oppression from their home countries and then come to the west to continue to oppress half their population under OUR watch - it is a disservice to those women, regardless of your feigned "cultural sensitivities".

It is also meant to differentiate Muslim women from other women - and if a Muslim man sees you, without a burqa, walking down the street alone, he will leave you be. If he sees a woman in a burqa on the street walking alone, guess what - he has the "right" to harass her, beat her, even rape her, because she has the "marker" that she is Muslim and yet is walked unattended, and therefore, a whore.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting the Burqa to be a "choice" for women to wear because banning it leads to a "slippery slope" of state censorship on things like dress. Up until the latest Turkish administration, the Burqa (and even hijab) was banned by the Turkish government (a Muslim country, of course), because they recognized the inherent oppressiveness and segregation and inequality it led to for women in their own society.

This administration, elected a few years ago, campaign against the ban, citing it as "undemocratic" to "now allow" women to wear the burqa/hijab if they "freely chose to". What happened, then, was the reversal of the ban, and the President's wife even wear a hijab (something unheard of in Turkey for nearly the last century of its official existence).

And now, some women are being forced back under it, since the law allows, and they have little say. Keep in mind - for the last 90 years, there were no problems with women leaving the home, working, studying, wearing what they liked: the government has given renewed reason for men to push women back into second class citizenry.

In the UK, they have recently allowed sharia law to exist for Muslims - a parallel "justice system" for Muslims only in issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. If anyone knows ANYTHING about sharia law, then you would know that women have absolutely NO rights or value in these issues, and Sharia gives all power to the men, the husbands, and the fathers. They did this out of "cultural sensitivity" to the Muslim population, when in fact all it did was strip a Muslim woman's DEMOCRATIC rights away in a supposed DEMOCRATIC country.

Our naive "cultural sensitivities" actually bolstered women's oppression.

Maybe some of you can live with that. But I, for one, cannot.

No one will kill me if I refuse to wear high heels, and it doesn't make me hide my "shameful" body because I am worth less than a male.

First, if you think wearing a burqa paints a murder target on you, I'd assume you'd want legislation for them, not against them.

Secondly, I don't know what feminist paradise you live in where women's bodies - of all races, ethnicities, and faiths - don't get shamed and aren't valued lower than males, but I'd sure like to move there! (My point being that these issues exist irrespective of whether the burqa is part of one's culture or not, but we aren't threatening to ban anyone else's clothes.)

The whole point is that some women do not have the choice, whereas, for every other "example" you gave, women DO have a choice

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that if some women do not have the choice to do something, it's preferable to outlaw the "something" instead of the force. Analogously, many women are forced to have sex, but we understand that outlawing sex is foolish - outlawing the force applied to sex is intelligent.

Spend a day walking with one on, let me know how you feel afterwards.

Again, that's not a valid reason to ban something.

It is oppression hiding behind a veil of religiosity (no pun intended), and since it is FORCED upon women (who may not even admit it to you for fear of their lives), then it should be removed from everyone.

See? There's the major difference of opinion here. You do not believe women would choose to wear a burqa unless they were forced to. Additionally, you seemingly believe that banning the burqa will fix the issue of patriarchy in Muslim cultures. I disagree on both counts.

it is a disservice to those women, regardless of your feigned "cultural sensitivities".

This isn't about "cultural sensitivity". It's about legislating what women are allowed to wear: I'm against that.

If he sees a woman in a burqa on the street walking alone, guess what - he has the "right" to harass her, beat her, even rape her, because she has the "marker" that she is Muslim and yet is walked unattended, and therefore, a whore.

Have you considered that such a man's attitudes toward women might need more renovation than her wardrobe? It's like banning miniskirts because many men believe that a woman wearing one is "asking" to be raped, or banning any modest clothing because some men require their wives to wear it. You write as though the burqa is the source of oppression. What marvelous outcome would you expect if it were banned?

For women actually interested in helping Muslim women keep things like Sharia law in Europe from enslaving them, see here:

http://onelawforall.org.uk/

A groups started by Muslim men and women in the UK against Sharia.

Oh Mike Huckabee, you’re just the greatest…whatever. I love how zygotes get to be full human beings with equal rights and all, but gay people can’t have them? You make no sense.

The French burqa story is interesting to me because of how much it really reflects the different ways in which countries deal with religious expression.

I think one of the big things to remember is that France is all about secularism because it's a central tenant in "freedom" for the French. Any symbol of religion worn in public represents a lack of ability to decide for oneself over religious dogma. It's also a threat to the homogeneous French culture that is the goal of French society, even if not really expressed.

Personally, I feel a woman should be able to or not to wear a burqa. It's an expression of her religious beliefs, which is something I think people often overlook. Outside of the Arab World (and even inside the Arab world in some places), women are not required to wear a full burqa, or even a niqab, so long as they keep their hair covered for modesty. A woman can choose to wear those garments in most cases.

I think something to really take into consideration is that these articles are actually meant, in religious law, to help protect women from the unwanted advances of men. Much of Islamic law is set up that way -- with a distrust of the hormones/dispositions of men to protect women. While there are sexist implications on that, I think it's an important detail because it's seen as so repressive when the original intention of the garment was to protect women from men and a perceived Rape Culture within their society. Has this reasoning stuck entirely? Yes and no. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't acknowledge the whole of the intention of the garment.

They're also designed to help keep people cool and protected in the desert sun and wind -- which is why there's debate in the Islamic community as to whether the garments are necessary outside of the traditional Arab World (my geography professor - a Jordanian and Muslim - told us about that in class). The discussion is ongoing, obviously, but it's something also to note.

Gular,

the actual Burqa was created in Iran, as a means of status by upper-class women. Unfortunately, I don't have a link handy on me right now.

" Secondly, I don't know what feminist paradise you live in where women's bodies - of all races, ethnicities, and faiths - don't get shamed and aren't valued lower than males, but I'd sure like to move there! (My point being that these issues exist irrespective of whether the burqa is part of one's culture or not, but we aren't threatening to ban anyone else's clothes.)"

Ghostchild, I technically agree with what you're saying, but in some cases, obviously, it's worse than in others. In Sweden and Holland, for instance, there is a problem with rape and harrassment. In places like Sweden, it is a huge problem, actually. If women aren't wearing the hijab, many are actually under the threat of rape. No wonder there is such backlash towards Muslims.

RE: the 'great-grandmothers' post... WTF is with constantly defining women by their marriage/procreation status? So if these women were single, the headline would refer to 'unmarried old spinsters'?!

The idea that any garment is needed to 'protect' women from male intention/advances is offensive to both sexes. If Islamic laws are really on the side of women, then why do certain Islamic countries value a woman's testimony as worth only half that of a man's in court, or only agree to examine rape cases if the woman can provide four witnesses? I can't say I've heard many Islamic figureheads coming out in defence of rape victims, but I have heard a prominent cleric comparing uncovered women to raw meat left uncovered, the implication being, whatever they 'attract' is their own fault.
Anything that sends out the message that the male sexual urge is uncontrollable and that the female body is the cause of overwhelming 'temptation' that needs to be covered, is an extremely negative influence. That's my main problem with the burqa. Neverthless, I accept I don't have the right to ban it just because it bothers me.

>>>>They're also designed to help keep people cool and protected in the desert sun and wind --

Um, perhaps. But then why are they usually black, a colour that absorbs heat rather than reflecting it? Men in traditional Islamic dress are usually in white tunics, why is the same courtesy not extended to women?
Disliking the burqa is not the same as disliking Islam. There is nothing in the Qu'ran that demands women wear head-to-toe black cloaks with only slits for the eyes. The Qu'ran merely says that both sexes should dress modestly. Interesting how this has been 'interpreted' with a sole focus on female dress, by those with certain agendas.
I don't like what the burqa represents, and I don't like seeing women in it. However, I accept that banning it is impossible in any country that claims to allow freedom of expression/belief/dress. I also agree that it wouldn't solve any of the underlying problems in cultures where women may be at greater risk of abuse.

why is this so hard?

burqa, bikini, whatever, let women wear what they want. period.

there's no need to legislate women's clothing no matter how you feel about what she wears.