if women are using this procedure to avoid being beaten or killed- arent they already screwed? So us supporting and making sure the surgery is socially acceptable seems absurd. This belief just has to be changed-- like slavery somethings are just wrong and there's no defense for them.

You know, the ironic thing is that a lot of women who undergo the surgery probably think of it as "empowering" because it allows them a sexual freedom that they haven't enjoyed in the past, when really it's just assisting in their oppression.

A serious backlash could occur for women who would be seeking the surgery; it could very well just oppress them more.

I'm unclear whether Vanessa is talking about a legal/political backlash, or a cultural backlash. In France, could they actually outlaw the procedure? Aren't medical records a matter of privacy? Or would doctors treating women refuse on political grounds? Does anyone know more about the way this might play out in France, based on how they have handled other immigration/integration issues?

I've never understood the posters on Feministing who insist that wearing veils is empowering. That's not to say that laws banning headscarves make any sense, of course.

Same for hymen reconstruction. It's a fucked-up attitude that associates abstinence with "virtue", and anything that helps women stay within that fold is also bad. But, of course, there's no sense in laws banning it.

This seems more like a form of camouflage than anything. For example, a woman pushed to marry a man she barely knows may get it so that she can hide her college sex life from him on the wedding night. For another example, a woman marrying her first lover may get it so that they can hide their premarital sex from his mother when she does a pre-wedding hymen check. It's really sad that the danger exists in the first place.

"if women are using this procedure to avoid being beaten or killed- arent they already screwed? So us supporting and making sure the surgery is socially acceptable seems absurd."

That makes about as little sense as "If women living in 'bad neighborhoods' stay in at night to avoid being raped, aren't they already screwed? Us making sure nobody has to stay outside at 2 am seems absurd." would make.

"I've never understood the posters on Feministing who insist that wearing veils is empowering"
When did anybody here say that ??!! Are you looking at the right website?

Yeah, I've seen plenty of posters argue for the right of women and girls to wear veils/hijabs/etc, but no one arguing that doing so is empowering.

I've never understood the posters on Feministing who insist that wearing veils is empowering.

As a American non-Muslim, I am only speaking out of academic rather than personal experience here, but the are-veils-empowering? issue has deep roots in the history of Western Imperialism. In the late 19th century and early 20th, when many Muslim countries were secularizing and adopting Western styles, they often banned the veil. Then, during independence movements, women re-adopted the veil as an (often secular) symbol of political activism. It became a tool to identify themselves as political activists. In an immigrant community, like in France, all this complicated histories get tangled with present-day politics and gender issues. Veils can become powerful (empowering?) symbols of national/religious/ethnic identity, while at the same time they are inextricably connected to a cultural framework that is extremely patriarchal and misogynistic.

While I absolutely believe that mandatory veil/covering cannot be feminist (as all social conventions that seek to control or erase women cannot be), I have heard feminist Muslims speak of how the veil--and here we are talking not about the full head-to-toe wraps or face-coverings, but a simple scarf or head-covering--is a personal expression of faith.

Feminist women in every major faith tradition have had to struggle with how to incorporate their feminism with the religious community with which they identify. Some decide the patriarchy of the historical faith cannot be reconciled with feminism, and leave. Others decide to stay and speak out for feminism within the faith. I have respect for women who choose the later (though I don't think I would be able to do it myself).

"Veils can become powerful (empowering?) symbols of national/religious/ethnic identity,"

...and even symbols of national/religious/ethnic integration:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1294417.stm

I wouldn't be surprised if one Muslim in the Met feels her uniform hijab is as empowering as another Muslim in the Met feels her uniform bowler hat is.

re: veils as empowering...
some young Muslim women in the u.s. now wear their veils as a political statement in the wake of 9-11, to show people that being Muslim is something that they are proud of, not ashamed of.

this is a hard issue, but i feel like its a matter of choice. if women are being forced to wear a hijab, i think that's a problem. but if it is a personal choice by that woman (and here's where it gets tricky - is it really a choice if she is educated by a particular culture to think this is needed by women, etc), i think it can be empowering.

there's actually been a lot of interesting stuff written on the issue. i'll see if i can dig it up.

“and here's where it gets tricky - is it really a choice if she is educated by a particular culture to think this is needed by women, etc�

I agree, I also think that the same thing can be said about wearing makeup, high heels, dieting, shaving, submitting sexually, forgoing your career to be a SAHM, taking your husband’s last name, etc. All those things are part of this (western) culture but people tend to not notice, veiled women get picked on because the veil isn’t part of this culture. Wearing a veil by choice, if it is part of your culture, is like wearing a miniskirt by choice, if that’s part of your culture.

Has anyone else read the graphic memoir Embroideries by Marjane Satrapi? It's about the author and her grandmother chatting with a bunch of other Middle Eastern women about their lives. The title comes from a slang term for hymenoplasty -- "the embroidery".

According to this book, not only does the procedure save a lot of women's bacon, but it may be helping to phase out the ridiculous expectation of virginity at marriage. The author describes talking to a male acquaintance who says, "I'm not going to insist on having a virgin bride." She is pleasantly surprised, thinking that perhaps this guy is more progressive than she thought, when he adds, "With the embroidery, you can't tell who's really a virgin anyway."

Has anyone else read the graphic memoir Embroideries by Marjane Satrapi? It's about the author and her grandmother chatting with a bunch of other Middle Eastern women about their lives. The title comes from a slang term for hymenoplasty -- "the embroidery".

According to this book, not only does the procedure save a lot of women's bacon, but it may be helping to phase out the ridiculous expectation of virginity at marriage. The author describes talking to a male acquaintance who says, "I'm not going to insist on having a virgin bride." She is pleasantly surprised, thinking that perhaps this guy is more progressive than she thought, when he adds, "With the embroidery, you can't tell who's really a virgin anyway."

Well, in terms of the veil being empowering, I remember reading an article once about women and the veil. It was very interesting because it pointed out how women actually feel freer from the oppressive male gaze when they were covered. One woman was a professor and taught while being wrapped from head to toe. She said that men took her more seriously when she was not being lusted after by their gaze. I don't remember exactly because it was a long time ago, but that sentiment was the gist of it.

I also agree with the other posters that said when it is totally a matter of choice, I think we should be supportive.

As well as this surgery. While I think it is important to get to the core of the problem which is the fact that only virgins are "acceptable," that is not an immediate realistic goal. The more immediate issue is a woman having a choice to do to her body as she wishes. Her choice. It is also a matter of safety. since women may lose their lives and livelihood in they do not have this procedure.

Please do not think I am saying that the core issue of trying to reverse this thinking is not important or should be ignored. I just don't know how soon anyone can remedy that. Whereas a threat to a woman's choice is an immediate problem that we can do something about.

I do hope there comes a time (soon!) where this is no longer necessary or a concern.

I can't be the only one bothered by so many people's objection to the surgery, can I?

The need for it, yes, that's not right. But demonizing women who seek it doesn't do any good. They're just trying to look out for themselves, and, for all you know, it can mean the difference between life and death. I think her choice needs to be respected, and understood in context. She shouldn't be blamed for attitudes about female virginity, that's something from the larger culture.

Du'a Khalil Aswad was a Yezidi Kurdish girl stoned to death in front of around a thousand spectators on the 7th April this year in Northern Iraq. It might be germane to note that the first thing that the father did, was to demand a virginity test on the corpse of his stoned daughter to prove that 'family honour' had not been compromised. Please come and sign this petition! and support Kurdish women's rights groups.

Du'a Khalil Aswad was a Yezidi Kurdish girl stoned to death in front of around a thousand spectators on the 7th April this year in Northern Iraq. It might be germane to note that the first thing that the father did, was to demand a virginity test on the corpse of his stoned daughter to prove that 'family honour' had not been compromised. Please come and sign this petition! and support Kurdish women's rights groups.

Du'a Khalil Aswad was a Yezidi Kurdish girl stoned to death in front of around a thousand spectators on the 7th April this year in Northern Iraq. It might be germane to note that the first thing that the father did, was to demand a virginity test on the corpse of his stoned daughter to prove that 'family honour' had not been compromised. Please come and sign this petition! and support Kurdish women's rights groups.

"Has anyone else read the graphic memoir Embroideries by Marjane Satrapi?"

I have :)

"She said that men took her more seriously when she was not being lusted after by their gaze."

Hmm. I'm Middle Eastern too and in my case, I'd probably be lusted after by the male gaze *less* if I *did* reveal my face instead of covering it (with thick makeup since I don't want to make an "I'm very religious!" statement)...

First, I just want to say that I *heart* Marjane Satrapi-- great storyteller and artist.

I have a somewhat related question: can you be born without a hymen? Because for the life of me I cannot remember ever having one. I checked out the goods as soon as my mom gave me her version of the birds and bees talk-- a stack of puberty books-- when I was 10, and nada. I don't recall having more than mild pain when I first started using tampons, and sure my first time having sex hurt but I don't remember any blood.

So, is it possible to be born without one, or was I so totally oblivious I missed it?

Plenilune: Scarleteen has an article all about the hymen which may answer your question.

Not being able to stay out until 2am is a little different and definitely a choice and not a just female issue. My point is to go to the source to solve the problem don't bandaid it. A marriage based on restoring a hymen seems like a terrifying marriage and a life of hell anyways, so these women are screwed even if they get the surgery. This is like saying boys will be boys so we just have to deal with it. I just think its completely intolerable and these women should be rescued or given a way out of these marriages rather than being given the surgery. But if they want it so be it and they don't need anyones help in that case.

I'm a former 'muslim child' raised in the caribbean (my middle name is 'dichotomy').

1. When men are portrayed as universally aggressive, being under the radar is safer.
The relative normal is different there. Until cultural changes require men not to be predators, women will not seek docility, or it's seeming.

2. What you do in the States, stays in the States. the US is essentially a huge Vegas for middle easterners...they send their kids here to college, after they've been taught about the 'decadent west' for the bulk of their lives. The 'embroidery' does not empower women, but it does allow them to taste freedom of choice. The first step to demanding freedom, is making sure it's worth fighting for. Owning one's sexuality is part of that.

3. I think it's more important to save lives and create a cosmopolitan middle east than it is to make sure that Athena of the Desert springs fully informed and powerful from the skull of her home. I think that it's awful that the proceedure is necessary for some women, but for those who live their lives in various depths of oppression, that is a reality that they sometimes cannot get out of alive.

The viginity premium is crap, and for those women who don't need to maintain the fiction to survive, I'd like to discourage it. However, I don't think that anyone should tell any person what to do with their wubbly bits, and there are women out there for whose health this process is as critical as any other lifesaving thing.

3.

I will say that I have been enlightened to the fact that wearing the hijab – the tradition Muslim dress that covers the woman from head to toe – is actually quite empowering. As pointed out by a member of an Islamic Center in Boca Raton, as well as a guest who came to speak to my feminist course years back when I was a student at the University of Southern California, there is nothing oppressive about choosing who gets to see their skin. In fact, it a beautiful thing to be able to cover up one’s body, to be modest about one’s privacy, and to follow the idea that less (skin) is more.

One of the women at the Center read the group a poem written by an anonymous Muslim:

Be Proud of Hijab
You look at me and call me oppressed,
Simply because of the way I'm dressed,
You know me not for what's inside,
You judge the clothing I wear with pride,
My body's not for your eyes to hold,
You must speak to my mind, not my feminine mold,
I'm an individual, I'm no mans slave,
It's Allahs pleasure that I only crave,
I have a voice so I will be heard,
For in my heart I carry His word,
"O ye women, wrap close your cloak,
So you won't be bothered by ignorant folk",
Man doesn't tell me to dress this way,
It's a Law from God that I obey,
Oppressed is something I'm truly NOT,
For liberation is what I've got,
It was given to me many years ago,
With the right to prosper, the right to grow,
I can climb mountains or cross the seas,
Expand my mind in all degrees,
For God Himself gave us LIB-ER-TY,
When He sent Islam,
To You and Me!

In the Western World of the United States this concept is simply outlandish. Women and men cannot accept the fact that some Muslims show only their eyes and hands. The Proverbial WE says that we should be able to wear what we want, meaning WE should be able to have every crack made public; that WE should be able to wear tight, form fitting clothing where boobs and butt pop out; and that WE should be able to wear clothing the size of doll’s clothes, in which cover only the absolute necessary.

Many women say, “If you got, flaunt it.�

How utterly patriarchal.

The same women who say that WE have come so far in our struggles, and that because WE have the “choice� to wear pants or a skirt, that we are now empowered enough to wear, well, just about nothing, are the same ones who are being limited in society because of the way they choose to dress. It may sound silly, but the truth is that since the county's inception, women have been sub-par for reasons including the idea that WE are only good for being attractive -- like pieces of art on a wall -- submissive and a place for men to take part in sexual release. WE were never thought to be intellectuals (...You mean there is a free-thinking, critical mind hidden behind that physical outer shell?)

While these women think they are empowering themselves, there are just as many men (and women) who are objectifying this look. And this degradation follows the recipe book of patriarchy, as WE are still under the wrath of the men in power. Our bodies still belong to the man because with every step forward, there are three steps back thanks to comfortability, and false senses of empowerment.

WE must continue the struggle against the oppression.

WE still get better tips, raises, and maybe a more successful partner if WE show our skin.

WE still refer to those who do not wear revealing clothing as butch or prude. Or in the case of Muslims – or other religions where women wear conservative dress, such as Judaism, or nuns in a Catholic church – as oppressed.

And while I am not religious, and do no only seek the acceptance of a higher being, the topic of to show skin or not, begs the question: who is really oppressed?

Women and men cannot accept the fact that some Muslims show only their eyes and hands.

Well, but it's not just "some Muslims," is it? It's some Muslim women. The idea that veiling liberates Muslim women from an objectifying male gaze presupposes the idea that it's up to women to control men's eyes; men's looking is still determining women's choices.

"O ye women, wrap close your cloak,
So you won't be bothered by ignorant folk"

This couplet suggests that women who wear hijab are somehow exempt from sexual harrassment. That doesn't fit with what I've read about the experiences of women who wear hijab. But again, the onus is on women to control men's behavior.

it a beautiful thing...to be modest about one’s privacy

I'm don't see why; modesty seems like a particularly patriarchal virtue, and one that is often used to castigate women. I don't particularly value modesty--privacy is a different thing, of course. There are a number of reasons why some people are more public than others, but I don't see why modesty would be a more virtuous choice than any other.

WE still refer to those who do not wear revealing clothing as butch

That's not really what "butch" means. One of the butchest women I know regularly wore tight tank tops.

Anyway, while I understand how important veiling can be in terms of ethnic and religious pride, and how it can be an empowering political statement, and thus there are very, very good reasons for women to choose to wear the veil, I do not see how a series of strictures that limit women's behavior but do not limit men's can be a method of specifically feminist empowerment.

I think it's more important to save lives and create a cosmopolitan middle east than it is to make sure that Athena of the Desert springs fully informed and powerful from the skull of her home.

That was a beautiful image, Perkyshai. Kudos.

"Many women say, 'If you got, flaunt it.'

"How utterly patriarchal."

...even if the patriarchs *don't* want to see what she's got?

Arabia had the hijab and chador customs long before Islam, and the Middle East tends to have some of the hairiest women in the world (even after taking the pill cancels out the body hair growth I got from PCOS, I still have a lot from my Middle Eastern ancestors and that stubble grows back fast).

"WE still get better tips, raises, and maybe a more successful partner if WE show our skin.

"WE still refer to those who do not wear revealing clothing as butch or prude..."

Even in the West I'm more likely to get better raises if I *don't* show my skin, and more likely to get labelled butch if I *do* wear revealing clothing.

I'm an incredibly liberal muslim who doesn't wear a veil and struggles with the concept of one. I've heard the idea above before, that the veil is to protect women from men's "objectifying gaze". My issue with this is: do we really label ALL men as these chauvinistic pigs who are out to sexually lust after women? We can't really generalize like that.
The other thing I've heard is that in the Qur'an, it says something to the effect of '[women] dress appropriately' (i've never read it properly, and am paraphrasing what i've heard). However, after that it apparently says, 'as should men'.
It's fine if women want to wear the hijab for cultural reasons, or for sensible reasons (i.e. the desert sand in the middle east). But when you start stating religious reasons- Allah wants me to wear one, etc- and excluding men from the whole deal, that's where I begin to disagree. It would be fine if it was both men AND women who had to cover their heads (similar to Judaism, I think?)

Thanks ShifterCat!

BonnieMiami,
The whole idea of female empowerment being identical to female oppression save for 'choice' smacks of Stockholm syndrome and more ominously 'Yellow Wallpaper'. I choose cognitive dissonance, therefore I no longer feel confined by the cage I am in. Maya Angelou wrote the prequel.

If the hijab is truly an empowering thing, if it is truly a choice, then why is it part of Sharia law? Why are women persecuted for wearing it? Why is it easier to hide yourself rather than change the world, so that our brothers, husbands, fathers and sons are no longer assumed to be monsters, for the behaviour of some?
A mandated 'choice' is not a choice, it is oppression.

There is a phenomenon that Margaret Atwood wrote about in "A Handmaid's Tale" and that Phyllis Schlafly to a certain extent exemplifies, which is women acting in an inimically toward fellow women (as a group) as either an apologist, or as a collaborator. Women can also be misogynistic...we are very good at self hating.

I did not wear a hijab when I went to the masjid with my mother. I wore a thin draped dupatta (scarf thing worn in india/pakistan with shalwars) and a shalwar kameez that covered most of the same skin. I was terrified of men and never actively attempted to entice anyone...I was modest and relatively polite to all elders, suitably docile seeming. I still got flak for not 'choosing' to wear hijab.

It is oppressive to not be considered for anything about your person except for your appearance. I don't understand how that automatically excludes hijab. Dismissing as vulgar and loose women who choose to wear different kinds of clothing is erroneous and shortsighted, as is assuming that all men are idiot enough to only view women through the lens of their sexuality.

Hiding from objectification is not freedom from obnjectification. Freedom is never having to hide, because the objectification is not there.

There is a phenomenon that Margaret Atwood wrote about in "A Handmaid's Tale" and that Phyllis

Schlafly to a certain extent exemplifies, which is women acting in an inimically toward fellow women (as a group) as either an apologist, or as a collaborator. Women can also be misogynistic...we are very good at self hating.

Would you say you're in the 1% of Muslim of ex-Muslim women who think like this (and would get killed in some countries for saying it)?

This is a very thoughtful essay on the issue by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, based on her own life experience and her professional work with Muslim women in Holland:

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25183/pub_detail.asp