Actually, to the best of my knowlege neither Mr. Rushdi or Mr. Straw are commenting on what is appropriate for women in "other" countries - both are commenting in reaction to an incident which occurred in the UK.

There's a pretty full summary of Mr. Straw's comments here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5413470.stm

Thanks!

This critique seems a bit unfair on Mr. Rushdie. He lived in India until he was driven out by a Fatwa, right? So he kind of has the right in my view to criticise Indian culture, and what he considers to be the flaws of a religious system which attempted to have him murdered. Admittedly he might be a little one-eyed about it after what happened to him, but that doesn't mean his views aren't genuine. And wasn't the Satanic Verses pretty much a direct dig at all the more serious aspects of repression in those cultures of which you speak? I'd think he'd have some credibility having incurred a death sentence for commenting on sexual repression in islam.

(I also think this focus on the veil is crazy and wrong, I just think Salman Rushdie probably has better reasons for criticising it than most people we have heard from of late).

I think your response, while right-on in some cases, is a little "off" in dealing with a Muslim intellectual, which Salman Rushdie is.

Yes, the use of the word "sucks" was silly. This is the man who cameoed in "Bridget Jones." But considering that he risked death critiquing Islam, I believe his perspective deserves respect.

Flashheart: Just to correct a misconception, Salman Rushdie is British and was living in England when the Iranian fatwah regarding "The Satanic Verses" was issued against him in 1991.

This forced him to go into hiding, and is still in technically in force.

Once again, this quote was not directed at foreign nationals, but was made by an Englishman speaking specifically about British muslims.

Whether or not the comment was culturally insensitive or sexist is of course up for debate.

P.S. India is predominantly not a muslim country; I suspect you may be thinking of Pakistan.

Thank you for the correction. I didn't know that Salman Rushdie is British (my memory of the fatwa controversy is mighty dim, and I have never read him). I was thinking of India, thinking that Salman Rushdie is from that country and therefore pissed off that country's muslim minority. Now that I discover just precisely how dim my memory of that controversy is, I shall recant that last post. (except the bit about him being pissed off... I think it's reasonable for him to be pissed off ...)

1-Salman Rushdie is an Indian born British citizen.

2- He is not a Muslim intellectual, as in he is not a Muslim, though he is from a Muslim background, and he is no intellectual; he is novelist.

3- The fatwa against him was not for revealing sexual repression in Islam or Indian Muslim culture, (Indian Muslims are not known for their radicalism) but for purportedly slandering Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses�. (Now I have no idea how and why the Grand Ayatollah ended up reading that.)

4- I have a feeling that 60 year old men who marry twenty something year old models are not very good authorities on women’s rights, but I might be wrong. Certainly having a fatwa against you does not make you an expert on anything, though it does give you a right to be very pissed off.

5- Jack Straw’s criticism of the veil is not in the context of women’s oppression but rather concerned with how British Muslims are becoming more and more disconnected to the rest of the society. As far as I know he didn’t suggest entirely getting rid of the veil, he just asked that these women show their faces.

Hi. I'm new to the feminist blog scene, and I don't really want to start by pissing people off, but here goes.

You wrote both that the veil shouldn't be a symbol of such power, but also that it can symbol of solidarity and nationalism. Covering your face is powerfully symbolic, I think that is hard to argue with. It is wonderful that some women choose to co-opt that symbol, but for every one who does I'm sure there are hundreds who wear it because they live in a patriarchal society that expects them to. Obviously, it is the oppressive society, not the veil itself that is the problem. But the veil affects many more women on a day to day basis than say, the ability to vote, and is very visible. Why not use it as a place to start?

Anyway, that's my take. Obviously women are and should be free to wear the veil because of religious faith or any other reason, but I think criticism of it as a tool of patriarchal governments and societies shouldn't be dismissed.

Thanks for the link, nonsequitur. I was struck by Mr. Straw's apparently unconscious eurocentrism in statements like this:

"This is an issue that needs to be discussed because, in our [emphasis mine] society, we are able to relate particularly to strangers by being able to read their faces and if you can't read people's faces, that does provide some separation.

So Mr. Straw is saying that these women must "relate" to him in terms that he finds comfortable.

As a western woman, I concede that I certainly find it easier to read people's facial expressions than their body language; however, I know that people give all sorts of cues with their shoulders, posture, hands. One might think that as a representative of a dominant culture talking with representatives of a minority culture, Mr. Straw might take the trouble to learn to communicate with people on their own terms, rather than implicitly stating that "we" do things a certain way in "our" society, and that members of minority groups should communicate on our terms.

I guess I'm not ready to condemn him for speaking out on something he thinks harms women -- if we can condemn him, aren't we ourselves just as open to criticsm for, example, taking issue with the prevalence of pornography and prostitution? There are also many women who choose these professions, rightly or wrongly, and some who think (in my mind, wrongly so) that they can even be empowering. Similarly, Rushdie is entitled to his thoughts on whether veils harm women overall -- the fact that he's a man shouldn't mean that speaking on women's rights is completely taboo. I'd much rather have men arguing over whether veils contribute to the subjugation of women, than over who of their coworkers has the best "jugs."

I agree, TLF.

"So Mr. Straw is saying that these women must "relate" to him in terms that he finds comfortable."

To be fair, it's my understanding that due to severe tinnitus, Straw is functionally deaf and depends on lip-reading for a great deal of communication. So given his disability, it is a serious difficulty for him to relate to anybody who covers his or her face. He should have mentioned that, of course, but there might be a British cultural thing going on there that I don't know about.

I smell some irony here.

The post above this one is a clever critique of the values associated with a particular, personal grooming choice.

Rushdie's complaint is a critique of a particular, personal clothing choice.

I happen to agree with the substance of both criticisms and respectfully suggest that they are--in fact--precisely the same.

Shaving and chadoring express the value that how a woman looks is more important than how she thinks, or feels, or acts. And isn't that prioritization the very essence of misogyny?

A veil is absolutely the symbol of subjugation of women. And majority of women wear them not because they want to, but because this is what they are expected to do. It is much easier to dehumanize a person if she doesn't really look like a human (and women in burquas don't). If you have to hide your face because some passerby might get a hard on from seing your nose or hair, are you really the one who has any power? What voting rights are we talking about, when you're not allowed to even show your face to the world? Rushdie is absolutely correct to say what he did.
I don't deny that there might be women wearing the veils out of their free will, but the vast majority would not be wearing if given the power of free choice.

"The post above this one is a clever critique of the values associated with a particular, personal grooming choice.

Rushdie's complaint is a critique of a particular, personal clothing choice.

I happen to agree with the substance of both criticisms and respectfully suggest that they are--in fact--precisely the same."

Paul, they would only be the same if women were required by law to shave their legs, which I don't think is the case in any country. Also, I took Rushdie to be criticizing not the women for wearing veils, but rather the patriarchal structure of a society that requires it, as this robs women of power and equality. Conversely, the post above links to a post that criticizes what for most women is *in fact* a very personal and free choice. In my mind these two posts are night and day different.

I disagree that shaving is a free choice, TLF. While it's obviously not legally mandated, the amount of gendered social and cultural pressure to shave is outrageous, and there can be very real professional consequences to not shaving.

“While it's obviously not legally mandated, the amount of gendered social and cultural pressure to shave is outrageous, and there can be very real professional consequences to not shaving.� That is true and in most Islamic countries (all other than Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban) women are not required to wear the veil by law and they certainly are not required to cover their faces.

It is way more stigmatizing to appear in public unshaved in the US than it is to go unveiled in say Egypt.

Get over the fact that the male gaze cannot reach them, as they are covered.

i have this theory about the viels, but i must admit first that i am pretty uneducated when it comes to muslims. anyway, when i read that line about the gaze, it hit me: just as in the S&M world, where they will openly admit that the subs are the ones who are "really" in power, i can see that maybe the veils are a submissive way to gain power in their culture. you cannot see their face, the gaze hits a "wall" of fabric and the viewer is denied gratifcation of objectifying women, also. it suddenly hit me: the veiled woman is not unlike the "man behind the curtain" in Oz. sure, it's a fictional tale, but it's something that westerners can relate to. and, in changing the gender of the person behind the curtain/veil, it can potentially show just how much power these women hold. i dont really think that it is the veil that oppresses these women, i think that the veil brings mystery and an element of fear to men, and MAYBE, just maybe...men of our growing and spreading culture are just afraid of women that they cannot objectify if they so choose to. as mentioned, why aren;t these men concerned with REAL issues of oppression?? being able to vote and all that. but no, the veil is the "real" problem. *sarcasm* it shames me to be able to see through the western criticism of the veil....because if someone like me who has no historical cultural knowledge of the veil can see that westerners are getting the wrong idea here......then i know that these women's issues are not being tended to. they are being covered up like thier faces is arguements that revolve around whether or not western men will ever see muslim women in hustler or on the cover of maxim and stuff.....

Lawfairy -

If there were no 'law' mandating the veil, but many women wore it anyway out of 'social obligation', 'religious observance' or 'fashion', would that make it 'suck' any less? I say 'Yes', and tried to explain why by linking the two posts.

I think you and I agree that laws dictating fashion and grooming do little for human happiness regardless of the fashion or grooming they mandate. The point of my post was to try to express what there is to object to in both customs, holding aside (for a moment) the question of explicit coercion.

It is very interesting that a conversation about the veil was housed within the context of British Muslims. The discussion about the veil began with a book written by a British Man during the period of British colonal rule of Iran. Before that, the veil was not a signifier of Islam, but had more to do with cultural ties. Christians and Zoronastrian women also donned the veil. During the period of the Shah's reign, women wore the veil in an act of protest to the Shah's banning the veil in the inerest of "modernity". I think when you read and understand more about the history of how the veil come to be such a signifier of women's oppression, it becomes clear is that the veil is not simply a tool of the patriarchy. After all, the Koran says that men should also dress modestly. The veil cannot just be dismissed as a garment that men force on women to control their sexuality. This essentialist argument ignores the way women have used the veil as a sign of protest. While I agree that the Middle Eastern countries have much work to do in the area of women's rights, it seems silly that such a garment is pointed out as the main thing disempowering women. In a way, it is kind of like making the fact that women can't expose their nipples in this country into the main reason women are oppressed in this country.

I guess maybe what's bothering me is the tone of the post linked to in the post above this one, which may not be relevant here. Obviously I don't think shaving and other grooming happens in a vaccuum, but I did take umbrage at Molly's criticism of women who do it. I think it's better to criticize the patriarchal structures that differentiate between men and women on such cosmetic issues -- so to the extent that's what you're saying, Paul, I agree.

However, I shave/wax because I have a serious distaste for body hair, on men OR women. It irks me when people imply that this is reason to question my feminist credentials.

Lawfairy -

No need to be too pure! I think we all have 'guilty pleasures' or do things out of a sense of social / cultural obligation that we know are silly or unhelpful or contrary to the values we commit to in other aspects of our lives.

It's just that, you know, some battles just aren't worth fighting. Even with yourself.

Yet some are. There are more obvious and far more harmful ways in which looks trump love.

What's the tone of my post? I am not being difficult either. I truely would like to know.

I guess I didn't realize LF didn't mean me. I really really really need it to be the weekend.

lol, sorry tabitha -- nothing wrong with your tone at all ;)

I agree -- hurry up, weekend!

He is not a Muslim intellectual, as in he is not a Muslim, though he is from a Muslim background, and he is no intellectual; he is novelist.

Fair enough on the Muslim part. My understanding was that he was raised Muslim, though I may be wrong about that. I think someone who is raised in a faith has a certain privileged perspective when it comes to criticizing that faith.

As for him being a novelist, not an intellectual, well, that seems like splitting hairs. Is someone not allowed to be both? I would argue that Midnight's Children qualifies him as an intellectual. But if you don't want to call him an intellectual, let's call him an artist.

Neither of these change my original point, which is that there is a difference between, say, Bush (a born-again Christian from Texas) using burkas as a political and rhetorical tool and Salman Rushdie (from a Muslim background) saying he thinks veils "suck."

I recently read several thousand dismally headache-inducing words about an insignificant Photoshopped joke picture of Jessica Valenti (? who'd know, actually?) inside a burqa, and now I'm reading this, and I conclude: You people are trying to miss the point. Veils or scarves or even burqas themselves are inanimate and inoffensive; being forced to wear, or not wear (viz. French public schools) a veil sucks.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

just as in the S&M world, where they will openly admit that the subs are the ones who are "really" in power

What? First, the more hardcore people openly snub that view, and say that it's just a wannabe thing. Second, even the more mainstream BDSMers don't say the subs are really in power; what they say is that the sub is usually the one who sets the boundaries of how far the domination can go, for obvious reasons.

At any rate, comparing any mainstream culture (and that includes Islamic culture, which is mainstream in a big chunk of the world) to BDSM is like comparing a natural language to Esperanto.

"There is a difference between, say, Bush (a born-again Christian from Texas) using burkas as a political and rhetorical tool and Salman Rushdie (from a Muslim background) saying he thinks 'veils suck'."

Very nice, lunasol. And instead of focusing on the Western signifier of "the burqa" we should turn our attention to what's happening to women in Afghanistan according to the Human Rights Watch Report 2006...

Women and girls continue to suffer from discrimination and restrictions. Only 35 percent of school-age girls are in school. According to 2005 U.N. and Afghan government figures, most marriages continue to involve girls below the age of sixteen, many of them forced. Women and girls continue to face severe discrimination and suffer the worst effects of Afghanistan’s insecurity. Conditions are better than under the Taliban, but four years later progress has been inadequate and too slow. Women who are active in public life as political candidates, journalists, teachers, or NGO workers, or who criticize local rulers, still face disproportionate threats and violence. Women and girls are subject to both formal and informal (customary) justice mechanisms that fail to protect their rights. Violence against women and girls remains rampant, including domestic violence, sexual violence, and forced marriage. Authorities often fail to investigate or prosecute these cases. Dozens of women are imprisoned around the country for “running away� from abusive or forced marriages, or for transgressing social norms by eloping. Some are placed in custody to prevent violent retaliation from family members. Women and girls continue to confront tight restrictions on their mobility, and many are not free to travel without a male relative and a burqa.

I can't condemn Salman Rusdie for condemning the veil.

He's right.

And I would second him by adding:

There is nothing good about the veil unless you are caught in a sand storm in the middle of the desert without any shelter and you need it to cover your eyes from the sand.

This is what's so great about loud children who don't read anything except online news sources.

Straw didn't say anything about what women "should" wear, much less anything about women in other countries. He was actually talking about Muslim women in his constituency of Blackburn (heavy Muslim population, always good to learn about other countries) coming into his office and having discussions with him. All he said is that when veiled women turn up at his office he would rather see their faces so he can have a more engaged conversation. But perhaps wanting to see the face of the person you're talking to is a loathsome symptom of "the male gaze" (boo! hiss!).

And Rushdie is not only correct, but he speaks with some understanding and authority as he grew up in a secular Muslim family in Peshawar (in those days being fought over by India and the new country of Pakistan) before moving to England at age thirteen. The man knows what he's talking about, and even if you disagree with him surely you can A) acknowledge that he's not "stupid,," and B)cut the guy some bloody slack, as devout Muslims have been trying to murder him for seveteen years running, and will continue to do so for the rest of his life.

"Many women wear veils to stand in solidarity with nationalist imperatives."

Um, no they don't. It's a cultural and religious practice; it has nothing to do with supporting "nationalist imperatives." There's not a woman on the planet who wears the veil to support national liberation movements (if that is what you mean by "nationalist imperatives"). What nationalist imperatives are you thinking of, anyhow? As I'm sure you're aware, all the "nationalist imperatives" in the Middle East in recent decades have been thoroughly secular and modernizing. Think Nasser. Or Saddam. Neither of them too keen on the veil. Perhaps you're under the impression that Muslim women in Blackburn, England wear the veil to, say, support the Saudi royal family? Even though they're mostly of Pakistani descent? And the "nationalist" leader of Pakistan is...a secular modernizer opposed to the veil.

Palestinian nationalism used to be mainly secular, up until the advent of Hamas, who see themselves as a supranational religious army, not just nationalists. If you study the Middle East you'll find that the veil in whatever form and "nationalist imperatives" often find themselves in direct conflict.

The wearing the veil is often used to show nationalist solidarity and to protest against Western imperialism and racism. For example, Iranians wore veils to protest the US intervention in Iran. The US put the Shah in power and women wore the veil in nationalist solidarity to support Ayatollah Khomeini and rising Islamic fundamentalism.

Yes, many women did wear veils to protest the Shah's regime, but not all of them. The anti-Shah, anti-US Iranian revolution of 1979 was hardly a monolithic movement; the revolutionaries included Islamic diehards (led by Khomeini, of course), pro-Soviet Communists, independent socialists, and more. Whatever their ideology or vision for Iranian society, most revolutionaries initially supported Khomeini because he was an effective and charismatic leader but MANY, MANY of them--please realize--turned against him and his government as soon as it became clear that the Shah's military regime was set to be replaced by a theocratic state.

But that was then. Nowadays in Iran, many women tinker with the veil (letting their hair slip down from underneath it, etc.) or refuse to wear it all in protest of the Khameini regime. And it seems that anyone who aligns themselves with feminist or progressive principles should support the women in Iran who marched in Tehran during Internation Women's Day--showing their faces--only to be clubbed and arrested by the police. Did Feministing cover this? Or is this website not that big on international solidarity?

Face veils do suck- the reason islamic women wear them is because according to the koran it makes them half a man. It is good this Indian man is sympathetic to the women, rather than participating in open misogyny torwards them. Many men particulaly who grow up in india simply do not.

Did Feministing cover this? Or is this website not that big on international solidarity?

Mortimer, you've confused issues of feminism with nationalist solidarity and the issue was covered at length here and on three June 13 and 15 Feministing articles.