Nudity, Niqab and the illusion of 'free choice'
“When a woman is the total of her headscarf and hymen - then nakedness, sex become weapons of political resistance.”
Today, I read what are possibly the most beautiful opening words of any essay or opinion piece ever. It went like this:
“When a woman is the sum total of her headscarf and hymen – that is, what’s on her head and what is between her legs – then nakedness and sex become weapons of political resistance.”
This comes from a powerful essay by Mona Eltahawy in the Guardian, called “Egypt’s Naked Blogger is a Bomb Aimed at the Patriarchs in Our Mind” (Eltahawy was recently sexually assaulted and beaten by police in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, her left hand and right arm broken by the force of their blows).
The background is that a young woman blogger in Egypt posted a photograph of herself, naked, as a symbol of resistance against the patriarchal conservative forces that are threatening to overwhelm Egypt in the post-Mubarak era.
The response has been incendiary; read it for yourself. But it proves that women’s bodies are still seen as public property, to be violated by soldiers, discussed and debated on by men as if they were the experts on women and their feelings, thoughts, sensations, inclinations. Our minds are seen as weak, unable to reason, to think for ourselves. Instead of believing that women have moral agency, we are seen as morally inferior in every way to men.
Is the real war against terrorism, or against patriarchy?
What men do to women on a daily basis, demeaning, insulting, patronizing, and physically and mentally hurting them, IS terrorism, plain and simple.
It reminds me of a news clip I saw several days ago, in which it was declared that Saudi Arabia might enact a new law in which women who are deemed to have “tempting eyes” and “tempting faces” would be forced to cover them up.
Why?
Because one of the men behind this bill saw a woman with “tempting eyes”, felt attracted to her, and ended up having a fight with her husband. Then he stabbed the man in the hand. The logical conclusion was that the woman who tempted him with her eyes was at fault, so such eyes can and should be hidden away from view.
I brought this up on Twitter, adding my own comment that perhaps it was the men who should be covered up instead of the women, so that they couldn’t see the tempting eyes, faces, hands, and perhaps the entire existence of women on this planet to avoid being tempted by them.
A young man decided to take up this argument with me, accusing me of being against women choosing the hijab and niqab of their own free will. He said he was sure that the majority of women who take up these coverings do it voluntarily. I decided to respond by asking this man if he would consent to covering himself up to avoid arousing the lust of homosexual men. He wouldn’t answer.
My point: why do men believe women are so willing to choose the bars of their prison so happily?
What justifications have taken place in their mind to make them believe that women are not coerced into wearing the veil? After all, coercion takes many forms: Legal. Physical. Mental. Emotional. Social. Many people use blackmail to convince women to wear hijab or niqab: you won’t be a good Muslim, you’ll go to hell, you’re pleasing God, you’ll be subject to harassment and molestation if you go outside without a veil. By playing on women’s vulnerabilities, by bringing up the imagery of women being sexually violated or bringing shame upon their families by walking around unveiled, by implying a woman’s morality is linked to how she dresses, women are coerced into believing they are making a free choice in the thousands and millions, every day of their lives.
The hidden pearls. The precious jewels in velvet boxes. The sweets that attract flies without a wrapper. The metaphors used to convince women that their worth is higher if they remain covered makes clever use of a great deceit: that women are objects to be kept on shelves, their value directly correlated to their shininess, their newness. When are people going to realize that women are not objects or things or possessions? That we are human beings with as much autonomy, independence, sovereignty as men? That we must be left alone, to make our own decisions about what we do with our lives, our bodies, our selves?
The truth is that mental, emotional, physical, social or legal coercion over the issue of the veil immediately takes away the "freedom" of the "choice."
Men have no right to exercise control over women in any way, shape, or form. Their opinions have no validity in what concerns women’s bodies and lives. Recruiting, paying, or giving some women a portion of the patriarchal privilege in order that they may influence and coerce other women over the issue of the veil, whether by "gentle persuasion" or out-and-out blackmail, is merely another trick men use to exercise control over and dominate women.
Here's what freedom of choice really looks like when it comes to the niqab, the hijab, the burqa, and the abaya:
"Nothing happens if you wear it. Nothing happens if you don't wear it. Now, it's up to you."
Then stand back and let the woman decide for herself. And stay out of it, for good.
And for those of you who feel a hijab or a niqab or a burqa or an abaya is not a prison, but a symbol of empowerment, I want to ask you why a piece of cloth on your head or face has so much sway over your lives that it transforms you from a whore into a virtuous woman.
Remember that in Pakistan, even the prostitutes wear veils.
More by this writer
COMMENTS (364)
r some good deeds and trends which are helping us in following our religion more conveninently than we should follow them... As we Human beings are idol of mistakes and are created with very complex nature which wouldnt get satisfied ever if allowing ourselves at free will.. Thus, by introspecting scientific facts and logical theologies, u would come to know that Nature has already put us on our free will unlike other living species arround us,for example other Animals are bound for certain circumstances and atmospheres, dependent on ecological system inorder to keeping their existence stable. They are haveing a few months open for their breeding season, while human beings are Open for whole of the year,some of the Animals are made in such way, which puts them asleep for Months, as if they had have satisfied their hunger, instance is of polar bear,boa contrictor and also most of the repitilia... Astronoshingly by nature Human beings are grantled vast living standard on the Globe, they commet their each bad and good activities anytime they want or need, without having certain limits.. Now what is keeping us prevented of our mis-deeds and mistakes is process of learning though religion,society,culture and obviously by nurture from books,thats why we shouldnt say or think it bad if someone is asking us of some preservations and limits...!!Choice is no longer an alternativeReactionism- for sure is one such phenomenon that has dawned on the political scene in the twentieth century. Spearheaded by the most volatile conservative forces however, reactionistic politics is not an exclusivist feature of conservatives alone. When we resist, we conjure up imagery in our mental picture completely opposite to our enemy. This feature of resistance is uniform in all resistance movements. With ever growing exposure to a particular pattern of thinking imported to us through a distinctive language, we resist what our language does. This intrinsic commonality of what we read and what we feel, encroached by the need to constantly evade this paradox by constant self denial. We become what opposing forces want us to become. If the language calls us conservative, we become so to a greater extent. Our fascination with marking protest by merely importing characteristics of no useful meaning but mere steam off has reduced us to illusionary objects in constant self denial. Politics is henceforth mere reductionist reaction-ism for a purported gain. Women’s exclusive politics is a subject oriented gimmickry, searching justification of ‘free will or free choice’. In a world like ours, conservatives have for long believed in a predestiny. But exceptionally so, the free woman of a free choice ceases to exist in a meta-narrative of religious world view, since by choosing a world view woman tends to have exercised a free will [that perhaps may not be considered a choice at all]. How do we for example see a catholic women turning to Islam? or a Buddhist woman turning to Christianity [See any free will here?] Let us than see where do women of free choice exist? In a pre-determined shrinking world, robbed by the capitalists and full of smoky socialist promises? In a world dominated by curious interference that has converted women’s subjugation into women subject. Mind you, there is no emancipation in [education and economy alone]. In this modern world which has sort different levels of enhanced forms of human slavery converting men into machines of no emotional resolve what is but the idea of ‘choice’. If you don’t study, you don’t have job, you don’t have money, you don’t have respect and you can’t live, by this formula what is then remaining in the idea of choice? All choice is predetermined or subject to the law of probability. From A or B, you may choose either. It is as simple as that when we say do women wear the veil by choice or force or do women get naked by choice or force? Either or situation exits. In case of patriarchy it roots straight at men to force women to veil but what about capitalism? We trace it back to modernity women’s choice to wear otherwise which is compelled by hyper sexualized imagery and advertisement of what is beautiful; that is economic profit. In fact the impact of capitalism can permeate the veil. For example women in Saudi who are forced to wear veils are also the biggest consumers of western out fits. Consumption is so bizarre that the most priced things are for the women in Saudi Arabia. So it is okay for her to do whatever and wear whatever at home or private sphere. Women do not one fine morning wake up and say ‘O I want to exercise my choice’. Women like men are conditioned into all sort of social reality. Question of choice is therefore intrinsic to other ideals of higher form not mere clothing -and for women grass is always greener on the other side. As can be seen this sort of choice is not benefiting. Ideally men facing any sort of oppression have never resorted to getting naked? So what purpose does it serve? Is men’s sense of shame in place and women are reactionaries? Interestingly men want to be known as honorable, respected while women do not care of things like these? Why it is that a woman has for a quarter century in Muslim societies particularly fought only for dressing? Colonialism has infused this sort of quarrel mongering as sole purpose of ‘emancipation’ of women? Why can’t Muslim women fight so fiercely for knowledge, wisdom and economic prowess in their societies which are staggering due to several sorts of internal menaces [not to say women question is not intrinsic to that] but is that fought by just being naked? At least we may agree, modern world has taught us ‘how to disagree’ and there are more civil ways of doing so. If Taliban’s attack on women is considered as reactionism by modernists why woman’s getting naked against those who value ‘body’, honour and piety in Egypt is no reactionism? In this irresolvable mockery played on in the name of free choice ‘women’ are the loosers of all sorts. Trapped between two extreme ideals wearing clothes is no longer easy for Muslim women, it is detrimental and decisive of what sort of politics they would face. It is not as difficult for a man to wear what he wants because the ‘commonality’ of all men dress is ‘modesty’. To choose between a ‘khan suit’ and a ‘western suit’ is not like choosing between a ‘veil’ and ‘mini-skirt’. So for Muslim women especially choice is predetermined. So if we emphasize on choice we are likely to get trapped in an ever so cyclic oppression which benefits none but a spectator. Likewise if a woman exercises her choice by not wearing her veil, believing that it is not taking her to heaven etc. She exercises such a choice by informed hyper-sexualized environment and capitalist incentives which claims that “NOT WEARING BURKA, NIQAB or ABAYA” is modern and luring. Choice is no longer an alternative, our world needs concrete solutions, and we can’t afford a share to a dog when our children are hungry. Warning: I to the fullest condemn the act of beating women whosoever is responsible must be regretful and punished. Do not purport words like misogynist, chauvinist and patriarchal for me. Besides having a voice I am a woman too. I share my sentiments about women’s subjugation as much with the writer but I disagree greatly with the form she/he takes for retorting to change. Anyways Congratulations on the success of MB .. you would hear that soon. IAComments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ