While returning from my daily workout, I noticed a woman in my housing complex wearing a burka. A burka is Islamic garb for women which covers the entirety of the body, leaving only a slit in the head covering for the eyes (which, in some cultures, is covered with lace). Being an atheist, my mind began to swirl with the many thoughts that go along with such a religious or cultural expression.
Does she want to wear that?
Is it right for a culture to demand such compliance from a person?
Is she made to wear the burka or does she choose to?
The last question stuck. Choice in such a matter is an interesting discussion. For most women who wear some form of Islamic garb while living in the west it is a choice by their own words. Not uncommonly, these niqab or hijab wearing women are with taunted about their subservient status within Islam culture, or derided for not standing up to their culture, or are pitied by people expressing "tolerance". Still, it is the point on choice which is the hang up for me. Is it really a choice?
If a cultural norm is to engage in a specific act, does one have a choice to not engage in that act? Surely they do, as we humans have some degree of free will and--whether it is used or not--the gift of skepticism. For example, driving culture in North America calls on all drivers and (most) passengers to wear their seat belts. These restraints are crucial safety devices which greatly limit the severity of injuries during a motor vehicle accident. There are people, however, who choose to not wear their seat belts. I was made aware that the State of New Jersey does not require backseat passengers to wear seat belts. Anyways, the cultural norm is to strap in while in a car and those who don't are not only going against that norm but also against well founded scientific justification and clearly spelled out laws. Even so, these people are expressing a choice, just at a risk to themselves.
The reason I am focusing on a (straw) feminist to explain why modern gender (third or fourth wave) feminism is because of its inclination to defend adherents of Islam from societal criticism. As mentioned above, there are Islamic women who defend their wearing of spiritual clothing, which includes the all encompassing burka. My question simply is: does she choose to wear it?
It might seem as if I already answered it with the quip about western Islamic women. There is some nuance to this question, though. Forgive the jump to another subject here, but it is important to contextualize the importance of choice. Choice is only done when the individual can make an decision free of coercion. If a individual says ,"Give me your wallet or I'll stab you!", are you really making the free choice to handing over your wallet? If, and for the sake of some of the more radical feminists, is a woman consenting (i.e., freeing choosing to engage in) to sex if a man has threatened her with physical, emotional, or mental harm? Surely the answer is an emphatic NO! As long as there is coercion there is no choice.
Back to the burka now and a secondary question to my original: what are the consequences for not wearing the burka? If there are no non-spiritual consequences for failing to wear the burka, then the woman is making a choice free of coercion. (Quick note: spiritual consequences are significant to some individuals and will shape their motives for certain choices. While that is an important point, it is complex and difficult to untangle here and is not required for me to make my argument.) As the burka is important to some Islamic culture, just as the yamaka is important to some Jewish cultures, surely we can imply there would be consequences within the community as a whole if a woman chooses to not wear the ascribed garments. This might range from diminished status to expulsion to violence against the woman. More specifically, within Islamic communities which demand for women to be completely veiled (i.e., to wear the burka), the father, husband, eldest brother, or eldest son is responsible for the most of the actions of said woman. If this woman does not wear the burka, it is up to this male guardian to address the situation. While this may not always start with violence, there is undoubtedly some form of coercion taking place to have the woman don the burka and remain within cultural bounds.
As stated above, free choice cannot exist if there is coercion. If a woman "consents" to sex after being threatened with a violent beating, then it is not actually consent, thus not a free choice. The same standard applies here: if a woman chooses to wear the burka only because of the consequences of not wearing the burka, then it isn't a choice made free of coercion. Here in lies the double think of these Islamic apologists: they will loudly claim these woman have a right to express themselves in a matter in accordance to their culture, willfully ignoring the presence of grave consequences if these woman wish to do otherwise. Yet, when it comes to sex, any act which might even slightly influence a woman's choice on whether to consent is immediately labeled as coercion and completely undermines consent. Why this double-think? It is logically inconsistent!
If the goal of feminists is to ensure woman have the same rights and privileges as men, as understood from enlightenment philosophy and reasoning, then their drive ought to be to shore up and maintain female agency. Apologist reasoning for protection women's lack of agency in Islam undermines the core doctrine of feminism--not just gender feminism! Women's choices must be made entirely free of coercion if they are to be free. Of course, choices will always have consequences, but that does not mean all choices are made in a coercive manner. Gender feminism's approach to Islamic women's garments is a glaring example of the hypocrisy of third/fourth wave feminists and entirely undermines their position as moral arbiters.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment