Two extravagances: to exclude reason; to include only reason.
Well, it appears that the French are getting their knickers in a twist (again!) over the Very Important issue of the niqab.
The first question: why is this the first question?
Surely anyone who was really concerned about the inequalities between men and women, about oppression in France -and the starker ones in the so-called muslim world- would talk about education, work, political participation, patriarchal, tribal and feudal attitudes and practices, access to water, shelter, safety...
Of course, very often religious practices are inextricably connected to some of these issues, but the desire to reduce all questions of identity and all problems to religion (rather than class or justice, say)is, perhaps, symptomatic of a rather fanatical mindset.
Why is this issue, for example, more important than education, poverty or access to good housing when it comes to Culture (note the "C") and citizenship?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Maybe your questions were rhetorical? But I'll offer an answer anyway :)
Because I think it's less of a fanatical mindset and more of a political savvy-ness that can create fanatical mindsets - it uses the intense identity-bound emotions of religion to justify their desired agendas. Education, poverty, housing, these are practical issues that have obvious, practical solutions which would be hard to refute, however unpalatable.
Not sure I completely agree with you there, mani. You're right, of course, 'fanatical' is the wrong word.
But where is the "savi-ness" in trying to divide people or inflame sensitivities for cheap political gains?
A politics that moves away from practical matters and that focuses on a narrow understanding of 'community' is surely one that leads to, if not fanaticism, then 'fancy' (as Gibbon would call it).
And I'm not sure if leaders really just 'create' mindsets. I mean, in a similar way the nonsense about "the Jew" that is spreading in the muslim world would have to be looked at not just in terms of its insidiousness, but in a political context. For me, the question is, then: why now? why is this SUCH a big issue (in Sarkozy's mind)?
Sure leaders create mindsets, not single handed-ly, but contribute to and maintain a certain discourse - think of all the demonizing that went before the bombing of Serbia or of Iraq, which dehumanized whole peoples so that their bombing & killing became justified, a moral duty, even. Discourses create mindsets.
And to clarify when I say politics I mean the real politics of today which I believe are all about power and nothing about serving the people - it is in this sense that I referred to political savvy-ness: finding ways to wrestle power from others or strengthen one's grip on it.
why now... good question. i'm holding it.
mani
(a dear friend some years ago used to call me mani - it feels good to be called that again :)
why is this the first question. this is really simple b. because people can use it to have an opinion pro/contra on or without actually having to change the status quo (as always when they choose to react on a symptom and not on a root), but still pretend to be on the side of the "good" ones who care about the poor women. it also can be nicely instrumenatlized to show off how civilized the west is and how much better it treats its women and the usual (enlightenmentish) mumbojumbo.
Hmm, I hear what you're saying , M, but my slight disagreement with you is this: leaders certainly do create mindsets but surely the people who are duped have to take responsibility themselves? I mean, such rhetoric plays into pre-existing feras of difference and danger? And in that sense it "maintains" the discourse (as you say)rather than simply create it.
I don't know, this (to my mind) seems the great paradox..in an age of late capitalism, where everything is fluid, does politcs revert to a politics of the tribe (us vs them, purity vs danger)? It seems that race and immigration are really red herrings and indicative of the inability or reluctance to talk about the contradictions of capitalism.
If the fear is that immigrants are a threat to the British/French way of life that really masks the fact that the way of life has been undermined by other forces and developments: post-modernism, de-industrialisation, the structure of the labour force (gender)and the decline of the public realm.
I'm not sure that I agree with you Mani. I mean, what you call politics is, to me, the precise erosion of the political.
best,
b.
anton, hello! Yes, agree with you but on your last point I tend to differ with you. Let's not use the term how "it treats its women". Might we not ask in what ways are women's lives better in the west? And I think here I really don't think this is mumbojumb.
Firstly, the whole notion of 'traditional values' in the so-called muslim world really is (at least from my limited experience) mostly a lot of crap that re-infoces domination and hierarchies and all sorts of horrors.
Seriously, I can't believe that a society where women are buried alive (this happened in Balochistan last year) and where a minister actually tried to justify that as a tribal custom, can be compared with the civilized west-and I think it is civilized.
Okay, of course, a few incidents do not make a case. But, then, what exactly should we be looking at? The lives of the most vulnerable, poor women for example? Possibly, yes.
But if we look at aggregates then in terms of education, work opportunities, political participation, self-esteem, then I really don't think there is a comparison.
Instead, we have the reactionary: but in 'the east' a woman is given the respect of mother/sister etc. I don't buy that either, I'm afraid.
I agree with you, though: it is used politically -and there's a whole 'oriental' history to it-to show that women/the east are submissive/passive but I don't think that that should detract from the very real differences in quality of lives. I just don't think that the veil is an indicator of that difference.
At least in Pakistan, it is not (as far as I'm aware) the poorest group that weras it . It seems to be much more of a middle-class and /or urban phenomenon.
I wonder how many women in France/England actually wear the niqab? I just think that even symbolically it's not the main thing to worry about. anyway, that's my two cents.
Keep well,
b.
okay, yes, i see. largely in the west the lives of women may be better by degree. which doesn't mean it's great and i say this with all the optimistic cynicism i can bring up in myllef, but "by degree" can mean and often does mean the decisive difference in "staying alive", going to school, partcipating in the election... etc.
it's not that i am not seeing that. but this should not fool us about things being all great here. because they aren't and everyone who looks a bit beneath the surface sees all the inequality too. only in the "east" it's more visible hence an easier target for political usage.
for instance:
east: no work allowed for women. (exclusion, private exploitation in the household)
west: work for women allowed but only the crappy, less paying work. (segregation, public exploitation in the crappy jobs)
east: women living without men, confined to poverty
west: women living without men or single moms also largely confined to poverty or benefits.
east: political participation zero
west: political participation somehow arranged but not often with actual improvements for women, for instance tendency to make abortion difficult or cut down welfare etc
east: treatment of rape was i dont know like adultery and deathpenalty or so for her?
west: treatment of rape somehow result in faketrials with no conviction and later also being killed by the unconvicted?
of course there are exceptions, there are always exceptions.
you see, by degree it's better in the west but only just that. yet because it looks better on the surface, by degree doesn't mean it's so awfully civilized.
I don't agree with you, anton. Of course it's degrees..what else could it be? But isn't there a point where differences in degree translate into differences in kind?
I simply can't agree with you at this moment.
I mean, how can one discount the vast differences in education AND attitudes to education? In one society women can and do all sorts of things, study alll sorts of things-and in the other they are severely constrained by what's "appropriate"
Secondly, job participation isn't, I think, just about crummy jobs (even if proportionally to men in the west they are). Still, one can and does find women in many, many different types of fields (including the arts) whereas that simply isn't the case in many muslim countries.
But let's take something altogether simpler and more mundane. A woman can , by and large, walk down a street on her own and go to the shops on her own, can drive and have independence. That is MUCH less likely in a muslim country.
In terms of marriage, it is FAR easier for a woman to move on if she doesn't like the way things turn out..but there's a massive stigma in 'the east'. Same with widows. It isn't just their lack of financial independence...it's also the attitudes that follow from having more independence.
If my mother-a senior citizen-wants to go to London she can just get on a bus and go. In Pakistan she'd be sitting in a room just waiting and dependent on other people.
I'm not saying it's all one-sided. The family support sysytem can often be great there.
I think if we look beyond the surface then we'd see that though the situation of women is inferior to that of men in the west it's still far , far better than that in most muslim countries. Not degrees. Just in terms of freedom one can sense it. It's so tangible that I'm surprised you ignore this. I'm not saying I'm in a privileged position-having seen both sides-but I really wonder if you're considering things like honour killings, domestic violence, abuse, tribal and feudal attitudes and , in effect, almost zilch support or sympathy from the state or society.
p.s. Xeb or Sadia..I would love to hear your views on this..if you're reading this.
i worry that the debate on whether women in western europe and north america are better off than women in the rest of the world can become a trap, because it creates a false dichotomy and makes relative what is in fact an absolute value/right: fundamental equality, justice, dignity.
i love in toronto. no doubt i am much much safer, better off, educated that many women elsewhere. nevertheless, as a woman, i am *always* aware of my physical safety and self-censure my movements at certain times and in certain places. yes, my fear of being raped, though never absent, absolutely cannot compare degree-wise with the fear of a woman who has to walk 10 miles to get water each day, passing through militia territory where she most likely will be raped. every day.
but to limit the issue to whether i can be considered 'safe' compared to the other woman, or to locate the discussion only within these parameters, relativizies both our fears and derails the discussion from the fact that women *everywhere* in the world, at *every* moment of the day and night, have reason to fear for their safety.
yes, the safety of the woman who has to walk each day to get water should be a primary concern and get immediate attention. but focusing only on leveling the field between her and me without addressing the underlying reasons why fear and injustice are a reality for both of us and for women throughout the world, how are things going to change?
billoo, the life, how i have it lived in the western countries is such that i can prove every single thing wrong that you say about in how far it is better here with my very personal experience. of course, this is my personal situation which is in no way special. but i am still in a far better situation than many others and there are many who live or lived the way i do.
when you write here:
"I think if we look beyond the surface then we'd see that though the situation of women is inferior to that of men in the west it's still far , far better than that in most muslim countries. Not degrees. Just in terms of freedom one can sense it. It's so tangible that I'm surprised you ignore this."
simple. because these freedoms were and to some degree still not are available to me. so i am not ignoring this - and how could one ever ignore the absence of freedoms, whose absence is constricting every movement - but i write just plain from a state of experience of absence of these very golden freedoms or grand improvements of the west.
i still say that i don't deny the difference of degree. that on a rather large scale it may be better here. but only just that.
si we end up with a scenario:
east: worse
west: less worse
on the workthing i have literature: sylvia walby
Manuela, yes, I think you're right..this was not meant to be a debate and it seems obviously true that we are ultimately concerned more about ourselves and the small circle of people we know than abstract Man...which is why, perhaps, global justice doesn't appeal to us as much as local justice?
And yes, it is probably largely redundant to talk about how bad things it *was* (in the west) or is (in the East) from someone's perspective in the west.
But I'm not sure if it is in the context of the demonisation of the west and its "decadence" that I've come across (perhaps I'm reacting to this). For without that debate what we see is, I think, a defensiveness and a re-inforcing of phony traditional values. And all the so-called debates are reduced to moralism and what women wear. If, instead, there was a discussion about how people can actually live decent and fulfilling lives or at least a life where there is less oppression then that would simply be too problematic..no, let's keep it to the veil and set up the dichotomy of freedom/slavery around it!
Dear anton, I appreciate your candidness. Thank you. I am not for a moment forgetting that one's own personal experience is vitally important here-and to talk in the abstract, from a distance, is really sometimes just ridiculous. And, of course, if anyone's gone through something bad it really doesn't matter what the averages are or what someone in Pakistan or Saudia has gone through.
But if we're talking about just the personal then I think it would be hard to say much in terms of comparisons (in fact, that might actually be better from my side). I mean, I could recount how just two months ago I went to a friend's village and his cousin telling me how an old woman was raped and then cut into pieces ..and how that wasn't that shocking there...or about how acid is thrown on women's faces and so many other daily sordid incidents that make one think nothing straight can be built on this fucking crooked timber...
Yes, pelase do pass on a link to that data/literature. It would be interesting to see what the figures are for Pk. I get the feeling that most women who work are still involved in subsistence type agriculture.
Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. You think it's only "may be" and I think the differences are (on the whole) very significant. And it's hard to know what type of literature -not that I've read up on any-would take this discussion any further.
Anyway, thanks to you and Manuela for raising some very interesting issues..points which have made me think twice.
Take care,
b.
well here is a link in which Netherlands & Pakistan share the same percentage of women in management toppositions: http://www.southafrica.info/doing_business/trends/women/women-grantthornton.htm
i think the differences are significant in the sense that they decide between "staying alive or not",
but they are difference of "only" degree, not of kind.
Hi b., hope that you are fine. In all honesty, I don't really care about the veil issue. You see ... I've heard and observed so many versions: It's a convenient way of hiding yourself in case of a clandestine affair, of course it protects your complexion from harsh sunlight, the boy and his family thinks that you are pious, so you know you might get a good proposal. The list goes on and on and I guess, religiosity is also there somewhere on the list. I can also understand the apprehensions regarding burqa because in my experience most of the burqa-clad women demonstrate a sort of militancy (as an example, refer to the Red Mosque case). Religion 'is' dividing the people more and more. While discussing gender equality, education, poverty, you can't avoid religion, or at least the form in which it is being used for oppression. Burqa, for various reasons, has become a symbol of such an oppression. Therefore, I don't think that all the attention it draws can be avoided.
Regarding the comparison between the quality of life for women in east and west, I came back to Pakistan because well ... this is home and I prefer my life here. I know I belong to the lucky few, but yes I am Pakistan too. Strangely enough, despite all the violence I see around myself, I've never felt any threat to my freedom here.
You are of course right, this is not the case for majority of women here but neither would I undermine the problems women in the west have to face. The life and/or career at her own terms mostly means loneliness and that is a very heavy price to pay.
Thanks for the link, anton. Will check it out. Got to say that my first instincts are to doubt it-given that the literacy rate is so low in Pakistan.
And I'm not sure I understand your point that staying alive or not is only a matter of degree.
I keep on returning to anecdotal evidence (which is silly, I know). But I was walking near a leisure centre the other day and I saw lots of young children going there. I couldn't help thinking : even in simple (but important) things like playing sport there's very little chance for our girls to -not just excel-but have fun.
anyway, let me read that and get back to you.
hello:-)
b.
S, where on earth have you been!?!:-)
So good to hear from you!
hello, hi.
Well, yes, I can understand (I think) a bit of what you're saying...I feel, in some way, more comfortable in Pakistan (I can walk down the street without being called "paki") but that has, by and large, also became very rare (at least in London). And whilst there is the chance of general, random violence in Pakistan there is no chance of it being on the basis of the colour of skin or ethnicity.
I hear what you're saying and everyone's got their own personal experience. But I was wondering-and this is going to sound incredibly stupid: would you (do you) go out to , say, to buy something from the shops on your own? Can you go anywhere without being stared at (maybe things are different in Kchi and parts of Lhr but I think that would be unlikely in most parts of Pakistan).
The difference is-to my mind at least-is that freedom (for men and women) is really reserved for a small class in Pakistan. The interesting qustion-for me-is why a genuine public space hasn't developed. I meam, when my mother was growing up in Lahore girls used to cycle to college. One cannot, simply cannot, imagine such a thing happening in today's climate.
On the other hand, there are more women entering the job market and getting an education.
Your last point Sadia is a tough one to reply to.
A life on other people's terms may, in fact, be the price one has to pay to avoid loneliness. I don't know. Any generalisations here seem out of place. Part of me also wants to say, though, that there are many people who are surrounded by lots of people but still lonely and that , perhaps, the quality of being with another person also depends on one's ability to be comfortable with oneself (or 'loneliness' -to stretch the meaning of that word).
I don't know. Don't think there's any hard and fast rule here. There is ALSO a heavy price to be paid (by us all) of not living our lives on our own terms, no?
Anyway, all that doesn't matter right now. It's so good to hear from you again!
Wishing you all the best.
Keep well,
b.
Hello b., I have been around, I mean I don't think I've missed any of your posts ... I've just been quiet, you know, just happy to learn that you are alive, fine and writing.
Yes b. I do all my shopping on my own. In fact most of the shopkeepers recognize me and know the stuff I would be interested in buying. I don't really know if I am being stared at because I am so much occupied with the things I need/want to buy that I just can't be bothered. In fact when a taxi driver or a shopkeeper recognizes me, I am amazed at their memory. I can do my shopping all alone as comfortably in Anarkali as Liberty Market. Somehow I can't get rid of the feeling that the women who complain most about being stared, do want to be stared at.
Okay, the last I will leave for some other time. It's 2.15 am and I have to be in my lab. by 7.30.
It's always a pleasure to read and hear from you.
Wishing you the very best,
Sadia.
Post a Comment