In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Enlighten Me Here

zuzu

So how, exactly, is this worse than this, this, or this? Or, for that matter, this?

Silly me! It’s because Nancy Pelosi’s not a Republican. And Democrat = Dhimmi, as far as the wingnuts are concerned. If you’re a Democrat, simple respect for local culture might as well mean handing over the country to the kind of Allahu-Akbar-spouting Islamic terrorists that have Michelle Malkin soiling herself under the bed.

See also: Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog (who has a very Interesting link to a Catholic site), Le Mew, Amanda, and maha.

69 thoughts on Enlighten Me Here

  2. OMGWTFBBQ HIJAB!

    heh. just kidding.

    respect for others’ cultures- it’s a diplomat thing.

  3. So how, exactly, is this worse than this, this, or this? Or, for that matter, this?

    The photographer in the first shot has been taking too many pictures of the Queen of England reviewing the Horse troops in the rain. I get the cookie, right?

    Really, that first shot does not do Pelosi’s headscarf justice.

  4. Yeah, and also the fact that she was only wearing the headscarf when she was in a mosque. See: the other pictures of her in standard western suit’n’skirt (and a very nice one at that). Hell, I even covered my head when I went into a mosque, and I’m all about dressing the way you want. I also took off my shoes. It’s about not being an asshole, basically.

  5. Pingback: a bird and a bottle

  6. Bets on the collective conniption that would arise if Ms. Pelosi DIDN’T wear a scarf in the presence of the Pope? Anyone?

    Respect for a religion different than one’s one does NOT equate to support for that religion’s wacko-fundos. Even *I* act respectfully in (most) christian churches. I may be snickering or rolling my eyes to the spraining point inside, but outside, I am respectful. Kudos to Ms. Pelosi for being a grown-up.

  7. Bets on the collective conniption that would arise if Ms. Pelosi DIDN’T wear a scarf in the presence of the Pope? Anyone?

    That’s actually Laura Bush with the Pope.

    Apparently, after it was pointed out to them that Laura and Condi had both worn scarves while visiting mosques, the LGFers started flipping their shit over a picture of Pelosi making the sign of the cross inside the mosque.

    Which would be weird, except for the fact that she was kneeling in front of the shrine/tomb of St. John the Baptist, which is inside the mosque (which was originally a Christian shrine).

  8. Covering your head in a mosque is pretty standard – as standard as doing it in an Orthodox Church (although the last time I went to church, I wore a hat, but it was actually on the grounds of one of those monasteries that woork really hard at attracting young people, so no one really minded, but you know, whatever – these people are monks and you at least try to respect that).

    Am I a terrorist apologist because I’ve got pictures of myself with a scarf on my head out there in the ether of the Internet? I mean, shit, I’ll stand right next to Pelosi on that one.

    Maha is right – this is as dumb as Althouse’s Boobiegate.

  9. Well, they have to find -something- to have a conniption fit about. If we went one day in which Republicans -didn’t- flip their shit over Nancy Pelosi having the gall to repeatedly make her own decisions, what kind of country would this be?

    *snort*

    Showing basic politeness to the rules of another culture is NOT treason.

  10. And dammit, I can’t even hide a bad hair day anymore without people being like OMG a MUSLIM!! (I’m not afraid of being mistaken as such, it’s just that the reaction is so dumb).

  11. Bets on the collective conniption that would arise if Ms. Pelosi DIDN’T wear a scarf in the presence of the Pope? Anyone?

    That’s actually Laura Bush with the Pope.

    Sorry — too early, not enough caffeine, and I didn’t make my point clear. 🙂 I meant, IF Ms. Pelosi met with the Pope and *didn’t* cover her hair, what kind of collective conniption would we see? I’m betting that it would be at least as bad, and on the grounds that at the very least, it’s impolite. But they can’t possibly transfer that concept of politeness to a religion other than Christianity.

    *sigh* I’ll go caffeinate myself appropriately before I come back and try to comment again. I promise.

  12. It’s the respect for other people’s cultures thing that makes me cringe when my fellow lefties get huffy about, say, not allowing someone to get a driver’s license picture taken with a full-face veil. Yes, we should absolutely make reasonable accommodations for people’s religious practices (and I’d really like it if someday reasonable accommodation was made for my atheism, plxkthxbaidiaf). But reasonable accommodation is, in fact, a two-way street. Americans and other folks who tend to fall into the ‘Western society’ basket have a culture where having one’s face covered is most commonly associated with armed robbery. Is it entirely unreasonable to ask that people who come here for the benefits of life in America — typically a job — accommodate us by showing their faces in public, and on official documents? Is it necessarily racist to ask that?

    (I’m trying to avoid being offensive here, not to come off as a concern troll.)

  13. In public?

    Assuming that someone is able to make a free choice whether to cover one’s face or not: it’s none of your business.

    It’s reasonable to show respect for a religion when you’re in that religion’s temple. I don’t think it’s disrespectful to wear what you feel like wearing in public, though, just because some random strangers are uncomfortable with it. If I want to wear a gorilla costume in public, people are going to think that it’s really weird. Some will find it funny, but there will almost certainly be people who are uncomfortable with it, because it’s different from what they’re used to. The fact that it makes someone else uncomfortable doesn’t matter, though. It’s none of my business what a total stranger’s face looks like when s/he’s walking down the street, and it’s not a stranger’s business why I’m wearing a monkey-suit in public.

  14. I really liked that link from Steve M.’s site. I guess I had never thought about it before… but yeah, I won’t be wearing a veil at my wedding.

  15. I also wear a headscarf when I have a bad hair day. I’d like to note that many religious figures from Christianity wore headscarfs- the virgin mary is often depicted wearing one, and in an all black southern baptist church, mary magdelene was depicted as wearing a headscarf in the easter play. There are probably many other depictions of her wearing one, but not any that I can think of right now. So headscarfs=/ omgbbq, teh muslims!!!! And being polite in foreign countries is good because it shows respect.

  16. Moira, the face-veil makes me uncomfortable too, but I don’t think it matters – as long as the person reveals his or her face on official documents.

    I mean, there are people out there who are uncomfortable when I wear my “Wild & Free in Pakistan” t-shirt, but whatever, you know? It’s harder for people in the service industry to communicate with folks who are behind a veil, I’ll give you that much…

    Oh, and I think the real question in all of this is:

    Why does Nancy Pelosi hate America? 😉

  17. Damn, is LGf stupid or what? They write a post titled “Pelosi in a Hijab”, and then when people point out the ovious they respond with this:

    The loony left is attacking LGF like a pack of rabid, half-blind dingos today, because of our post showing Nancy Pelosi in Syria. (And sending a huge amount of traffic our way. The web server’s struggling to keep up. Database server is fine.)

    Of course, they’re focusing on the head scarf angle, and mysteriously missing the fact that Pelosi is visiting Syria.

    Oy, gevalt.

  18. Let me tell you, not dressing appropriately for a religion/culture that is not your own is not the best thing to ever do.

    My boyfriend at the time and I were out on a Sunday morning and a downpour started. We’re a small town, here, so the only thing open is the church. We go in there to avoid the rain, me wearing torn up fishnets, and my boyfriend wearing a falling-apart leather jacket and a fedora that he forgot to take off when he walked in. Mind you, this is the early Sunday morning service, so it’s all devout Catholics, especially of the older generation, so everyone’s wearing their ‘Sunday best.’

    Needless to say, we looked like assholes. I don’t think us walking in there like that impromptu to seek shelter from a downpour was as bad as, say, telling a friend you’d go with her to church and then showing up like that, or otherwise *planning* to go, but I can say that we weren’t particularly well-received.

    So, dressing appropriately for such things is a good course of action. I’d be pretty pissed off FOR the members of another culture if one of our politicians went over there and completely disregarded custom and were rude like that.

  19. Is it entirely unreasonable to ask that people who come here for the benefits of life in America — typically a job — accommodate us by showing their faces in public, and on official documents? Is it necessarily racist to ask that?

    You’re conflating two separate issues here. It’s one thing to say that people need to show their faces on photographs taken for official documents; I think that makes sense to most people. (Though you have Christian sects who don’t want to do it either and are actually moving to avoid having to have driver’s licenses with their picture on it.)

    As far as forcing people to show their face in public … what’s the point? That’s like decreeing that all women must bare their breasts in public. It serves no public interest.

    Given that most of the women I’ve seen wearing the full-face covering here in Los Angeles are elderly, I’m not too worried that they’re going to be gunning me down at the farmer’s market just because they don’t show me their face.

  20. “Of course, they’re focusing on the head scarf angle, and mysteriously missing the fact that Pelosi is visiting Syria.”

    And they’re equally incensed that Congressman Darrell Issa is there right now meeting with Assad, right?

    Right?

    /crickets

  21. As far as forcing people to show their face in public … what’s the point? That’s like decreeing that all women must bare their breasts in public. It serves no public interest.

    Actually, here in New York we have a law against wearing masks in public, but that’s mostly directed at the Klan and not enforced against veiled women or people on Halloween, unless they’re in banks or something.

  22. Moira, I’d personally define our culture more as pluralism and an amalgamation of many different cultures. I don’t feel accomodated by someone showing her face in public, I don’t personally associate covered faces with armed robbery necessarily, and indeed I very often cover my face because of the weather, and I admit I enjoy the sense of personal power I feel from walking down the street and no one being able to see my face. I make reasonable accommodations such as removing the face covering when I enter the bank.

    Is that okay, because it’s not for religious reasons, multiple scarves tend to make fewer people uncomfortable than hajibs, and I was born here? What you’re talking about imo, has more to do with prevailing community standards or something, and that covers all sorts of things. Somebody else might feel that in America our culture is about politeness and wearing political buttons or t-shirts is rude and inflamatory and therefore it should be expected that they be covered or removed on request, and you can go on for there. Everybody has their pet peeves when it comes to others’ behavior, but what seems like a clear example of American culture that should be respected to one person seems like an invasion of privacy to someone else.

  23. “Americans and others who tend to fall into the ‘Western’ society basket have a culture where veiling is associated with armed robbery”

    Well, but that might be news to the thousand and thousands of Americans who veil. For them, veiling tends to be associated with their daily lives. And it’s not even just naturalized citizens, there are many Americans who were born and bred here who veil, and not to knock over the bank.

    The question is, who defines culture? As problematic as I think it would be to define American culture as, I don’t even know what, drive-ins, diners, Wonder Bread and Leave it to Beaver for immigrants, what about naturalized citizens and the American born? Does it really seem reasonable to ask Americans to show some respect and start accomodating American culture?

    That seems uncomfortably close to wingnuts’ desire to define every person and idea they don’t like as “unAmerican,” as if their America is the true America or the only America.

    “Reasonable accomodation” requires a valid reason, like needing to show your face in a secure government building for security purposes. Making the majority uncomfortable because they regard you as really foreign to their own experiences isn’t really a valid reason.

  24. Silly me! It’s because Nancy Pelosi’s not a Republican. And Democrat = Dhimmi, as far as the wingnuts are concerned. If you’re a Democrat, simple respect for local culture might as well mean handing over the country to the kind of Allahu-Akbar-spouting Islamic terrorists that have Michelle Malkin soiling herself under the bed

    It’s only terrorism if the terrorists aren’t funded, armed, and trained by the CIA. When the CIA funds terrorism, its counter-terrorism!

  25. Who doubts that if Pelosi showed up in a pantsuit a la “Hillary Clinton” (meaning winger conceptions of Hillary Clinton, not the actual Senator) and wore no scarf, wingnuttia would be screaming about how this incompetent San Francisco liberal was making whatever diplomacy Bush was executing (ahem…) impossible, how she should be prosecuted for treason, etc…. Would take them all of 7 seconds.

    The wingers don’t have a point; they have an agenda – in this case, to wound an enemy of the Dear Leader and to embarrass a liberal woman whose business is politics and statesmanship.

  26. And they’re equally incensed that Congressman Darrell Issa is there right now meeting with Assad, right?

    Ah but as the old saying goes; only Nixon could go to china and not be accused of being a filthy traitorous commie by the right wing.

  28. My boyfriend at the time and I were out on a Sunday morning and a downpour started. We’re a small town, here, so the only thing open is the church. We go in there to avoid the rain, me wearing torn up fishnets, and my boyfriend wearing a falling-apart leather jacket and a fedora that he forgot to take off when he walked in. Mind you, this is the early Sunday morning service, so it’s all devout Catholics, especially of the older generation, so everyone’s wearing their ‘Sunday best.’

    Needless to say, we looked like assholes. I don’t think us walking in there like that impromptu to seek shelter from a downpour was as bad as, say, telling a friend you’d go with her to church and then showing up like that, or otherwise *planning* to go, but I can say that we weren’t particularly well-received.

    Catholics are disciplinarian-assholes, the worst kinds of Christians, really, so it had nothing to do with the way you were dressed.

    “In case you didn’t already know: Something is wrong when you confess your sins to a guy who has dried shit under his nails from finger-banging the altar boy.”

    Marksman 11:19

  29. She can do what she wants, obviously.

    There are two issues here. The oh-so-very-obvious one is that US hatemongers/conservatives/right wingers are organized and will let no opportunity to bash Democrats. They will drive home their message that Democrats (and possibly Democracy) = Islam/Terror/Evil. Implied, is that we should fear Democrats, stop them and trust our powerful, benevolent and vicious (but only for our own good) Republican rescuers to protect us from the horrors just around the corner. The message is simple Democrats = Terror.

    The next issue is respect for others. I have heard the arguments about respecting others’ religions and customs. I believe that respect is one thing and complicity is another. When I hear your views and choose to accept them as yours, I am demonstrating respect. When I observe them myself, I am demonstrating complicity.

    Specifically examining the issue of a woman covering her head, I see only that it is asked of a woman. That is sexism. The reasons are varied and intricately woven to look benign and even sacred, crafted over years of effort to sell it to the population. Still, it is only asked of a woman.

    An indicator of the ill-will behind this custom is the penalty if not observed – threats. It is either implied or actually carried out. The respect they claim to ask for is not given to a woman who chooses not to participate in being marked as a woman in a man’s custom. Threats are usually in the following categories: violence, social exclusion, humiliation, verbal abuse, excommunication and death.

    The Catholic veil, the Muslim headscarf or the hijab or the burka. These customs all target women. Why do the men need no covering? How can the answer be anything other than physical bullying by men of women as a means of exerting power to make themselves feel superior at women’s expense?

  30. Actually, arvan, Muslim men are supposed to dress fairly conservatively, although not as conservatively as women.

    It’s just that the amount of coverage in male formal dress tends to cross cultures, even if the actual garments don’t. So a suit covers arms and legs, just like the robes worn in Arab countries, and the fact that it would be unacceptable for a man to go into a mosque in shorts, a sleeveless shirt, and in some places, even short sleeves, is never really mentioned.

    I think that’s interesting in of itself. The conditions of formal dress imposed on male clothing are all understood and completely acceptable, and no one gets all weird about why male politicians have to wear suits in extremely hot countries, but women’s clothing is something to be discussed and dissected endlessly. Why can’t we all just assume that Nancy Pelosi is extremely intelligent and qualified for her position, and therefore knows exactly how to behave in a diplomatic situation? That it doesn’t matter if she wore a headscarf if young women all over the region were seeing a powerful female politician sitting and talking as an equal with the men of the region? I think that does a lot more to fight sexism and ignorance in the region than her simply not wearing a scarf “because it’s sexist.” It might be, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s more important that she was there in the first place, and that they talked at all.

  31. Nobody seems to get their knickers in a twist over male politicians’ donning yarmulkes when visiting synagogues.

  32. Zuzu,

    I think you bring up a good point. Maybe sexism is not involved.

    Maybe, this is a religion issue, plain and simple. I am no proponent of men being told what to wear and not to wear. While, I understand the principles behind the gestures of consideration i.e. when in Rome… However, I still question the underlying concept that the threat of force and punishment is implied. I am questioning whether or not to go along with being told what to wear or not, in any event and regardless of gender.

    Why should I wear the clothing of another faith when I visit that land, that house of woship, walk down that street? The obvious answer is that someone will take offense and punish me by the laws of their land. This may be a threat doled out equally to men and women. However, I do not see any evidence to that.

    Maybe I don’t know very much, so I’m asking: When someone visits another country, in this case a woman – is the request for respect or complicity? What is the consequence if the request is declined? Is respect issued by both sides, regardless of clothing? Why wouldn’t the country, in this case Syria simply say, “You and your faith are welcome here. Please, be comfortable as you are. We respect your faith.” This could be any faith that dictates dress and status of non-blievers – and there are many.

    I think that this looks more like a different example of what I mentioned before: one group uses superior strength to exercise its will on the other. The respect of the stronger group is “violated” when the weaker group exercises its own will in regards to the clothes they wear on their own bodies. Invisible in all this discussion and taken for granted, is the assumption that the stronger group has a right (from god, law or numbers) to tell the weaker group what to do, what to wear and how to behave.

    There is the issue of equal treatment among believers, that you refer to with you statement about Muslim men’s requirements for clothing. My question is how do we treat those who we outnumber? Who we are stronger than? Who are our guests? Do we earn respect by giving it, or do we take it by force? Are we offended by those other than ourselves choosing what they wear on their bodies? Is my faith threatened by your shirt? Will I not believe in whatever I choose to believe in, whether you wear something on your head or not?

    But, on the issue of equal application – why must a woman cover her face and not a man? Why is a woman held in societies as responsible for a man’s actions? I do not believe that equality is at work here.

  34. I am questioning whether or not to go along with being told what to wear or not, in any event and regardless of gender.

    It’s the price of admission. You want to go into the church or the mosque or the synagogue, you play by its rules. If you insist that you’re the exception, you don’t go in. Period. Should you whine about being excluded, you’re an asshole.

    Similarly, if you went to someone’s home and they asked you to remove your shoes, you’d be an asshole if you refused and just walked on in anyway. It’s called courtesy.

    And all of this is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not rules about what women may or may not wear are misogynistic.

  35. zunu,

    This is a good discussion. I’m really enjoying it.

    cour·te·sy noun, plural -sies, adjective
    –noun 1. excellence of manners or social conduct; polite behavior.

    man·da·to·ry noun, plural -ries.
    –adjective 1. authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory:

    So, I ask: is the act of wearing the ceremonial or social garb of another society really a courtesy if it is enforced by threat? It is a courtesy if one chooses of one’s own accord. It is a mandate issued under threat of pushisment if there is no choice.

    Why is courtesy only one-way? Why is the asshole title only given to the guest? Where is the courtesy of the host? For that matter, why does there even need to be an asshole?

    As for “the price of admission”…what currency are you talking about? There is no currency in ill treatment toward those different from ourselves that I know of. There are practical applications of it all around us, misogyny for example. I oppose that one. I oppose them all.

  36. When in Rome, arvan.

    When you are a guest, you follow the house rules. You can choose not to go in, but should you choose to go in, you follow the house rules.

    And when someone comes to visit you, you expect that they will conform to your rules, not insist that you follow theirs. So if, say, Assad came to the US to meet with Pelosi, he would be seriously out of bounds to ask her to put on a headscarf. Because those are not the rules here.

  37. I doubt Assad asked her to wear a scarf. Pelosi likely didn’t want to create a ruckus by NOT doing it. He certainly didn’t seem to have any problem with being around her when she wasn’t wearing a scarf outside the mosque.

    And someone said this before, but I think this is a give-and-take situation. American women wear the headscarf in mosques to show respect for the local culture, but they certainly don’t wrap them as carefully as tradition dictates, and the locals appreciate that an effort was made at all, even if the scarf was not perfectly wrapped.

    You do know that Syrian women definitely don’t normally all wear hijab all the time, right?

  38. I don’t think the “when in Rome rule applies” as an unquestioned constant. We’re not really talking about Rome and it masks the true nature of the issue. Personal dominion over one’s own body – and nothing else.

    This is still a case of a person’s choice of their own clothing. Assad choosing his clothing in the US and Pelosi choosing her own clothing in Syria.

    And when someone comes to visit me, I do not tell them what to wear.

  40. We’re not really talking about Rome and it masks the true nature of the issue. Personal dominion over one’s own body – and nothing else.

    You can assert personal dominion over your body all the livelong day, but if the guy running the mosque says cover your hair and take off your shoes or you can’t come inside, then you cover your hair and take off your shoes, OR you don’t go inside.

    Speaking of Rome, you can’t go into St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican wearing shorts. This rule applies to both men and women. There’s a brisk trade in scarves outside the door for this very reason, since they quite handily cover shoulders or turn into an impromptu sarong. Men are often SOL, as was my friend’s boyfriend. She went inside after wrapping a scarf around her waist, while he waited outside, stewing that he couldn’t go in.

  41. A little over 10 years ago, I went to Europe with a friend. We were in Florence and I was in bed with an awful cold (in 100 degree heat!). Fun times.

    Oh, and we weren’t getting along.

    But I have a point for sharing. She decided to take the day to go to Rome. I had been there and had no plans to leave my bed that day.

    Early in the morning, I see her all ready to leave in a sleeveless mini-dress.

    Me: You planning on going to St. Peter’s?
    Her: Yeah, so what.
    Me: Then you should take a shirt. They won’t let you in with bare shoulders.
    Her: Oh, you think you know everything.

    And off she goes. And comes back that evening bitching about how she waited in line for hours and they wouldn’t let her in with her bare shoulders.

    So maybe we are talking about Rome 🙂

  43. I fully understand that St. Peter’s and mosques want you to cover up as directed or do not enter. That is not in question.

    What I question is – why? What real loss do they suffer by my clothing choices?

    They won’t lose their faith will they? Will their god forsake them? Will they suffer any real loss at all?d

    Or, is this a case of using an alleged slight against one’s own god as an excuse for dominion over others?

  44. What I question is – why? What real loss do they suffer by my clothing choices?

    There are still restaurants that require men to wear jackets in order to eat there. They’re generally very swanky and expensive places.

    Are the men being oppressed because they’re turned away if they’re not dressed appropriately? Why is it so much worse for a church/mosque to require a particular level of dress than it is for a commercial establishment like a restaurant?

  45. This is an awesome discussion. I really love it.

    Well…is it worse if a house of worship makes the request instead of a restaurant? I dunno.

    Here is what I see as different:

    In a restaurant…
    – there is no god to be offended.
    – one pays real cash for the privilege of eating there
    – the dress code is overtly placed in order to separate classes
    – to my knowledge, there are no mass protests, acts of violence, bombings, murders, stonings associated with a restaurant dress code
    – no death threats have been issued as a result of someone attempting to or successfully violating a restaurant dress code
    – in a restaurant, a woman can be the person with the final say

  46. In a restaurant…
    – there is no god to be offended.
    – one pays real cash for the privilege of eating there
    – the dress code is overtly placed in order to separate classes
    – to my knowledge, there are no mass protests, acts of violence, bombings, murders, stonings associated with a restaurant dress code
    – no death threats have been issued as a result of someone attempting to or successfully violating a restaurant dress code
    – in a restaurant, a woman can be the person with the final say

    It’s interesting that you’re more respectful of class divisions and money considerations than you are of religion. Keeping people out because of religion = horrible and unacceptable. Keeping people out because they’re the wrong social class = a-okay!

  47. I did not say that keeping people out of a restaurant because of class is a-okay. I don’t believe that. Those are your words – not mine.

    As far as ‘respecting’ class divisions, I am only too happy to challenge them. This conversation is about religion, choice and respect. The US is full of case after case of successful challenges to dress, gender and race discrimination in public businesses. Furthermore, I am confident that such challenges are going to be won more than lost, because the public good is served.

    I do not ‘respect’ class divisions. They are part and parcel with other forms of discrimination. I also said that I dunno if discrimination in a house of worship or a restaurant is worse.

    If you want to lay into me, pick something I actually said – like I don’t like country music. Have at me for that one.

  48. Religions aren’t public businesses.

    There’s no absolute right to enter a house o’ worship. Your choice is to conform to their rules, or to stay out. Even if you’re just there to look at the artwork.

    Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

  49. Well, it’s hard to understand for me.

    However, if they are not businesses, why do they take in money? Show me a religion that doesn’t take in money. We certainly have not cited any today. There are powerful financial reasons for religious targeting of women, gays and non-believers. Do not think for one second that there are not. The outraged mob and the religious zealot are the foot soldiers of the wealthy individuals that seek to gain from our ignorance.

    Religions are businesses. They become businesses the day they pay their first bill.

    They make business decisions every day. They exercise buying and selling influences in every aspect of the community. They actively seek a role in governmental / public sector activities as well. The financial structures vary, but religions are all in business.

    They not only solicit financial contribution from believers, but exert powerful influence over non-believers. The reason I question this is because it really needs to be asked.

    They point to god for inspiration, but it is a man that asks for money. It is a man that preaches intolerance of others. It is a man that claims that god is offended. It is a man that calls for a holy war.

    It’s not OK with me that one religion exert its will on people in this country while another one exerts its will in its country. It’s not OK with me if women are abused, branded or restricted “to honor god” in this country or any other. It’s not OK with me if gays, lesbians or non-believers are frightened, shamed and harassed into changing who they are and what they wear.

  52. Well, that blows my theory that you’re just really, really young and haven’t learned yet that diplomacy requires compromises.

    Now I just have to think that maybe you’re excessively rigid.

  53. Zuzu,

    I have really enjoyed this discussion. However, if the topic you wish to debate is your judgement of myself, then I respectfully decline. I have no problem with discussing myself (I’m an aries), but in this case I feel that it is an attempt to belittle me rather than discuss the topic at hand.

    Perhaps in some way, I have offended you. So, if that is the case I apologize and would like to know how, so that I can understand, grow and consider such a consquence in the future.

    However, I do not apologize for standing in a belief that it makes a difference to this world, to my daughter’s world – to your world if I do not speak my piece on this issue.

    I fully understand diplomacy and compromise. I also understand the abuses that are committed under those very words. There is a great deal to learn by questioning religion and quite possibly a great deal to gain. It is my firm belief that no religion should get a free pass on accountability.

    God’s law in heaven, man’s law on earth.

  54. What real loss do they suffer by my clothing choices?

    What do you gain by your clothing choices?

  55. What real loss do they suffer by my clothing choices?

    What do you gain by your clothing choices?

    You didn’t answer my question, you only asked another.

  56. What I question is – why? What real loss do they suffer by my clothing choices?

    They won’t lose their faith will they? Will their god forsake them? Will they suffer any real loss at all?d

    Or, is this a case of using an alleged slight against one’s own god as an excuse for dominion over others?

    these are good questions, arvan, but i’d figure that they are off-topic. the question at hand here is more about whether you should go along with these such customs for the sake of diplomacy, and whether people should critisize you over it.

  57. the actual example at hand is such — fifteen sailors have been captured and imprisoned by iran. you are the speaker of the house who is going to damascus, syria, to do some negotiations and diplomacy of another kind. what you do there will probably impact the outcome of the situation in iran, at least a little bit. this is not the time where you want every other middle eastern country going, ‘what an arrogant american, refusing to respect our culture‘!

    so do you wear a headscarf when you enter a mosque during a diplomatic trip concerning Hezbollah/Hamas support that may influence the outcome of a distressing situation in another country, or do you sit there and argue with your host/host culture/host country that what you wear does not affect them so you’re going to go in however you want?

    i’d say one should do the former, since this is absolutely not the arena for this debate and you need shit done.

  58. Hi Lorelei,

    off-topic? The woman wearing a scarf from another faith is exactly the topic. What it means and to whom? I read your post, and you come down on the side of the fence that we should observe others’ customs. I respect that this is your view, but do not agree.

    As far as the criticism issue, I stated through my sarcasm about democrat = terror that I am not in favor of criticising nancy pelosi. To the contrary, I fully respect and support her decision. I am not saying that she did anything wrong, or even anything that I would not consider in her situation.

  59. The US is full of case after case of successful challenges to dress, gender and race discrimination in public businesses

    Gender and race discrimination, sure, but can you cite some cases about dress restrictions? As Mnemosyne pointed out, while most restaurants are pretty casual now and you’re not likely to be turned away even if you’re dressed like a schlub, there are still places that have dress restrictions for both men and women. I was almost thrown out of a hotel bar because in the dim light the dark green pants I was wearing looked like jeans to the maitre’d. I agree with you that I don’t like dress restrictions in any context and don’t think it’s anyone’s concern what anybody else wears, but religions establish their own rules, that’s something that has to be worked out between the members themselves. If you’re that determined to not be complicit in religious practices that you think are unfair, then shouldn’t you refuse to visit religious institutions alltogether, especially if there’s an entrance fee?

  60. Sorry, I screwed up the tags in that post. arvan, she’s only wearing something from another faith while she’s actually inside that faith’s house of worship, not anywhere else. What would be the point of not doing so, except to draw attention to herself and be perceived as disrespectful? I don’t necessarily have to respect or follow the customs and practices of my own religion (in theory, I’m actually an athiest), because I’m part of that debate and I’m entitled. But to insist on entering someone else’s house of worship and ostentaciously refuse to abide by the customs, what are you doing except going out of your way to look like an asshole? What is that going to accomplish, why are you even there, to alienate everyone and reenforce the perception of Americans as ignorant and ill mannered?

  61. NO, you did not read my post obviously. I did not say ‘we should observe other peoples’ customs.’ I said, we should try to observe other peoples’ customs FOR THE SAKE OF DIPLOMACY. not because you’re in the church/mosque/synogague! not because you have any opinions about the faith! not even because you give a fuck about being *polite*, necessarily! FOR THE SAKE OF DIPLOMACY, SO THAT WE CAN RESOLVE AN ISSUE OR TWO.

  62. what i’m really try to say is that you can tell an imam that you think that the fact that you have to cover your head is bullshit and that you will refuse to do it AT ANY OTHER TIME than when you’re trying to HAVE A DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION, about Hezbollah, no less. *THAT*, my friends, is not the time you’ll want to do that.

  63. NewCompu,

    You raise two points – one about whether or not there are or could be any legal challenges to the dress code requirement. I don’t know if there are or were any so far. I would like to see one. Something tells me that they would not stand up in court – but, I’m no lawyer or judge.

    Your second point, is more akin to one raised above – (to paraphrase) “If I don’t like the policy, then don’t visit”. This seems like a simple, pragmatic solution. It is even one that I have used in my life, countless times in the past. That said, I still question whether the imam or bishop or anyone else for that matter has or should have any say in what I wear whatsoever. Your practical remedy to avoiding the issue does not answer my question.

  64. Lorelei,

    you are right, you didn’t say it exactly how I paraphrased. You did say:

    Lorelei Says:
    April 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Let me tell you, not dressing appropriately for a religion/culture that is not your own is not the best thing to ever do.

    You may be right and then again, maybe not.

    Firstly, do you have any knowledge that the nancy pelosi’s wearing a scarf was going to assist in the release of the british prisoners? I have not seen or heard that. However, even if it were true, your point is that basically – people are held hostage and we should cave in to a policy of their faith, exerted on our bodies in order to gain the release. I really don’t agree with that.

    You reiterated ‘for the sake of diplomacy’ and I understand your point. You can yell all you want. I hear you, but your argument is not compelling. I am asking you to consider that the real issue is that no one has the right to dictate another person’s personal attire.

    Nancy Pelosi is a diplomat and she did what she did for diplomatic reasons. I am asking – why does she even need to consider such a request? why do we allow it? People say that religions are an exception. We make huge exceptions in their accountability, their motives and their operations. The real problem is that those religious institutions and their policies that go unquestioned are then issued into the community and world outside of their temples. They don’t reside quaintly and saintly inside the hallowed halls of worship. They are spread into every facet of society – military, financial, educational, etc. The long arm of religion is characterized by two things. Firstly, that it is administered by people and not god and second, that if they are given an inch of power over over people then they will take the mile – and abuse it.

  65. I’m not sure if you’re just really bad at articulating your position or if you’re trolling, arvan, but it seems to me that pursuing this line of discussion any further would be counterproductive. Various people have explained their reasoning over and over, and you just come back to an unsupported assertion that nobody can ever tell you what to wear, and Pelosi shouldn’t have worn the scarf.

    So, I think we’re done here.

  66. Zuzu,

    I have been polite, articulate and considerate in my communications. You have attempted to belittle me and are now telling me to stop talking. It is ironic that on a Feminist blog, you choose behaviors that men have used to silence women.

    I’m new to blogging, so I don’t even know what a troll is. My guess is that it is an unflattering remark from you about me.

    I will leave your blog as you request, because you request it. It is sad to me that your discussions are non-inclusive of my views. It is also odd to me that on a feminist blog, there is so much resistance to a stand for personal freedom, such as I have taken.

  67. do i have an accent when i type or something? and is it so thick that when I try to make an extremely simple, reasonable point, people turn into petty five year olds?

    i question everything in the fucking UNIVERSE, and i have questioned exactly the sort of thing you asked about, seeing that no matter how i dress, SOMEONE doesn’t like it. and usually, i say, ‘fuck all of you, i will dress how i want.’

    if i was trying to perform some diplomacy, this would not be the arena to try it out in, since i am trying to negotiate two sensitive situations (and while pelosi did not go to syria because of the imprisoned brits, it is simply logic that the outcome of her visit would probably affect the outcome of that situation, if you’ve seen patterns in middle-eastern relations). this is NOT THE ARENA to start this in. i am the girl who wore ‘festive’ thongs hanging out of my pants when i went to church in catholic school simply to show how little i cared about their standards. the church or synogague or mosque itself could arguably be the arena for this debate. an important diplomatic visit to handle an important situation or two IS NOT. you can figure out the issue later, somewhere else. you can argue about people telling you what to wear LATER. i agree with this fact, that no-one should tell you what to wear, especially for religion. but diplomatic trip is a wicked bad time to assert this.

  68. Nancy Pelosi is a diplomat and she did what she did for diplomatic reasons. I am asking – why does she even need to consider such a request? why do we allow it?

    Please look up the word “diplomacy” before you make this argument a second time. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  69. That said, I still question whether the imam or bishop or anyone else for that matter has or should have any say in what I wear whatsoever

    sigh. If you’re asking, should they concern themselves with more important matters, maybe yes. But they have a say over everything in their jurisdiction, the temple, mosque or church. It sucks, but religions aren’t democracies, and that’s an internal struggle. If you enter my home and I subect you to some really petty or unfair “house rules” then yes, on some level I am violating your personal autonomy, but you can always leave. I have no right to control you, you have no right to tell me what I can do in my home. You can do whatever you want, but not in an area that’s exclusively under someone else’s top down bilateral jurisdiction like a home or a religious institution, even though yes it is unfair that top down bilateral jurisdiction ever exists.

Comments are currently closed.