Pari's entry on Islamic feminisms
Because we did several conflicting readings for tis week on Islamic feminism, we were able to see the range and plurality of beliefs and theories about women, Islam and the state. In terms of the hajib, several different conclusions were included in the five articles. Arat-Koc accepts that there may be a multitude of meaning associated with the veil, some of which may reflect female ageny, and some of which may reflect women's oppression. Like we have seen so many times this term, specific context remains the determinant factor in understanding how the world works. Mernissi, in contrast, thinks about the veil as a a product of patriarchal oppression of women. Specifically she sees the veil as a result of male fear of female sexuality and prevention of female intrusion into "public" space. Because the answers to the questions we ask are radically different based on how we frame the question, I wonder if there is a right way to frame the question. Clearly the argument about the hajib is not a recreational academic pasttime. It is real and concrete so there is an urgency about understanding. I am sensitive to the accusation that Western feminism is so obsessed with cultural specificity and deconstruction that we do not speak unless our authority is assured. It calls into question (again) what feminism is supposed to be doing. Is feminism what we do in the classroom? Is feminism grassroots action? Do feminists have a responsibility to respond to Moghissi's call:"THe feminist commitment to justice, and humanism requires that the practical consequences of fundamentalist rule for women be exposed"? Even if Western feminists feel that they cannot separate themselves from the "Western eyes"? What then?