Emmanuelle, I saw this and thought you might like to see it. It is an event in the UK called 'Letters Live' where funny, or poignant letters from history are read out. This one was read by Thom Yorke, the lead singer of Radiohead. https://youtu.be/rH8HP0zl7DY?si=YDK_t1XrgrrtHT1O
Indeed, your article captures the divide even among women about what the hijab symbolizes. I think that this issue of focusing on the hijab and trying to decipher what it might symbolize distracts from other more important things. The important things are freedom, respect for human rights, and empowerment for people--and especially women in the relevant cultures.
If the Iranian regime or the monarchy in Saudi Arabia makes a law tomorrow that makes the wearing of hijab voluntary, does that automatically mean that women in those countries have freedom and equal rights? The hijab is a piece of clothing that has been needlessly politicized. Unending conversations and debates about the symbolism of the hijab are like arguing over the symptoms of a medical illness, instead of treating the underlying disease.
I agree that the conversations around the hijab and its symbolisms are a distraction, and I've noticed it happens so in Occidental societies that have built their national identity around christianism. I haven't seen conversations about it in countries where christianism, judaism, and islam are present. Obviously, there are issues everywhere, but it is extraordinary to see how people talk about the hijab without actually letting women wearing it have a say.
Really enjoyed reading this. Growing up in a country where it doesn't outrage anyone whether Muslim women wear or don't wear headscarves, it was a surprise to me how controversial it was in Europe, Canada etc. I'm not Muslim, and I am against how the hijab has been used to violently oppress women in some countries, but I agree with Satrapi's view. A tool of oppression in one country can be an assertion of identity and freedom in another, and failure to understand this breeds division and eventually, extremism. I can understand how someone who grew up with a very "western" perception of Islam would feel confronted by the presence of hijabi, but maybe it is helpful to remember that we know nothing about the wearer, and a multitude of experiences exist!
Very well done, Emmanuelle - I try to refrain from having opinions in areas I know I have very little experience with, however I think the hajib forces one to give the wearer genuine attention because you’re forced to make eye contact (the focus is on the face) and as a result, one tends to listen more intently. Perhaps that’s my personal experience, however I appreciate you’re asking.
I see your point but I am also wondering if it is because in the society we are living in, we are conditioned to think that way. The hijab is a piece of clothing that has become so politicized that we forget to watch the whole outfit.
Growing up in Cameroon, I saw women with the hijab daily, so maybe I wasn't too focused on that because they were more visible?
That’s a valid perspective, curiosity generally forces one to pay deeper attention. And you’re correct, it’s politicized and it’s an article of clothing which has been and is being used to polarize (and that is another example of why I’m biased in favor of your postings; you force me to think about fashion less frivolously).
This article is very thought provoking and even-handed. Unfortunately comments are switched off so here goes.
Clearly there is a strong correlation between women’s oppression and being compelled to wear certain garments in some parts of the world. However, the banning of those same garments in other places can, depending on context, can be oppression or liberation. How do we ensure it’s the woman’s choice that is being supported?
More generally, I think misogyny can often be hidden in the guise of defending women’s rights i.e., by being overly prescriptive. The theme of one group deciding what is good for another group is also encapsulated in the quotation grabbed below.
However, I do think it is a fair to make the observation that decisions taken as a consequence of fashion-freedom in one place, may be an affront to those with no choice and under threat of persecution in another.
The link between female fashion and politics was already there. Fashion may dictate, and be dictated by, how others view a person. This can also be related to body image and predominantly how people see themselves. These are just some components in that nebulous thing called identity.
Arguably that is why feminism is needed to advocate for women in whatever cultural form that might take - but that too can be problematic.
If there are cultural demarcations in that movement might it also lead to misogyny? For example, can Linda Sarsour’s vile attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, be described as anything else? For her, Hirsi Ali’s criticism of Islam prohibited her from being a woman - hardly an inclusive vision of feminism.
Women’s oppression has always been reducible to biological vulnerabilities; in that way the limitation on female freedom as been to both protect and to subjugate. The intention may be different but the outcome is the same.
Clearly this is a discussion for women so perhaps the starting point is to make sure they are all part of it, regardless of geography, identity or culture. I think this article sets that out extremely well.
Emmanuelle, can I quote every line of this brilliant piece?! I cannot believe we somehow posted two takes on hijab a day apart! I haven't heard of Aya Mohamed but you better believe I'll be looking her up and checking out her instagram.
I replied to someone on my post that I had never perceived my hijab as political until I was in uni, perhaps in my early 20's and saw that it was perceived as such. I don't mind, per se, and I absolutely see the power of Aya and Malala and others. In fact, I don't mind being political myself when needed.
I suppose my insisting that my hijab is a personal choice IS political, since so many people refuse to see it as such. As many have said, for marginalized communities, joy is political, love is political, existing is political. We do not have the luxury of being apolitical.
I have always loved an interview with Shona Rhimes (the Black woman who created of Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and many other hit shows that were some of the first popular network shows to have such diverse casts in American television. In it, she discusses the concept of being "the first, only, different" and how when there are so few representations of a group, every single representation has such outsized importance, is so symbolic, is meant to speak for the whole group. And then how, over time, as there are more and more examples of the group, those people don't carry such a weight to "represent" - they get to keep some of their individuality and represent themselves. White people have this luxury all the time. They are never representative of anyone but themselves.
I may have to write about this some time. It's stayed with me for years.
I am so glad you enjoyed the piece! And me too, I can't believe how timely both our pieces are. Aya Mohamed is doing an amazing job to bring awareness on Muslim women in Italy, and there are few of them in the academic and entrepreunarial world that are moving the needle in what is a fundamentally a catholic country. Unlike many European countries, Vatican is right behind the corner, so even if they are not religious, culturally they are. So, their perception of hijabis is very narrow.
You're hitting the nail! Everything marginalised commnunities do tend to be perceived as political, when we are just living like anybody else. It makes everything we do seem exceptional.
If you have a link towards Shonda Rhimes' interview, I'd be glad to read it!
So right! That goes back to being an example for your entire community, and it is a cross that is very heavy to bear. That is why when someone from a marginalised group "fails" it is a collective fail AND the occasion for consolidating negative stereotypes on said group.
When you see yourself everywhere, representation isn't an issue and that's where individuality comes in. But I am also questioning individuality because in the society where I am from, and many others, it is community that is emphasized, not the individual. This said, I clearly see the importance of one needing to be an individual, especially when living in societies that stereotype us. So, all this to say, I agree with you!
If you write about it I'd be glad to read it because it will unravel so many things about how reductive representation is applied.
Dang, girl! You are brilliant and I am reminded of it with every thing I read from you, even when it's just comments!! Once again, I was nodding along as I read your words.
Sadly, I cannot find the Shonda Rhimes interview. I LOVE it so much and have searched high and low for it but it seems to have completely disappeared. If I ever do find it, I will definitely pass it along.
You are right that the sentiments you express are similar to that of the OP so I will look up the article you mention. It is impossible not to accept the political dimension noting that it is only a dimension. I restacked what I had to say about that before the comments were open so I may try to paste them here. Your last lines contain some over-generalisations. Arguably all anyone can do authentically is represent themselves but it is possible to be allies of others. Some even try to compensate to the point of self loathing and losing all self-interest in the process, but from what I see, that can never be enough to satisfy.
I don't think Noha was over-generalising. If it is true that we all comply to certain rules, but when you are part of a marginalised group said rules are applied more strictly. The sentence: "you need to work twice or even thrice as much, and dress the part even more than the others" is a sentence that was said to me by my white father after he understood what it meant to raise non-white children. And it is also words many of my peers have heard from their parents. Finally, when white people are free to dress with a hoodie, others die for wearing it: Trayvon Martin should ring a bell.
On the discourse of allyship, I am working on a piece about it centering around my father. And I am sorry to say but perfect allyship doesn't exist because we are not the one living the experience of other people. That is exactly one of the reasons I interviewed Aya Mohammed and linked to Noha's piece. I might be Black and a woman, but I am not Muslim, and even though I did research and know the Muslim women's experience to a certain extent through my friends, they can and have the right to correct me on my perception of their experiences.
No I get that. I was referring to: ' White people have this luxury all the time. They are never representative of anyone but themselves.' But by that measure who is representative of anybody else? What is the distinction being made here? I will modify my point if it helps: since no one is ever representative 'of anyone but themselves' you might say it is an under-generalisation, i.e. does not solely apply to any group in particular. That would be the standpoint epistemological position which is reasonable depending on how you define 'representative'. I agree on ‘allyship’ but I made no claims that trespass on that or what you just said about it.
Emmanuelle, I saw this and thought you might like to see it. It is an event in the UK called 'Letters Live' where funny, or poignant letters from history are read out. This one was read by Thom Yorke, the lead singer of Radiohead. https://youtu.be/rH8HP0zl7DY?si=YDK_t1XrgrrtHT1O
Indeed, your article captures the divide even among women about what the hijab symbolizes. I think that this issue of focusing on the hijab and trying to decipher what it might symbolize distracts from other more important things. The important things are freedom, respect for human rights, and empowerment for people--and especially women in the relevant cultures.
If the Iranian regime or the monarchy in Saudi Arabia makes a law tomorrow that makes the wearing of hijab voluntary, does that automatically mean that women in those countries have freedom and equal rights? The hijab is a piece of clothing that has been needlessly politicized. Unending conversations and debates about the symbolism of the hijab are like arguing over the symptoms of a medical illness, instead of treating the underlying disease.
https://purplemessenger.substack.com/
I agree that the conversations around the hijab and its symbolisms are a distraction, and I've noticed it happens so in Occidental societies that have built their national identity around christianism. I haven't seen conversations about it in countries where christianism, judaism, and islam are present. Obviously, there are issues everywhere, but it is extraordinary to see how people talk about the hijab without actually letting women wearing it have a say.
Really enjoyed reading this. Growing up in a country where it doesn't outrage anyone whether Muslim women wear or don't wear headscarves, it was a surprise to me how controversial it was in Europe, Canada etc. I'm not Muslim, and I am against how the hijab has been used to violently oppress women in some countries, but I agree with Satrapi's view. A tool of oppression in one country can be an assertion of identity and freedom in another, and failure to understand this breeds division and eventually, extremism. I can understand how someone who grew up with a very "western" perception of Islam would feel confronted by the presence of hijabi, but maybe it is helpful to remember that we know nothing about the wearer, and a multitude of experiences exist!
Very well done, Emmanuelle - I try to refrain from having opinions in areas I know I have very little experience with, however I think the hajib forces one to give the wearer genuine attention because you’re forced to make eye contact (the focus is on the face) and as a result, one tends to listen more intently. Perhaps that’s my personal experience, however I appreciate you’re asking.
Thank you!
I see your point but I am also wondering if it is because in the society we are living in, we are conditioned to think that way. The hijab is a piece of clothing that has become so politicized that we forget to watch the whole outfit.
Growing up in Cameroon, I saw women with the hijab daily, so maybe I wasn't too focused on that because they were more visible?
That’s a valid perspective, curiosity generally forces one to pay deeper attention. And you’re correct, it’s politicized and it’s an article of clothing which has been and is being used to polarize (and that is another example of why I’m biased in favor of your postings; you force me to think about fashion less frivolously).
This article is very thought provoking and even-handed. Unfortunately comments are switched off so here goes.
Clearly there is a strong correlation between women’s oppression and being compelled to wear certain garments in some parts of the world. However, the banning of those same garments in other places can, depending on context, can be oppression or liberation. How do we ensure it’s the woman’s choice that is being supported?
More generally, I think misogyny can often be hidden in the guise of defending women’s rights i.e., by being overly prescriptive. The theme of one group deciding what is good for another group is also encapsulated in the quotation grabbed below.
However, I do think it is a fair to make the observation that decisions taken as a consequence of fashion-freedom in one place, may be an affront to those with no choice and under threat of persecution in another.
The link between female fashion and politics was already there. Fashion may dictate, and be dictated by, how others view a person. This can also be related to body image and predominantly how people see themselves. These are just some components in that nebulous thing called identity.
Arguably that is why feminism is needed to advocate for women in whatever cultural form that might take - but that too can be problematic.
If there are cultural demarcations in that movement might it also lead to misogyny? For example, can Linda Sarsour’s vile attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, be described as anything else? For her, Hirsi Ali’s criticism of Islam prohibited her from being a woman - hardly an inclusive vision of feminism.
Women’s oppression has always been reducible to biological vulnerabilities; in that way the limitation on female freedom as been to both protect and to subjugate. The intention may be different but the outcome is the same.
Clearly this is a discussion for women so perhaps the starting point is to make sure they are all part of it, regardless of geography, identity or culture. I think this article sets that out extremely well.
@Emmanuelle Maréchal - thanks. You’re too kind.
Emmanuelle, can I quote every line of this brilliant piece?! I cannot believe we somehow posted two takes on hijab a day apart! I haven't heard of Aya Mohamed but you better believe I'll be looking her up and checking out her instagram.
I replied to someone on my post that I had never perceived my hijab as political until I was in uni, perhaps in my early 20's and saw that it was perceived as such. I don't mind, per se, and I absolutely see the power of Aya and Malala and others. In fact, I don't mind being political myself when needed.
I suppose my insisting that my hijab is a personal choice IS political, since so many people refuse to see it as such. As many have said, for marginalized communities, joy is political, love is political, existing is political. We do not have the luxury of being apolitical.
I have always loved an interview with Shona Rhimes (the Black woman who created of Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and many other hit shows that were some of the first popular network shows to have such diverse casts in American television. In it, she discusses the concept of being "the first, only, different" and how when there are so few representations of a group, every single representation has such outsized importance, is so symbolic, is meant to speak for the whole group. And then how, over time, as there are more and more examples of the group, those people don't carry such a weight to "represent" - they get to keep some of their individuality and represent themselves. White people have this luxury all the time. They are never representative of anyone but themselves.
I may have to write about this some time. It's stayed with me for years.
I am so glad you enjoyed the piece! And me too, I can't believe how timely both our pieces are. Aya Mohamed is doing an amazing job to bring awareness on Muslim women in Italy, and there are few of them in the academic and entrepreunarial world that are moving the needle in what is a fundamentally a catholic country. Unlike many European countries, Vatican is right behind the corner, so even if they are not religious, culturally they are. So, their perception of hijabis is very narrow.
You're hitting the nail! Everything marginalised commnunities do tend to be perceived as political, when we are just living like anybody else. It makes everything we do seem exceptional.
If you have a link towards Shonda Rhimes' interview, I'd be glad to read it!
So right! That goes back to being an example for your entire community, and it is a cross that is very heavy to bear. That is why when someone from a marginalised group "fails" it is a collective fail AND the occasion for consolidating negative stereotypes on said group.
When you see yourself everywhere, representation isn't an issue and that's where individuality comes in. But I am also questioning individuality because in the society where I am from, and many others, it is community that is emphasized, not the individual. This said, I clearly see the importance of one needing to be an individual, especially when living in societies that stereotype us. So, all this to say, I agree with you!
If you write about it I'd be glad to read it because it will unravel so many things about how reductive representation is applied.
Dang, girl! You are brilliant and I am reminded of it with every thing I read from you, even when it's just comments!! Once again, I was nodding along as I read your words.
Sadly, I cannot find the Shonda Rhimes interview. I LOVE it so much and have searched high and low for it but it seems to have completely disappeared. If I ever do find it, I will definitely pass it along.
You are right that the sentiments you express are similar to that of the OP so I will look up the article you mention. It is impossible not to accept the political dimension noting that it is only a dimension. I restacked what I had to say about that before the comments were open so I may try to paste them here. Your last lines contain some over-generalisations. Arguably all anyone can do authentically is represent themselves but it is possible to be allies of others. Some even try to compensate to the point of self loathing and losing all self-interest in the process, but from what I see, that can never be enough to satisfy.
Hello Michael,
I don't think Noha was over-generalising. If it is true that we all comply to certain rules, but when you are part of a marginalised group said rules are applied more strictly. The sentence: "you need to work twice or even thrice as much, and dress the part even more than the others" is a sentence that was said to me by my white father after he understood what it meant to raise non-white children. And it is also words many of my peers have heard from their parents. Finally, when white people are free to dress with a hoodie, others die for wearing it: Trayvon Martin should ring a bell.
On the discourse of allyship, I am working on a piece about it centering around my father. And I am sorry to say but perfect allyship doesn't exist because we are not the one living the experience of other people. That is exactly one of the reasons I interviewed Aya Mohammed and linked to Noha's piece. I might be Black and a woman, but I am not Muslim, and even though I did research and know the Muslim women's experience to a certain extent through my friends, they can and have the right to correct me on my perception of their experiences.
No I get that. I was referring to: ' White people have this luxury all the time. They are never representative of anyone but themselves.' But by that measure who is representative of anybody else? What is the distinction being made here? I will modify my point if it helps: since no one is ever representative 'of anyone but themselves' you might say it is an under-generalisation, i.e. does not solely apply to any group in particular. That would be the standpoint epistemological position which is reasonable depending on how you define 'representative'. I agree on ‘allyship’ but I made no claims that trespass on that or what you just said about it.
Feel free to check my previous comments to Noha. There are, in my opinion, elements of response to Noha's quote.
I checked and didn't see it but let's not get bogged down - I can take your word for it.