Two Afghan women wearing chadri
We talk a lot about whether clothing is “superficial.” Well yes, clothes go on the surface of our bodies. That’s what superficial means. But this doesn’t make clothing irrelevant or pretend. It is deeply tied to our choices, our sense of self, and what we express to the world.
I’ve been wanting to talk about the Islamic Burqa and the “Burqa bans” in European countries. But I didn’t know what to say — becuase I don’t like the burqa. I wish it weren’t compulsory for women to cover themselves, for any reason. But I’m American and deeply believe in religious freedom. So what do we do?
We don’t ban burqas. Thankfully, feminist legal scholar Martha Nussbaum analyzes burqa bans in her piece Veiled Threats, in today’s New York Times Opinion Blog . Professor Nussbaum is smart and organized, as always, and I love how she fits it all together with different theories of religious freedom:
Societies are certainly entitled to insist that all women have a decent education and employment opportunities that give them exit options from any home situation they may dislike. If people think that women only wear the burqa because of coercive pressure, let them create ample opportunities for them, at the same time enforce laws making primary and secondary education compulsory, and then see what women actually do.
Former Miss Washington and domestic violence advocate Elyse Umemoto speaking in support of legislative reform
. . . And let’s be sure everyone lives safe from domestic violence and coercion, living in trust that we will be fully protected by the law.
But what about all that nasty objectification –the world that insists we need a certain kind of body, demonizes age and weight, and promises us power if we show more skin (but exploits us as soon as we do?) Nussbaum says “The way to deal with sexism, in this case as in all, is by persuasion and example, not by removing liberty.”
So what do we wear when we do that? And how do our clothes do that (or not?) Happily Professor Nussbaum allows for delicious high heels.
Onward. Nordstrom Anniversary Sale starts Friday!
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/5/17/former-miss-washington-was-living-a-double-life
I think banning the Burqa has more to do with security than freedom of expression. History has shown that terrorists misuse the Burqa by having men wearing this garb sneak into public places.
As far as Iam concerned public security trumps any religious freedom. I support the countries for banning the Burqa.
Thanks for your comment! Can I ask whether you are from the U.S.? Because of our political history, we put freedom of religion and speech “first” (that’s why it is the First Amendment). So any law to protect security can’t single out religious clothing.
The law here can’t say “No burqas in public” but it might be able to say “no head-to-toe coverings of any kind” — no ski masks, no gorilla costumes. That would be a “content neutral” law. Still, if someone needs a burqa as a matter of religious expression, it’s a tough call — Religion and government need to stay very, very separate in a country where people of all faiths must have equal rights.
I’ve been trying to express your perspective on how clothing expresses identity forever. Such a thoughtful post!