Islam and Feminism
I want to comment on Mernissi and Moghissi, First, I thought these readings would change my idea about the women of Islam wearing the veil, it did not. I thought that I had a Western, protectionist, women as victom view of this. But, after reading this, I think not, I think I was pretty accurate in my assessment of the veil and its being used as a "protectionist' devise, meaning used to protect women form men's sexual advancements, is in fact to protect men and justify their essentialist views of women, and their sexual exploitation of women if they do not conform to the wearing of the "hajib" or their not modest enough, etc. And as Moghissi pointed out some muslim women have "'...chosen the veil as a symbol of Islamification which these women use to 'free themselves from the bonds of patrarchy'" but Moghissi feels these interpretations do not "change the brute fact that the veil accomplishes the objectifiction of women. It represents chastity and modesty-as defined by men. It symbolizes male authority and control over the femal body." (page 198). And how can veiling be empowring and having agency, if in fact it is not a CHOICE, but controlled by the state weith extremely punitive consequences. It's one thing if it were a choice, and not regulated by the state and muslim women chose to wear it as a way of being viewed as a person first, not as a sexual being, or as a reaction to Western imperialist views, etc. But it is not a choice, and until it is, it does not give agency to the women who wear it..
Also, it is symbolic of a much larger essentialist view of women as a seductresses, evil, lustful, etc., that men need to be protected from. And if the women is abused by the man than it is her fault because she caused it through her sexual actions, not he, he is the victom. As Adam was the victom of Eve, Evil. So much of what I read in Mernissi's article reminded me of the Western, patriarchal, Christian religions and their myths about the creation of Man and Women and their essentialist roles, and the justifications by the religious right in sanctifiying of these roles through constitutional amendments against gay marriage and abortions. Perhaps like the neo-conservative women of Iran, her too, the women who align themselves with the religious right and are perhaps the beneficiaries of the male privilege that goes along with this. They to espouse essentialist views and roles for women, which is fine, for them. But I object to them being the defining voice for all women. If you are against gay marriage, by all means, don't marry someone who is gay. If you are agianst abortion, by all means, you can choose not to have one. If you choose to wear a veil, then please do, but don't impose your choice on to me. The opportune word here is choice, and anything that reinforces essentialists veiws of women, "...limits the possibilities of change and thus social reorganisation." (Kapur, page 100)