Rough Draft for Haydar and Abu-Lughod

Rough Draft for Haydar and Abu-Lughod

Feminism is becoming a global issue and the stances on how feminism is represented are causing questions amongst individuals. Mayson Haydar, a young muslim women 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 in their articles. Haydar’s article, “Body Outlaws”, has an Americanized Muslim point of view and focuses primarily on using the rhetorical strategy, pathos, to get her readers to understand her outlook on veiling. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The Muslim Woman”, has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view and uses the rhetorical strategies, ethos and logos, by providing facts and using authorities throughout her paper, which helps to gain her readers trust.  Within Haydar’s writing, her goal is to connect feminism with Muslim’s and Americans and on the other hand, Abu-Lughod tries to separate the two. 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. These author’s want to redefine the act of veiling with a positive outlook on feminism. Although both authors share this common interest, Haydar’s tactic of rebuttaling arguments and analogy is more successful than Abu-Lughods use of ethos and definition. Within this paper, Haydar’s and Abu-Lughod’s rhetorical strategies and claims will be expanded upon.

            Within Haydar’s article we find multiple anecdotes describing her experiences with veiling and how the act of veiling positively affected her life and point of view on feminism. One of her main claims is that veiling should not be seen as a negative aspect of a Muslim women’s life. Haydar is able to portray her argument by recalling an experience she had on a bus with a non-Muslim girl. “ . . . she couldn’t understand how we could dress this way. ‘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” (Haydar 260). Haydar is able to rebuttal the girls point of view with her own. The girl in this context represents many people that believe in the stereotypes of Muslim women and their veils. Haydar is able to connect with her audience through this rebuttal for she knows nobody likes to be judged negatively and shows how easy it is to judge others that do not understand Muslim practices.

            Haydar’s ability to dispute her opinion with stereotypes helps to strengthen her argument and describe to her readers how veiling can be beneficial for feminists. In her text, she is able to take the opposition and have it be beneficial towards her argument. For instance, she says:

“I’m not one for creams and blushes, but I understand that there are women who enjoy the beauty process and I see no harm in indulging it for the right reasons . . . To me, this demonstrates that Western priorities are out of line: American women spend hours getting ready for strangers to see them, but don’t give the same effort to those who see them in intimate settings” (Haydar 263).

Here, Haydar uses an analogy to argue that although she respects the way women doll themselves up for men, she sees it similarly to how Americans view veiling. Americans have a hard time understanding why Muslim women veil and think of it as demeaning to women, while Muslim women who veil see putting on make-up and glamor as a way of covering up who they really are.

            Abu-Lughod attempts to redefine the meaning of veiling so that it captures freedom, control and respect for Middle Eastern women. She uses authorities, such as Hanna Papanek to help strengthen her argument. Papanek, an anthropologist that worked in Pakistan, “described the burqa as ‘portable seclusion.’ She noted that many saw it as a liberating invention since it enabled women to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the basic moral requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men” (Abu-Lughod 3). Although Abu-Lughod is quoting an authoritative figure, she does a poor job of drawing her reader’s attention. This neither quote presents an uncertain stance, for Papanek said “many”, which is not an actual number nor does it make it sound like Papanek actually knows what she is talking about. Abu-Lughod’s use of ethos does not help her argument nor keep her reader’s attention.

            Abu-Lughod, being the University professor she is, finds the need to dumb down her article for her readers. She uses the rhetorical strategy definition to tell her audience what she is saying, although it is already obvious as to what her point is. For example she says: “We have to recognize that people don’t necessarily want to give up their cultures and their social worlds - most people value their own ways of life” (Abu-Lughod 7). Anyone who reads this is going to agree that they value their own way of life. Abu-Lughod presents belittling tone when she uses definition. Although it may seem like she is trying to emphasize her point, it is unnecessary.