Dane Hollar
Christopher Werry
February 23, 2015
RWS 200
Is Veiling
Failing?
Feminism is an on going global issue and
the stances on how feminism is represented are causing an uproar amongst
individuals. The act of veiling by Muslim women has drawn multiple opinions
from different groups of feminists throughout the past few decades; especially
after 9/11. Mayson Haydar, a young Muslim
woman raised in America and Lila Abu-Lughod, a Middle Eastern Muslim professor
of anthropology at Columbia University, both share their opinions on how the
act of veiling affects feminism within their articles. Haydar’s article, “Body
Outlaws,” has an Americanized Muslim point of view and uses anecdotes to make
her argument better understood by her reader’s. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The
Muslim Woman,” has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view on veiling and
primarily uses facts to persuade her audience that veiling is choice. Both
authors are attempting to reach out to their audiences, which consist of mainly
American feminists who believe that veiling is the opposite of what feminism
represents. Although both share similar claims and strategies, their abilities
to get their audience attention and inform them of their arguments differ. Within
this paper, I will expand upon Haydar’s and Abu-Lughod’s rhetorical strategies,
such as rebuttal, analogy, and definition, as well as their claims.
Veiling derives from the Islamic religion
and is common amongst many Muslim women. Both authors claim that Muslim women
veil because they believe in Islam, but many western feminists believe that it
is demeaning and demoralizing. In Abu-Lughod’s and Haydar’s articles, they are
able to take the opposition and construct it to support their arguments that
veiling is the opposite of what many western feminists believe. Abu-Lughod says,
“it is common knowledge that the ultimate sign of the oppression of Afghani
women under the Taliban-and-the-terrorists is that they were forced to wear the
burqa. Liberals sometimes confess their surprise that even though Afghanistan
has been liberated from the Taliban, women do not seem to be throwing off their
burqas . . .” (Abu-Lughod 3). Here Abu-Lughod is interpreting the views of
Americans and describing what they believe Muslim women should do, for it is
thought that men have control over what women wear, like the burqa. Abu-Lughod
later goes on to take the opposition by describing why many Muslim women have
kept the veil on, even after the Taliban were liberated: “Religious belief and
community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in some
traditions . . . People wear the appropriate form of dress for their social communities
and are guided by socially shared standards, religious beliefs, and moral
ideals” (Abu-Lughod 3). Muslim women
have a choice to veil and most continue to wear it for their own purposes,
whether is be religious or moral ideals. It is a sign of independence rather
than male domination or fear. By using this rebuttal, Abu-Lughod is able to
take the argument that many Americans have and give a reason that contradicts
their argument and supports her own.
While Abu-Lughod focuses more on veiling
in the Middle East, Haydar is able to describe her own view as a Muslim in
American culture. “. . . many Americans see veiling as an oppressive tool
forced on Muslim women by the men in our culture. Yet the practice of covering
hair and body is a choice for many women - and is not specific to Islam”
(Haydar 260). Similar to Abu-Lughod, Haydar describes the negative view that
Americans have on veiling, and plans to contradict their argument with reasons
why veiling is not an “oppressive tool”. She later describes an encounter with
a girl on a bus, in New York City, that couldn’t understand why Haydar would
wear a veil:
“(the girl said)
‘Me, I got to be free.’ To my eyes, her idea of freedom involved a complicated
hairstyle, loads of makeup and jeans she probably had to sew herself into. If
anything I would find that ensemble more caging, more oppressive, and more
painful than clothes that would allow e to walk in front of construction sites
confidently, with minimal risk of harassment” (Haydar 260).
Haydar’s rebuttal is
able to capture her audience’s attention for it is something they can relate
to. Haydar contradicts the “oppressive” interpretation by describing American
views on veiling and then opposing it with a personal anecdote. Both authors
use the oppressive outlook that many Americans have and use it to support their
argument on the religious aspect of veiling and how it should be seen as a
choice.
Veiling is
as much of a choice as choosing what religion to believe in. When Muslim women
choose to believe in Islam, they are doing so on their own terms, which is why
veiling is part of that choice. Similar to any other religion, people choose
how in-depth they want their religious experience to be. Haydar says, “all
through high school, I wore a jilbab exclusively, because I didn’t have to
spend any effort worrying about what was in season or what I would be expected
to wear to fit in . . . My once-strict interpretation of modesty has been
adapted to my urban lifestyle” (Haydar 263). Haydar chose to veil because she
did not have the desire to dress how others dressed to fit in with certain
social groups. She was not forced to veil, but merely did it for personal
reasons. Haydar’s use of analogy emphasizes her freedom when it comes to
veiling. Abu-Lughod on the other hand
has a more religious based view on choosing to veil. She relates back to the
Taliban liberation by saying: “To draw some analogies, none perfect: why are we
surprised when Afghan women don’t throw off their burqas when we know perfectly
well that it wouldn’t be appropriate to wear shorts to the opera? Religious
belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in
some traditions – Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic until recently” (Abu-Lughod 3). By
comparing wearing shorts to the opera and not wearing a burqa, Abu-Lughod is
able to relate to her readers and give them a different view of veiling. Her
use of analogy creates a link between two societies while presenting her case
on the importance veiling has amongst Muslims.
Feminists
have been striving for equality between men and women for decades. Western
feminists feel that when Muslim women cover their bodies, they seem to be
hiding and it defeats the purpose of feminism. In contradiction to that, Abu-Lughod
and Haydar attempt to disprove these allegations through the use of the
rhetorical strategy, definition. In Haydar’s article she says, “. . . my mother
knew the best way to introduce veiling to me was to emphasize its feminist,
forward-thinking reasons: Covering removes that first level of being judged, of
being assessed based on my measurements, and it absolves me of the need or
desire to be wanted solely for my looks” (Haydar 260). Here, Haydar is able to
use a personal anecdote to describe her experience with veiling and its
feminist views. She uses definition to describe to her audience those views and
what they mean to her. On the other hand, Abu-Lughod relates veiling to freedom
to suggest its feministic quality. “ . . . we have to resist the reductive
interpretation of veiling as the quintessential sign of women’s unfreedom. What
does freedom mean if we know that humans are social beings, always raised in
certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities
that shape their desires and understanding of the world?” (Abu-Lughod 4). Here,
Abu-Lughod uses rhetorical questions to define “women’s unfreedom.” By
questioning her readers, she emphasizes the points in which she is defining
what freedom means to people and how it relates to feminism.
The on going struggle of feminism and its
meaning throughout the world is bewildering to those who do not believe in it
and even those who do. Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod exert their point of
views on this issue through their articles using the rhetorical strategies: rebuttal,
analogy, and definition. For most people who read this that are not as involved
in the idea of feminism, the act of veiling may seem a bit puzzling, for they
never thought to take a stance on the issue or have only been brought to light
about this issue through stereotypical media manipulation. On the other hand,
you have current feminists and women’s rights activists that have their own
personal opinions upon the issue. Regardless, both authors attempt to persuade
their audience that the act of veiling should be a personal choice and is in
most cases, a feminist act. They believe that veiling allows them to be seen as
a whole person and that there is good to come out of it. Although both authors
have similar arguments, Haydar’s article is more successful than Abu-Lughod at
capturing it’s audiences attention and persuading them as to why the veil is
important for Haydar’s anecdotes are relatable to her audience. Personally,
both articles have enlightened me on the act of veiling and has given me a
different perspective on what it’s meaning. As a male, I have seen and partaken
in situations where females are treated disrespectfully. I feel that the veil
does nothing more than hide a females body behind a sheet of cloth. But I do
agree with the fact that what you wear and how you present yourself is a
choice, which I believe is the moral behind both authors’ articles. Therefore, I
think veiling should be considered an act of feminism and freedom.
Works Cited
Abu-Lughod, Lila.
“The Muslim Women” RWS 200 Course Reader.
Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 1-9.
Print
Maysan Haydar.
“veiled intentions: don’t judge a muslim girl by her covering” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher
Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 258-265. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment