Hijab Chic October 28, 2005 Jill Major retailers and fashion designers are now marketing to Muslim and conservative women, offering fashionable scarves and modest clothing. I’m not sure what to make of this one. Thoughts?
Modest clothing should always be AVAILABLE, so that modest women don’t have to go through a lot of trouble to find basic clothing, and it should be available in stylish varieties—so that they don’t have to decide between feeling exposed and feeling dowdy or frumpy. It should always be available—as should other types of clothing. I’m always sick of hunting for clothes when the fashion choices available have been basically revolting and monotonous for several years now. The key word, of course, is available. I pity anyone who tries to make me wear some of these things.
I’m not sure what to make of this either. I don’t particularly like the way many Muslims treat women but the women themselves have been brought up with certain expectations and feel comfortable with them. I figure if Iraq becomes a democracy and can promote more liberal values, over time thinking will change. It will be a generational thing however. 25 or 50 years out, things will probably be quite different. It might not even take that long if the spark flies fast. I recently met an Iranian who told me that women, at least in the middle class, will wear very conservative clothing in public but quickly strip them off to wear to very western clothing at private parties. They actually talk and mingle with men. In the younger generations, they – men and women – wear a public and private identity to get by.
From what I’ve seen around here, this event looks pretty unnecessary. Hijab-wearing, modestly-dressing Muslim women don’t seem to have much trouble figuring out how to adapt the latest trends. I don’t think it’s any different than any other attempt at niche marketing. I assume that the event is a way of telling hijab-wearers that they’re welcome at the store, that their business is appreciated, and that sales people aren’t going to scoff at or ignore their concerns. (Nordstroms is famous for having really involved sales people who offer lots of individual attention and advice, right?) It’s kind of the inexorable logic of capitalism: they’ve got a wealthy population in the area that is likely to shop at their store, and they’re trying to court them. It would seem a little strange if they didn’t.
I’m surprised people are surprised by this. In particular, a lot of Muslim girls raised in the West are often raised by mothers who *don’t* wear the hijab, and they *choose* to wear the hijab when they grow up. Why are you surprised that such women are going to be a market for hijab fashion? There’s not much to “make of” here—unless you assumed that women who wear the hijab are humourless dour closeted creatures, which is from much personal experience precisely not the case.
Some “choice.” Here’s a little background on the hijab from Amir Taheri. Quote: The garb is designed to promote gender Apartheid. It covers the woman’s ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out…. This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam…. The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a ”good Muslim” without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab. They’re “choosing” to be second-class citizens.
Eh. Hijab’s probably no more vision or hearing-blocking than those cloche hats women wore back in the ’20s. In fact, I think I’m going to experiment. Materials: One close-fitting tweed hat that covers ears and falls to eyebrows; one faux-pashmina wrap. Procedure: 1. Put hat on bare head; observe range of vision. 2. Wrap scarf around head in hijab-like fashion, making sure to cover all hair and ears. Observe range of vision 3. Put hat on top of scarf-clad head. Observe range of vision 4. Take off hat and scarf, turn on radio to lowest volume audible to naked ear. 5. Put on hat and see if radio can be heard. 6. Put on scarf, see if radio can be heard. 7. Put hat on over scarf; see if radio can be heard. Observations: Both the scarf and the hat obscured my peripheral vision. The hat’s brim caused a greater obstruction of vision than the scarf. As for hearing, the scarf may have muffled the sound a bit, but I could not perceive much difference between my ears covered with one or two layers of polyester and my naked ears. The hat, as it did not completely cover my ears, did not obscure sound facing me. However, the hat may muffle sounds from the side and from behind. Conclusion: Hijab-styled scarves made of relatively thin materials that do not have more than one or two layers covering the ears and are tightly wrapped around the face do not obscure vision as much as does a bucket-styled hat, and has minimal effect on hearing.
I don’t really have an opinion of the hijab. I’ve heard lots of opinions on either side, from all ends of the political spectrum, and I can’t figure out whether it’s oppressive or not. I will say that the women I know who wear them seem anything but cowed and submissive. Maybe it’s just that they have to learn to stick up for themselves because they take so much shit for wearing headscarves. At any rate, I’m pretty sure that Manolo Blahniks are tools of the patriarchy, and nobody bats an eye when upscale department stores have fashion shows featuring shoes that would prevent the wearer from walking more than a couple of city blocks, not to mention fleeing a burning building or running away from an attacker. So spare me your selective outrage.
So spare me your selective outrage. Nooooo000ooo0oooo!11! Islamic societies are inherently worse than America in every single way! Even to mention them in the same paragraph is an insult to our fighting men and women in uninform! Why do you hate freedom? Four legs good, two legs ba-a-a-a-a-ad! [insert recorded sheep noises here]
I, too, am not especially moved by this one way or the other. I do think it’s good to give people ways of dressing conservatively and looking good, generally. I would bo concerned, however, if the fashion industry was targeting a hijab-chic look to non-Muslim women. Fortunately, I can’t see that happening, for a number of reasons.
I hear that, Chris. Amir Taheri is such a HATER of the Other. Stupid Persian should learn to listen to those who are really looking out for the Other. Like, well, take you, for instance. BLEAT FOR BUSH, AMIR! BLEAT FOR YOUR WHITE MASTER!
Quoth the rape advocate: I hear that, Chris. Amir Taheri is such a HATER of the Other. That’s even more incoherent than usual for you, Jeff. Get yourself into the 151 tonight or something?
Many Muslim women, at least outside the States, who wear the hijab dress much more provactively (relatively speaking) at home–including makeup, nail polish, jewelry, bright and tighter-fitting clothes, etc. The home is a protected space for that kind of self-expression, such as it is.
“Allah” clearly knows very little about Muslim life beyond the bitter ramblings of Amir Taheri. Lord knows that many Muslim societies are oppressive, although you really have to go to some length to understate some of the ways that fashion and body fascism affect Western women… Nevertheless Muslim women in the West are free to decide what the hijab means to them regardless of how “Allah” sits in judgement on them. We can argue what it means that Muslims elsewhere are not free to do so, but many Muslim women here are, no matter how “Allah” scolds them. And some women do wear the hijab, and they are no more blinkered than anyone else who assumes a particular dress as a form of identity-expression in the West.
The veil is a symbol of a worldview I can’t get behind. If I thought women were wearing them to reclaim the perjorative, that’d be one thing.
“Allah” clearly knows very little about Muslim life beyond the bitter ramblings of Amir Taheri. Do tell, Mandos: what is it that Taheri’s supposedly feeling so “bitter” about? Aside from the Khomeinists having ruined his country, I mean. I realize that judgmentalism is the cardinal sin in these parts (when it’s directed at minorities, not at “the patriarchy”), but riddle me this. If Falwell helpfully suggested to his female followers that they might want to start wearing chastity belts — nothing mandatory, so as to, y’know, leave them with a “choice” — would the Feministe gang be down with that form of identity-expression? Assume that the women who wear the belt claim to dig it on grounds that it makes them feel closer to Yahweh or whatever. Good enough? I’m thinking in that case the reaction here would be less along the lines of “we must not judge” and more along the lines of immolating yourselves out of grief and rage. Am I off-base? Seriously, let me know. Because I can’t shake this crazy suspicion that the multiculti crowd has two standards, one for the benighted “darkies” who can’t be expected to embrace feminism in its fullest form and the other for Whitey, who really should know better. N.B.: Seeing as how Chris Clarke is preoccupied with making clever sheep noises and accusing Goldstein of supporting sexual assault, I exempt him from the question.
The veil is a symbol of a worldview I can’t get behind. If I thought women were wearing them to reclaim the perjorative, that’d be one thing. Yes and no. A lot of Muslim women in the West wear it almost as an identity-defiance given that their more…culturally timid mothers (from their POV) didn’t in order to fit in better with Western mores after immigrating. Since people like “Allah” do their best to stigmatize being Muslim, these women often go (themselves) over to the other extreme in trying to emphasize their Islamic identity. I see it on college campuses all the time, and yes, some of them like their hijabs to look nice. As for the wider matter of the hijab movement’s worldview, well, as a Muslim myself (“Allah” would probably not consider me to be a “real” Muslim), I’m actually partly in agreement with you particularly given the political context in which it appears. Nevertheless, it still surprises me that “hijab fashion” is, well, surprising. It’s as though the lives of Muslim women were one long stretch of relentless suffering, instead of being multifaceted…like the lives of most people. But it’s this attitude why Western feminism often doesn’t make inroads even among Muslim women all that much, because it’s, um, excessively patronizing. And remember how often it is used to tell feminists how good they have it here…so they shouldn’t complain…
I realize that judgmentalism is the cardinal sin in these parts (when it’s directed at minorities, not at “the patriarchy”), but riddle me this. If Falwell helpfully suggested to his female followers that they might want to start wearing chastity belts — nothing mandatory, so as to, y’know, leave them with a “choice” — would the Feministe gang be down with that form of identity-expression? Assume that the women who wear the belt claim to dig it on grounds that it makes them feel closer to Yahweh or whatever. Good enough? You’re free not to like the hijab. No one ever told you that you had to like it. I didn’t tell you that you had to like it. But you certainly don’t do the women who wear it (or chastity belts!) any favours by patronizing them…as you did. It’s not anti-judgementalism—far be it from me to be anti-judgemental—but it’s anti-patronization. As for Amir Taheri, well, it’s one thing to dislike Khomeini, and it’s another to be Amir Taheri.
Since people like “Allah” do their best to stigmatize being Muslim Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve done here. That was the point of Taheri’s piece, too. To stigmatize Muslims. No foolin’ you, Mandos. Goldstein gets accused of being pro-rape and I get accused of bigotry. This has turned into some thread.
Seeing as how Chris Clarke is preoccupied with making clever sheep noises Because it’s far worse to point out that you people act like sheep than it is to, I dunno, act like sheep. accusing Goldstein of supporting sexual assault Hey, if he’s too chickenshit to take responsibility for his own public statements, that’s not my problem. And your sniffy little defense of him just makes you look, well, non-reality-based. Because I can’t shake this crazy suspicion that the multiculti crowd has two standards, one for the benighted “darkies” who can’t be expected to embrace feminism in its fullest form and the other for Whitey, who really should know better. Two observations. 1) You guys seem awfully comfortable throwing phrases like “darkies” and “your white masters” around. Why is that? 2) You are talking out of your ass. Sure, there are racist or racially condescending feminists out there. Some of them may well have posted here. Who knows? But who is it in the US that’s condemning, say, clitoridectomies? Or pointing out that women’s health in Sub-Saharan Africa is damaged by – oin some cases destroyed by – the entrenched sexism of the local men? Or working to support microlending programs like the Grameen Bank that provide women in India with economic opportunity despite the best efforts of the local pariarchy? Hint: it sure as hell isn’t self-righteous conservatives.
And re: my supposed patronization, I’ll direct your attention once again to the hypothetical I gave. How is my reaction in any way different from what the Feministe reaction would be to evangelical Christian women wearing chastity belts? If you want, I’ll amend the hypothetical to track your argument even more closely: assume that those who wear the belt do so to advertise that they’re “proud Christian women.” Not a peep out of Jill, Lauren, Amanda Marcotte, etc. in those circumstances, eh? Because, after all, they wouldn’t want to be patronizing. You honestly find nothing troubling or anti-feminist about the fact that western Muslim women are expressing their religious identity by covering themselves?
You honestly find nothing troubling or anti-feminist about the fact that western Muslim women are expressing their religious identity by covering themselves? You are blind to the very thing you stumble on right here. They express their religious identity by covering themselves…because it attracts them as the most potent symbol of defiance of, for instance, media representations of Muslim women and Muslims in general. Remember that identifying yourself as a Muslim *is* (or at best almost is) an act of defiance given the context well before 9-11. And you still entirely miss the difference between judgement and patronization. And furthermore, it makes perfect sense that Western feminists would concern themselves most with Western issues for women—they are physicians who rightly look first to healing themselves. I explained already why this is important, and why the desire to demand that they decry others is often simply to blunt their criticisms of their own societies. And it makes more sense that people in a dominant culture should wear kid gloves when discussing the mores of people in less dominant cultures. More power, more potential to damage, including unintentionally..
Because it’s far worse to point out that you people act like sheep than it is to, I dunno, act like sheep. Whereas there’s nothing sheep-like about knee-jerk cultural relativism. Honestly, is there any more tiresome, feeble political insult than calling the other side “sheep”? I could rattle off a hundred ways in which leftists behave like sheep. So what? I’m sure you could rattle off a hundred about conservatives right back. It’s not exactly “checkmate” in an argument, you know? Hey, if he’s too chickenshit to take responsibility for his own public statements, that’s not my problem. And your sniffy little defense of him just makes you look, well, non-reality-based. Whereas your treating his comment as serious places you solidly on reality terra firma. I’m starting to see why you would find the sheep thing so clever. You guys seem awfully comfortable throwing phrases like “darkies” and “your white masters” around. Why is that? Because it’s the only language you guys seem to understand. Ask Steve Gilliard. If you’re going to embrace lower standards for dark-skinned people, at least have the balls to use the historically-appropriate terminology. Don’t sugarcoat it. Who knows? But who is it in the US that’s condemning, say, clitoridectomies? Or pointing out that women’s health in Sub-Saharan Africa is damaged by – oin some cases destroyed by – the entrenched sexism of the local men? You’ve got me there. I can’t tell you how many times while surfing the right-wing blogs I’ve stumbled upon a pro-clitorectomy or anti-sub-Saharan-African-woman post. If we’re not cheering for women’s clits to be burned off, we’re hooting while African men punch their women out. One of these days when I have the time and am sufficiently bored, I’m going to go through the archives at Feministe and Feministing and count up the number of combined posts they’ve devoted to, say, misogyny among Islamic fundamentalists. (Not because it’s any worse in Islamic societies than in sub-Saharan Africa, but because, well, it’s a bit more pressing since 9/11.) And then I’m going to go count up the number of posts on the topic at, say, LGF. I wonder how they’ll compare. I have to assume that the Feministe/ing posts will far outnumber the LGF ones, because, after all, what can you expect from self-righteous conservatives? Lord knows, we hate people of color. Howard Dean says so.
One of these days when I have the time and am sufficiently bored, I’m going to go through the archives at Feministe and Feministing and count up the number of combined posts they’ve devoted to, say, misogyny among Islamic fundamentalists. (Not because it’s any worse in Islamic societies than in sub-Saharan Africa, but because, well, it’s a bit more pressing since 9/11.) And then I’m going to go count up the number of posts on the topic at, say, LGF. I wonder how they’ll compare. I have to assume that the Feministe/ing posts will far outnumber the LGF ones, because, after all, what can you expect from self-righteous conservatives? Lord knows, we hate people of color. Howard Dean says so.” I would be very disappointed if Feministe obsessed over foreign countries more than “local” feminist issues (ie, issues for which they bear partial responsibility), particularly if they did so more than LGF did. Leave opportunistic crocodile tears to LGF: Muslim women as excuse for bombing. Yeah, cool!
Mandos, we’re going in circles here. You say that the hijab is actually a symbol of empowerment because it asserts one’s Muslim identity. I say that the origins of the garment and its wider cultural meaning as a symbol of female oppression means that that its capacity to empower is fatally compromised. By your logic, women could go around wearing leashes and as long as they asserted that the leash signifies they’re a proud member of group X, there would be nothing misogynistic about it whatsoever. I disagree with that. And I don’t know what else to say about it. I will, however, say this. Your insistence that western feminists should be more concerned with the politics of ass-firming cream than with, say, honor killings is appalling. And your suggestion that women in “dominant cultures” do more damage to women in “less dominant cultures” by raising awareness of their abuse than their actual abusers do is absurd, and smacks of apology. As for the crack about LGF supposedly looking for excuses to bomb, I’ll just steal a page from Clarke and shoot this one your way: baa-aaa-aaa-aaa.
Mandos, we’re going in circles here. You say that the hijab is actually a symbol of empowerment because it asserts one’s Muslim identity. I say that the origins of the garment and its wider cultural meaning as a symbol of female oppression means that that its capacity to empower is fatally compromised. By your logic, women could go around wearing leashes and as long as they asserted that the leash signifies they’re a proud member of group X, there would be nothing misogynistic about it whatsoever. I disagree with that. And I don’t know what else to say about it. I’ve pointed out the false dichotomy in this. Empowerment is multidimensional. So it may disempower them as women. But they feel empowered as Muslim women. Both of these things maybe simultaneously true. If you cannot grasp this, then there is no further point in discussion. In fact, it may even be that on a conceptual level “hijab” is disempowering, but in specific circumstances, things that are disempowering in the Realm of Ideal States are actually empowering in the Realm of Practical Considerations. Dare I hope that you can grasp such subtlety? I will, however, say this. Your insistence that western feminists should be more concerned with the politics of ass-firming cream than with, say, honor killings is appalling. NO. On how many levels is this statement truly abhorrent? First of all, to say that all Western women face is the “politics of ass-firming cream”. Now, that’s an absurd trivialization prima facie that disqualifies you completely. Secondly, it is not appalling, it is aware of the subtleties of history. Almost always, the undesirable mores of the Enemy are used in the programme of dehumanization necessary to wage war. This is one of the central functions of the entire rhetoric used at LGF. Naturally, you will refuse to see this. And your suggestion that women in “dominant cultures” do more damage to women in “less dominant cultures” by raising awareness of their abuse than their actual abusers do is absurd, and smacks of apology. I never said this (though examples such as Northern Nigeria seem to bear this out—local activists prefer Western feminists to maintain a low key). However, for the above reasons and more, demanding the level of obsession with Muslims that LGF has does indeed have these material and demonstrable effects. And I’m still waiting for RAWA to be included in the Afghan government. With bated breath.
Even if we assume that the hijab is purely oppressive in its character and never empowering, the turth is that not everyone is ready to take a big leap for liberation all at once. Some people take small steps. How many war protesters pay taxes?
I don’t mean to interrupt this pleasant chat, but I’d like to propose that Maureen be immediately promoted to director of research for Feministe.
For some Muslim women, expanded hajib fashion choice may be progress. When I graduated from high school in 1966, girls weren’t allowed to wear skirts. Pantyhose hadn’t been invented yet, and so I walked to school every freezing winter wearing a garter belt and stockings under my skirt. Girls weren’ allowed to take shop, either. And, in junior high public school in teh early 60’s in New Jersey, we began each morning in home room with a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance and a rotation of students reading a quote from the bible. (I always chose a short Proverb when it was my turn, because it was, well, short). So after being raised, trained and conditioned to be dependent, fearful, passive and self-sacrificing, imagine the cognitive dissonance when the rules all changed a few years later, and, all of a sudden, it was, ‘go get ’em, tiger!’ Even when I could manage to overcome my conditioning and stop buying into some restrictive way of ‘proper’, ‘acceptable’ ‘female’ thinking or behaving, many, many others still did not and do not today. Now, in 2005, it still unhappily feels ahead of the times to believe that females should be accepted as an equally vital half of the human race. 40 years later, it seems long past time for male domination of world culture to end. The cultural imbalance caused by either sex dominating would be undesirable (at least, we can imagine the imbalance resulting from female dominance; say, having nothing but “The Monday Night Quilt-Offs’ on TV) but male dominance has been proven to be, literally, deadly. Just think: thanks to male dominance, the human race now possesses the weapons to blow our own planet out of orbit.
It really doesn’t bother me what they want to market, but given the limited sales potential for this merchandise it does seem to me to be a political ploy to advertise their “diversity”. Would anyone have a problem if one of these designers were granted a show at Nordstroms? I know Dr. Adams would be ecstatic, but how would you all feel? I respect the right of anyone to dress how they want, but I think it is a fair question to ask if Nordstroms is pandering.
It really doesn’t bother me what they want to market, but given the limited sales potential for this merchandise it does seem to me to be a political ploy to advertise their “diversity”. Look. I think the point of the event might have been more to send a welcoming message to wealthy Muslims than to sell the actual clothes they were showing. In that sense, it was an exercise in P.R. But I don’t think it was anything other than that. For one thing, if they were trying to “advertise their diversity,” I don’t think they would have banned press from the event. For another thing, the event seems as likely garner bad mainstream press as good. I don’t think that Nordstrom’s would attempt a fashion show for women who shop from Plainly Dressed, because I don’t think those women are willing to pay a premium to have fashionable clothes. In an area where there were wealthy Christian women who were concerned about dressing modestly but still wanted to wear designer labels, I think it’s pretty likely that you would see a similar fashion show catering to them. Similarly, in areas with a lot of wealthy Orthodox Jewish women, I’m sure that wig designers court them heavily. Actually, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, in heavily observant-Jewish areas, Nordstrom’s had “what to wear to shul on Rosh Hashannah” fashion shows. Jews are a miniscule percentage of the overall population, but they could still make up a significant market for a particular Nordstrom’s store.
Here’s an article from Women’s Wear Daily about how various clothing stores are responding to pressure, which comes mostly from Christian groups, to show more modest clothes. “Retailers Face Demand for New Modesty.” Nordstrom’s has responded by having modest-clothes fashion shows. In the last two years, Nordstrom has staged at least a dozen fashion shows after requests from customers. The events have been mostly in the Southwest and in California, though consumers nationwide have asked for more modest options, a spokeswoman said. So what’s the big deal? They do cater to Christian customers, just as they cater to Muslim customers. They cater to people who have money to spend. It’s not about pushing your fantasy nefarious P.C., Muslim-loving agenda. It’s about pushing a capitalist agenda.
And look! Here is the special “a href=”http://store.nordstrom.com/category/cat_medium.asp?category=2378467~2378483~2384590”>Modern and Modest section of Nordstrom’s website, which I suspect is aimed primarily at Christian girls. Sorry to triple-post.
Oops, didn’t read it thoroughly enough and missed the bit about the press being banned. Also this quote: Of course, the most puritanical Muslims would say that hijab is not meant to be flashy. According to these men and women, it’s supposed to be the sartorial equivalent of a burlap sack, not a trimly tailored Anne Klein jacket. It’s supposed to be black, not trendy colors like fuchsia and teal. Preachers from New Jersey to California rail at the pulpit against women who put too much fashion in their hijab. …makes me think it may be a step in the right direction overall. Even mass-marketed self-expression is better than mindless obedience, I would venture. And Sally: It’s not about pushing your fantasy nefarious P.C., Muslim-loving agenda. I have alot of fantasies, but this isn’t one of them.^^
If Falwell helpfully suggested to his female followers that they might want to start wearing chastity belts — nothing mandatory, so as to, y’know, leave them with a “choice” — would the Feministe gang be down with that form of identity-expression? Assume that the women who wear the belt claim to dig it on grounds that it makes them feel closer to Yahweh or whatever. Good enough? Hi. Have you met The Duggars? Or read the Prairie Muffin Manifesto? Creepy as fuck, these people are. Why? Because they’re not dressing truly modestly, they’re dressing MODESTLY in order to draw as much attention to themselves as possible. And yes, I do have a problem with the fact that the burden of dressing MODESTLY falls on the women in the group and is held up as a symbol of virtue. But the real problem I have with it is the pressure to adopt this manner of dress, particularly with children. But in the end, they’re free to do so, as I am free to think that there’s something highly anti-feminist about it. And if Nordstrom saw a market in sack dresses with giant collars, there’s not really much I can say about that. Same with hijab. If a woman is free to make the choice, more power to her, and if a retailer can see that its accessories department can easily be rebranded to push the big scarves it already sells as modest wear, hell, why not? It might make me uncomfortable, but who am I to stop them? Most of the women I see wearing headscarves are quite fashionable even as they’re covered up. After all, they’re not wearing burkas (which I see from time to time in my neighborhood). But even if they were, again, this is a free country. Unlike Iran or Saudi Arabia, we don’t have religious police here to enforce dress codes. At least, not yet. I’m sure in Falwell’s dream theocracy, all the women would be dressed as Prairie Muffins and would never cut their hair.
Would anyone have a problem if one of these designers were granted a show at Nordstroms? I know Dr. Adams would be ecstatic, but how would you all feel? Frankly, some of the more “mainstream” dresses on Lydia of Purple look like dresses sold in the Proffitts’ women’s department during the 80s and early 90s. The rest on Lydia of Purple? Ugly. And while I’ve always felt that traditional Amish and Mennonite clothing has a charming simplicity, I don’t think that the Amish are going to be shopping at Nordstrom. But in the same vein, if any major American retailer started selling burkas with face veils, I’d get the willies.
zuzu, no matter how much we may disagree on some issues, you have my deepest respect and eternal love for turning me on to the Duggar Family Cookbook. Just one of the many delights: TATOR TOT CASSEROLE 2 lb ground turkey cooked, seasoned, drained 3 2lb bags tator tots 2 cans cream of mushroom 2 cans evaporated milk 2 cans cream of chicken Brown meat & place in large cass. dish. Cover with tator tots. Mix soup & milk together. Pour over top. Bake at 350 for 1 Hour. (One of Daddy’s Favorites!) Makes 2- 9”X13” pans Now does anyone know how to get Newcastle Brown Ale out of a keyboard?
Oh, B Moe, you really need to watch the Discovery Health/TLC special on them. Except that some of the scariest parts from the original edit have been replaced by update footage. Frankly, some of the more “mainstream” dresses on Lydia of Purple look like dresses sold in the Proffitts’ women’s department during the 80s and early 90s. That’s because she uses images from patternmakers without attribution.
Glad to see so many people here embracing the free market and free expression. After all, if women can’t choose to cover themselves in ways their men and their religion prescribe — and if Nordstrom’s ain’t free to make a buck off it this willful subjugation — well, just what kind of country are we living in? Me, I’m for the multidimentional empowerment of spiked heels and girdles — but then, I’ve got a bit of Betty Grable fetish.
We survived Heroin Chic, I think they can survive Bedouin Chic Fwiw,, Karzai’s been all over God’s Creation wearing a hat made from the wool off an unborn sheep fetus.
Secondly, it is not appalling, it is aware of the subtleties of history. Almost always, the undesirable mores of the Enemy are used in the programme of dehumanization necessary to wage war. This is one of the central functions of the entire rhetoric used at LGF. Naturally, you will refuse to see this. I think this is check and mate right here. The writers here don’t want to attack Muslims because they don’t want to “dehumanize” them, to do ANYTHING to aid those evil fundies/neocons/wingnuts in killing more brown people. 😛
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the ‘rhetoric’ used at LGF *by Charles* consists mainly of linking to news stories and posting pictures taken during his bike rides. If you’re going to descend down the staircase of ‘editorial bias’ with regards to Charles’s story selection … ignoring for a moment that Charles is running a personal web log, well, gee, then – I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’d submit that sites like this one do far more to ‘dehumanize’ Islam than Charles by dealing mostly in rhetoric. Charles passes along things that Muslims *do* . .
There’s plenty of hypocrisy on the right, too…such as screeching about how evil feminism is until it becomes convenient to pretend to be a feminist so that you can attack Islam. As if the far right ever gave a rat’s patootie about women’s rights… Ooops! There I go again! I keep forgetting: Dissent (defined as criticizing our Administration)=Treason. Best to ship me off to Guantanamo right now…
In regards to Harrison’s post: Blog rule #6: “It’s not trolling if the website leans even slightly in the same left/right political direction as you. Heck, you don’t even have to reason out your infantile generalizations in that case.”
I don’t have the slightest problem believing that it’s yummy. Healthy, I would dispute. But yummy seems perfectly plausible. I have recently rediscovered the joys of tuna noodle casserole. If you make your own white sauce, rather than using cream of something soup, it’s really incredibly good. It, too, fails the healthy test, but it’s very, very tasty.
RE: Tater Tot Casserole. This one is a favorite of one of my college roommates. We all took turns cooking dinner four nights a week and dreaded his night. It’s sort of like shepherd’s pie. The Duggars are a bit creepy. However, I am the sixth of 13 children and we are not creepy. It’s not the number of children that makes them creepy. It’s their creepiness that makes them creepy. As for hijab. Whatever floats their collective boat as long as they realize that our not giving a shit does not mean we won’t resist such rules being forced upon everyone.
The underlying assumption of your “choice” or empowerment doctrine is that women are wearing jihab by choice. I don’t believe that, as in every village and country in the Middle East, it has been established by force, male force. I’m sure you heard of the Saudi girls who were left to die in a burning building because the firemen didn’t want to let them out uncovered, and of Ban-Sadr, Iran’s first theocrat, who said scientific evidence proved that rays from women’s hair drove men sexually insane. In light of the incident of honor killings in the West, I’m not even so sure that women here are wearing it by choice, are you?
I fully admit to feeling cranky and irritable, although I would say that my generalization was, while general, not infantile. Certainly no more infantile than your generalization! So neener neener neener! 😉
Do NOT mock the Tater Tot Casserole. Nor the Green Bean Casserole, Nor the Tuna Noodle Casserole. Yea, though my people may be poor and strange, the food spread upon the table full of fat and many -glycerides, it tastes really fuckin’ good. I mean, not like pad-seuw good, but you know what I’m saying. As for what should be said about hijab, in light of the fact that many Muslim women and Muslim feminists think that Western women over-focus on hijab, I’m willing to say nothing on the matter. In light of other feminists concerns, I think hijab is blown way out of proportion. Is she “allowed” to leave the house, get a job, get an education, maker her own decisions, run her own life? Then good. Do it in heels and tiny skirts or heels and hijab. Just please, for the love of god, don’t wear those sweatpants with words on the ass. Just don’t.
Folks, I grew up in New Jersey and Connecticut, two of the wealthiest states in the Union, and we did tuna noodle casserole AND Chicken Quarantine (chicken with broccoli and Golden Mushroom soup). So it ain’t just limited to your white-trashier areas. Fwiw,, Karzai’s been all over God’s Creation wearing a hat made from the wool off an unborn sheep fetus. I was a bit upset to learn that, since I’d been considering asking my uncle for my grandmother’s Persian lamb coat, which has been in her deep freeze since long before she died (we always thought she had Hoffa in there). OTOH, the deed’s been done, and it’s a waste to not use the coat. Kids, what part of “government backing of/against religious practices” do you not understand? Where there’s no government backing, no real issue; where there is, there is. So far, we do not have any Committees for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice here. Nor do we have the government banning headscarves, crucifixes, yarmulkes or any other religious gear. Nordstrom would not likely promote Prairie Muffin wear because a) it’s ugly as hell; b) their thing is not to shop in places like Nordstrom, so it’s not worth it. Rich Muslims in Los Angeles (huge Iranian population) or Detroit or Atlantic Avenue ARE going to shop in Nordstrom, even if it’s just for at-home wear. PLUS, in terms of head scarves and modest (not MODEST) clothing, it’s stuff they already sell.
Is she “allowed” to leave the house, get a job, get an education, maker her own decisions, run her own life? Then good. Do it in heels and tiny skirts or heels and hijab. Just please, for the love of god, don’t wear those sweatpants with words on the ass. Just don’t. Ha! For the record, my sweatpants have no words on the ass.
Damn. You mean my visualization of you with “Sperm Dumpster” embroidered across your crack is just an idle fantasy?
In light of the incident of honor killings in the West, I’m not even so sure that women here are wearing it by choice, are you? I. Am. Sure. There are all kinds of things under the sun. And I know of a generation who DISAPPROVES of it, whose daughters wear it almost as rebellion, in some cases. And there are people who wear it who have no choice. And you are free to oppose and judge that. But. I. Know.
Just please, for the love of god, don’t wear those sweatpants with words on the ass They sell those idiotic things in the KIDS’ SECTION. I shit you not.
They sell those idiotic things in the KIDS’ SECTION. I shit you not. Tell me about it. I see the “No Boundaries” line all through the little girls’ section. Wrong. Big ugly “cross and die” steel-edged boundaries. When did pedo- and hebe-philia become chic, for Christ’s sake?
Hijab chic is not new. The hijab craze in Egypt is more peer pressure than it is parent or clergy pressure. The new ways of wrapping the scarf are extremely decorative and time-consuming. They use multiple scarves to get a prettier effect. It’s just like any other fad.
Also, Amir Taheri is a neocon ranter who loves to say idiotic things like what you guys quoted. Really. It is stupid to use him to rpomote your ridiculous argument that a piece of cloth is oppressiveo n its face. Stupid. And bigoted.
Sorry, I need to clarify “you guys” meaning “allah” not everyone else, who seems to be fairly sane. This topic really pushes my buttons. I spent most of my trip to the states this summer it seemed like trying to explain to well meaning but ignorant americans that the Hijab is not oppressive on its face. That if it is forced on someone that would be wrong just like forcing anything else on someone would be wrong but that if it is a choice then people should not see something in it that is not there.
Mados What do you think moslem women think about this: POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits. Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
That if it is forced on someone that would be wrong just like forcing anything else on someone would be wrong but that if it is a choice then people should not see something in it that is not there. I can respect the right of people to choose to do this but I don’t think I am under any obligation to respect the religious dogma behind it, regardless of whether their decision is forced or chosen. I feel the same about Orthodox Jewish women who hide their hair and follow dogma that treats them as less than full participants in their own religion.
Non-Muslim Women Required to Wear Hijab in Malaysia http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1823632,00.html Malaysia’s government has endorsed a university’s ruling that requires non-Muslim women to wear headscarves on its campuses, a report said on Wednesday. The minister in charge of national unity, Maximus Ongkili, said the decision by the International Islamic University earlier this year was not a religious one, but merely part of university procedures. “As the rule was approved by the university senate, it is not religious in nature but a matter of uniforms that must be followed. It does not breach basic human rights,” Ongkili was quoted as saying in the Star daily… “In a multi-racial country each community must respect one another. But at the same time we must respect the laws of the country, institutions and organisations to ensure there is no disturbance to the community,” he said. He was responding to opposition leader Lim Kit Siang, who had read out an email from a non-Muslim undergraduate from the university complaining she was forced to wear a headscarf to her graduation ceremony. Lim accused the government of recanting on an April statement that non-Muslims would be “encouraged” but not forced to wear headscarves. “So why the change now? Is this not disrespectful of a plural society,” he said according to the Star. The government-funded International Islamic University has three campuses around Malaysia. Its board includes representatives from the governments of Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, the Maldives, Bangladesh and Turkey, as well as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
Somehow I missed that Northern Virginia was in Malaysia. I don’t know how I ever managed to spend several years in the D.C. area without anyone forcing me to wear a head scarf. Who are you calling fairweather feminists, Lauren?
anna in cairo is right. hijab fashion is nothing new. i honestly don’t get some of the hysteria that the hijab inspires in some people–both muslim fundies and critics of islam both go a little insane whenever the topic comes up. the whole thing seems rather simple to me. if a woman wants to wear it, there’s nothing wrong with it. if the woman is forced to wear it, there is. it’s really as simple as that. there’s nothing inherently bad about a piece of cloth draped over someone’s head. and to the people who say there never is any free choice about wearing the hijab: i suggest they have a conversation with some actual breathing hijab-wearers. i have a bunch of friends who cover their heads and most describe it as empowering. who am i to say “you’re wrong, it isn’t”?
No one in particular: those who decry feminism until it’s convenient to spout pseudo-feminism againt Islam. Cherry-picking has become a tiresome trend.
Cherry-picking has become a tiresome trend. I note that you complain about this from Westerners, but Islamic militants plucking 72 cherries at a time with a single tug on a bomb trigger come in for no criticism. Lauren, why do you hate freedom?
Lauren, why do you hate freedom? Ooh! I can play this game too! I note that you complain about this from feminists, but religious freakazoids plucking 72 cherries at a time with a single tug on a moral bomb trigger come in for no criticism. Why do you hate women? When did you stop beating your wife? What is the meaning of life? It’s like a little poem.
Hymenophobe. I only hate uppity women who have sex. In fact, I’m a moderate – if a woman who does have sex has the decency to not enjoy it, then I won’t hate her. I’ll never stop beating my wife, because she persists in thinking it’s a good strategy to save letters and try to deploy a “Q” word on a triple score; yes, it’s terrific the one time in a dozen you pull it off, but it throws your win-loss ratio straight into the crapper. And the meaning of life can be easily accessed here. WTF would anyone want a bunch of virgins as a reward, anyway? Great, so she’s probably clumsy, ignorant and will cry all night long if you don’t spend three hours on foreplay and a discussion of feelings. Oh, and as a side bonus, there’s 71 more waiting after her. I mean, what? If tightness is the issue, are there no Kegel exercises in Muslim heaven? Now I’m probably going to hell. Nuts. On the plus side, I got to put “hymenophobe” at the top of Lauren’s site for a few minutes.
Kegel exercises in Muslim heaven? Heavens, no. They have these. We all knew that sex made the baby Jesus cry, but now we have the reason.
And bonus, it glows in the dark. Which means you can see it under the burqa. (You think you’re going to hell…)
I decline to validate poor spelling, and I uphold our proud linguistically patriarchal traditions. So phllllbt.
if a woman wants to wear it, there’s nothing wrong with it. if the woman is forced to wear it, there is. it’s really as simple as that. there’s nothing inherently bad about a piece of cloth draped over someone’s head. prescribed dress for religious Muslim women varies from a simple scarf combined with loose cover-up clothing — in any colour — to a black burqua covering all but the eyes. Accepted dress (judging by what women in my neighbourhood wear) includes fairly tight clothing, say a black hoodie and jeans, or fairly standard tight-ish clothes plus a scarf. Choice, forced, well, it isn’t that simple. If your religion says you aren’t a proper woman unless you dress in a certain way then whether or not you’re actually forced to dress that way your choice is less than free. (That applies to any religion/culture.) Within those parameters though there are degrees, I’d say, of “unfree choice”: the young Muslim women in my street who wore T-shirts and jeans and no scarf on the pavement outside their house but wore the full burqua when they left the immediate neighbourhood, the young woman killed on 7/7 who wore “Western” dress to work but the salwar kameez +scarf, to please her parents, at home, and the young woman in my local Starbucks who wears an amazingly pretty draped peach scarf-hood, are all examples of relatively free devout Muslims. hijab fashion is nothing new. but nor has it or its meaning been constant.