Why do women have to wear Burkas?

Mucco

There's a 2006 issue of Women's Studies International Forum which focuses on this

Here's an abstract:
The new burqa in Bangladesh: Empowerment or violation of women's rights?
Santi Rozario
Bangladeshi women are subjected to patriarchal norms that are legitimated by both the cultural and the religious values of the
country. In recent years these patriarchal norms have been challenged by women's increased physical mobility, a consequence of
modernity and globalisation. There has however been a backlash against women's new roles. At the same time, a significant
proportion of the newly mobile women, including university students, is adopting the burqa (veil), a practice associated with
modern Islamist movements and previously almost non-existent in Bangladesh. This article discusses the implications of Islamist
movements and their activities in the country for the rights of Bangladeshi women. The body of the article is concerned mainly
with the impact of Islamist movements on women's daily lives, and includes an analysis of why some women have recently begun
to adopt the burqa and a more Islamic identity.

Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 368–380

Jannah

So it's their choice to wear it, yeah? It's hard to tell- the start of the extract tells of how subjugated they are in a partriarchal society and then it says that they have taken on a more Islamic identity with college going women wearing it

Abed

getz wrote: »

sorry jannah you are correct up to a point-in pakistan, syria,and egypt woman is not allowed allowed to inherit anything --as for other muslim countrys--sura 4'11 the share of a male shall be twice that of a femail

First of all I'm strictly atheist. However. your complete lack of knowledge combined with the overconfident statement strikes me as being maddeningly ridiculous. Secularism in Syria, unlike the strikingly theocratic preamble of Bunreacht na hÉireann, is enshrined constitutionally!

“In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ ...”


Women in Syria do inherit rural property equally as men while they get slightly less in urban property according to Syrian Law. My wife who is born and bred Irish was told by her civilised catholic Irish mum that she is not getting any inheritance at all because the farm and house are going to her male brother, a practice widely accepted in rural Ireland.


By the way I find this whole attitude about women costumes quite irritating and carries a lot of archetypal collective hatred. Read Renaud Gerald's theory on the replacement attitude which is enshrined in western male psyche, and derived from biblical stories, history of the crusades and literary fantasies about the middle east. Probably then you may find answers to why so much is said about Muslim women being victimised ...etc. when it comes to dress code while it is quite accepted when men are dressed in a certain religious or cultural manner such as Sikhs and indeed religious Muslim males and Arabs from the Gulf region!!!

What is more relevant is to see beyond clothing. In Iran, which enforces Islamic dress code, there is a higher percentage of female members of parliament, academia and judiciary than in the United States (source is book written by an American ex chief of CIA "the future of political Islam").


I'm not in a position to defend anyone here. I simply despise ignorance regardless of which side it comes from.

Abed

Woger wrote: »

Don't be so smug, everyone knows that more Westerners emigrate to Iran and Pakistan than the other way around.

Once again naive superiority assumptions alluding that people leave their countries because of their inferior value system and not economy!

Well if this is the case why hundreds of thousands of westerners live and work in the extremely conservative Persian Gulf states? is it to enjoy the liberal values of the notorious Saudi regime!

Pathetic

Sesshoumaru

Some interesting news from France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

I can't say I disagree. I would welcome a similar move by the Irish government.

irishconvert

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Some interesting news from France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm



I can't say I disagree. I would welcome a similar move by the Irish government.

If the women want to wear a burqa, let them wear one, it's none of Sarkozy's business. Incidentally it is interesting that this latest attack on Muslims comes from a zionist who supports the Israeli state and it's occupation of Palestine and who stood by Israel during it's annihilation of Gaza earlier this year.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Some interesting news from France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm



I can't say I disagree. I would welcome a similar move by the Irish government.

How many Women actually wear these things in this country do you think? A 100, or a 1000? Is this even an issue, considering we are talking about a minority within a minority, I find it so very odd that people are making such a big issue out of it.

Also, the logic reminds me of the same logic used by the Taliban, telling Women what they can wear for there own good. It really is no business of the government, what Women choose to wear. If Women are being forced to wear, then toss the men who are making them wear it in jail, which to me is far more sensibly policy.

Also, considering the crap state of the world economy, one would think that politican's would be concentrating on that, rather than Women's clothing.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote: »

How many Women actually wear these things in this country do you think? A 100, or a 1000? Is this even an issue, considering we are talking about a minority within a minority, I find it so very odd that people are making such a big issue out of it.

Also, the logic reminds me of the same logic used by the Taliban, telling Women what they can wear for there own good. It really is no business of the government, what Women choose to wear. If Women are being forced to wear, then toss the men who are making them wear it in jail, which to me is far more sensibly policy.

Also, considering the crap state of the world economy, one would think that politican's would be concentrating on that, rather than Women's clothing.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent. I don't like the government interfering with peoples lives. People should be free to live their lives as they wish, without interfering with other peoples ability to do the same of course.

However I do believe that the majority of women wearing those things are just brainwashed. Just the thought of wearing something like that makes me feel confined and imprisoned. While it would be preferable that we catch the people who subjugate women with these devices, how likely is that? It is imperfect, but I think it is better to legislate against their use. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

Also while the economy is important, we can't lose sight of our values that we as a society share and hold dear.

Sesshoumaru

irishconvert wrote: »

If the women want to wear a burqa, let them wear one, it's none of Sarkozy's business. Incidentally it is interesting that this latest attack on Muslims comes from a zionist who supports the Israeli state and it's occupation of Palestine and who stood by Israel during it's annihilation of Gaza earlier this year.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

Well said! If fully grown women(adults in other words, adults by Western standards) who have received an equal education to their male counterparts in our human race want to completely hide themselves from society, then that is their choice!

However that's not the reality. The reality is that these women are subjugated from a young age and brainwashed into thinking they need to wear these dehumanizing suits. So not really a choice is it?

Anyway how is this an attack on Muslims? The French President specifically said Islam and Muslims must be respected as other religions are. I was under the impression that the isolation suits were a cultural thing? or did Muhammad say young girls and women had to wear those isolation suits?

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I actually agree with you to a certain extent. I don't like the government interfering with peoples lives. People should be free to live their lives as they wish, without interfering with other peoples ability to do the same of course.

However I do believe that the majority of women wearing those things are just brainwashed. Just the thought of wearing something like that makes me feel confined and imprisoned. While it would be preferable that we catch the people who subjugate women with these devices, how likely is that? It is imperfect, but I think it is better to legislate against their use. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

Also while the economy is important, we can't lose sight of our values that we as a society share and hold dear.

I am going to have to disagree, the issue is a very small one, if it is an issue at all. These Women dressing this way isn't really any of our business. Btw, there are some Women would most certainly wear this out of a Religous conviction and are no more brain washed than a Woman who decides to live her life in a convent for example. It seems to be the Burqa is something politicans trot out to distract people from real problems, such as the economy.

I think the solution you present is kind of silly, would you ban car's because a few people use them in crimes for instance? A total ban is a bad law, as it effects everyone, as opposed to the people who are forcing Women to wear the Burqa and they should be the one's targetted as opposed to a silly total ban. Also, since when has something being difficult been a excuse not to do it? Its very hard to crack organized crime, but the police still do it.

As for our value's, I fail to see how what a small minority of Women wear effects them.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree, the issue is a very small one, if it is an issue at all. These Women dressing this way isn't really any of our business. Btw, there are some Women would most certainly wear this out of a Religous conviction and are no more brain washed than a Woman who decides to live her life in a convent for example. It seems to be the Burqa is something politicans trot out to distract people from real problems, such as the economy.

I think the solution you present is kind of silly, would you ban car's because a few people use them in crimes for instance? A total ban is a bad law, as it effects everyone, as opposed to the people who are forcing Women to wear the Burqa and they should be the one's targetted as opposed to a silly total ban. Also, since when has something being difficult been a excuse not to do it? Its very hard to crack organized crime, but the police still do it.

As for our value's, I fail to see how what a small minority of Women wear effects them.

It's not what they are wearing, it's the fact that a lot of them are forced to wear it and/or being indoctrinated from a young age to believe it is right for them to wear it. What chance does a child have to argue with her parents that she doesn't want to wear an isolation suit?

Just on the nun and convent thing, those girls were just as brainwashed. If they had been given a normal human upbringing devoid of religious indoctrination they would not during their adulthood have chosen a life of isolation in their convents. Which is what we can see today, how many women are joining convents these days? I don't know but I'm sure we can all agree it's a lot less than it was 50 years ago.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

It's not what they are wearing, it's the fact that a lot of them are forced to wear it and/or being indoctrinated from a young age to believe it is right for them to wear it. What chance does a child have to argue with her parents that she doesn't want to wear an isolation suit?

Children are rarely made to wear Burqa's. The earliest would be after puberty.

Also, again how do you know what your saying is a fact? Any proof? Even the French have said, they would need to investigate things to find out what the case really is.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Just on the nun and convent thing, those girls were just as brainwashed. If they had been given a normal human upbringing devoid of religious indoctrination they would not during their adulthood have chosen a life of isolation in their convents. Which is what we can see today, how many women are joining convents these days? I don't know but I'm sure we can all agree it's a lot less than it was 50 years ago.

Great, how many Women wear Burqa's btw? I am pretty sure there aren't very many who do so. Seems to me that numbera don't matter much, when it comes to Burqa's for some bizare reason.

Why aren't you calling for a ban on convents? Why just pick on one religion?

Also, again how do you know what your saying is true? Do you have any studies to back up what your saying? There is every possibility in my mind, that at least some of the people who go to convents, or wear Burqa's do so from a genuine Religous convinction.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote:

Children are rarely made to wear Burqa's. The earliest would be after puberty.

So they are generally "made to wear" Burqa's once they hit puberty? Also children don't become adults when they hit puberty. This is no longer the Dark Ages. Being able to breed like cattle is not an indicator of reaching adulthood. A 13 year old is still a child in my book and although legally an adult at 18.... I have my reservations about that as well

wes wrote:

Also, again how do you know what your saying is a fact? Any proof? Even the French have said, they would need to investigate things to find out what the case really is.

Human empathy primarily for me. That capacity we all have to mentally visualize ourselves in another persons shoes so to speak. Why would anyone want to be covered up and isolated in such an unnatural fashion? Our first ancestors were naked and clothing was first developed as a way to keep warm. There is nothing logical or natural about the full isolation suit. I mean sure if it's good enough for the devote women why don't the equally devote men give it a shot as well?

wes wrote:

Great, how many Women wear Burqa's btw? I am pretty sure there aren't very many who do so. Seems to me that numbera don't matter much, when it comes to Burqa's for some bizare reason.

Why aren't you calling for a ban on convents? Why just pick on one religion?

Also, again how do you know what your saying is true? Do you have any studies to back up what your saying? There is every possibility in my mind, that at least some of the people who go to convents, or wear Burqa's do so from a genuine Religous convinction.

Christianity in Ireland/Europe is slowly dying anyway. Why pick a fight with a walking corpse?

Oh I'm sure there are some late converts who wear that suit or go to a convent because they think it brings them closer to god. But the history of the 20th century across Europe has shown that the less control over children we give the religious, the less religious society has become.

I suppose essentially what I'm saying is that if I started teaching my 2 year old daughter tonight that Sportacus was god and reinforced that belief everyday. Then sent her to a school that was run by people who held the same belief... well she would be very fit and we'd have less obese children But it wouldn't be true and it wouldn't be fair on her. Her mind would have been preprogrammed to believe it when she didn't have the critical faculties to question what I was teaching.

Which is why I say sure let adult women wear whatever they want, but don't let adults indoctrinate children(0 to 17).

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So they are generally "made to wear" Burqa's once they hit puberty? Also children don't become adults when they hit puberty. This is no longer the Dark Ages. Being able to breed like cattle is not an indicator of reaching adulthood. A 13 year old is still a child in my book and although legally an adult at 18.... I have my reservations about that as well

Nope, I was saying that is the very earliest they start wearing them.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Human empathy primarily for me. That capacity we all have to mentally visualize ourselves in another persons shoes so to speak. Why would anyone want to be covered up and isolated in such an unnatural fashion? Our first ancestors were naked and clothing was first developed as a way to keep warm. There is nothing logical or natural about the full isolation suit. I mean sure if it's good enough for the devote women why don't the equally devote men give it a shot as well?

Especially, devout men grow beards and also wear specific types of clothing.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Christianity in Ireland/Europe is slowly dying anyway. Why pick a fight with a walking corpse?

So, then why pick on a Religion from a minority group then? There are hardly million of marauding Burqa clad Women around Europe. The majority don't even wear the Burqa, so I fail to see why it is such a big issue.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Oh I'm sure there are some late converts who wear that suit or go to a convent because they think it brings them closer to god. But the history of the 20th century across Europe has shown that the less control over children we give the religious, the less religious society has become.

I suppose essentially what I'm saying is that if I started teaching my 2 year old daughter tonight that Sportacus was god and reinforced that belief everyday. Then sent her to a school that was run by people who held the same belief... well she would be very fit and we'd have less obese children But it wouldn't be true and it wouldn't be fair on her. Her mind would have been preprogrammed to believe it when she didn't have the critical faculties to question what I was teaching.

Parents raising there children to believe what they believe is hardly new now is it?

Still, the majority of Muslim Women don't wear the Burqa. So hardly outside the realm of possibility that the Women who do so, are especially devout.

Again, I honestly don't see the issue, we are talking a minority within a minority. If you don't think convents are issues due to low numbers, then why is the Burqa?!?

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Which is why I say sure let adult women wear whatever they want, but don't let adults indoctrinate children(0 to 17).

How exactly do you propose they stop this? Take peoples children away from them? Parents will raise there children to believe the same things they do, and I see no easy way to stop this, to be honest, I don't think it really is the business of the state for most part.

panda100

I quiite liked this analysis over on indymedia for those who are intrested : http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92856

Sesshoumaru

panda100 wrote: »

I quiite liked this analysis over on indymedia for those who are intrested : http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92856

I disliked it intensely. All cultures are not equal. What a load of BS that article was! I did like most of the comments though

panda100

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I disliked it intensely. All cultures are not equal. What a load of BS that article was! I did like most of the comments though

What parts did you agree/disagree with, would be intresting to know

I really like this paragraph, it pretty much sums up what I was trying to say earlier in the thread:

"My point is that there are many aspects of Western culture that are just as oppressive, restrictive and damaging to women as is claimed about the burkha, and some of them are things we commonly take to be 'liberating' for women. Perhaps we rarely notice them because we grow up in this environment - as the man says 'what does a fish know of the water in which it swims?' Who decides why and if skirts should be shorter, hips narrower, bodies thinner? Why are so many (and I doubt anyone can seriously argue otherwise) women enslaved to these dictates? Is a pair of 4" high-heels any crueller than a burkha? Or just more familiar and acceptable to us? I sometimes wonder how women must feel when they pass the newspaper stand and see magazines portraying their fellow-women's semi-naked bodies as a commodity - which some argue is a 'right' or a 'freedom'. Becoming entertainment for the other sex seems pretty much like a form of slavery to me, also. If we were to seriously examine these questions we might be forced to consider why we give so much attention to the burkha - is it because it is about liberating women or is it because it is associated with particular forms of a particular religion? "

Mark Hamill

panda100 wrote: »

I really like this paragraph, it pretty much sums up what I was trying to say earlier in the thread:

"My point is that there are many aspects of Western culture that are just as oppressive, restrictive and damaging to women as is claimed about the burkha, and some of them are things we commonly take to be 'liberating' for women. Perhaps we rarely notice them because we grow up in this environment - as the man says 'what does a fish know of the water in which it swims?' Who decides why and if skirts should be shorter, hips narrower, bodies thinner? Why are so many (and I doubt anyone can seriously argue otherwise) women enslaved to these dictates? Is a pair of 4" high-heels any crueller than a burkha? Or just more familiar and acceptable to us? I sometimes wonder how women must feel when they pass the newspaper stand and see magazines portraying their fellow-women's semi-naked bodies as a commodity - which some argue is a 'right' or a 'freedom'. Becoming entertainment for the other sex seems pretty much like a form of slavery to me, also. If we were to seriously examine these questions we might be forced to consider why we give so much attention to the burkha - is it because it is about liberating women or is it because it is associated with particular forms of a particular religion? "

I dont think that that paragraph is comparing like with like though.
Wether or not it is clearly stated in the koran that the full burqa is necessary, there is still the basis for having to wear some sort of covering, the difference in what people wear is the interpretation of the religious text. The "oppression" in this case, comes from an interpreation of a religious text.
The western "oppression", however is entirely self-created. It comes from insecure people who think they need to wear uncomfortable or revealing clothes even just to please themselves.
Now I dont really believe that either way is actually oppressive and thats why I agree with the title of the article ("Ban the Burqa and Bin our Freedoms"), I disagree with the arguments used. While I'm sure each side could wheel out women who have been oppressed into wearing either type of clothing, I believe that the great majority of women aren't oppressed either way, its a choice they make, like any other. And while I believe that it would be a great crime to take away someones choice and freedom and force them to wear a burqa, I think that it is an equaly great crime to take away their choice and freedom and force them not to.

getz

as the west is a face to face contact culture ,it is important that teachers ,goverment,hospitals ,or any customer contact people,do not cover their face,it is NOT religious, and is banned in islamic countries like turkey in goverment and university the covering of the face used to happen in the west during the early victorian years amongst a certain class of people,but as equal rights and the vote came to all we moved on from being repressed,but if any of you think its just a choice thing,take a walk around burnley/bradford.you will aways find that the woman with the burka walks five paces behind her husband carrying all the shopping,so you can well understand western woman getting upset,its all about you and your children integrating in the society you wish to live.

DTrotter

So you don't hear them scream!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging

midlandsmissus

Seriously what is with the berating of the Farrah girl on here. She's happy - good for her. It doesn't look to me like she's pushing her views on anyone here, it looks like she keeps being attacked and has to defend herself.

By the way if you ever have a look at the CHRISTIAN bible it is severely anti-women!!!!! It advises letting your daughters be raped among other things.

getz

as the islamic law is the same for both man and woman,why isent the islamic male covering his face ? anyway i find it very strange that the same western islamic girl that has on the burka [we are told its for modesty ] most likely has on high heels or her toe nails painted.most strange

wes

getz wrote: »

as the islamic law is the same for both man and woman,why isent the islamic male covering his face ? anyway i find it very strange that the same western islamic girl that has on the burka [we are told its for modesty ] most likely has on high heels or her toe nails painted.most strange

Well, men have to grow beards, under such a extreme interpretation of things.

PDN

midlandsmissus wrote: »

By the way if you ever have a look at the CHRISTIAN bible it is severely anti-women!!!!! It advises letting your daughters be raped among other things.

No it doesn't.

Iwasfrozen

PDN wrote:

No it doesn't.

Lot.

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Lot.

And, like I said, it doesn't advise letting your daughters being raped. I fail to see how any literate person could get that meaning from it.

Zombrex

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Lot.

depends on how much you read into the Old Testament approving of Lots behaviour of offering up his daughters to the mob instead of the angels in Sodom. Lot is referred to as a righteous man in a few places but there is no direct mention of his righteousness in relation to offering his daughters to be raped, ie there is no direct approval of that specific action of Lot, more a general sense that he was righteous. So it depends on what is meant when the Bible calls him a righteous man. Would everything he does be considered righteous, or is it possible for him to commit a terrible crime (offering his daughers to the mob) and still be considered righteous. The answer to that answers how approving the Bible is of what he was about to do.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

depends on how much you read into the Old Testament approving of Lots behaviour of offering up his daughters to the mob instead of the angels in Sodom.

Actually it doesn't.

Even if the Old Testament approved of Lot's behaviour (which it doesn't) that still wouldn't mean that it advises others to do likewise. Midlandmissus's claim was a classic case of someone misreading and misquoting the Bible to spread a blatant untruth.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually it doesn't.

Even if the Old Testament approved of Lot's behaviour (which it doesn't) that still wouldn't mean that it advises others to do likewise.

Umm, not sure about that. Again it comes down to how you interpret what the Bible is saying about Lot's righteousness. The idea that Lot did the correct thing in that situation, the righteous thing, has an strong implication that others in the same situation should do as Lot did because that was righteous.

You can argue that the Bible is saying Lot did the righteous thing but that doesn't imply that others should do the same, but that seems to be a weaker interpretation, one probably shaped more on the belief that what Lot did wasn't righteous at all so obviously others shouldn't do it either.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, not sure about that. Again it comes down to how you interpret what the Bible is saying about Lot's righteousness. The idea that Lot did the correct thing in that situation, the righteous thing, has an strong implication that others in the same situation should do as Lot did because that was righteous.

You can argue that the Bible is saying Lot did the righteous thing but that doesn't imply that others should do the same, but that seems to be a weaker interpretation, one probably shaped more on the belief that what Lot did wasn't righteous at all so obviously others shouldn't do it either.

Nonsense. I believe that Noah did a righteous thing in building the Ark, but only a half wit would claim that means it advises us all to build big wooden boats.

BTW, the Bible doesn't say that Lot did a righteous thing with his daughters. That is, sorry to say, a figment of someone's imagination.