Help with an article about the 'veil controversy'
Nov 7 2006 23:49
I've been asked to write an article for a 'women's magazine' and I thought I'd post about it on here to see what ideas get thrown up or what resources people can point me to.
The specification I've been given reads - "Veil Controversy 'Against Women's Right or Religious Freedom' - Please be careful and illustrate both sides of the argument, even if the article favours one opinion over the other."
So yeah, a bit of help please. Also, I've never written a magazine/paper article of any kind so tips on actually writing the damn thing would be good too.
I've got about a week to write it, so I'd appreciate it if you could keep the gloves on until then, and you all can be cocks to each other once I've finished it 
Love!
Nov 7 2006 23:57
#2
Shit there was a good thread in the CW forum, but it got lost in the hack.
A practical argument against a *state* ban, as opposed to you just not liking it, is that repressing it will drive people to extremism. And of course the state has no business telling people what they can and can't wear.
Arguments *for* wearing it are all bollocks. Either to "protect" men from evil seductive women or to protect women from evil rapist men.
Some interesting points are here:
Quote:
The discussion seemed to show an acceptance of Muslims monolithically being fundamentalist, reactionary and oppressive towards women. It is clear that patriarchy, homophobia and conservatism exists in Muslim societies but do not these tendencies also exist in white, European and non-Muslim societies? Patriarchy, homophobia and conservatism are universal because capitalism is universal. With regards to women, the left and the anarchist movement accepts the stereotype that Muslim women who wear the Hijab (headscarf) are oppressed and docile creatures. The anarchists have therefore fallen into the trap of believing that Western women are liberated whilst Muslim women are not. Implying that Muslim women are only free if they remove the Hijab and don the mini-skirt is as ridiculous as the Taleban imposing the Hijab, and indeed the Burqa whilst abolishing the mini-skirt. As the Moroccan Feminist Fatima Mernissi has once said “a size 6 is the Western woman’s harem”. A universal patriarchal system is clearly the problem here, not the exclusive evils of a puritan Muslim culture
Still, a horrible article to have to write, mainly cos - who gives a shit? All the debates about it are totally bourgeois, and by and large irrelevant.
Nov 8 2006 08:32
#3
John. wrote:
All the debates about it are totally bourgeois, and by and large irrelevant.
I agree with John. The whole political point about it is that the whole question is on a completely bourgeois terrain. I presume that isn't what your women's magazine wants. I think that probably the most interesting point about it in the west is how it has become a part of the racist-anti immigrant propaganda campaign. Here of course it serves a completely different purpose, though no less bourgeois.
Devrim
Nov 8 2006 09:24
#4
What sort of magazine is it? Writing style should depend, generally, on intended audience.
Have to post this quote from The Shadows Under the Lamp in full unfortunately as it's scanned from a Freedom Press book on Afghanistan which ain't online, it's got some good points in it...
Quote:
Sometimes it seems as if every second newspaper article, academic essay and book is entitled ‘unveiling Afghanistan’, ‘behind the veil’, and so on. What ‘veil’? The leather-and-brass beaked masks of rich Saudi women? The thin cotton gauze which seems to float over the heads of Egyptian air hostesses? The tcha-Dior, paraded by the fashionable bourgeoises of Tehran? No: the burqa, the now near-universally recognized symbol of some absolute oppression of women.Against the burqa, another universal constant: the mini-skirt. “Kabul’s golden age was in the 1970s,” writes one journalist, “Those were the days when many women wore miniskirts.”
This is commentary reduced to the most rudimentary form of stigmatization. To reply properly would require a volume: let us merely rehearse a few simple arguments. The peoples around the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean and in west Asia have worn various forms of head-coverings for millennia. The traditional depiction of Mary, the mother of Jesus, normally shows her with her head covered. Veils, in different forms, have been most frequently by women, but there are interesting exceptions such as the veils worn by male Tuaregs. The practice is not unchanging: veils and veiling develop according to shifts in politics, cultures and religious practices. They are therefore the most visible symbols of deeper processes.
Peter Marsden’s comments on the Taliban’s policies are relevant at this point: “Afghanistan is one of the few places left in the world where the Western media do not penetrate to a significant degree. The rigidity of the Taliban gender policies could be seen as a desperate attempt to keep out that other” world, and to protect Afghan women from influences that could weaken the society from within.”
In other words, the burqa was not an arbitrary act of oppression, but part of an isolationist ethic. The ruthless violence with which the Taliban imposed their repressive dress code on the women of Kabul was clearly wrong. But it ought to be remembered that compulsory un-veiling may also be equally wrong. ‘Compulsory’, in this sense, could include a consistent, senseless and ignorant derision of the other by an institution with a degree of power-a state, an NGO, a UN agency – as well as legislative action.
Let’s get our priorities right. First, food and shelter; next, education, jobs, prospects, debates; and then we can consider the veil. When they feel the time is right, Afghan women will act to change the way they dress.
Until then, an aphorism: To wear a burqa is not necessarily a sign of some absolute repression; to wear a mini-skirt is not necessarily a sign of some absolute liberty.
Nov 8 2006 10:14
#5
Saii wrote:
What sort of magazine is it? Writing style should depend, generally, on intended audience.
It was described to me as "Oxford's first women's magazine" and that "it has sections on politics, art, society, philosophy, [and] fashion". I've emailed the editor back to ask whether it's an overtly feminist publication but I kinda doubt that it will be (although it would be nice if I could manage to swing things that way). I think I have pretty much free rein in terms of what sort of tone I go for, I'm just quite shit at writing in the first place.
Nov 8 2006 10:33
#6
Grace wrote:
The specification I've been given reads - "Veil Controversy 'Against Women's Right or Religious Freedom' - Please be careful and illustrate both sides of the argument, even if the article favours one opinion over the other."
You might find this Workers Solidarity article useful, 'Hijab: lifting the veil: Standing up to religious oppression or state racism?' http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2004/80/hijab.html
For a strong anti perspective see 'The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI)' http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm There linked to the WCPI and have people in London so you could almost certainly get an interview. We brought one of them to Dublin to speak at an anti-war dayschool.
Nov 8 2006 11:32
#7
I think John pretty much summed it up as far as I'm concerned - the State has no role in telling people what to wear, but wearing the veil is reactionary bollocks and illustrates a bullshit view of both male and female sexuality.
I can understand the arguement that's often put forward (supposedly "the veiled woman's" view) that wearing the veil is empowering for women because it makes them feel more in control of their bodies (i.e. they are not "on display" for any old person, they won't be subject to the "objectifying" male gaze etc, they're protesting against women being judged in terms of their sexual availability etc). I guess it could be quite cool in a way to be able to wear a veil and in so doing say you're not just there for people to oggle at. However...
That arguement is flawed in a lot of ways, clearly. It creates a divide between "good women" and "bad women", with veiled women being presented as more virtuous, so where does that leave the rest of us? Where does it leave unveiled Muslim women? If the arguement about veiling from muslim women centres around notions of "self-respect", it does nothing to challenge the idea that women should be judged in terms of their sexual availability, it reinforces it by producing this self-imposed divide between nice chaste veiled women and unveiled women, who presumably by implication are anybody's harlot. So it's not a progressive move against objectification in any way.
Furthermore, the veil is based on frankly bizarre concepts of male and female sexuality - that men are not in control of their sexuality and so women need to be protected from them, that women are there to tempt men cos they contain some innate seductive power (there's a specific word for this, look for the "like uncovered meat" thread in libcommunity...) and thus need to be "contained". There is no discussion of whether men are, actually, entirely capable of controlling their sexuality and that men who rape/assault/harrass do so because they choose to, not because they "can't help it, they're only men". And even if it were the case that men just couldn't help it (which its not), then why is the responsibility placed on women to restrain themselves? Why don't men have to wear chastity belts or something?
Of course in a lot of cases veiling is part of a wider system of restricting women's activity known as purdah which is a specific and strict code follwed (in this country) by particularly fervent muslims, designed to clearly mark the divide between women and men. So obviously that's a bit fucked up, and I'll not go into that!
But also, as John said, my immediate reaction to all this stuff about the veil is "who gives a fuck?" because it's such a non-issue to the vast, vast majority of people in this country and yet it's being hyped up and up to add to this general discoursse about how "seperate" Muslims are from the rest of british society and I'm kind of loathe to talk about it for that reason, but I'm not sure that's the right attitude really. Hmm.
Oh and also Grace like we were saying last night - it's not actually what people wear that's the issue - no one gives a shit about Orthodox Jewsih women wearing headscarves of shaving their heads and wearing wigs, or indeed about any women wearing say a hat or a bandana. i was gonna add hood in there, but hoods are now apparently an issue too. And also no one gives a shit about Muslim men covering their heads, and there's nothinng oppressive about wearing a hat. Hair is not the issue here!
Nov 8 2006 11:34
#8
Quote:
I'm just quite shit at writing in the first place.
You can shut up about that shit for a start. I'm sick of people telling me they can't fucking write - what do you do at uni all day, type gibberish? Have some self-confidence for fuck's sake.
(sorry admins, tis not meant as flaming, honest)
If it's fairly up in the air you can probly get away with writing in your own style, worst they'll do is ask for a rewrite. Features tend to follow a similar pattern of human interest hook (ie a personal experience, interesting anecdote or related bizarre happening you've heard about which can draw people in), explanation of the general issue, interview of someone with a personal interest, then maybe some more background and if you can get away with it, a conclusion (though this is generally frowned on).
But frankly, that structure is often a load of balls in practice, particularly if said anecdote is an indymedia-style piece of pretentious intellectual masturbation.
Nov 8 2006 11:37
#9
Saii wrote:
Have some self-confidence for fuck's sake.
nice
Nov 8 2006 11:38
#10
Yes, I agree with Saii, you're not shit at writing, so stop putting yourself down or I'll bite you.
Nov 8 2006 11:39
#11
Saii wrote:
Quote:
I'm just quite shit at writing in the first place.You can shut up about that shit for a start. I'm sick of people telling me they can't fucking write - what do you do at uni all day, type gibberish?
I didn't know Grace was at Goldsmiths. 
Nov 8 2006 11:44
#12
zobag wrote:
but wearing the veil is reactionary bollocks and illustrates a bullshit view of both male and female sexuality.
I don't think you can say that. An item of clothing can't be inherently anything. Some reasons for wearing it - as you outline - are reactionary, others wouldn't necessarily be (for example, because you like it, think it looks good, easy to iron, you might have some facial disfigurement you don't want to get shit over, etc.).
Nov 8 2006 11:46
#13
Well yes I agree, and like I said before it's not the veil itself that's the issue here. Although I'm yet to hear veils being promoted because they are easy to iron 
Nov 8 2006 11:53
#14
zobag wrote:
Although I'm yet to hear veils being promoted because they are easy to iron
Another libcom first, ladies and gentlemen.
Nov 8 2006 11:53
#15
And that also gets me thinking (thanks John) about a much more interesting idea i.e. how muslim women use the veil to their advantage, what they can get out of it, how it can be adapted to serve different purposes... all of which is way more interesting than the standard religious arguements which are probably not the only reasons women wear the veil, and almost certainly not the only way muslim women interpret their reasons for wearing the veil.
But of course that's tricky, cos mostly we're not gonna know how individual women interpret the veil, the role it plays in their lives etc. Which is why anthropologists are the best people ever.
Nov 8 2006 11:56
#16
Saii wrote:
Quote:
I'm just quite shit at writing in the first place.You can shut up about that shit for a start. I'm sick of people telling me they can't fucking write - what do you do at uni all day, type gibberish?
Mostly; I'm a Classicist 
Nah, I have a record of bad writing. To quote my tutor during a conversation in which I told him how much I was enjoying Logic, "well if you could apply some [logic] to your essay structure it'd be a start".
In real terms I have no doubt that I can do it, I'm just a little apprehensive having not done it before. Cheers for the tips.
Nov 8 2006 12:28
#17
I've actually picked this topic for my next column, though am beginning to wonder if I have anything really interesting to say on the subject. Suffice to say the testimony of a lot of the niqab-wearing women after Jack Straw's comments was that they felt it was positive in terms of their modesty (something promoted by Islam) and in their relationship to their god.
To me, the main drawback with this is that it reinforces the idea that women should be wearing the veil and exerts pressure on those who don't want to.
Ultimately, though, i think we have to draw back from where a lot of the left and most of the right want to go with this issue, which is a ban (like Turkey or France - who've banned the hijab in public places). The state has no business banning it.
If women from muslim communities start calling for more freedom from restrictive dress and other religious codes, then they should be supported, but I don't think it coming from anywhere else is particularly useful.
Regards,
Martin
Nov 8 2006 12:32
#18
There was an interesting programme on the telly a couple of weeks back about muslim women organising to get access to male-only mosques. In a sense, that's just the kind of "religious code" that Martin's talking about.
Nov 8 2006 12:33
#19
martinh wrote:
I've actually picked this topic for my next column, though am beginning to wonder if I have anything really interesting to say on the subject. Suffice to say the testimony of a lot of the niqab-wearing women after Jack Straw's comments was that they felt it was positive in terms of their modesty (something promoted by Islam) and in their relationship to their god.To me, the main drawback with this is that it reinforces the idea that women should be wearing the veil and exerts pressure on those who don't want to.
Quite, it's the good women/bad women divide like I was saying before, which is shite.
Quote:
Ultimately, though, i think we have to draw back from where a lot of the left and most of the right want to go with this issue, which is a ban (like Turkey or France - who've banned the hijab in public places). The state has no business banning it.If women from muslim communities start calling for more freedom from restrictive dress and other religious codes, then they should be supported, but I don't think it coming from anywhere else is particularly useful.
Again I'd agree with all that.
Nov 8 2006 12:38
#20
Might be the wrong thread, and I'm probably being horrifically naive, but does anyone else think that Jack Straw's comments were honestly said 'in good faith' trying to start a serious debate and weren't meant to be racist at all?
Nov 8 2006 13:22
#23
Started a new thread on it here.
Nov 8 2006 22:00
#24
Grace, most of what I'd say has been covered. I'd also put something about what the fact that some muslim women choose to wear the veil says about british society i.e. judging women on appearances. From what I've heard a lot of these women feel that they're taken more seriously at work etc. when wearing a veil (because it sexualises them). Lots of issues there.
And yeah like has been said, the wearing of the veil is reactionary because it doesn't actually challenge this, just protects individual women to a certain extent. But neither will tryng to stop women from wearing the veil change anything.
Oh fuck, I posted this in libcommunity. Could it be moved somewhere nicer?