There's a fascinating discussion going on at Academichic about slogan T's and wearing your politics as a part of your fashion choices. This is interesting, and as you can probably tell, I wear my politics pretty openly. I know folks have different opinions about that. I used to wear more slogan and message Ts, everything from anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-union types things, especially when I spent more of my time as an activist. To me, it wasn't about necessarily starting fights with strangers, but rather as a way to express myself.
That said, I am wearing the tricolour today as a way to express a political concern about what's going on in France recently, about the politics of women's clothing. Specifically, the lower house passed a bill (still needs to go through the upper house) banning all facial coverings, in a move that's specifically geared to outlawing the burqa.
Martha Nussbaum recently said it much better than me, but here are my additional thoughts:
I don't defend or reject the burqa, but rather I think it's important to think about what it means to live in a liberal democratic society (small "l" liberal, as in we care about individual liberties and freedoms, not the dictates of a king or a religious figure). It's true that "western" women in certain Muslim dominated countries must conform to their clothing norms (see What I Would Have Worn), but the point of a liberal democratic society is that we have few constricting norms on self expression, except those that might threaten other people's safety/liberties. If a society, France or otherwise, defines itself by liberal democratic values, it must uphold itself to it's own principles. Reciprocity does not apply.
Secondly, I dislike harmful cultural practices against women, but we should be aware that there are plenty of harmful cultural practices against women that we actively engage in, reproduce, and encourage. If we really care about stopping harmful practices against women, we should address them all, not the specific, limited ones that only seem to apply to a group of economically and politically marginalized populations. Sheila Jeffreys has done a much better job documenting this than I can attempt to in this space. Extreme dieting, risky plastic surgeries, precarious 4" heels, tanning- all of these represent a form of potential violence against women. Even though these are not as directly enforced, it is wrong to claim that there are not strong social sanctions against women who do not conform to certain ideals- in terms of their earning potential, career advancement, and life partner prospects. And most terrifying is the ways in which in this and other "western" countries, those women and men who violate gender norms in a way that is threatening have met with direct violence. Brandon Teena's death was not long ago. Violence against women (sexual or otherwise), and gendered violence* continues to be a reality in so many women's lives. And we know that what women wear in the West can become a liability in domestic violence cases (like the skinny jeans rape defense in Australia), showing how we continue to regulate and control what women should wear, while claiming that we have so much freedom.
Again, this is not to defend harmful cultural practices in one context because of the presence of some on our own, but rather to create a space to consider how claims of "safety" and "oppression against women" are used to obscure racist and fear-driven intentions. I may be super sensitive, as the sister-in-law of an amazing woman of the Islamic faith, but as a person interested in politics and fashion, and one who must carefully navigate strongly anti-Muslim sentiments in a classroom from a post 9/11 New York kids (who sit several yards away from their Muslim fellow students), it's an important subject for me.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about the politics of fashion.
Edit: Here's the outfit deets:
Top: Rodarte for Target
Skirt: UO
Shoes: BC Footwear (they are falling apart too)
Belt: off of a vintage dress
*There's a brilliant woman at my school who studies sexual violence against men and boys, so I don't want to make it seem like this is something that only women are the object of. The interesting thing about her research is she argues that these acts are deeply embedded in fraught norms of masculinity.
That said, I am wearing the tricolour today as a way to express a political concern about what's going on in France recently, about the politics of women's clothing. Specifically, the lower house passed a bill (still needs to go through the upper house) banning all facial coverings, in a move that's specifically geared to outlawing the burqa.
Martha Nussbaum recently said it much better than me, but here are my additional thoughts:
I don't defend or reject the burqa, but rather I think it's important to think about what it means to live in a liberal democratic society (small "l" liberal, as in we care about individual liberties and freedoms, not the dictates of a king or a religious figure). It's true that "western" women in certain Muslim dominated countries must conform to their clothing norms (see What I Would Have Worn), but the point of a liberal democratic society is that we have few constricting norms on self expression, except those that might threaten other people's safety/liberties. If a society, France or otherwise, defines itself by liberal democratic values, it must uphold itself to it's own principles. Reciprocity does not apply.
Secondly, I dislike harmful cultural practices against women, but we should be aware that there are plenty of harmful cultural practices against women that we actively engage in, reproduce, and encourage. If we really care about stopping harmful practices against women, we should address them all, not the specific, limited ones that only seem to apply to a group of economically and politically marginalized populations. Sheila Jeffreys has done a much better job documenting this than I can attempt to in this space. Extreme dieting, risky plastic surgeries, precarious 4" heels, tanning- all of these represent a form of potential violence against women. Even though these are not as directly enforced, it is wrong to claim that there are not strong social sanctions against women who do not conform to certain ideals- in terms of their earning potential, career advancement, and life partner prospects. And most terrifying is the ways in which in this and other "western" countries, those women and men who violate gender norms in a way that is threatening have met with direct violence. Brandon Teena's death was not long ago. Violence against women (sexual or otherwise), and gendered violence* continues to be a reality in so many women's lives. And we know that what women wear in the West can become a liability in domestic violence cases (like the skinny jeans rape defense in Australia), showing how we continue to regulate and control what women should wear, while claiming that we have so much freedom.
Again, this is not to defend harmful cultural practices in one context because of the presence of some on our own, but rather to create a space to consider how claims of "safety" and "oppression against women" are used to obscure racist and fear-driven intentions. I may be super sensitive, as the sister-in-law of an amazing woman of the Islamic faith, but as a person interested in politics and fashion, and one who must carefully navigate strongly anti-Muslim sentiments in a classroom from a post 9/11 New York kids (who sit several yards away from their Muslim fellow students), it's an important subject for me.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about the politics of fashion.
Edit: Here's the outfit deets:
Top: Rodarte for Target
Skirt: UO
Shoes: BC Footwear (they are falling apart too)
Belt: off of a vintage dress
*There's a brilliant woman at my school who studies sexual violence against men and boys, so I don't want to make it seem like this is something that only women are the object of. The interesting thing about her research is she argues that these acts are deeply embedded in fraught norms of masculinity.
The 'Skinny jeans defense' that has made me so angry. I don't know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post/great topic.
If you look thoughout history women's dress tends to reflect their standing in society.
I have a lot more to say, but as I am at work - I'll have to come back to it.
I would've guessed you were celebrating Bastille Day, since you brought up France and all.
ReplyDeleteI don't really think the government should be able to mandate something like that. That said, I can't imagine living in a culture where I had to completely cover myself to leave the house.
I'm not sure that I agree that things like super-high heels and tanning are violence against women. In these cases, women might still have some say in what they're doing. Sure, tan complexions might be what you see most in magazines, but no one's forcing a woman to go tanning (are they?). Or in cases like the extreme dieting or plastic surgery, I'm not saying it's the woman's fault that society has made her feel that she needs to go to such extremes. But I feel like these are all more related to self-esteem and body image, rather than a cultural practice. I see less voluntary cultural practices like foot binding or neck rings as being more violent towards women.
@ Anne: your point is right on. Violence is indirect and therefore the effects of cultural practices on women's health and livelihood is often overlooked. But these harmful cultural practices lead to clearly documented negative effects on health (like cancer, spine and foot problems), even if we find them fun. And I find them fun, but I am aware that I am participating in something that can have negative effects on my health, and this is something that is uniquely related to my gender status (OK, maybe not the tanning as much). They are forms of structural violence, similar to the ways in which that governments who refused to properly feed, house and take care of the basic needs of their people are not protecting their basic right to life, even if the state itself is not pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that how self-esteem and body image is constructed is definitely a cultural practice, We don't see it as culture because it's our culture, but it definitely a constructed artifice.
Voluntarism is a tricky subject too. I don't doubt that there is a physical ability to reject certain cultural practices in the the "West", but there are clear social stigma and sanctions. I don't disagree that they are different, but I agree with scholars who claim that within each context, they are culturally equivalent.
Then again, I'm not a culture person (Blokey knows more about this, as does Jonneke) but it's an interesting subject.
This line from the NYT article says it best:
ReplyDelete“To fight an extremist behavior, we risk slipping toward a totalitarian society,” he said.
First amendment advocates have long argued that we must defend the right of people to voice unpalatable ideas to affirm the freedom of all.
This sort of paternalism - 'protecting' women from the need to veil - diverts attention from all the other "fashion" harms done to women. If the French Parliament wants to protect the rights of women, why don't they go after the diet industry, or the fashion industry that promotes an unattainable standard???
As a white, heterosexual American in the Midwest, I am fortunate that my clothing is only seen as a political statement when I want it to be. I know that to some extent all clothing and beauty rituals can have a political impact, but my statements are only really noticed by others if I want them to be (like wearing a political t-shirt).
ReplyDeleteI volunteered at TC Pride a few weeks ago, and it was very refreshing to see so many people able to dress comfortably in their chosen style. I wish out society was more accepting of variation in clothing.
Thank you for posting this. I am interested to read what everyone thinks about the subject.
Agree with everything! I was kind of surprised with some of the comments their readers made - I didn't expect them from their readership.
ReplyDeleteI have one aside re Brandon Teena and this - "And most terrifying is the ways in which in this and other "western" countries, those women who violate gender norms in a way that is threatening have met with direct violence. Brandon Teena's death was not long ago, and violence against women (sexual or otherwise) continues to be a reality in so many women's lives."
I didn't know him personally but from what I understand, he identified as male (not even sure if he identified as "male-trans") and I recall there being a huge fight to get the media to refer to him as male to respect his gender identity. While biologically woman, I'm not sure he identified as such and I know the preferred pronoun in the queer/trans communities has been "he" so I'm not sure if I'd classify this as violence against women who are trangressing binary gender roles since he didn't ID as a female, although I understand what you're saying. I think if someone identified as a butch woman, then yes - definitely fits in this example.
It's somewhat semantics but since it's tied so closely with gender politics and identity, I thought I'd throw it out there!
@Rad - interesting discussion! What jumped out at me was your statement that you find some of these practices fun, despite their adverse effects on health and so forth. I'm certainly guilty of that.
ReplyDeleteTake high heels for example. I am very careful to only pick out pairs that are extremely comfortable so that I can walk around in them all day. I will never wear something as impractical as a 4" heel just to look good. But I'll admit that I do wear them because they elongate my legs, which makes my whole silhouette look better. I know there's all kinds of race, class and gender issues surrounding high heels, but for whatever reason, I don't really think about any of that - I just like wearing them for the sake of wearing them, and I don't really care what anyone thinks about WHY I wear them. Does that make sense?
@JAO: Augh, sorry about that slip. I thought about that when I wrote it, but then didn't make it clear. I added an edit. I don't want to be insensitive to the way that Brandon Teena self identified, because ultimately that is what mattered. But that fact that it was interpreted as a violation of feminine gendered norms is what led to the violence.
ReplyDelete@Walking Barefoot and Rebecca: I totally agree. I wish some of the angry commenters on the NYTimes article were a self reflective and thoughtful as you two.
@Anne: It totally doesn't matter what people think about your decision to wear 4" heels, if you wore them, but the point I was trying to make is that we should apply the same logic to veils, burqas, etc. And bondage gear (I once watched a slave and his mistresses walk into a nice Minneapolis restaurant on a chain during a bachelorette party), or work clothes, or whatever. I guess this ties in to Sal's brilliant post today about judgment.
The logic behind banning the burqa is complex, and difficult to take on in a short blog post. It's a dress code, as dress codes traditionally have sought to "protect" one group or another. Think of the "no black trench coats" rule that sprang up in some high schools after Columbine. Think of the "no bare midriffs" rule that many schools enforce, as a way of teaching "appropriate" dress (or is it protecting excitable young men from those bare midriffs? I forget). Basically any dress "code" is the imposition of one group's will/set of beliefs on the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe other function of a dress code is to promote uniformity. School uniforms, like the military dress codes that are similar, instill a sense of group identification and respect for the institution. One knows, at a glance, where one is in the pecking order. One is not an individual so much as a rank affiliated with a certain division.
The burqa, with its tribal origins, seems close to this intent: One is identified as a woman. One is not Mary Wong, corporate lawyer or Jane Smith, Wal-mart cashier or Susan Gonzales, performance artist. There's a blanking out of individuality. The big difference is that it's confined to only one gender and that it extends into one's personal life, not one's job or academic affiliation where such blanking out has been accepted for years. But as it's defined by the culture, the "personal life" only begins at home, where women are free to shed their burqa & wear what they want, more or less. Outside the home women are protected from "the male gaze," so we get the other function of a dress code creeping in.
theirs.
Having two women carp at a third for wearing stilettos to work and "ruining her feet" seems quite different from being told by "the company" that stilettos are not allowed at work because of safety hazards that might result in liability claims. Perhaps it's more like having your husband or your mother tell you that wearing stilettos makes you "look like a whore." In the company's case, it's protecting itself by insisting that you wear flats or lower heels. In the other two cases, you're being told that you have faulty judgment and/or bad taste. There's the rub.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Charlotte: This is interesting. I don't really know what this logic applies to (the stiletto analogy). I am not trying to define the restrictions of the those who promote/wear a burqa, but criticizing those who act like they know what is best for a small group of women (Note that there is no mention of French Muslim women advocating for this "protection.") I think that in the case of the proposed French law, that a similar judgment is reserved for the women who engage in this practice, but it is being presented as "health and safety." The framing is misleading. If French lawmakers really wanted to help the life chances of French women who wore burqas, why not provide new educational resources? Special employment opportunities? This is not happening, which makes me think the politics obscures the intentions.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response and the edit.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I think things like this also need to be looked at for intent in context. It's pretty clear, since there are no steps elsewhere, that the women-in-burqas issue is usually only trotted out when we're asked to look at the restrictive culture they originate from to supress it -- but not to empower the women themselves.
Sorry, I got a note that the first comment wasn't posted bcs it was too long, then saw both, deleted the second to which Jesse's referring to...well, crud. Apologies for being long-winded. No, Rad, I'm not defending the proposed French law--good lord, no. What I hoped to point out is that dress codes are often enforced to "protect" someone from the perceived "harmful" effects of wearing one thing or another, whether it's imposed on one by religion or culture or one's wacky parents. In a nutshell, the French law wants to "protect" women from having to wear the burqa. Your employer wants to "protect" you from looking so sexy that your co-worker gets slapped with a sexual harrassment warning. It's a knee-jerk reaction that treats the symptom rather than the disease.
ReplyDeleteA) Love you in stripes, Rad!! I can't get enough stripes this summer, and I love how you paired the subdued palette of the top and skirt with the bright belt and shoes.
ReplyDeleteB) I agree with you, Rad, that legislating dress under the guise of "public safety" is an extremely slippery slope. To my mind, making it illegal to wear a burka is not so different a move from making it illegal to leave the house without one. IMO, if we want to consider ourselves a democratic society, women should be permitted to make these decisions for themselves. And there is, I understand, a growing movement of women who actively choose to wear the burka for religious reasons and/or who are finding ways to wear the burka transgressively.
-Liz
@Charlotte: Thanks for the clarification. It is funny how some authority seeks to protect folks, whatever, the justifications, it always has an clear veneer of control and regulation. Unless folks are asking for this "protection," I see it as a paternalistic act. I really hope that the French law doesn't pass in the upper house. Here's hoping.
ReplyDelete@Liz: I think that this reclamation of the burqa (or veil) is very interesting. I also think it's important to consider why it became to politicized, since it's been critized since "Western" types cam into these societies and said, "Bad Muslims! No coverings for women," while simultaneously oppressing women in their own societies (not allowing votes, equal civil rights, access to employment, property). We've come a long way in the U.S., but somehow, it's like no one has learned yet the making cultural criticism from an external perspective can lead to defensive reactions.
Wow, that Skinny Jean defense really pisses me off. I can't even fathom a judge ruling that, it seems like some kind of joke.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for France, I'm not sure who that ban would be helping - the women who are being oppressed will likely still be oppressed, just not in public and the women who do want to wear them (I'm sure some really do like to) will just be upset.
As for 4" heels, tans and plastic surgery - even if I might not want to partake, I certainly wouldn't want to be told I couldn't.
Chic on the Cheap
my mum and i were talking about this today. we're in Europe and white people seem obsessed with the veil (and debating it. and banning it). what are they in gods name so scared of? it makes me want to wear a frikking head scarf!
ReplyDeletesorry, i know that's not a sensible addition to the debate. this whole europe wide debate makes me long for my minnesota classrooms where lots of girls wore some kind of head scarf. beautiful, elegant, diverse styles and it's never up for "debate". this is one place where Europe really lags behind the upper midwest!
In the midst of my German homework, it just occurred to me that I was spelling it "burka," and I return to find out that sure enough, 3 times... facepalm. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the midst of reading "Half the Sky" by Kristof and WuDunn, which deals with a lot of issues similar to those addressed, and I intend to write about it on our blog when I get a chance to finish it and wrap my head around it. So far, though, I definitely recommend the book.
-Liz
Just sent you an email Rad.
ReplyDelete@LyddieGal: Right on. The skinny jeans thing is more than infuriating. And I wouldn't want to be legislated that I couldn't wear tall shoes or eat donuts, or be part of an association that others did not approve.
ReplyDelete@Liz: I wouldn't worry about spelling it, since it's an Latinization of an Arabic word, right? So I bet there's multiple ways to spell it. I am jealous of your German homework. Deutsch ist eine schoene sprache. (Forgive my poor declensions).
@Koo: Yes, I miss Minnesota too. I wish my students would take a bit more of the "live and let live, 'cuz it's cold out" approach as well. Maybe someday.
I heard about this (then proposed legislation) a few months ago, and I was very bothered by it. While I certainly associate the burkah with oppression, there are many Muslim women who do not. I was just at a human rights seminar last winter where a woman passionately defended her Muslim religion's rules of modesty. Do I personally see those rules as a double standard? Yes. But she doesn't, and she should be able to choose to follow whatever religion she wants. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who find the fact that I love wearing 3 inch heels, makeup, and dresses to be a double standard. I do it because I like them, and there are probably many women who feel the same about their burkahs. So yeah, I'm with you. A ban just doesn't get to the root of the problem, and I fear it is laced with anti-Muslim sentiments. While I usually love France's perspective on human rights issues, I feel this legislation just interferes with autonomy even more.
ReplyDelete@ Anne: your point is right on. Violence is indirect and therefore the effects of cultural practices on women's health and livelihood is often overlooked. But these harmful cultural practices lead to clearly documented negative effects on health (like cancer, spine and foot problems), even if we find them fun. And I find them fun, but I am aware that I am participating in something that can have negative effects on my health, and this is something that is uniquely related to my gender status (OK, maybe not the tanning as much). They are forms of structural violence, similar to the ways in which that governments who refused to properly feed, house and take care of the basic needs of their people are not protecting their basic right to life, even if the state itself is not pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that how self-esteem and body image is constructed is definitely a cultural practice, We don't see it as culture because it's our culture, but it definitely a constructed artifice.
Voluntarism is a tricky subject too. I don't doubt that there is a physical ability to reject certain cultural practices in the the "West", but there are clear social stigma and sanctions. I don't disagree that they are different, but I agree with scholars who claim that within each context, they are culturally equivalent.
Then again, I'm not a culture person (Blokey knows more about this, as does Jonneke) but it's an interesting subject.