The cover of the July 21 Economist touted an article about Iran’s push to develop nuclear weapons. But the accompanying photo, filling the cover along with the article’s title, “The Riddle of Iran,” presented a sea of figures in black chadors, floor-length cloths used by some Muslim women to cover themselves—despite the fact that the article said not a word… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (6)Page 1 of 1 pages“to save the women of Afghanistan from their imprisonment under the Taliban. She invoked the familiar representations of the “oppressed Muslim woman” and the “civilized Western woman” who needs to intervene on her behalf.”
Ix this really the example you want to give? Under the Taliban women could not be doctors and since they were not allowed to be close to males, could not go to doctors. The brutality of the Taliban to women is well known - if the west had not rescued these women, they would still be ruthlessly subjugated.
Of course, in much of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia comes quickly to mind) Islamic women are still under the boot heal of the males who live there. Whether this is intrinsically due to an evil religion or whether is is due to just evil men is merely academic. Either way, they are in need of rescue. Hopefully this will happen peacefully, as Islam collapses due to its own horrible failures.
Posted by wolf on Sep 7, 2007 at 11:57 AM The men act ruthlessly because they hold a value that tells them they own the unquestionable, cosmic truth, part of which says that women are subordinate and questioners are apostate, aren’t worthy to live.
Ruthlessness is called for if you have all the truth for all time. But of course in real life no one ever will.
Secular government may not be perfect, but at least no one thinks they speak for the cosmos. When faith is the basis of law it’s bound to be a nightmare.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 12, 2007 at 4:08 AM This piece is ridiculous. Are we not sick of Western feminism being called a middle class white woman’s affair? This author makes assertions but seems to know little about feminism’s past or present. The author, quoting another author, assumes Western women have a colonial attitude towards other women based on what? Certainly not their actual record.
Of course Islamic women were influenced by western feminism. We’re all human and women naturally desire liberation like anyone else. But what is the point here? There’s no focus to this piece.
There is no such thing as a real feminism under a religious aegis. But women laudably struggle against male domination and preference and of course feminists support them.
Isn’t attacking feminism for being all white a has-been affair?
Clearly we need a new feminist discourse based on a recognition of the essential and inherent misogyny in most if not all organized religions. And less of this type of crap.
Atheism is feminist!
Posted by janej on Sep 19, 2007 at 9:55 PM Actually “attacking feminism for being all white” is not a has-been affair. It is obvious from your comments you still suffer from the very condescending and colonial attitude that White American/Eurocentric feminism promotes. Let women in other parts of the world speak for themselves. No one is going to deny that Wahabist interpretations of Islam, such as the Taliban or what we see in Saudi Arabia is extremely oppressive towards women. Does that mean that you need to jump on the Bush/Blair bandwagon for global takeover? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan in the post invasion and occupation years? Are women really always that much better off?
Going back to Iran: of course women face myriad inequalities and challenges. But the post-Revolution years have not all been the same. Education and health care have both increased and improved for women, especially for women in rural areas. It’s not perfect by any means, but from that perspective it is definitely not worse than it was under the Shah.
Why don’t you try to support indigenous feminist movements in Islamic countries? You’ll find secular groups and you’ll also find religiously-oriented groups. If you’re going to demand that women have to be unveiled perhaps you should ask those very women first. Why does feminism have to be rooted in American/European models that have very different histories and cultural contexts, not to mention a history of oppression towards these very people who you are claiming to “liberate.”
Posted by thinkagain on Sep 24, 2007 at 9:35 AM More religious apologism and racist namecalling from “thinkagain” who might try thinking once instead of knee jerking. Of course as a feminist, I support all women’s efforts within whatever structures they fight. That’s not the point and I thought most enlightened discourse was beyond that question. And I certainly do NOT need to be told to support indigenous women—which is different from state citizen- natives how???—of course I do and am even considering studying international women’s human rights law to do so.
The point is we get this liberal kowtowing over religion when it is for many women a large source of oppression, as well as Western-imposed. Why do white women always get blamed for excluding other women, when the groups I know of and read are very very inclusive.
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but a veil is oppressive, whether worn voluntary or involuntarily, for ‘modesty’ or otherwise. I actually live in one of the most diverse areas of America, a neighborhood in Brooklyn where some women wear burqas. I would never think of victimizing those women further, but to veiled is to be denied full personhood.
Do you really think that you are helping women in Muslim countries by accommodating the idea of a veil as a cultural marker rather than as a marker of oppression? Do you really think using euphemisms like “myriad inequalities and challenges” helps by distracting from the systemic denial of basic human rights shared by women globally?
I think a conversation should be broached, and I’m working in media with a big goal in mind to do just that. I don’t think launching attacks on well meaning women is the way to do it. And i don’t for a minute think these feminists are as short sighted as you do.
Why do you also situate me as presumably a white female, which i am, as a member of the male-led colonialist class? I am neither but a regular working class girl who lives in an immigrant neighborhood. I don’t need lectures from blowhard kneejerkers and I won’t be hit with veiled racist/classist threats from you.
Feminism means realizing a global sisterhood and it is clear you are not there yet.
Posted by janej on Sep 24, 2007 at 11:14 AM Moreover i never claimed to liberate people. You claimed I did. I claimed a desire to support.
I’m so sick of this crap being thrown at white women.
Posted by janej on Sep 24, 2007 at 11:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Erin Wiegand
- Unveiling Muslim Feminism
Muslim women's bodies are too frequently used to symbolize the state of Islam in Iran, and the degree to which it associates itself with the West
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
