Muslim exhibitionism?
Nov. 29. I was watching Second regard, a Radio-Canada (French) show dealing with religious issues and how they play out in society in general. The theme that week was the wearing of the niqab or burka in Western society. (For those who dont know, the hijab merely covers the head. The niqab and burka cover the face as well.)
The guest was French (from France) writer, philosopher and feminist lizabethBadinter. While usually open to civil liberties in general, she draws the line at allowing the niqab or burka. Her reasoning should be of interest to nudists.
In addition to all the usual Western criticisms regarding these garments as symbolizingthe lower status of women in Islam, she adds that Muslim women who wear the niqab or the burka in Western society can hardly have pure motives. Rather, she says these women are exhibitionists because they must take great delight in attracting attention from people who are clearly unused to this, and probably uncomfortable as well. In addition they are voyeurs because they get to seethe shocked and astonished reactions of passers-by while hiding their reactions from public view.
Who ever thought someone who was completely dressed could be called exhibitionist?
I consider exhibitionism to be any act specifically intended to draw attention to oneself, usually because of the excitement and pleasure it stimulates. This can range from walking through a supermarket completely naked, to walking downtown in a clown suit, to throwing a tantrum in a department store. I don't consider everyone who dresses differently from the norm to be exhibitionist, however, especially when it comes to wearing a religious or ethnic garment. Some people dress a certain way because of religious convictions, because of pride in one's ethnic heritage, or for any of many other reasons. We can't assume that everyone engaging in a similar behavior is doing it for the same reasons, and it seems to me to be a sign of prejudice and intolerance to assume we know exactly why a stranger is dressed a certain way or engaging in a certain behavior.
it seems to me to be a sign of prejudice and intolerance to assume we know exactly why a stranger is dressed a certain way or engaging in a certain behavior.
In the case of strapless shoes, or an orange shirt, I'd agree, but a burka in the USA, or walking nude down Broadway, NY, I'd argue that the prejudice and intolerance of the affront is justified.
it seems to me to be a sign of prejudice and intolerance to assume we know exactly why a stranger is dressed a certain way or engaging in a certain behavior.
In the case of strapless shoes, or an orange sirt, I'd agree, but a burka in the USA, or walking nude down Broadway, NY, I'd argue that the prejudice and intolerance of the affront is justified.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying I agree witheverything lizabethBadinter said. I just findthatparticularperspective interesting.
Update: Ms. Badinter's standing as a feminist has been contested by some. Just so you know.
Nov. 29. I was watching Second regard, a Radio-Canada (French) show dealing with religious issues and how they play out in society in general. The theme that week was the wearing of the niqab or burka in Western society. (For those who dont know, the hijab merely covers the head. The niqab and burka cover the face as well.) The guest was French (from France) writer, philosopher and feminist lizabethBadinter. While usually open to civil liberties in general, she draws the line at allowing the niqab or burka. Her reasoning should be of interest to nudists. In addition to all the usual Western criticisms regarding these garments as symbolizingthe lower status of women in Islam, she adds that Muslim women who wear the niqab or the burka in Western society can hardly have pure motives. Rather, she says these women are exhibitionists because they must take great delight in attracting attention from people who are clearly unused to this, and probably uncomfortable as well. In addition they are voyeurs because they get to seethe shocked and astonished reactions of passers-by while hiding their reactions from public view. Who ever thought someone who was completely dressed could be called exhibitionist?
So not true.
The burka is used for 2 reasons .
1.Demine the status of the women
2.Conciel her face so men will not be attracted to her.
Most of the moderate Muslim women will give a lot to be able to be dressed like a modern women but their husbands will not allow them.
Under the Taliban region many women where assassinated for trying to unveil their faces.
You can see in much more moderated countries like Egypt that many modern women dont use it.
I think the author just have some resent for the uprising of islam in Europe.
By the way , the Origen of this clothing is dated much before the islam and it was originally designed to protect the face and body from the elements and deserts storms.
It is much used by nomads today in the middle east deserts and not for religious motives.
Also a very same concept is used by armies around the world though with a much more modern looking equipment. ( cant imagine a marine using a burka instead of the hat and glasseslol )
Let me clarify........
In the USA, where we were attacked and 3000 of us ( and a few others ) were killed by those proclaiming themselves Muslim, and continuing to promote terrorism in this and other free countries, wearing anything that proudly proclaims one a member, is not a good idea, ESPECIALLY when there has been painfully little ( as in none ) about a majority of "main stream" Muslims actively opposing the terrorist activites.
The Amish also dress in a very non-conformist way, but there are no incidents of their uniform representing war on anything not Amish. I would argue that the Amish are also exhibitionist in the same context. "Look at me. Obviously, I am different than you are, and I want you to know that I am different than you are."
I would make the same argument for face piercing jewelry, and police uniforms, and....
ALL of these groups are pre-judged by their uniform, which seeks to identify them as a part of their group. That they wear a uniform at all, and do not conform to the "when in Rome" adage *is* exhibitionist, and seeks to specifically identify them AS members of their group by this exhibitionism.
In the Arab deserts, covering against the sand storms is no different than covering against the cold in the Arctic, and in both cases is not exhibitionist, nor is a nudist dressing in the textile world, or being nude in the nudist world.
It seems the burka is being argued as relifious dress, protected by the separation in the US Constitution, and I would argue that it's no different than the vestments of any religion, beit Catholic, Jew,or Muslim. In their place of worship, beit at home or Mosque, that's completely different, though it too, is exhibitionist, but there to show conformity, not to oppose it.
"Exhibitionist" is not *necessarily* a bad word. It depends on context. In the context presented, I submit that it *is* exhibitionist, and is done largely with the intent to draw attention to the group and prejudices that go along with that group.
In the case of radical extremist Muslim terrorism, it's a dangerous group tp advertise one is a member of anything associated, and so a defensive posture taken by others is not unreasonable, as Mumbai so clearly demonstrates.
Personally, I have no problem with being intollerant of those who wish me dead, and have no problem with assuming those who dress in such a way as to invoke their being part of that group suffering the intollerance they bring upon themselves.
Clearly, I am not a liberal when my own life may be at stake. Somehow, I don't see this as being unreasonable.
As always, I do remain open to counter arguments.
The burka is used for 2 reasons .
1.Demine the status of the women
2.Conciel her face so men will not be attracted to her.
Most of the moderate Muslim women will give a lot to be able to be dressed like a modern women but their husbands will not allow them.
I definitely agree with the first part. And while I agree with the second part as far as intentions go, it should be obvious to anyone who thinks it through that making one's self mysterious through cloaking or hiding willattract attention rather than deflect it.
I think the author just have some resent for the uprising of islam in Europe.
She most certainly expressed concern about the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe. She says she has nothing against the mainstream Muslim community and adds that the moderate elements of Islam need the support of Europeans in general because everytime they try to bring some common sense to the discussion, they are often drowned out by the louder and more fundamentalist elements. Again, I'm not saying I agree with all of her positions. I just find her perspective interesting.
Anyone who wants to watch the show for themselves (in French) simply has to Google for Second regard, a show on the Radio-Canada network. It will be available on Internet for at least another week and a half.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!