Thursday, October 26, 2006
I'm fairly hijab-positive, for a couple reasons.
1) I'm so not getting involved in another individual's relationship with God.
Every time I notice the whole hijab debate, I remember my advisor from a summer program I did at a fancyschmancy women's college a few years ago. She was a revert. I've known a fair number of reverts and natural born muslimahs and although most of the natural born muslimahs have not covered their hair in public, all of the reverts I know do. When I asked my advisor why she covered her hair, she said God told her to. Not her husband or father or government - GOD.
What - I'm gonna prevail against GOD? Even if I'm right, how successful am I likely to be? Standing strong and proud and feminist against my advisor's headscarf would, for me, feel disrespectful of the relationship between her and her Creator, disrespectful of her spiritual journey. So, no. Her right to do what she needs to do for her soul trumps my need to be smugly enlightened.
2) Insofar as there's nothing wrong with revealing the human body, neither is there anything wrong with covering it up. And as strongly as I will support anyone's decision to stroll through town wearing nothing but a red ribbon and a smile, I'll just as strongly support a decision to stroll through town wearing everything but the living room drapes. Exposure is okay. Covering up is okay. There are more reasons to reveal or conceal than can be comprehended in my tiny brain, some simply practical, some deeply complicated and personal and political.
but, see, then some asshole has to shoot his mouth off so he looks big in front of his pals.
"I had only intended to protect women's honor, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk," he said.
Al-Hilali made the comments in a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers last month in which he criticized women who "sway suggestively," wear make-up and no hijab or Islamic headscarf, The Australian newspaper reported.
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" he asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
ahem. pardon me while I scrub the bloody shreds of my brain off the walls...
truly, I have no idea how I would feel if I were a cover-er. Insulted? appalled? disappointed?
Maybe it would have no effect on me. Maybe I'd be so into my relationship with God that the sound of mere mortals is as the bleating of sheep. I don't know.
I mean, insofar as I can be from my delightfully cushy armchair-of-privilege, being non-muslim.
But see, the minute someone tells you what to wear or not wear, who ISN'T God, we got all sorts of problems.
I'm not keen on women being shot or jailed or publicly humiliated for not covering, nor am I so happy with women being pressured by other family members to cover.
hijab itself is not fucked up - the forcing to, or not to, is fucked up.
I'm fairly hijab-positive,
I mean, insofar as I can be from my delightfully cushy armchair-of-privilege, being non-muslim
No! No! that's not what I meant! being muslim is not a state of non-privilege! aaah! it is privilege neutral!
do not post undercaffeinated. do not post under-paying-attention-ated. do not post while the phone is ringing.
maybe just do not post. sheesh.
Now. religious fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian or Druid, ten to use strong sorts of comparisons in their preaching. If someone were really listening to this person, they were probably agreeing with what he said. I mean, the only people who truly listen to Pat Robertson are the media (looking for something to jump on) and his followers, who agree with everything he says.
Don't don't worry about it.
Or a Satanist fundamentalist preacher. that'd be one hell of a revival meeting.
(so to speak)
what would he threaten the congregation with? heaven?
Rootie, I'm not sure I say this enough but I really appreciate your perspective and your presence.
And thank YOU...It's nice to be able to say what I think without being hissed at.
>Mar wrote: “Why are we on the brink of WWIII? Western boys want their women on a pole as public property while muslim boys want their women on a pole as private property. The oil is just a means to that end.”>
See, it's not about survival or the entire infrastructure of the economy or anything else; it's about POLE-DANCING.
and, well, i'd comment further, but just marvel at the exquisiteness of it, really.
You don't have an arm chair. So we can all disregard that remark.
How is neighbor ladie?
I'm finding Maggie's judo still facinating.
Oct 26th, 2006 at 8:48 am
“just having some fun”
Not to get too heady about it, but…
Pretty much everything that humans do in the name of “fun” has a winner and a loser attached. It wouldn’t be fun for the winner if there wasn’t a loser.
In sports, for example, we accept that one team is going to lose that day in the name of fun.
Dressing up in exaggerated costumes of the opposite gender might indeed be done for fun, but make no mistake, there’s a winner and a loser in the scheme.
Again, I ask rhetorically: why on earth would anyone need to build a strawfeminist when people are so all-too-willing to make with the self-parody?
the line between vitriol and insanity is indeed fine.
You, Heidi I know for a fact that you don\\\'t even own an armchair, so we can all disregard that remark. I happen to be in school.
au contraire, mon frere - y'all gave me the old recliner that used to be in your living room.
an armchair of admirable cushyness.