Muslim Woman: discovers treated better without hijab.

[salex]

By that logic, if you've ever worn traditional American clothing (i.e., jeans, a tee shirt, sneakers or flip flops) then you are announcing that you are affiliated and agree with all of the actions the United States has ever taken at home and abroad?

Jeans and a tee-shirt are just as much a marker of identity and being part of an "in-group" as hijab, a habit, or a head covering.

Based on stories from friends of mine who used to lie and say they were Canadian when the were abroad, that is not an uncommon scenario.

[salex]

Apparently my point is not well taken, but I'm going to make it once more and be done. To me, clothing is similar to any other form of communication... and like words, is a symbol that the sender may think means one thing (or nothing) and the reciever may think means another thing (or nothing) .. Basic communication model and semantics.

But, here is the (overly) long form my my thought process on this. Accept it or don't.

Yes, there are origins of gangs along racial divides etc, but comparing, at this point in time, the hijab with gang colours is a false comparison.

I brought up the gang colors originally, and I still don't think it is a false comparison. Not comparing gang members actions to those of nuns or women who wear a hijab or Mormons who wear their garment but comparing the reasons behind choosing to wear what is effectively a uniform, the impact the uniform has within the group who share that uniform and the impact it has on those outside the group seem to me to make the comparison valid.

First, Pick a garment that any group selects--gang colors, a Nun's habit, KKK robes, military uniforms, prairie frumpers, hijab, any clothing (or hair/tattoo choice) that is deemed to be a religious or group "uniform". These are generally only worn by someone who has made a commitment or whose parents have made the commitment for them. There are steps one must take to become a nun, or a gang member or a member of the KKK, a member of many religions/churches (especially those that have a particular way of dressing) and generally it involves promising loyalty to the belief system or the cause or both, and may involve renouncing other belief systems / causes. It also is often not an easy thing to leave the group, whether it is a gang, mom’s religion, the Army or a convent.

Secondly, the clothing takes on specific symbols to the people within the group—as a way to bind them together and represent their beliefs in some way. It is a form of “Branding†as with many other products or organizations. It may be long skirts for "keeping your brother from temptation" it may be unity and brotherhood within your Gang. KKK says their white robes are to equalize people across membership (no rich or poor) and symbolize righteousness. The clothing (hair, tat) It is a shorthand way to recognize others who are in your group, as well as a way to let others know you are in a particular group. The clothing/uniform also works to emphasize membership in the group while de-emphasizing individuality The pictures below point that out, and also, most people will have an idea about the people in the pictures, at least their own opinion of them and the group they represent.

Finally, religious garb/ group represent the group (as their public and visible “brandâ€) and therefore notifies others who see it that they are part of the group. Now, it is not common for people outside the group to see the symbol / brand of the clothing in the same way as those in the ingroup that actually wear the garment. But, if the branding has been strong, people will recognize the garment as always worn by someone with specific connections to an organization and / or belief system. The person who is not a member and sees the symbol will interpret it based on their own experiences or understanding of the group. So, if I’m a gang member and see someone in a different gang’s “uniform†my reaction will be based on the relationship my group has with theirs, at least in part. If I, personally see a nun in a habit, my reaction is “Old style Roman Catholic†but not much beyond that. And, I personally will never see the KKK as “righteous†no matter how much they tell themselves that is what their particular uniform means—to me it will always represent violence and bigotry.

Gang member or nun or country club, group dynamics are what they are. Visible signs of membership to ANY group will always cause some people to pay more favorable attention, others to pay less favorable attention and others to shrug.

[Clementine]

She is lucky to live in a country where people will treat her differently by respectfully avoiding too much contact with her not to be offensive.

She could try the same experiment in a country where head covering of some kind is the norm - there the experiment would be to wear western clothes and no head covering - and see what the reaction would be like. Or wear a visible star of David and go outside and see how people treat her.

[nausicaa]

Apparently my point is not well taken, but I'm going to make it once more and be done. To me, clothing is similar to any other form of communication... and like words, is a symbol that the sender may think means one thing (or nothing) and the reciever may think means another thing (or nothing) .. Basic communication model and semantics.

But, here is the (overly) long form my my thought process on this. Accept it or don't.

I brought up the gang colors originally, and I still don't think it is a false comparison. Not comparing gang members actions to those of nuns or women who wear a hijab or Mormons who wear their garment but comparing the reasons behind choosing to wear what is effectively a uniform, the impact the uniform has within the group who share that uniform and the impact it has on those outside the group seem to me to make the comparison valid.

First, Pick a garment that any group selects--gang colors, a Nun's habit, KKK robes, military uniforms, prairie frumpers, hijab, any clothing (or hair/tattoo choice) that is deemed to be a religious or group "uniform". These are generally only worn by someone who has made a commitment or whose parents have made the commitment for them. There are steps one must take to become a nun, or a gang member or a member of the KKK, a member of many religions/churches (especially those that have a particular way of dressing) and generally it involves promising loyalty to the belief system or the cause or both, and may involve renouncing other belief systems / causes. It also is often not an easy thing to leave the group, whether it is a gang, mom’s religion, the Army or a convent.

Secondly, the clothing takes on specific symbols to the people within the group—as a way to bind them together and represent their beliefs in some way. It is a form of “Branding†as with many other products or organizations. It may be long skirts for "keeping your brother from temptation" it may be unity and brotherhood within your Gang. KKK says their white robes are to equalize people across membership (no rich or poor) and symbolize righteousness. The clothing (hair, tat) It is a shorthand way to recognize others who are in your group, as well as a way to let others know you are in a particular group. The clothing/uniform also works to emphasize membership in the group while de-emphasizing individuality The pictures below point that out, and also, most people will have an idea about the people in the pictures, at least their own opinion of them and the group they represent.

Finally, religious garb/ group represent the group (as their public and visible “brandâ€) and therefore notifies others who see it that they are part of the group. Now, it is not common for people outside the group to see the symbol / brand of the clothing in the same way as those in the ingroup that actually wear the garment. But, if the branding has been strong, people will recognize the garment as always worn by someone with specific connections to an organization and / or belief system. The person who is not a member and sees the symbol will interpret it based on their own experiences or understanding of the group. So, if I’m a gang member and see someone in a different gang’s “uniform†my reaction will be based on the relationship my group has with theirs, at least in part. If I, personally see a nun in a habit, my reaction is “Old style Roman Catholic†but not much beyond that. And, I personally will never see the KKK as “righteous†no matter how much they tell themselves that is what their particular uniform means—to me it will always represent violence and bigotry.

Gang member or nun or country club, group dynamics are what they are. Visible signs of membership to ANY group will always cause some people to pay more favorable attention, others to pay less favorable attention and others to shrug.

I don't disagree at all that clothes and appearance can carry messages, both intentional and unintentional. Do we make all make some assumptions about people based on appearances? Of course.

Where I disagree with you is your implication in some of your previous posts that it is acceptable to make fairly broad extrapolations about a person based on what that person wears and that it is the wearer's fault for whatever assumptions others make about him/her. I disagree with the sentiment that women who wear revealing clothes are automatically sluts/impure/asking for it, just as much as I disagree with the belief that women who cover (according to whatever personal/religious principles) are automatically brainwashed/terrorists/judgemental/anti-American/anti-me.

[tropaka]

The theme is belonging, and so comparing religious garb with gang falls down. It goes beyond that. There is no defence of comparing gang membership with wearing a hijab, kipah etc.

[southwestk]

Long-time lurker here. I am not very good at being an active participant in the forums I frequent, but I couldn't keep quiet with this one.

I feel a little uneasy with all this talk about women dressing to "set themselves apart" or to "make a statement about my culture or myself." I'm assuming "my culture" means "my American culture" or some other similar western country. Of course, wearing a head covering will set you apart in most western countries, but I think it is an unfair leap to then say that these women wear their head coverings with the primary motivation of setting themselves apart.

Western mainstream is NOT the default standard for what is normal and what is abnormal. I know several Middle Eastern women who wear head coverings (or who used to wear head coverings). All of them were born and raised in cultures where that was the mainstream choice for women. Then they moved to the United States, and surprise, surprise -- they weren't instantly comfortable with stripping off something that they had worn since adolescence. And not all of these women were even that religious. I definitely wouldn't consider any of them fanatics. (I met them at college, so I acknowledge that it's a skewed sample - I assume super-conservative Muslim women aren't going to leave their home countries to attend school in the United States.)

I'm pretty sure I would have a similar reaction if I found myself in a culture where women tend to go topless. I have spent my whole life keeping my breasts private. I would not be able to change my instinct to keep them covered overnight. But I also wouldn't put on a shirt every morning thinking, "This will show them! What a powerful message I am making against all those immoral topless women and their evil culture!" I would just be putting on a shirt, like I always have. I also wouldn't consider my shirt a "uniform." I think calling head coverings a uniform (and then comparing them to gangs, sports jerseys, or cheerleaders) is similar to saying that all people of one race look alike. There is a wide variety of head coverings, in many shapes and colors and patterns. They only seem like a uniform to those in the West because they are not the norm here.

Are jeans considered our uniform? There is probably less variety in the jeans/yoga pants/business suits many of us wear every day than there is in a head covering. But OUR clothing staples get to be considered the default, and other people should conform to our ways if they don't want to be making a political statement. <-- That just seems very unfair to me.

It also seems a little self-centered to think that anyone actually gets dressed with US in mind. Like, they couldn't possibly be thinking of themselves and their own preferences/comfort/cultural sentiments? It always has to be about me, the mainstream Westerner? Again, not denying that the clothing we wear sends a message (every article of clothing does on some level), just saying that isn't necessarily what's going on in someone's mind when they choose that article of clothing.

I'm also not saying that someone couldn't make the argument that head coverings have a hint of patriarchy in them. I'll stay neutral on that topic. But you know what else may have a bit of patriarchy in it? Shaving my legs. Wearing a bra. Yet nobody avoids making eye contact with ME when I do both. Is that hypocritical? And what would happen if I stopped shaving my legs or wearing a bra? Unless I dressed strategically to hide these choices (which would defeat the purpose of defying these patriarchal trends in the first place), I would face backlash from the people in my culture. Is that why I shave and occasionally stop by Victoria's Secret? Maybe - but it's definitely not a conscious thought. Let's consider that some Middle Eastern women may have this exact same relationship with head coverings.

I suppose I've rambled on enough. Hopefully I've communicated what I wanted to coherently!

PS. These arguments are in defense of women who are actually part of a head-covering community. I don't think they apply to many of the fundies FJ usually talks about, especially those who explicitly state that they do cover to set themselves apart.

[lilith]

Sorry but being the outsider or persecuted due to religion is a very different thing than wearing gang colours; one was separated because their belief system was different, the other is organized crime. Sheesh. Yes, people wear things for many reasons, sometimes to belong, sometimes to identify, sometimes for faith, sometimes because of fashion. That's the point - not everyone is necessarily wearing religious symbols to shove anything in your face or to show they're better than anyone else. Many women who cover are independent educated women, you can't judge by it.

Early Christians were considered political dissidents and criminals. Christ and his apostles were considered to be criminals by the standards of the society in which they lived.

[JesusFightClub]

Southwestk and Aretejo both make good points. Why are we treating "Western" as normal and are some groups deliberately setting themselves apart?

From Aretejo:

Muslim women wearing scarves have usually been unfailingly nice whenever we make eye contact, but I absolutely would avoid women in face covers, and the men around them.

I'm one of those daft bastards in life whose default position is to like everyone. I smile at both hijabis and niqabis, and I also have some proof that the latter are, actually, normal. I was in London for the conference of a left-wing group (who shall remain nameless) and next to us was a group who were using the conference rooms for a meeting of "Covered Sisters". These were young women who wore the niqab. And they were like young women everywhere - they were giggling, chatting with each other in loads of different languages, sipping Cokes under their veils and I couldn't help smiling at their youthful enjoyment of life even though I wasn't happy that they should choose to cover themselves up like that.

They seemed friendly if occasionally a bit taken aback at lefty dress sense (or lack thereof). I had a similar feeling to what southwestk states. Are we (lefties) actually dressing to set ourselves apart as well? Are we wrong? Are the niqabi girls more approachable than I would think?

[salex]

Where I disagree with you is your implication in some of your previous posts that it is acceptable to make fairly broad extrapolations about a person based on what that person wears and that it is the wearer's fault for whatever assumptions others make about him/her. I disagree with the sentiment that women who wear revealing clothes are automatically sluts/impure/asking for it, just as much as I disagree with the belief that women who cover (according to whatever personal/religious principles) are automatically brainwashed/terrorists/judgemental/anti-American/anti-me

.[

I think I was pointing out that it happens, not that it was acceptable.

[salex]

PS. These arguments are in defense of women who are actually part of a head-covering community. I don't think they apply to many of the fundies FJ usually talks about, especially those who explicitly state that they do cover to set themselves apart.

What is the difference between being part of a head-covering community made up of Muslims and a head covering community made up of Christians?

The discussion for and against wearing hijab (or more complete coverings) sounds the same as the Christian debates for women covering the head. The belief net article even includes discussions of men "averting their gaze" which is what the whole Duggar "Nike" thing is about, as well as the writings of many other Christian fundies we mock here.

.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-hijab-reflections-by-muslim-women/

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/Galleries/Why-the-Hijab.aspx?p=2

[treehugger]

Am I the only one enjoying the delicious irony here?

How on earth did we go from the "no woman should be judged based on what she wears" (in reference to tiny shorts, bikini's and other "immodest" apparel that get so many of our faithful fundies' knickers in a twist) to the "well, if she's wearing something that is either obviously religious or could be construed as religious, she shouldn't be surprised that people judge her and treat her differently".

If we honestly believe that no woman should be judged as a slut or "easy" for wearing fishnet stockings and a mini-skirt - then, IMHO we probably shouldn't be judging women wearing religious garb as being snobby and "better-than-thou" or at least give them the honest benefit of the doubt. Not all religious people believe in shoving their religions down other people's throats.

[salex]

?

Probably because the original article was based in Chicago and the reactions people had there and thus the standard dress there would mostly be "Western."

Though not as western as some clothing.

:)

[salex]

Am I the only one enjoying the delicious irony here?

How on earth did we go from the "no woman should be judged based on what she wears" (in reference to tiny shorts, bikini's and other "immodest" apparel that get so many of our faithful fundies' knickers in a twist) to the "well, if she's wearing something that is either obviously religious or could be construed as religious, she shouldn't be surprised that people judge her and treat her differently".

If we honestly believe that no woman should be judged as a slut or "easy" for wearing fishnet stockings and a mini-skirt - then, IMHO we probably shouldn't be judging women wearing religious garb as being snobby and "better-than-thou" or at least give them the honest benefit of the doubt. Not all religious people believe in shoving their religions down other people's throats.

Then we need to redact quite a bit of our snark on modest fundie dressing.

[treehugger]

Then we need to redact quite a bit of our snark on modest fundie dressing.

Meh. I think there's a difference between snarking on fundies like Raquel or Michelle Duggar who claim to be more holy, pious and modest than everyone else yet post 30 millions pictures of themselves all over the internet and describe their sex life if great detail - and judging every other religious person we meet based on their clothing. Raquel and Michelle set themselves up for snark precisely because they are so public about their claims to be better than everyone else. Not every religious person is like that.

[treehugger]

That being said, Salex, I agree that people do, consciously or sub-counciously, made snap judgements of people based on what they are wearing. Obviously that isn't the ideal way to go about society, but then again, most things in life are less than ideal. And, yes, it is naive to assume that a person can wear whatever they want and not face some discrimination or backlash for some dress choices. I hope that at some point in the future, that would no longer be an issue, but for now, it still is. Especially for women.

[salex]

That being said, Salex, I agree that people do, consciously or sub-counciously, made snap judgements of people based on what they are wearing. Obviously that isn't the ideal way to go about society, but then again, most things in life are less than ideal. And, yes, it is naive to assume that a person wear whatever they want and not face some discrimination or backlash for some dress choices. I hope that at some point in the future, that would no longer be an issue, but for now, it still is. Especially for women.

Yes. especially for women.

[Mama Mia]

Early Christians were considered political dissidents and criminals. Christ and his apostles were considered to be criminals by the standards of the society in which they lived.

Seriously? Yeah.....next time some kid I know gets the shit beat out of him for not " claiming" some stupid gang or another I'll be sure to stop and think about how Jesus was a criminal too :roll: :angry-banghead: hey, apparently these young men are just responding to racial oppression ( never mind that the kid they just beat up is the same race ) so it's all good.

[1004srs]

People segregate themselves by what they wear. Military uniforms, protestant women with their big hair, gangs, Catholic school kids, Amish, muslims, business suits vs jeans and tees to work, mailmen, skirts and flip flops, nuns, priests, khaki pants/dress clothes vs jeans at big box stores, the kids who have expensive tennis shoes vs the kids who wear walmart tennis shoes, tattoos vs no visible tattoos.

Think about it.

I am treated one way at work by customers when I wear jeans, but am treated another way on the days I wear khakis. When I worked at a job where I wore suits, I was treated another way. When I wore a military uniform to work (even blue dress uniforms vs BDUs), I was treated another way. When I had short-spiky hair in lovely colors, I was treated differently than now (I have long, dark hair). Oh well. I don't care.

It isn't newsworthy.

[canbritam]

I wear hijab and have for about five years. Honestly my experiences are almost exactly opposite as this blogger's. The treatment I get from men (holding doors, just general old fashioned politeness) has been better since I started wearing it. I was pretty much treated as invisible before. However, my treatment from some women? It's like my choice to wear a scarf on my head, to dress modestly (Usually jeans and long sleeved shirts) is somehow offensive to them. I personally love (please note the sarcasm) these Women's groups that want to "rescue" these poor, oppressed Muslim women from our modest clothes and scarves without ever actually talking to the majority of us. And the majority in the communities I'm involved in cover by choice.

There was an interesting article that a Canadian Muslim Women's group (can't remember their proper name and I'm on my phone and can't link) a couple of weeks ago published. They surveyed all the niqabi women in Canada that they were aware of about the reasons why they wore niqab. Of the ~80 they surgeries something like only six did it because they were forced to. That's six too many IMHO. But the more interesting number was the number of women that admitted to wearing it even though their husbands did NOT want them to. I'm in rural Canada and there is one niqabi here. I personally think it's not necessary in Canada and for other reasons think she's nuts but I'm not going to take away her right to wear it, unlike the province of Quebec who wants to take away both hers and my rifts. I just don't get why people care so much about what I wear on my head. I don't do it for anyone else, I do itbecause I believe I'm told to wear it in the Quran, hut everyone needs to make that decision themselves.

[tropaka]

People segregate themselves by what they wear. Military uniforms, protestant women with their big hair, gangs, Catholic school kids, Amish, muslims, business suits vs jeans and tees to work, mailmen, skirts and flip flops, nuns, priests, khaki pants/dress clothes vs jeans at big box stores, the kids who have expensive tennis shoes vs the kids who wear walmart tennis shoes, tattoos vs no visible tattoos.

Think about it.

I am treated one way at work by customers when I wear jeans, but am treated another way on the days I wear khakis. When I worked at a job where I wore suits, I was treated another way. When I wore a military uniform to work (even blue dress uniforms vs BDUs), I was treated another way. When I had short-spiky hair in lovely colors, I was treated differently than now (I have long, dark hair). Oh well. I don't care.

It isn't newsworthy.

It's newsworthy because the reactions to the hijab are bound up in religious stereotyping. Unfortunately, it's not surprising, but shrugging off Islamophobia isn't exactly a good response.

[1004srs]

I I just don't get why people care so much about what I wear on my head. I don't do it for anyone else, I do it because I believe I'm told to wear it in the Quran, hut everyone needs to make that decision themselves.

.....exactly. Freedom of Religion is just that. Freedom. Wear a head covering, don't wear a head covering, wear hair that is closer to god, wear a mantilla to church, cut your hair short and wear a habit, whatever floats your boat. Don't be surprised when you are treated differently, however.

[1004srs]

If someone treats me differently because of what I wear or how I choose to educate my children, it isn't necessarily discrimination or phobia.

[tropaka]

If someone treats me differently because of what I wear or how I choose to educate my children, it isn't necessarily discrimination or phobia.

Of course not, but we're talking about the observation of someone re religious garb.

[Arete]

I do not consider covering a woman's face in a western society to be just like any other fashion choice. First off, as much as we speak of respecting all expression, some respect has to be given to the culture in which you live. In the west, hiding your face has always been considered a taboo in social relations. While the same taboo does not exist in Muslim societies, putting women in niqbah is not neutral there either. In Afganistan, a woman will be attacked without one. In Egypt, it is the mark of Salafist piety, the most puritanical form of Islam.

The fact that women who do it in the west may do it out of choice doesn't change my view. All it means is that they voluntarily subscribe to a fanatical view of how women should circulate in public, meaning as invisibly and without individuality as possible. I don't want laws and don't think anyone should be stopped, but don't tell me it doesn't mean anything, and don't be surprised if a westerner reacts differently to a person whose face they cannot see. Cultural understanding does not flow one way.

I would still steer well clear of men who live in the west and still insist their wives or daughters cover their faces.

[tropaka]

there are very few women who completely cover in North America - the woman in the OP wore hijab.