Photo of the day; Update: Will the right object to Laura’s hijab, wonders HuffPo? Update: Laura’s aides said she didn’t expect to wear veil before trip
posted at 2:49 pm on October 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
LGF has it. You can spin this a lot of ways: she was there for a good cause, which mitigates the propaganda value of the photos to Islamist misogynists; it appears they surprised her with it as a gift, which left her little choice but to wear it out of simple politeness; and while Pelosi donned the scarf during a visit to an enemy state, the Kingdom, god help us, is something of an ally at the moment against Iran.
Any of that make you feel better?
“The veil is to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.” — Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Update: The nutrootsiest blog o’ them all, linking to an old Hot Air post, wonders if the right will have the same problem with Laura Bush’s hijab as Nancy Pelosi’s. Their post is timestamped 3:30, 40 minutes after I posted this one. Which proves they didn’t even check this site (or LGF) before publishing.
Update: Debbie Schlussel makes a nice catch. Here’s what Laura Bush’s spokeswoman said before the trip:
“They do not expect nor encourage it,” of Western visitors at official meetings, said Bush’s spokeswoman, Sally McDonough. “As members of the official traveling party, we will not need to wear any head scarves or abayas at any point”
I think the fact that they surprised her with it as a gift is what forced her hand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Yeah, and her smile says “I loooove me some Islamic headscarves, yes I do! Me pretty in my headscarf. See, these instruments of submission ain’t so bad. In fact, everyone should (be forced to) wear one!”
That’s what her smile says.
Rational Thought on October 25, 2007 at 4:30 PM
No, but I was. A rope is just a rope, but a noose has a meaning that has been defined through history. That scarf means something as well.
Stories of women beaten into submission, specifically submitting to wearing a veil. What other stories could I have been referring to? I’m not sure why that was unclear.
Yes, I understand what the word means. What I’m saying is that the stories are what have turned it into this symbol, and this is even without bothering to mention the intention behind the scarf in the first place. It is as the quote says above, a means “to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.”
I used an analogy when I mentioned the Jena nooses. Yes, the perception of those black students is what gave the nooses their meaning. However, the meaning is self evident to most who care to interpret the action of hanging nooses on the tree.
Perception is key here so much in that it is key in every aspect of our lives; however, this is what that scarf has come to mean, just as nooses hung up on a tree a black student once sat under symbolizes racism.
1 Corinthians speaks of head covering, but it does it in a metaphor.
It’s not a literal covering. Paul wasn’t commanding women to wear garments on their heads.
That doesn’t change it, for even in your response, you say “probably” in that you have no idea and clearly cannot come up with an example. If Christians are wearing something on their heads, they certainly aren’t known for it.
That’s hardly comforting. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I agree. I’m not in favor of trading with people like that either.
The point being made is that if Bush were going to subject herself to dhimmitude, why not just go the whole nine yards.
No one actually wanted Cheney’s daughter to be killed.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:34 PM
So the point you’re trying to make is that right now she can’t be called a dhimmi because she doesn’t act like it, but she should be because then you could accuse her of dhimmitude? Did I get that right?
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 4:40 PM
If you did, then I sure didn’t.
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Big mistake. We are at war with an Islam that does not give non-believers choice. Under the present circumstances, she should have politely put away her souvenir when presented with it. Under other circumstances, she could have tried it on.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Not even close.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 4:46 PM
We don’t know if that’s not what actually happened. Maybe she really put it off after 5 minutes.
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Add to them the stories of women that say they feel liberated by them. Which is not surprising frankly when fatwas come out saying uncovered = raw meat, I’d feel better covered up myself. But to the individual wearing them they don’t mean the stories, they mean the experience and the reason.
Either the scarf is a symbol of oppression or it is not, but it was not created as such by the stories of it. The scarf predates the reporting we have on it. As such it is not fair to say that it was it’s original intention when you say it has become a symbol. And I certainly acknowledge that is Ali’s perspective of it. Do you believe that Laura is of the same opinion?
Claim metaphor if you want, I’m not here to argue the merits of the interpretations of Christianity, but let her be covered can be interpreted literally very easily. You can dismiss that according to doctrine, but I didn’t mention to reflect doctrine. I mentioned to reflect the words that are actually written, not some commentary that jihad really just a metaphor that means an inner struggle.
Okay, as to this. I don’t recall conversing at any length with you before, so let me make this clear: I do not make up or say things simply to butress an a statement for arguments sake. I do not engage in false arguments making statements when I know I cannot come up with an example. Just so we are clear on any future communication. As too your assertion that I have no idea, come on: Nuns wear habits, and I think there are at least a few Catholics around the world.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Should not have worn it. Just say ‘Isn’t that pretty’ and hand it off to a security man. Ok, now what is next on the tour.
Limerick on October 25, 2007 at 4:48 PM
I don’t get concerned over the headwear issue whether it be Mrs. Bush or Pelosi. I have always been angered by Pelosi’s arrogance and her thinking she is the President, such as when she went to Syria and made a fool of herself when supposedly sent a message from our country to Syria.
If one is concerned about her looking like she is in dhimmitude, then , yes, Mrs Bush made the same faux pas as Pelosi.
MNDavenotPC on October 25, 2007 at 4:48 PM
To me it looks as if she was presented with a gift, and put it on out of a sense of respect for the doctor who gave it to her. I see no other pictures of her with it on after the gift receiving event. If you look at the photos on Debbie Schlussel’s page, you will notice that both the scarves worn by Mrs. Bush and the lady who gave it to her, have a pink symbol similar to our pink breast cancer awareness ribbon. Maybe it is a breast cancer awareness campaign scarf. Of course she would wear it, since this is the point of her trip.
BlueStateBlues on October 25, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Here’s another vote for ‘no.’
baldilocks on October 25, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Actually, if you come to visit Eastern or Southern Europe you’ll see ample Catholic women wearing head scarves, and most of them do not show as much hair as Laura Bush did.
(Yes, I’m talking about 2007.)
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Oh, by the logic of some commenters here I guess that makes Pope Benedict an Islamist.
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Nope.
Dhimmi Pelosiite Nitwit
Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 4:51 PM
So, what do you think? If Aayan Hisri Ali’s comment is correct, and the hijab is a symbol of the sexual subjugation of women, is it OK to wear it (the hijab, not just a scarf) out of politeness?
joe shmoe on October 25, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I gotta say, I have no problem with this (or with Pelosi, don’t hate me!), since she was on their turf. For her audience, the veil is a basic sign of modesty and piety, as it is for the Amish, Orthodox Jews, and several other groups. We all have different standards of modesty. I consider myself a modest dresser, but I realize that many in the world would not. I learned this lesson a few months ago when I got kicked out of a supermarket here in Israel for wearing loose-fitting jeans and a very modest long sleeved shirt. The security guy offered me a skirt, but I waved it away and left a bit shocked (and amused, as this was the same week as that whole “SW airlines/Too Hot to Fly” controversy). If I’d known the neighborhood I was in was Haredi, I’d have put on a skirt before I went. I know for next time.
In America, no one thinks twice about a woman with an uncovered head, but in Saudi Arabia, that might be all they could think about. What would you do if you invited one of those guys from New Guinea whose only clothing is a genital gourd to your house for a visit? Make him “falsely adopt your cultural values,” or take him around town in all his glory? In Mrs. Bush’s situation, she’s the one with the gourd.
tikvah on October 25, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I’m a big fan of the first lady, but this was a huge mistake. This isn’t just a souvenir; it’s a symbol of a society diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian ethics and culture. And she’s wearing it.
The bigger mistake was to visit Arabia in the first place. They are an ally of convenience, as was the Soviet Union during WWII, and should be tolerated only as long as they are useful. “Tolerated” is a long ways from “visiting and mugging for the cameras.” I don’t care how “good” the “cause” was — Arabia is the primary sponsor of radical Islam around the world. Bush would apparently like to forget that.
Splashman on October 25, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Treasonous, no matter who wears it.
madmonkphotog on October 25, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Not quite forced. Pressured was the word I was looking for.
I hated Barbara Walters for wearing one. I hated Christiane Amanpour for wearing one. And I hate Laura Bush for wearing one.
It isn’t a sign of respect. It is a sign of submission. It is a way that Muslim nations keep their women less equal.
By the way, for those of you decrying feminists who don’t protest this sort of thing: They did. For years. Nobody outside feminist circles cared about it, and nobody noticed it–until suddenly, after 9/11, they noticed that the Taliban were oppressing women in Afghanistan.
Let’s not pretend that “Behind the Veil” didn’t exist before 9/11. It did. You just didn’t watch it until CNN put it on a zillion times.
Meryl Yourish on October 25, 2007 at 4:56 PM
From the look of it, I’d say I agree 100% with that: pressured.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I HATE IT.
“Oh, how lovely! We’ll keep it safe on the plane.” Hands scarf to aide.
tree hugging sister on October 25, 2007 at 5:00 PM
The American first lady falling in line with gender inferiority is not a good thing.
The controversy surrounding her refusal to be subjugated would be.
Were I her husband, as an American, I would be offended at the expectation of her subjugating herself to be present to support such a worthwhile cause.
Is Laura Bush an Arab Muslim? No and in my opinion should not pretend to be.
Speakup on October 25, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I don’t care if they do this to their own Muslim women. If Am.fems did, I don’t care about that either. I care if they try to force non-Muslims to do this. We didn’t invade Afghanistan to free Muslim woman. Don’t see how Am. feminists have done anything helpful in the war on Islamic fascism.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 PM
And just as despicable then as now, its just that the American prime directive (pardon the Star Trekese) has always been, don’t interfere unless we have too and after 911, we had too.
Speakup on October 25, 2007 at 5:13 PM
She shoulda never worn that, I’m disgusted by what the hijab is, and the way its used to degrade women. Its what pisses me off most about the Islamists, and she should have never put the damn thing on.
Bad Candy on October 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM
“Will the Right object?” Hello . . . I objected when I posted it this morning, ahead of HuffPo. Oh, and by the way, AllahPundit, this is even more important because Mrs. Bush’s press people lied and promised ahead of time that she would NOT don the hijab during this trip, as I noted on my site, a couple of weeks ago.
Debbie Schlussel on October 25, 2007 at 5:28 PM
this reeks of sharia.
crr6 on October 25, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Important because you think it is? Me, not so much…..but thanks for the look at my post, anyway.
scooter on October 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM
No.
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Nobody was holding a gun to her head forcing her to wear it, were they?
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM
haha. That woman did look like a hefty bag.
And I don’t care if it was a gift, she should have known how it would have looked in the press.
BadgerHawk on October 25, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I agree with others who object to it. She should have said thank you and handed it to an aide. She should not have worn it.
I’m a woman and I am not a feminist, but I don’t like it. I was sickened at that picture in the National Cathedral (?) of Karen Hughes and others wearing the veil.
INC on October 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I think they’re about equal.
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Hasan Jamali took the pictures for Reuters.
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Uh . . . who are you arguing with? Your keyboard?
Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t see anyone blaming this on the Saudis. I’m blaming Laura Bush for agreeing to go there in the first place, no matter how worthy the cause. Saudi Arabia harms American (& western) interests more than North Korea, Syria & Iran put together, because they fund radical madrassas and mosques all over the world. They are an ally of convenience — not to be confused with a friend. If we didn’t need the Saudis’ oil and their counterbalance to Iran, I’d tell them to go f*ck themselves — right before I nuked Mecca & Medina. “Ooops, sorry, pushed the wrong button. Twice. My bad.”
Splashman on October 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM
No.
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you of that, nor am I convinced that you do that.
Which again points direction to submission, to a lack of power and to being less than equal to men.
I do not believe Laura’s opinion is relevant to this discussion.
That’s really not the same. And clearly it isn’t following that passage, because that passage claims that men who cover their heads are disgraced. Surely the pope doesn’t consider himself disgraced.
Catholics have some kind of uniform, but it’s only for certain officials, not for parishioners.
It’s very different for people in power to impose a standard on themselves than it is for people in power to impose a standard on other people.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
What would they do if we weren’t an ally? Not sell oil to us? Would they just dance around their oil and sing songs and rely on their exports of dates and goat’s milk?
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Far be it for me to defend the Catholics, but there’s no one telling nuns to wear habits or they’ll be beaten. The convent is voluntary, isn’t it?
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM
She shouldn’t be serving as a goodwill ambassador to a regime as oppressive and horrible as that. The fact that she goes there is the scandal itself. But the fact that she got out of there with her clitoris intact is something we should all give thanks for.
jihadwatcher on October 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM
That’s a great point.
And some people are entirely missing the point, talking about how Catholics in Europe wear head veils or how some people in the U.S. wear scarves, or how if a man from a tribal island came to your house you’d give him some pants. None of those things represent the repression of women, or of anyone for that matter. That’s what makes the hijab different, and unacceptable to wear. People should abide by the cultural norms of the places they visit, as long as those norms don’t symbolize subjugation or repression. One picture can be very powerful. It doesn’t matter if the first lady only wore the hijab for a minute.
You have some funky logic. And you’re really stretching trying to defend Mrs. Bush here.
BadgerHawk on October 25, 2007 at 6:14 PM
And the photo captures her perfect grace under the circumstances.
RushBaby on October 25, 2007 at 6:18 PM
The image of Laura Bush sitting in the midst of four black-sacked jeebers wearing part of the black sack herself was one of the most disturbing sights I have ever seen. God save America because Americans won’t.
lonesomecharlie on October 25, 2007 at 6:22 PM
At LGF, Charles remembers Oriana Fallaci’s interview of Khomeini. Here’s the article from the New Yorker if you haven’t seen it The Agitator: Oriana Fallaci directs her fury toward Islam.
After skewering him with questions about the mistreatment of women under Islam, she started questioning him about their clothing.
INC on October 25, 2007 at 6:26 PM
That’s one perspective I didn’t consider. ;:- )
abinitioadinfinitum on October 25, 2007 at 6:30 PM
How come she didn’t wear a ‘burka’? Then they could send anyone and no one will know the difference.
countywolf on October 25, 2007 at 6:31 PM
She should have surprised them by refusing to wear it. I mean Mary Robinson refused to wear one a few years back.
aengus on October 25, 2007 at 6:34 PM
There are Saudi jihadists in Iraq. Plus Saudi Arabia wages financial jihad all over the world.
aengus on October 25, 2007 at 6:36 PM
yeah, I won’t show it to my two girls. They will get the wrong idea about the power of Islam, and America.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Hmm. Now that is a big problem. Adopting local customs in order to show respect (however undeserved) is one thing. Reneging on a promise is quite another.
However, as Allah points out:
And it looks like Ms. Schlussel is somewhat overstating the “promise”. According the quote that she adduces:
That isn’t quite promising not to wear it under any circumstances, is it? And wearing a gift from another woman is not quite the same as bowing to a mysogynistic patriarchy.
JackOfClubs on October 25, 2007 at 7:00 PM
In the 1st lady’s defend. ‘We will not need’ is not the same as ‘we will not wear’.
Here’s the matter as it stands in my mind:
I support freedom of religion and I support freedom of the expression of religion. The wearing of a head-cover can be for either cultural or religious reasons. For the sake of argument, let’s say the former is involuntary and the latter is voluntary. Therefore to determine which is the cause for each individual, I must know their own motivation. Therefore the covering itself is not offensive to me; the culture that forces the covering is the offensive part. I do not stereotype the wearing of that (or any covering) because to do so I have to prejudice religious expression.
Yes the culture coerces submissive behavior. And yet some women find escape and mental peace by wearing a covering.
Laura’s opinion is very relevant to me. She is the one that made the decision.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 7:03 PM
it pains me to see The First Lady wearing this :(
i really dont know what to think/say.
trailortrash on October 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Very sad, very sad indeed. She may not be elected or even part of the administration but she is the first lady and I promise you this made our enemies think they’ve won something because it makes me think we’ve lost something.
Buzzy on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 PM
My sentiments exactly.
For all you guys who defend Mrs. Bush’s wearing of the scarf on the grounds of religious sentiment alone, please keep in mind that in Islam, religion & politics are one and the same; no difference or separation between the two.
Visiting places where one wears garments out of religious or cultural respect ONLY does not have political overtones attached to it.
Islam, however, is ALL ABOUT politics and political overtones, as it is not only a theocracy, but a theocratic dictatorship.
For Mrs. Bush to don that scarf, it sends a message that jihadists and Al-Jazeera will be harping on for years to come.
Disgusting.
Wanderlust on October 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Only as one would assume that Mrs. Bush is ignorant of the violent, sadistic oppression of the Muslim Women in that and other regions of the world.
I wouldn’t assume her ignorance and I wouldn’t have her acquiesce in the slightest to appease a reprehensible custom of female degradation either.
Speakup on October 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM
The Saudis pwned Mrs. Bush.
They ambushed her with the “gift” of an abaya, which, for reasons unknown to us, she felt obligated to wear. I doubt that the choice of the “gift” was the decision of the women giving it.
Mrs. Bush donning that symbol of female oppression and being photographed wearing it gave the Saudi press a big propaganda victory. It also sent the message to Saudi women that far from ever escaping their portable prisons, the Western women they look to to assist them in their emancipation will willingly submit to the oppressors.
The whole photo-op was masterfully engineered by the Saudi government to further the aim of spreading fundamentalist Islam and eventually making sharia the law around the globe.
sandspur on October 25, 2007 at 7:46 PM
fair ball, i think.
jummy on October 25, 2007 at 7:57 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hillbillyjim on October 25, 2007 at 7:57 PM
the burkah is “show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.”
the scarf is similar to a yarmulka - protection from the burning eye of god or whatever.
jummy on October 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM
I think I’m in love.
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Let’s all stop arguing and compromise on this:
Christian/Jewish women traveling to Saudi Arabia have to cover their heads; on the other hand, Muslim women traveling to America don’t get to take off their burkas.
Christians/Jews traveling to Saudia Arabia can’t take Bibles or build churches/synagogues; Muslims traveling to America let us touch their Korans only if we wear gloves, and they get to build mosques.
Sounds like a fair compromise all around.
fred5678 on October 25, 2007 at 8:25 PM
If they had gifted her with a Koran, should she have opened that and started reading it?
Why put into functional use any religious symbols of any foreign state?
Just say “Thanks, awfully!” for the scarf, and pass it to a bodyguard to secure, and move on with the tour.
They have no respect for her or her faith.
Return the exact same level of favor.
profitsbeard on October 25, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I defended the pictures of Laura the other day, but not this. We should have arranged with the Saudis in advance that our First Lady would not accept dhimmitude while in Saudi Arabia, and if it was offered to her in spite of the agreement, we should have made it clear to the Saudis in advance that it would cause a major diplomatic row. She should have jumped on the next plane and we should be pulling our ambassador right now. Absent this sort of agreement, she never should have gone.
There’s never been a time that I didn’t think Bush was an idiot. I’ve never liked the guy, although I don’t have BDS, but I’ve always liked Laura. She always seemed like a very classy lady to me, but not anymore. I think that this picture and the pictures from the other day are destined to appear in our history books representative of the confusion America experienced in the early years of this war and how our own leadership failed us in our time of need.
FloatingRock on October 25, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Ug. My heart sank when I saw this picture. As a woman I hate what that veil symbolizes. The whole point to Laura Bush’s visit, just went in the toilet when she agreed to put on that weighty covering.
4shoes on October 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM
WTF? I can not believe this crap. When will we stand up for the rights we hold dear. We do not bend knee for any country. We do not placate. We should show the world what freedom is not how quick we move into slavery.
unseen on October 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Too many comments to read them all, sorry.
I for one am steammed. This would be like giving a collar to an Ambassador from an African Nation back in 1860.
No. It isn’t as if she were offered goat to eat or something like that. This is a symbol of oppression and servitude.
In the 1970s if Nixon Visited South Africa, would black Secret Service be required to stay on the plane?!!
- The Cat
MirCat on October 25, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Now it isn’t just Bush and his daughter that is the embarrassment, it is the entire family…
Did I just say that? What are those helocopters doing over my house?
Tim Burton on October 25, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I think it looks nice.
tlynch001 on October 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Why is the word “veil” being used to describe a headscarf? Her hair isn’t even completely covered (emitting evil rays that apparently can bewitch Muslim men) much less her face. When I was a kid, my Catholic friends told me that was normal dress for a woman in a church (we didn’t have such rules) but I understand things are a bit looser now.
I’m consistent on this; I didn’t see it as a big deal when Pelosi wore a scarf either. I was more concerned that she was trying to run her own foreign policy out of the Legislative Branch, which was arguably a violation of US law.
The Monster on October 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Heh, that’s a good one. Almost had me going for a second there. Then I realized you couldn’t possibly be that dense.
Next time, use a /sarc tag.
Splashman on October 26, 2007 at 3:02 AM
Good advice - sarc tags will prevent us from being mocked by those meanies over at HuffPo.
RushBaby on October 26, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Because if they don’t, they’ll be treated like uncovered meat. That’s not true “escape” or “peace”.
It still isn’t relavant to the discussion of what the veil symbolizes.
1. We can’t possibly know her opinion.
2. She has no control over how the photo op will be used.
3. She has no control over what the scarf symbolizes.
Those women who are beaten for not wearing one might have deluded themselves into believing something positive about the scarf, but their opinion, just like Laura’s here, does nothing to change what the scarf is, a form of oppression.
What you’re not seeing in my and others’ posts is that so many women do not have that choice. The default is to not have the choice to not wear it. Even the women who say they enjoy wearing it, that it makes them comfortable, many of them have never been given the option of not wearing it.
Esthier on October 26, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Any form of religious obedience gives a sense of peace. Heck, some people like literal self-flaggulation for mental peace and a sense of closeness to God. If Muslim women wear the veil because they believe that they are doing the will of A*, then certainly obedience to their faith gives them peace of mind. Also, I was noting that there is for some people a peace of mind that they feel by not being objectified. (Reported in UK, not SA).
I already brought the 2nd point in response to AP. No addition comment needed there. And yes, she has no control of what the scarf symbolizes to you. As to it’s relevance: That statement is true insomuch as we are talking about your perspective - the symbolism you have given to it because you appear to connect it culturally without reference to the religious component. And of course we can know her opinion, all she has to do is comment on it and moreover it may very well be asked by the press corp.
Why is it that people tend to default to these presumptive statements - ‘you are not seeing’. Of course I understand some women don’t have a choice, I clearly express that in my 7:03 response to PRCalDude. But again, I support freedom of religious expression as a basic human right.
Spirit of 1776 on October 26, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I burned my authentic Persian rugs last night, so now for SURE I’m not a dhimmi.
RushBaby on October 26, 2007 at 11:39 AM
lol. Thanks for the laugh, Rushbaby:)
Spirit of 1776 on October 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM
You’re most welcome. Tonight I’m going to smash my Russian candelabra so I’m for sure not a communist.
RushBaby on October 26, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]