Another article on female muslim dress

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6721729.ece

OK, so I'm not going to dissect this article because time is rather short, but regarding the first point in which the author says (of the women who wear the niqab): "They dress in everyday clothing; they get their hair done, go on holiday and even buy lingerie!"... Well, gosh! How lovely. For me, that really isn't the point. There are many academic points about and around which it is possible to build an argument against the wearing of religious dress. For me, this is not about religion, or culture. It is about equality, as I have said numerous times.

The whole problem with expecting women to cover up, dress 'modestly' and all the rest of it is that is something that has been developed by men to subjugate women. To separate them and declare them different from men. If all Muslim people, male or female wandered around with family relative chaperones, wearing the niqab, then I would be far more accepting. But this just isn't the case. As for the part about 'going on holiday'. Well, perhaps they do, but they don't go swimming, that's for sure. Unless it’s at a female only pool session of course.

So the myth that the author is trying to dispel here, in point one, that 'The niqab is a symbol of female subjugation' falls down at the first hurdle.

Because of course it fucking is. It only applies to ONE GENDER.

If people are going to maintain that the niqab has a place in society, could they at least stop pretending that it isn't hugely humiliating and derogatory, and come up with some other reasons for wearing it? Like 'because I have been indoctrinated by my religion to think this', or, 'because I gave it some thought and even though there are valid arguments against it, I decided to wear it anyway', or more likely, 'because I was told to'?

Because whilst I believe everyone has a free choice to believe what they want, and dress how they like, pretending that there are 'good' and religious and fair reasons for it is absolutely not a requirement and simply makes an out-moded point of view an offensive one.

To keep the surname, or not keep the surname?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1196888/Why-Im-proud-Mrs-Smellie-Is-old-fashioned-wife-husbands-name.html

'Should women take their husband's surnames' is the topic of this article. I would like to make it clear from the outset that I only read the Daily Mail for the CELEBRITY GOSSIP and nothing else. However, when my eye caught this, I got dragged in to reading it.

It’s fair to say that I am a bit of a hardliner when it comes to feminism, and I appreciate now that I am a little bit older and less angry/ shouty that not everyone has the same opinion as me (it’s just that they're wrong.... I'm joking....). But, I do still wonder why this tradition pervades when its origins are so crap. So I’ll consider the origins first.

1. Your husband used to own you in marriage, and all your possessions. You did not count as a separate entity.

2. Women were/ are handed over by the father into the hands of her husband, much in the way that fathers walk their daughters down the aisle today. The word 'husbandry' is used when we talk about farmers caring for animals. Nice.

3. Taking of the name meant that the woman wasn't the responsibility of her family anymore. They pretty much had no rights as heirs, and even if they were the only sold survivor from a family, the money would go to the husband anyway.

I know that nowadays this isn't the case, so much of the stuff that used to happen as a result of being married off isn't something to worry about now, but the symbolism of all this is very much based in ownership.

OK, so what are my arguments against taking your husband's name?

Firstly, there is the issue of tradition, which most of the points above refer to. Tradition is never a good reason to continue doing something if it doesn't stand up to decent scrutiny. There are a lot of things we don't do anymore because they seem dated, like keep slaves or dog fight, or bare knuckle box. We don't have to take our husband's name 'just because'.

Secondly, the other thoughts that go through my head are - ‘Why the hell do I have to take YOUR name? Why not you take mine? Why am I compromising who I am? Aren't we meant to be a team!?’

But for me, ultimately, the bottom line is that it just isn’t EQUAL. And, people, I'm all about the equal.

If, when we got married, the tradition was for the woman to pay the man £5,000 for the benefit of marrying him, would we be so happy about it? What about if you had to build him a house first? Why are we entering into a contract where we must pay consideration in return for no discernable benefit? Unless you have a super sexy rock star surname I'm not sure that 'getting a new name' can really be considered a true offer in the tradition of a binding contract...

Ok, so....

What are the arguments in favour of taking your husband's surname rather than keeping your own?

1) You hate your name
2) You love tradition
3) You haven't ever thought not to
4) you're under familial pressure to do it
5) You just want to...

These are all perfectly fine reasons, and if any of these reasons are important enough to you, then ignore me. I can't think of any more, but I would be keen to hear anything anyone else has to add.... When I considered these different reasons, I realised that all of them are really just 'subjective personal points of view'.

The problem with this is that there isn't really a place for that kind of argument in a semi-academic debate. The whole point of taking an accepted custom and questioning it is that you put your personal point of view to one side and consider only the arguments left after that...

A question for me, then, is whether I believe in marriage at all, then, since I seem to have a problem with so much that comes with it. The thing is I REALLY do.

I define marriage as:

Two people entering into an agreement which states that they will work together as a team, becoming united in their goals of happiness and health, and to share all material possessions equally.

With the recent foot-stamping going on about massive divorce payouts, the 'shared material possessions' stuff is more important than ever. This part of the agreement is unbreakable, meaning that if you decide you want to get married, part of what comes with it is the agreement that you will split everything fifty fifty FOREVERMORE. For that reason, I actually think the law is complicating things for itself by allowing pre-nups to leak slowly into the English legal system.

If you're determined to get back exactly what you put in to your marriage should you break up, then don't bloody well get married. The one remaining purpose of marriage these days is to split everything down the middle - it is no longer about sex, children, religion or gender, so if we allow pre-nups then we undermine the one thing keeping marriage an institution and blur the distinction between marriage and co-habitation further.

I believe there are good reasons for co-habitants and married couples to remain separate, we can't simply go around contractualising co-habiting relationships in order to protect people who aren't married without their permission, for a start.... but this debate is for another time.

I am pro-marriage, pro-unity, pro-two people in love promising to split the good and bad times in half, FOREVER.

However, I am not 'pro- taking another person's name' because I don't see how two people can enter into something together, equally, if one must give up something so closely tied to their identity. This is how I feel. But not how many people feel. It could certainly be argued that the whole thing is an academic moot point, because if it isn't important to the individuals concerned then it isn't important at all.

I know many happy couples who took the name of their husband and are of course not in unbalanced, oppressive marriages! I would never suggest that to be the case. I just happen to feel that what it stands for historically doesn't make me feel comfortable and that it’s outmoded enough for us to ditch it altogether. And I will of course say here, that if you want to take your husband's name, for whatever reason you decide, that is your free choice and I wouldn't ever judge someone for making that decision. The universal top trump card with all these things is, of course, good old personal choice.

There are alternatives to doing it though (pushy pushy...)

- You can double barrel (though slightly pompous sounding depending on the names.) or you can merge two names together and create something new. This gem also solves the issue many people have about their children not sharing a surname with their parents.... you could pick a totally new new name and BOTH change your names....

Or you know, you could go totally mental and just keep your own name. The one you were born with.

You'd burka believe it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

So, blimey, I agree with something Sarkozy said. And I don't mean:

"How can one be fascinated by those fights of obese guys with brylcreemed buns? Sumo is not an intellectual's sport!".... As much as that's quite funny.

I am referring to his speech about burkas to the Senate and National Assembly recently, a line of which was:

"It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement"

For me, it brings such very strong feelings to the pit of my stomach and the tip of my tongue. I want to say things like 'Of course it fucking does, it’s about the most blatant tool of oppression since the chastity belt', but I realise that intelligent discussion rests on a little more than this.

The whole thing about France banning headscarves and burkas and the like has been going on for some time. An Iranian Muslim friend of mine and I discussed the banning of headscarves at French Universities whilst I was still studying. Our mutual passion for freedom of expression, and all civil liberties, meant that we felt it was rather totalitarian to just ban people from doing stuff. People should be free to cover their head in a way which reflects their religeo-cultural beliefs. However, we were really only talking about the hijabi, rather than the whole black sack and veil jobber. Or at least, I was. Plus, the whole debate has intensified with the rise of the burka and its place in contemporary society. Do the women who wear the burka REALLY do so as an expression of their free will?

So when Sarkozy spoke out against them recently, my initial rather visceral reaction was to agree with him wholeheartedly- "Too bloody right! Ban it! It's awful and tragic and oppressive and not even determined by the Qur'an". Incidently, the call to cover up comes from the hadith – interpretations of the Koran written many years after the death of the Prophet, and largely dictated by prevailing Middle Eastern custom.... so we're not talking complex religious considerations here. Modesty is all that is requested, just like for Jewish people.

I am so passionate about equality, and want so much for everyone to have it that my immediate reaction was to force it upon everyone. I don't subscribe to the anthropological perspective which dictates that we must accept the behaviour of other cultures on the basis that we should not judge societies we cannot understand, so in principle, why the hell not just ban the burka?

I know my view is not world changing or anything, but it is worth mentioning that we do not have to accept the burka just because a particular culture prescribes it.

I am also going to skim past the pro-burka arguments around it preventing female sexualisation/ encouraging rape/ all the other bullshit arguments made my many pro-burka men. The most coherent way I have heard this view presented was that wearing the Hijabi 'levelled the playing field' for women and allowed them to be judged for their intelligence rather than their looks. Initially, this sounds like it could hold some water. But under even the most minimal scrutiny, it collapses.

This assumes, for starters, that being identified as an attractive female is ALWAYS a bad thing. Secondly, that if you are identified as such, that you will automatically be sexually vulnerable and that it would be the woman's fault. Thirdly, it assumes that if you are attractive, people will think you are stupid. Fourthly and finally, it doesn't say much about the male species if we believe we must cover up our women to avoid sending the men into some kind of unavoidable lusty rage. This is akin to covering up table legs in Victorian times in case it incited sexy thoughts in the men of the era.

Which is kind of what got me thinking...

How did the UK get to where it is now with civil liberties and the like? On the whole, we're pretty cool. We don't have slaves, or allow racism, or gender inequality or homophobia (though of course they still exist...). We have legislation ensuring this. Perhaps we should legislate against the burka, in that case, in the name of gender equality. It certainly wouldn't be hard to do.

But when you think about it, this just isn't how it works... our legislation is built in response to the public view, not the other way round. Take fox hunting as an example, the majority agreed it was pretty horrible and so we got round to banning it. Many of the legislators would have been pro-fox hunting, so if our laws were dictated to us in order that the societal norms changed, fox hunting would never have been banned.

Another example is in the Sexual Offences Act 2003- it became manifestly obvious from the case law that it was unjust for offenders to escape the conviction of rape simply because they attacked their victim with a foreign object rather than a penis or finger. So the legislation responded and amended the definiton in response to public need.

Perhaps, when society begins to recognise that it is clearly unjust for women to have to cover up in order to fulfil some foggily defined sense of 'modesty', we could act upon it. The majority already agree this is the case, but we aren't the ones who would be affected by this change in the law. It's a bit like ID cards, in the sense that if it doesn't affect you, then its easy to think something's a great idea.

The need for the change in the law in the above examples was far more important than any civil liberties considerations- rape is never permissable- whereas the burka is rather more complicated.

Freedom of expression, of religion, the right to shape your own identity, must all be weighed against any legislative decisions. And freedom of expression is one of the big boys- it’s SO vital to maintaining a liberated country. That's why it’s so hard when there are radical Muslim preachers / anti-abortion protests going on, because their freedom of expression should not be impinged when they are only extolling a point of view, without inciting violence and so on.

So, as much as my gut reaction was to agree with Sarkozy and think that at least he was prepared to stand up for equality, I realised that true equality does not come from dictum but from social change.

Which made me think, how the hell do we bring about this social change? Looking at the right wing press (yes, I'm talking about you Mr Daily Mail), it can seem a bit hopeless....

"Apparently, 5 year old British girls are being forced to wear the burka in order that they don’t offend the local Muslim community, and aren't allowed to have boys round for tea after school any more in case they behave inappropriately".

Ok, so I made that up, but you get the point.

So I thought about other examples where extreme dress was the cultural norm, so see if there was a way we could go about getting rid of the burka which doesnt threaten our liberties / cause international outrage.

And, I think it is possible to learn something about the burka wearing tradition from food binding.

The tradition started some time late in the T'ang Dynasty (618-906), according to my internet research, and lasted for almost a thousand years. Its origins are uncertain, and there are many different arguments as to why it became so popular. What is clear is that it prevented woman straying too far, it subjugated them and was a symbol of marriability. It also became fetishised by many men, because of the mystery surrounding what an unbound foot would look like, and stories about the way it made women walk making their vagina tighter. It was a symbol of virtue and chastity.

As with being 'honourable', foot binding was a precursor to being marriable, so no one was going to stop the practice until they were reassured that it wouldn’t render the woman a spinster, hence the 'natural foot societies'. Establishing the idea that showing your cheeks doesn’t mean that you're some kind of prostitute is essential for this to take hold...

I accept this is a more complex issue than 'face out = slag', because there is such sexual oppression involved with the burka. Only being able to show your face to your husband and male family members keeps the woman under wraps, it prevents her from being attractive to others. The equivalent of the rather delightful tattoos celebrities get with the name of their owner (sorry, I mean partner) emblazoned on them.

It also smacks of insecurity. The fear that another man might take a fancy to your wife, or possibly deem her to be a bit ugly, might be more than the rather large and delicate ego of this particular kind of Muslim man can take. Hide it away, and you can brag all you like about how hot your other half is, without the risk of having the piss taken out of you. In a society obsessed with honour, doesn't this make at least a little sense?

Foot binding began as a luxury of the rich, since bound footed women could do little around the house, but soon became essential for even the poorest people to bind the feet of their daughters. Just as this tradition started with the aristocracy, it was to end with them.

Looking into the origins of the burka, in particular the burka with the full face veil (referred to as a Chadri in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan), it seems that the origins were similar in nature. The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces. He came up with the chadri, which in time became a sign of an upper class citizen. When these were banned for being old fashioned, they were given to the working classes, escalating this tradition through all the social classes, just as with foot binding. I thought I would explore the idea of foot binding and the burka just to see where it leads me - this comparison is certainly flawed, but having considered that there will be limitations, I have decided there is still enough in it for me to continue.

How, then, did the destruction of foot binding tradition come about? Principally in three key ways...

1) EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. A modern education campaign was carried out, which explained that the rest of the world did not bind women's feet and that China was losing face in the world, making it subject to international ridicule. 'Losing face' is comparable to the whole 'honour' thing, and taking control of a social norm like this is an incredibly powerful tool.

2) HEALTH. The education campaign explained the advantages of natural feet and the disadvantages of bound feet. Ok, so this is a tougher one since I'm not sure what possible health impact wearing the burka might have? Other than a possible vitamin D deficiency... however, explaining the limitations on education, finances and ultimately social standing, could be the way to go. Not to be considered as successful as your neighbour would be a pretty good way to change the perception of a patriarchal community.

3) STANDING TOGETHER. Natural-foot societies were formed, whose members pledged not to bind their daughter's feet, nor to allow their sons to marry women with bound feet. There is power in numbers and once a few socially upstanding people were on board, the whole thing became more acceptable. A tough ask, I would certainly think, since these are the guys likely to be most radical, but if it worked once then I feel there must be some hope for it to work again.

Using this approach, the Chinese managed to pretty much get rid of foot binding in ONE GENERATION. I find that amazingly powerful.

What's interesting about this, and perhaps a little different to approach of many rights-based organisations campaigning to end female genital mutilation (to take another example of female subjugation), is that the focus is not predominately female. Let's be honest, if you're compelled to wear a black tent which covers your face virtually all the time, you probably aren’t the decision maker.

Convincing the men in positions of authority that it's a good idea to ditch the burka seems to be the way to go.

The thing which makes me feel that this is not entirely transferable is that foot binding wasn’t based in religious belief. As much as we know the burka has nothing to do with being a good Muslim, this argument is a bit of a show stopper for many who subscribe to it, as the burka is a logical extension of the modesty requirements in Islamic religious texts, for them.

Which raises the question: Are burka-believers ready to listen? Will they change?

I suppose that the Chinese aristocracy weren't ready for it either, until everyone spoke to them in a manner which wasn't threatening or bullying or bossy and which was meaningful to them- 'losing face' has immense cultural power and resonated with the right people in Chinese society.

Therefore, we will not get anywhere by telling burka-believers what to do.

In conclusion, Sarkozy is right when he says 'That is not our idea of freedom'. It is not our idea of freedom either and there is no place for it in a world where woman are equals. But there is no place for the restriction of civil liberties, whatever benefits we think we might reap.

Instead, we need to educate, discuss, even cajole, the right people in the right places to change their practices. When those with respected social standing realise the benefits of social change, we will see it amongst the majority. As can be seen with the example of foot binding, this change can happen quickly.

How fast these things can become history. I hope that the burka and all it stands for soon becomes an example of the female fight against oppression, alongside the right to vote, working rights, and foot binding and contraceptive freedom.


* A note: any facts and stats are gleaned from internet research, so if they're wrong, don’t shout at me. But if it’s an opinion then it’s certainly mine, and if you don't like it then don't read my blog.

Britney Spears - Circus

Well, arent I just the luckiest thing! I managed to wangle two tickets for Britters at the O2 for just £6 each, the booking fee essentially. I immediately informed the Bestie about this and set about getting very excited / updating the FB statuses to reflect the importance of this event, etc. Having been a big fan for a long time, not so much of the music, though excellent pop music is a love of mine, but of Britney the Brand. The Identity. The Carwreck.

Having spent the 18 months during her infamous breakdown keeping a close eye on Brit, it was very exciting that we would finally be able to see her in the flesh. This post isn’t really about how awesome Britney was, or her miming, or her lacklustre dancing, so I'll summarise that and move on quickly. Its really about what her stage show represents for young women, and young people as a whole.

*BRIEF SUMMARY IF YOU CARE*

Britney looked pretty bloody good on stage. Any remarks pertaining to her weight would be unfair, but basically she looked fit and healthy. Her extensions leave something to be desired but I suppose if a blonde bombshell popstar shaves it all off, what else is there to do but stick it back on again? Her dancing was in time and looked ok, but there was no passion there at all. She was going through the motions for much of it, highlighted only by the almost apoplectic enthusiasm of her backing dancers. Overall, a good pantomime spectacle.

A bit more passion and some live vocals other than the one ballad would have made mediocre in to magnificent. But still, the irrational and undying love I have for the Spears means I still loved it.

*MOVING ON*

How are we to expect young people to be confident and sexually accepting if we present to them such a 2D image of sexual attraction? Initially the discussions Bestie and I had about this were about female self-esteem and the barbie doll ideal being a unhealthy one for girls to aspire to. God knows there were enough girls there wearing schoolgirl uniforms to demonstrate that this is already the case.

However, thinking about it a bit more, I feel that this representation of sexuality is dangerous for everyone -boys included. We want everyone to respect everyone else, and themselves. The thrusting and grabbing stuff the male dancers did was dangerous for female subordination, but the humiliation expressed was equally worrying.

An example of this could be seen in the costume design. At one point all the men were wearing gimp suits and masks, some were blind folded... I know I am saying this at the risk of sounding like a prude, but I'm talking about what we put out there in the public eye, to young people, and what this means for the Feminism movement, equality and contemporary gender roles.

If wearing a gimp suit rocks your world, go for it, but since this was a pop concert and not a fetish show for people on the scene, I'm dubious about its suitability. Even though the demographic of the audience was 80% female and 20% gay men, these images are pumped out through TV and the internet too, I think this is a valid point.

If we stick Ciara (the support act) on a stage with 6 other female dancers, wearing fishnets and leotards, and choreograph a routine which involves them lying on the floor and gyrating their hips to simulate a sort of cartoon-porn-sex, how can we expect it not to become the 'standard' approach to sexual behaviour? Especially if you're an under informed young person, who is just desperate for someone to give them some guidance on what's 'normal'.

This is a source of information for these kids - given that the next point of call is porn from the internet, I feel like there is some kind of duty of care required here. It hardly seems a surprise to me that modern young people are less confident in their bodies, more reluctant to practice safe sex, or wait for the right partner, when we tell them that the most empowering way to explore your sexuality is to use in such a specific and caricature-like way. And that it should define your behaviour - how you dress, how you dance and most obviously, how you behave during sex.

Sex is funny, sweaty, ungraceful and wonderful. I’m not sure which elements of sex the 'freak show' video montage during the interval was supposed to be demonstrating. Projected on 30ft screens, with Marilyn Manson's version of Sweet dreams pumping out, was Britney and her dancers cavorting together in black cat suits and masquerade masks.

Longing looks to the camera, illicit sexual encounters and a sort of 'decadent and damned' film set all made me feel titillated, but also insecure. I certainly don't look like that during any kind of sexual activity - not to mention the fact I don’t make a habit of doing it with my mates around.

The gender roles throughout the dance routine were based entirely around a couple of clear themes:
- little girl gone bad
- bad boy being chastised by domineering woman
- Uncontrollable sexual attraction unwanted by the other party.

For example, at one stage Britney is surrounded by all the male dancers, who then pull their trousers down and all thrust at her at once, whilst she has a look of 'surprised innocence' on her face. This is akin to the FB groups which expound rape as 'surprise sex', in my mind.

At another point Britney is writhing on a chaise longue, in what I would describe as a state of nocturnal ecstasy, fantasising about two men pleasuring her simultaneously. There are also hints towards masturbation throughout this in the lyrics of the song.

I am most certainly not a prude, and would celebrate the right of anyone to desire whatever they like, but there is a big question mark in my head over whether its really suitable for her to be sharing this with the 12 year old kids in the audience. As Bestie said to me, it’s alright for us to be exposed to all of this because we're old enough and ugly enough to be able to remove ourselves from this situation. And we're lucky enough to be pretty well informed so this sort of thing becomes a source of bemused entertainment for us.

I think the crux of my point is that if we want our young people to be happy, healthy and sexually responsible (AND exploratory) we need to give them a balanced picture about what sex is - delivered by the people they want to emulate / are attracted to. There is no room in Britney's sexual picture for gay kids, for example, or kids who have more conservative backgrounds.

Snogging Madonna as a one off publicity stunt merely devalues what it feels like for young people to fancy someone of the same sex, so I wouldn't cite that as an example of a broadened sexual horizon in popular culture.

Overall, it was a really fun night. I'm not sure what the 12 year old girl, there with her mother, made of the whole experience.

Does she know what nipple tassels are? Probably. Does she think they make Britney look sexy and confident? Probably. Does she want to own a pair immediately? Definitely. I just think she might not quite understand why.