Around two weeks ago, the French Head of State Nicolas Sarkozy claimed that the Islamic dress worn by women to cover themselves was not welcome on French soil, and a spokesperson suggested that there may be a proposal for legislation banning such dress. It is fair to make the observation that, in some cases, the hijab, jilbāb and niqāb are signs of female oppression in that such dress is enforced by a patriarchal society and women do not have the option not to wear them. However in many cases it must be noted that women do have the option not to wear them, and that in fact it is their choice to wear such dress out of modesty and respect for their religion. Even if the religion is seen as inherently sexist which some argue, their choice to wear the veil is crucial. It is not for President Sarkozy to inherit the patriarchal role by preventing women from having an option, which is what he and many others criticise the Islamic culture of doing.
The debate over Islamic dress and whether it oppresses women or not misses the point. It should not be left to the male-dominated political apex to decide the limits of a woman's freedom of expression. It takes up an incredible amount of media airtime and newspaper coverage, and such a debate is clearly politically motivated, compounded by the general Islamaphobic culture. It obscures crucial cases of gender inequality and oppression of women such as the example of female circumcision or FGM (female genital mutiliation).
The issues surrounding FGM are very uncomfortable to consider. The practice itself can be carried out under humane medical conditions and cause minimal discomfort, but for the vast majority of women this is certainly not the case. Every year large numbers of women come to the UK to escape what can only be described as torture, or to save their daughters from something they themselves were subjected to. I know a case of a woman who was taken by force by her own parents and subjected to the procedure; she then took her daughter to the UK, leaving her son, and was willing to give her own daughter away to stop her from being taken back to a place where the same thing might happen to her.
However, it is simple to say that everything should be done to stop the practice being carried out in such a way that it is nothing more than torture, but it is a different question as to who can say whether the principles of the practice are a violation of human rights. Parents bring this on their own children; the way that FGM is presented to most outside of the cultures that practice it denies the views of those who practice it and subject their own children to it. Many women also choose to have it done, because it has so much importance in their own cultures. This debate is part of a very significant debate between advocates of universal rights and advocates of a pluralist outlook – can FGM be judged normatively, as inherently good or bad, acceptable or against human rights? Or is it a more complex issue with cultural sensitivities meaning that we should not judge other cultures that practise FGM?
What is uncomfortable about the case against FGM is that it usually comes from outside of where it is practised. This issue is seen from certain perspectives that seem to be irreconcilable. Thus the debate can be framed – particularly in countries practising FGM – as a dominant, imperial West attempting to apply its moral code upon what it sees as an uncivilised world; accusations of orientalism perhaps allows female oppression to continue. As is consistently the case in current debates, whether they relate to gender or not, the perspective that has the least consideration is that of the women it concerns. Their case goes unrepresented on both sides of the debate. Liberal ideology largely ignores the great importance background or culture plays in creating an identity for many women; however, the pluralists exaggerate this to the extent that the part of gender in identity is undermined. The women concerned by this issue will all feel differently but what can be said is that they have an identity that can be much better, or more narrowly defined than either side of the debate allows, and this must be allowed to show its proper strength.
No comments:
Post a Comment