hijab and women

Hijab and women- Is there any need to ban the scarf?

“To enjoy with no hindrances”, that stupid motto from 1968 never ran the motor of knowledge at high speed. Indeed it is true that while the Western feminist movement campaigned over many years for the right of women to be uncovered in public this “right” has quickly been appropriated by the forces of capitalism and consumerism. So much so, that we are at a point in time where much unhappiness, depression, eating disorders etc. are directly attributable to the pressures on women to be seen to be sexually attractive. Clearly such expectations and consequences are oppressive to women. Prevailing cultural norms mean that young girls are robbed of their childhood as their clothes reflect and emphasise female sexuality; and older women are made to feel irrelevant (or relevant to the extent that they can maintain the appearance of being younger). Strange is the rage reserved by so many feminist ladies for the few girls wearing the hijab. Meanwhile the prostituted female body is everywhere. The most humiliating pornography is universally sold. Advice on sexually exposing bodies lavishes teen magazines day in and day out. Wearing the hijab can also be seen as a challenge to the power of corporations and advertising. The French philosopher Alain Badiou, responding to the banning of hijab in French schools asks the question: “Is it not even more mean and petty for a woman at school to act as a sandwich board for a corporation than as a follower of God?” A single explanation: a girl must show what she’s got to sell. She’s got to show her goods. She’s got to indicate that, hence-forth, the circulation of women abides by the generalized model, and not by restricted exchange. Too bad for bearded fathers and elder brothers! Long live the planetary market! The generalized model is the top fashion model. Isn’t business the real mass religion? Compared to which Muslims look like an ascetic minority? Isn’t the conspicuous symbol of this degrading religion what we can read on pants, sneakers and t-shirts: Nike, Chevignon, Lacoste... Isn’t it cheaper yet to be a fashion victim at school than God’s faithful servant? If I were to aim at hitting a bull’s eye here—aiming big—I’d say everyone knows what’s needed: a law against brand names. Let’s ban the conspicuous symbols of Capital, with no compromises. It used to be taken for granted that an intangible female right is to only have to get undressed in front of the person of her choosing. But no. It is vital to hint at undressing at every instant. Whoever covers up what she puts on the market is not a loyal merchant.

Let’s argue the following, then, a pretty strange point: The law on the hijab is a pure capitalist law. It orders femininity to be exposed. In other words, by banning all reserve, women are brought into the market paradigm and are forced to display their bodies as merchandise. For teenagers, i.e. the teeming center of the entire subjective universe, the law bans any holding back. It is said virtually everywhere that the “veil” is an intolerable symbol of control over female sexuality. Do you really believe female sexuality to not be controlled in our society these days? This naiveté would have made Foucault laugh. Never has so much care been given to female sexuality, so much attention to detail, so much in-formed advice, so much distinguishing between its good and bad uses. Enjoyment has become a sinister obligation. The universal exposure of supposedly exciting parts is a duty more rigid than Kant’s moral imperative. In passing, between our tabloids’ “Enjoy it, women!” and our great-grandmothers’ dictate “Don’t enjoy it!” It must always be kept in my mind that commercial control is more constant, more certain, more massive than patriarchal control could ever be. Generalized prostitutional circulation is faster and more reliable than the hard-ships of family incarcerations. Advertising executives in various businesses utilise the female form to sell products or to magazine editors who entice male readers with pictures of scantily-clad women while also selling hair gel or shoes. If one was to switch on the television during an ad break in any country and mute the sound, it will be apparent how women's bodies and sexuality are treated as nothing more than an aid in selling anything from ice cream to mobile phones. One will never go into raptures enough over feminism’s singular progression. Starting off with women’s liberation, nowadays feminism avers that the “freedom” acquired is so obligatory that it requires girls (and not a single boy!) to be excluded owing to the sole fact of their dressing accoutrements. It is important to remember that whilst the hijab has recently been associated exclusively with Islam, the idea of modest attire for men and women is referred to in the JudeoChristian tradition in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as well as many other religious and cultural traditions (e.g. Sikhism and Rastafarianism). In many parts of the world, from villages in Italy to Indian suburbs women cover themselves in similar ways that Muslim women do. We have to recognise that while the road to female emancipation in the West has taken the route of the right to not be covered in response to the rigid expectations placed on women historically in terms of dress and societal roles, many women may choose to liberate themselves in different ways, and just because the trajectory of their resistance to oppression is different, it does not make it any less legitimate or significant.

For many Muslim women wearing the hijab is an expression of Islamic notions of women’s empowerment. “Hijab” actually is a whole concept relating to the interaction of men and women, not just an item of clothing to cover the head or body. For them, wearing the hijab marks a rejection of a world where women have to endure objectification as sex objects. It helps them to enjoy a sense of their own (special) privacy and personhood. The hijab is not about the denial of female (or male) sexuality. Quite the opposite. I think sexual attraction between men and women is part of human nature and natural. The concept of hijab actually denotes a code of behaviour between the sexes that both acknowledges that fact and encourages a mutually respectful interaction between men and women. “Hijab” literally means “barrier”. It flows from the emphasis on marriage in Islam – the Qur’an describes a husband and wife as each other’s “garments” – giving each other intimacy, warmth and protection. The idea of hijab is to maintain the exclusivity of that relationship, such that the degree of physical intimacy and exposure is limited in all other interactions between men and women. In this way the aim of hijab is to de-emphasise sexuality in public interactions, whilst encouraging sexuality in private ones. Indeed the real crime that is committed against women is when that choice is taken away from them. This is why I oppose the ban on wearing the hijab since In this case the woman herself is no longer free to make a choice, her dignity is violated. And with all the hype around the issue not many people are aware that actually right now the hijab is banned in more countries than it is enforced!!