The first reading I did for today was Whose Security? and I would just like to point something out. The thing that struck me most was how the US government (let's be honest, it wasn't solely Bush) used Afghan women's rights as a means to gain support for our involvement in the Middle East. I knew that this was a big part of the war, but I had not previously thought about how there was a huge difference in our country's opinion regarding women here and women abroad. Many people jumped on the bandwagon and wanted to give Afghan women more rights. I hear things like "women shouldn't be controlled" and "women should have the same rights as men" when people talk about Afghan women. But what they don't realize is that they are arguing for equality for women abroad, while the women in the US are still not equal to men. Although this point is a bit of a departure from the article, it makes sense in terms of how women have little impact on global issues.
Now, I'd like to discuss Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? I got the sense that Abu-Lughod was arguing that the US was essentially treating the Middle East as though we are trying to colonize the area. She attributed the typical "we're more civilized and these people need help, so we'll show them the way, but, in fact, this is for our own benefit" colonizer attitude and mentality to the US. And in a way, yes, this could possibly be true of the US. We do think that we need to show Muslims how to treat women. But I don't think this attitude is bad. I understand Cultural Relativism. I understand how things are normal and accepted elsewhere that can be outrageously stigmatized here. However, I felt that Abu-Lughod was arguing that Muslim women are happy with their current situation. Specifically, I would like to discuss the veil.
Abu-Lughod talks about how women, if they did not have to wear the veil, would likely wear the veil anyway. She said that the burqa was a symbol of modesty and respectability. In whose eyes? Men's. Abu-Lughod asks why women would take off their burqa, remove their symbol of respectability, and allow themselves to be harassed by men. This is my issue with her point of view. She is thinking that women must act in a way that always considers men and puts men first. When I read this, I thought of two things: 1) that the veil is not and should not be the only way a women is respectable, and 2) maybe the men need to tone it down on the objectification of women!! It grosses me out that men have to cover a woman's body completely in order to keep themselves from thinking of her in a sexual way. Seriously, ew.
Furthermore, Abu-Lughod talks about how there is a "fashion tyranny" and that that's the reason why we think veils are wrong. But the burqa is not a fashion statement. Yes, women might wear the veil even if it was not required. But is it because they truly want to? I think not. I think they would wear the veil because they are conditioned to do so. To compare, think about if football was suddenly open to women. I do not think that tons of women would be lining up to play. This is not because they have no interest in football, because I know tons of women who love the sport. Rather, it is because of how we have been conditioned. It is not normal for a girl to be aggressive. It is not normal for a girl to tackle people and to be tackled. It is not normal for a girl to be covered in dirt and sweat. So, if Muslim women were not required to wear the burqa, they would probably still wear it because it is not normal for women to show skin.
In my current French seminar, we have been reading about Muslim women. In one of the books, the veil was an ongoing symbol of oppression. It rendered women silent. It took all power from their voices. It made all women the same - an object. This book was written by a Muslim woman, and it included accounts from other Muslim women. I do not know if these women would all abandon the veil if given the option, but it is clear that they do not like the idea of the veil.
No comments:
Post a Comment