Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…
An interesting, if somewhat inflammatory article comes to us today from Barbara Kay at Pajamas Media, in which she calls upon “the West” (however we are to define that term today) to ban the burqa and nix the niqab. She pulls no punches and comes right out of the gate praising France and Nicolas Sarkozy (of all people) for their attempts to ban the primarily Muslim full body covering for women in that country.
President Nicolas Sarkozy had called for a ban on the public wearing of the burqa altogether. But as of this writing, apparently a compromise has been struck and the burqa will be banned in public buildings only.
A partial ban is better than nothing, though, and may hopefully serve to inject some steel into the spine of other European nations who feel threatened by the rise of anti-Western radicalization amongst their own growing Muslim populations.
It may be my fundamental libertarian streak or the way that Ray Bradbury’s seminal works have embedded themselves in our collective conscience, but I always develop an alarming tic in one eye when I hear people using words “government” and “ban” in the same sentence. Of course, that may just stem from the way that “books” so often follows those words in short order. When you mix in a subject like this which also incorporates questions of religious practices outside of Christianity, the discomfort level rises further. Still, Ms. Kay anticipates my concerns and addresses them early on, albeit in a rather dismissive fashion.
Critics will claim that these garments do no harm to others and nobody has the right to interfere with women’s religious choices in a free society. But President Sarkozy got it right last June in explaining to Parliament why the burqa is “not welcome in the French Republic”: “The burqa is not a sign of religion; it is a sign of subservience.”
As with most things, subservience and religion tend to be in the eye of the beholder. It’s certainly true that the burqa is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Quran, but it does instruct both men and women to dress and behave “modestly” in public. If you give any religious group a couple of centuries to play with phrases like that, you never know what you’ll get, but the religious traditions of the faith have also built up a heavy reliance on the concept of Namus, which ties in many stifling features in an effort to preserve the virginity, modesty and anonymity of females in the various families and clans.
I’m not here to defend a practice like this… far from it. Women have had to overcome a lot of challenges to get where they are in America and much of “the West” today, and I have no interest in sending them back to the dark ages. But a question such as the one raised by Barbara Kay comes with a whole slew of concerns in a society which provides the choices she mentions above and doesn’t place restrictions on which religion, gender or hair color gets to enjoy them.
But none of this addresses a deeper, underlying issue which merits attention, but is dismissed by the author in this brief throw-away passage:
Algerian-born Fadela Amara, France’s cities minister, reinforced her view in an interview with the Financial Times: “The vast majority of Muslims are against the burqa. It is obvious why. Those who have struggled for women’s rights back home in their own countries — I’m thinking particularly of Algeria — we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties.”
I will readily agree that it might seem “obvious” (particularly to modernized, western oriented thinkers) that the “majority” of people would oppose dressing up women in burqas, but there are any number of practices from various religions which can offend modern sensibilities. If you’ll forgive the brief digression, let’s take a look at a couple of them.
Amish families – quite Christian by definition – still largely dress their women in neck to floor, black, formless dress designed to modestly hide the female form. They also keep them away from electricity and all modern channels of access to enhanced education and related advances. Remote, non-reformed Mormon groups (also ostensibly Christian by most accounts) also enforce very strict dress policies on females, along with other atrocities as viewed by the majority.
To ward off the protests I’m sure will follow, I’ll borrow a phrase from Ms. Kay and say, “critics will claim” that nobody is threatening to murder the Amish or Mormon girls in an “honor killing” if they don’t comply. (Though an argument could be made in the latter case on some of those compounds.) But that’s not the point. Murder and other violent treatment is already against the law in these western societies and, as such, must be ferreted out and punished where it’s found. The question at hand is whether or not a government such as ours can be allowed to forbid the wearing of the offending garb.
But let’s move away from the clothing specific questions for a moment and hit another subject near and dear to the hearts of many women’s rights activists – the Jewish “purity laws.” There are more of them than you can shake a stick at and they include provisions such as identifying certain days of the month when women are considered to be “unclean.” At such times, men are not to lie on the same bed nor even sit upon a chair where such an “unclean” woman has sat. How can any modern woman or feminist inclined man countenance such a society among us?
Last year I had the pleasure of interviewing A.J. Jacobs, author of the fantastic book, “The Year of Living Biblically.” It’s the story of his search, as a young Jewish man, for meaning and faith by attempting to follow every law in the Bible for an entire year. (You can still listen to the replay of the interview here if you wish.) I asked him that very question and he explained that many women in very orthodox Jewish communities are not offended by the laws at all for the same reason that these families employ the services of textile experts to inspect all of their clothing to make sure it’s not composed of two different types of fabric. You don’t need to know the reason, A.J. informed me. That’s not what’s important. You do it because that is your understanding of the instructions from God as practiced by your community. (It is worth noting here that not all Muslims enforce the burqa rules, just as not all American Jews observe the purity laws.)
But I think some critics who call for “outlawing the burqa” the most loudly may either have an ulterior motive or at least feel a bit more free to do so. There isn’t much of a political price to pay today if you condemn the practices of Muslims. By contrast, however, questioning some of the practices of Jews which are clearly offensive to women isn’t quite as safe, is it? Because that is immediately viewed as questioning Judaism as a whole, and by association, Israel. And that’s a big Bozo No-No in most conservative, Republican circles, don’t you think?
Modern society has a clear duty to help women who find themselves subjected to such rules against their will, and we certainly provide an atmosphere here in the United States where they can try to break free from those chains. But shall the federal government be handed the power to outlaw a particular style of dress in the process? More government control is rarely the answer to anything, and sometimes the people can influence the actions of their members through social pressure without handing another power to Washington.
63 Responses to “Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…”
Forcing Western values on Middle Eastern peoples is just ethnocentrism with a few added teaspoons of arrogance. Like most of us, if we choose to come along it will not be because we are forced, but because of a slow assimilation of values and ideas that may sound appealing after a while. In the case of passing laws to force middle eastern women to dress like their modern western counterparts, it doesn't work at all. Not to mention that I would guess that any modern feminist has bigger fish to fry like the growing infringements on choice. I could well imagine that some western males would like to have it both ways, chiding one to take off her burka, while dispairing that the modern woman would do better to put on some clothes and stay barefoot and pregnant.
This is not about ethnocentrism – the burqa and niqab are frequently imposed on Muslim women under threat of death; they are not longstanding Muslim traditions. Nor is the parallel to Jewish family purity laws at all sensible. Not only has the article mischaracterized the practice (among other things, “unclean” is a very bad translation, and the prohibitions cited here apply to something else completely), the family purity laws are *private.* Nobody outside the couple is in any position to know when they are not permitted to be intimate. You cannot honestly compare a relatively new public practice created for political reasons with a longstanding private practice.
It is fascinating, BTW, to hear the author imply that antisemitic comments are and should be quite acceptable among liberals. One wonders if the opportunity to engage in such vilification wasn't the actual purpose of this post. If not, the false parallels could more sensibly have been omitted.
“This is not about ethnocentrism”
I do get a kick out of how advanced we think we are in the modern western world.
I don't have the facts in front of me but what is it 30-40 years since in the USA passed laws making it illegal for men to dominate women physically, psychologically, and yet– those very same practices go on today, but now behind closed doors. Prior to that was it not culturally accepted for men to do just that? Yes, women have obtained legal rights, but the law doesn't always cooperate, and catching a stalker committing an enforceable offense is not always easy. That is why women often enough go underground, taking a new identity.
Oh, and what I read was not antisemtic, but a pre-reaction to saying anything that would get precisely that reaction. I do agree though, he should have just spoke his mind and waited for the antisemitic charges to arrive on his doorstep……..
“Forcing Western values on Middle Eastern peoples is just ethnocentrism with a few added teaspoons of arrogance. “
Ethnocentrism probably isn't the best choice of words here, but you are correct about the western values. It is wrong to force ethnic values, but it is not wrong for a government to protect its own culture. When a nation's culture is threatened by means other than assimilation, it stands to destroy the nation. Many examples in history of cultural invasion can be listed here.
As you most likely know, Muslims have “invaded” France due to an unchecked liberal immigration policy. France is attempting to reclaim it's culture, but I'm afraid it's too little, too late. France as we know it is gone. The only hope is for other nations to see what is really going on here, and modify their own immigration policies. If not, Arab and Muslim culture invasions will continue world-wide – leading to the stated goal of total global Muslim domination.
One other thing. If it weren't for our Mexican brothers coming North; Muslims would be the single fastest growing cultural group in America. Something to think about.
So we're supposed to be afraid of clothing now? How dumb is that? Some folks really need to re-think (assuming they thought about it in the first place) just what the USA traditionally stands for. Was all that talk about freedom and individuality nothing but talk? Or is it only convenient when it applies to your own druthers? Think people, THINK!!!
A couple good articles from the Christian Science Monitor on this subject:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009…
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009…
fuzzy
“It is fascinating, BTW, to hear the author imply that antisemitic comments are and should be quite acceptable among liberals. One wonders if the opportunity to engage in such vilification wasn't the actual purpose of this post. If not, the false parallels could more sensibly have been omitted.”
You certainly demonstrate the problem of criticism of anything jewish as being “antisemitic.” Pointing out the peculiar values that a fundamentalist sect holds is not anti-jewish, it's anti-parochial.
If people wish not to wear cloth made from two fibers, fine. if that group wants to kill those who do break that “law of God,” that's another thing.
As to burkas, the only problem I have with them is when they are used out of the context they are touted to represent. Perhaps you remember the Florida case of the women who wished to have her drivers license picture taken while she was wearing a burka. Good, “subservient” women shouldn't be driving anyway. Just ask the Saudis. Any identity card with one's face covered kind of defeats its purpose, doesn't it? Other than that case, people should be able to wear pretty much anything they want. Parochial fashion statements are tolerated in the US; exceptions are those fashion statements that don't say enough in the right places.
Clothing is not the issue. The burqa is not simply a fashion statement – it is a way for radical islamists to dominate women. They rightly see the adoption of western fashion as a first step in women throwing off the male oppression of women that is inherent in their style of Islam, and in impeding their attempts to take over those western nations who have abandoned defense of their own cultures.
If Islamists would show the same kind of respect for western culture that they demand for their own, there would be no issue. But they don't. For them, respect is a one-way street.
You would have women run from the arms of the oppressive Muslim fundamentalists right into the arms of the oppressive modern western forces, including the fundamentalist Christians. Women Know that their oppression comes in many forms, and the modern world is not without its own patriarchal oppressive mores. That is why Bush tried to use the Afgani women's issue as a call to arms, but abandoned them in the trenches, and Afghani women have experienced the loving arms of Nato/USA Military/and UN forces who rape, bomb and pillage them also. Apparently that is why strong independent Afghan women want the USA out of Afghanistan. They would rather deal with their homegrown brand of oppression without the interference of US forces, corrupting money and conflictual actions.
The burqa is a symbol of female suppression, of misogyny. Nevertheless, some women wear them out of religious devotion, and I'm VERY uncomfortable with the State telling them they can't.
Are people allowed to walk around in the nude in public? Society does not seem to convulse with self-recrimination at clothing as a basic dress code, despite the fact that there are a few who claim this is repressive, and to the purist naturist it is exactly that. Perhaps someone has even argued that their religious beliefs have been infringed by such nudity restrictions; I can't cite a case but would not be surprised by one. Even nudity at tucked away beaches is proscribed and such laws have withstood legal challenges, agree with them or not.
If we can outlaw public nudity why can we not outlaw the opposite — fully covered women? Or men? Try walking into a bank in a full blown ninja outfit with your face covered and see if it does not attract the attention of security. Or with a ski mask pulled over your head on a warm day. Is it legal? Can they force you to show your face in public? What about on Halloween?
I don't have answers to these questions nor do I want to spend the day researching burka laws. Suffice it to say that I don't see a problem banning them, having the matter end up in court, and determining in the Constitutionally prescribed way whether it is legal to do so. And if banning them sends a message to anyone, even if it is overturned, that message is all good in my opinion. We don't like repression of females or their treatment as wrapped presents, we don't like total anonymity in public, and we don't like a religion that appears to demand absolute subservience by the vast majority of Americans as an endpoint. You don't like that, tough. We have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. Nobody promised a utopia. Or outlawed Americans expressing their opinion at the ballot box just because you are offended by the results.
“You certainly demonstrate the problem of criticism of anything jewish as being “antisemitic.” Pointing out the peculiar values that a fundamentalist sect holds is not anti-jewish, it's anti-parochial.”
In this point, though, it's gratuitous, as it is not a valid parallel. In addition, the suggestion that it is “not as safe” to question Jewish practices is part of the “the Jews control everything” meme which is very definitely antisemitic. Had the author stopped at simply offering the bad parallel, there would be no question of antisemitism – just ignorance.
“If people wish not to wear cloth made from two fibers, fine. if that group wants to kill those who do break that 'law of God,' that's another thing.”
Yes – and since Jews do NOT try to kill people who refuse to follow this rule, while there is a great deal of violence by Muslims to enforce their own practices, that simply accentuates the inaptness of the supposed parallel.
When you are talking about such diversely populated countries as the USA or France– who exactly are the preferred peoples? On whose cultural background are the values of the country based on? Since everyone in the USA is a tourist except the Native Indian– which group would you single out for attention. I think if we looked up in the history books or in old newspaper stories we could find all kind of references to the new wave of micks, krauts, spics, chinks that, at the time, we should all have been worried about, uh without cause. People have migrated since the beginning of time, and some may have congregated in a particular place, changing its complexion forever, or at least until the next wave…………
“You would have women run from the arms of the oppressive Muslim fundamentalists right into the arms of the oppressive modern western forces, including the fundamentalist Christians.”
No. Nobody is suggesting that the right thing for Muslim women who do not wish to be coerced into wearing the burqa is to become a fundamentalist Christian. We have a number of women who have abandoned Islam – and are now under threats to their lives – but who have not fled into fundamentalist Christianity.
And even if they did, BTW, fundamentalist Christians have no great recent history of using violence to enforce their rules, either.
I agree that it is a really tricky balancing act. If there were little or no coercion to wear the burqa, I would absolutely agree with you. In fact, I have so argued on another forum (and had my head handed to me by several of the women posters). Under the circumstances, though, it seems to me that a ban is the lesser of evils.
fuzzy
I see you wish to interpret according to your pre-conceived view. If you wish not to see a parallel between parochial religious views that make no sense outside the confines of a narrow cult, go ahead. As far as I can tell, there are lots of religious beliefs that are just plain ridiculous, and poor treatment of women as somehow lesser than men doesn't have to go to Islam to see the hypocrisy.
Criticizing catholics because women can't be priests doesn't make me anti-catholic any more than citing the anachronistic fundamentalist views of jews make me antisemitic. You demonstrate exactly what I think jazz meant by “not as safe” to criticize jewish eccentric beliefs. The charge of antisemitism is hurled way too often, way too flippantly, and way too parochially. Hatred of Jews is different from disagreement with Jews. Calling somebody antisemitic requires a little more that you thinking an intellectual parallel is insufficiently constructed.
Just about every religion in the world is chock full of absurd ideas and customs.
Ironically, in writing your article you yourself show great cultural insensitivity. To refer to groups like the FLDS Church as “remote, non-reformed Mormon groups” to entirely misleading. The members of these groups are not Mormons; most of them have never been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Mormon Church”). Why not just refer to these people as members of the FLDS Church, rather than dragging the names of the millions of Mormons in this country through the mud?
As a Mormon, I hardly agree with the FLDS Church's practices, but your accusation that they engage in honor killings is very serious. As I'm quite confident the FLDS do not engage in this practice, I'd say your accusation amounts to slander. Hardly responsible reporting.
Spirasol was saying that Christians (a much larger group than Catholics) are suppressing women. I know of some cultural norms that place different expectations on men and women, but I don't know of any across-the-board Christian teachings that specifically suppress women. As a matter of fact, they gained their legal rights starting in Christian countries
I'm also a little curious as to what Christian teachings that you two find suppressive to women.
You misunderstand me: It is not that this woman runs from the arms of one into the other. It is that she is caught between and betwixt the prevailing oppressive cultures. Burka or bikini — cover it all up or take it all off- both as objects of control and oppression– that is what the article I referenced above was talking about. Once she escapes from the individual/familial forms of control she discovers the institutional forms of oppression in the modern world.
suffice to say we disagree about the lengths to which modern, secular or Christian societies continue to oppress women and about the violence historically expressed both to establish themselves and to maintain their power. I would furthermore posit that being the Christian nation that expends more money than all other nations combined for weaponry, and is currently engaged in violence on at least 5 “fronts” globally, I submit we have a history replete (from origination to present with using violence to enforce our will/rules/doctrine.
Ban the burka and in substitution to preserve our “national identity” [of a nation of diverse immigrant descendants??] we should probably require muslim women to wear mini skirts and tube tops?
Jeezus people…what ever happened to “freedom”? That includes the freedom of religion. Burkas may look uncomfortable but maybe the women under them like to be free of having men stare at their chest instead of their eyes?
Okay, now it's getting confusing. Many people have criticized Christianity because, in general, it tends to encourage modesty. We just had a post where playboy women were naked on a boat — I don't think Playboy is seen as, or sees itself as, an advocate of Christian teaching. Now bikini's are a sign of a repressive Christian culture? 'can't win for losin' today.
As far as violence: maybe some conservatives encourage it, but I've never been taught the holiness of excessive arms and violence. Certainly the majority of commentators on this blog, with their various backgrounds, beliefs and ideals, are against the way that we've oversized and overused our military.
I have not vetted this website but saved you the bother of googling for info. Any college woman's department has all this info and more………..that is if they are still there.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
(OLD TESTAMENT)
Passages treating women as inferior to men
horizontal rule
Sponsored link.
horizontal rule
How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
bullet Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
bullet Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
bullet They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
bullet They could not testify in court.
bullet They could not appear in public venues.
bullet They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
bullet They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:
horizontal rule
Women were considered inferior to men:
bullet Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
bullet In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
bullet But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: “…the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term “helper” has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. “…the Hebrew word translated “helper” is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior.” (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: “…she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
bullet Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term “rule” to describe Adam's role over Eve: “…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The Living Bible uses the term “master”. The Modern Language Bible uses “dominate”. By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
bullet A man could marry (literally “become the master of the woman”) as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
bullet Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: “Sarai said unto Abram…I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
bullet Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can “know” them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: “I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.” Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. More details on Genesis 19.
bullet Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: “…Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
bullet In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. “And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.” The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
bullet Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
bullet Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.” It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
bullet Exodus 21:2-4: “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing….If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.” A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
bullet Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
bullet Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property – his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
bullet Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act – not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: “…he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
bullet Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm
I have not vetted the above web site just saved you the trouble of doing a quick google search. Any Woman's dept. of any college would have all this information handily.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
(OLD TESTAMENT)
Passages treating women as inferior to men
horizontal rule
Sponsored link.
horizontal rule
How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
bullet Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
bullet Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
bullet They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
bullet They could not testify in court.
bullet They could not appear in public venues.
bullet They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
bullet They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:
horizontal rule
Women were considered inferior to men:
bullet Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
bullet In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
bullet But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: “…the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term “helper” has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. “…the Hebrew word translated “helper” is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior.” (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: “…she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
bullet Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term “rule” to describe Adam's role over Eve: “…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The Living Bible uses the term “master”. The Modern Language Bible uses “dominate”. By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
bullet A man could marry (literally “become the master of the woman”) as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
bullet Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: “Sarai said unto Abram…I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
bullet Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can “know” them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: “I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.” Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. More details on Genesis 19.
bullet Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: “…Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
bullet In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. “And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.” The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
bullet Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
bullet Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.” It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
bullet Exodus 21:2-4: “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing….If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.” A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
bullet Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
bullet Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property – his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
bullet Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act – not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: “…he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
bullet Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.”
Below is the position posited by Rachel S no less than 4 years ago on the blog ALAS http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/0…
“The tension between feminism, cultural relativism, and ethnocentrism is real. Cultural relativism asserts that each culture should be judged by it’s own norms, and ethnocentrism is the idea that one’s own culture is normal, natural, and superior. On the one hand, as a feminist, I would like to be able to criticize the oppression of women everywhere, not just in my own culture, and cultural relativism in it’s most extreme form would not allow me to do that. On the other hand, I don’t want to be ethnocentric by ignoring the patriarchy in my own culture because it is so much more normalized to me. Beyond cultural relativism and ethnocentrism, I also need to be conscientious that as an American woman (and especially an American white woman) my ability to shape feminist discourse and ideology is much greater because of the current hegemonic position of the US. I think it is very important for women in a position like mine to avoid a patronizing “let’s help those poor women who can’t help themselves and save them from their evil patriarchal men” sort of attitude.”
Isn't it interesting how some people are willing to rationalize the restricting of other peoples freedoms but never their own? We're talking some pretty transparent hypocrisy here folks. Try to remember what the whole idea was behind this country in the first place: Freedom from all forms of oppression would be a good starting point. As Silhouette pointed out, many women are more comfortable wearing their traditional garb. They don't see it as symbolic oppression in the least. Again, to learn more about that angle read the articles I linked to in my earlier post. All you have to lose is a little stereotyping.
Okay, yes, I'm aware of these and many more, even in the New Testament. There's also a law in Old Testament where, if a woman claims to be raped in the country, he should be stoned and she would be held blameless, but if she claims to be raped in the city, they both should be stoned, because there were no glass windows so it's assumed that people would hear her scream.
I realize that I was taught a little differently: that Jesus angered people when he failed to follow the then-current norms by talking to women and accepting them as part of his most trusted followers. I would still argue that current teachings treat them much more as equals, especially against the more secular teachings that are, as you noted, turning them back into the sex objects and advertising attention-getters of the past.
First off, I'm glad our govenment is based on the USC and not anyone's religious tome. As for womens rights, that push came from a secular place – meaning a reading of the USC, as well as from the courage and vision of women, not from Jesus. If anything, religions (including christianity) have generally treated women as second class citizens. Various religious interpretations aside, I just go by the record, history, actual events, which is to say actions, not lip or print service.
prof
“I'm also a little curious as to what Christian teachings that you two find suppressive to women.”
Fundamentalist teaching is that women are just servants to their husbands. That's as good a place to start as any.
seriously prof, you really don't know the extent of male oriented BS that's taken place in the name of Christianity? i was being nice when I only mentioned the priest thing, Mary Magdalene certainly took a religious beating thanks to the pope that said she was a prostitute. The old testament laws concerning women who comitted adultery – “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,” funny, the men didn't have the same penalty, stoning, that women did.
Your question kind of demonstrates the point of this whole piece. Everybody sees weirdness in other people's customs but no one sees the idiosyncrasies of their own beliefs.
If you wish to see the obvious problem demonstrated by personal beliefs, just consider that women must wear tops on their bathing suits and men do not. For all the worry about religious values, one must realize that our culture is just an amalgam of fairly arbitrary beliefs.
The Puritans would have all condemned us for celebrating Christmas, and the American Indians would like to know why our God allowed us to steal their land.
This is why personal beliefs must remain personal. The minute you start applying your standards to other people, all hell breaks loose.
Take care of the beam in your own eye before you concern yourself with the mote in the other guy's eye.
I'm always curious why it seems unacceptable to be racist – we stopped doing business with South Africa over their racist policies but it's fine to accept sexism and continue to do business with countries and cultures that do not provide equal rights for women. That's acceptable because it's their culture? Why wasn't it acceptable when being racist was the culture we were condemning.
Well, I've let left you all to run wild for a while and it's certainly been an enlightening conversation. Let's see if there are some shorter bullet points which at least most of us could agree upon.
1. There are people who are offended by a religious group forcing women to wear the burqa. There are women who willingly wear them even here in the USA because they accept it as part of their faith. (I know a couple here in New York, so if you can't agree to that, I suppose you don't need to stay in this conversation.)
2. There are people who are offended by certain aspects of the Jewish purity laws. There are others who willingly follow them.
3. There are people who are offended that the Catholic Church won't let women be priests and choose to convert to a Protestant faith in response. (Well documented.) Others are not bothered.
4. If you suggest that anyone might ever be offended by anything in any of the various sects of the Jewish faith, somebody will immediately suggest you are an antisemite who hates the JOOOOOOOS.
I can not find any instances of *federal* (emphasis important) laws against nudity. They all seem to be state and local, though fairly ubiquitous. There are federal laws against sex crimes which involve public nudity, but not against the lack of garb itself.
With this in mind, is it safe to assume that questions remain as to whether or not the federal government even has the authority to regulate the clothing people wear in the form of saying that nobody can wear a burqa in public, even if the woman in question chooses to do so as an aspect of how she follows her faith?
Having read and reread Jazz's entire post, I'm having a difficult time understanding why you are characterizing any of Jazz's remarks as antisemitic. Even after having read you comments further down in the comment thread, I'm still having difficulty how you could arrive at such a conclusion.
Calling someone's comments anti-semitic is a pretty serious accusation. Perhaps you meant a different word to convey your criticism?
This is the problematic passage:
“There isn’t much of a political price to pay today if you condemn the practices of Muslims. By contrast, however, questioning some of the practices of Jews which are clearly offensive to women isn’t quite as safe, is it?”
The truth is quite different. It has become quite common for people to self-censor rather than questioning Islamic practices, since doing so often leads to death threats and murder attempts and, yes, political consequence. I would point to Theo van Gho, Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, and the whole Danish Cartoon controversy as examples. In contrast, we see Walt and Meersheimer and Jimmy Carter and many others suffering no adverse consequences at all for making accusations against Jews and Judaism, although they have been quick to claim that such accusations are courageous.
The suggestion that Jews have such political power as to cause harm in return for slights is a very old antisemitic claim, seen most notably in the fraudulent Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Now, I do not know Jazz well enough to know whether his statement was out of ignorance or casual antisemitism, but the effect is the same.
As I have now pointed out twice, the antisemitism is not in suggestions that anyone might be offended at Jewish practices. In fact, non religious Jews are probably more overt in their claims of offense than anyone else. The problem is in your claim that doing so is politically risky, while there is no risk in bashing Islamic practices.
But I would certainly agree with your last point – even if banning the burqa in public were attempted as a matter of federal policy, it would hinge on the government demonstrating an overriding public interest. That's rather the point under discussion here.
“is it safe to assume that questions remain as to whether or not the federal government even has the authority to regulate the clothing people wear”
Correct, the discussion went pretty far afield from the question of legislation. Speaking ex cathedra (inside joke to preclude the anti-religious here from understanding) , I will say the federal government has no authority to outlaw styles of personal clothing (assuming that clothing does not come with explosive powder sewn in the crotch).
“who exactly are the preferred peoples?”
You are totally going the wrong direction in this, Spirasol. The “preferred” people are those with AMERICAN culture (whatever that is). That includes our laws, customs, traditions, food, and just about everything else. What is different with Muslims immigration versus, say, Irish immigration in the early 20th Century is motive. Most ethnic groups came here for a better life, to flee famine, persecution, or disease. The Muslims, on the other hand, come (typically) from wealthier families, faced no religious persecution, and had better than average lives in their home nations. Why, then, would they go to France, England, America, etc?
One answer can be found in several Islamic “fahtwahs” calling for the expansion of Islam via immigration. They've made no attempt to hide this. This isn't me prejudging Muslims who want to come to America, nor is it any form of anti-semitism. In fact, there is much within the Muslim culture that is amazing and wonderful. But we cannot leave our borders open to such a subversive attack.
Who are the preferred peoples?
Americans are.
I welcome our changing culture. The more the merrier. But we must be cautious when the religious leaders that have sent many of these people here are sworn enemies of America and everything we stand for.
“fundamentalist Christians have no great recent history of using violence to enforce their rules, either.”
Glad you said “recent”. The crusades and the Inquisition are not our best examples of how Christians ought to live.
” It is not that this woman runs from the arms of one into the other. It is that she is caught between and betwixt the prevailing oppressive cultures. Burka or bikini — cover it all up or take it all off- both as objects of control and oppression”
Outstanding! Absolutely the best post on this subject yet, Spirasol! Well done!
“many women are more comfortable wearing their traditional garb. They don't see it as symbolic oppression in the least. “
I don't see this as a problem. Most 1st generation immigrants continual their cultural traditions, clothing, and even language. Their children, however, TYPICALLY adopt American clothing, language, etc. Burkas aren't the problem. The problem is restricting immigration, where no one ethnic group can make too much impact at one time, therby allowing assimilation to take place.
Essentially, the lines between culture, law, and religion tend to get blurred, and I think that's a large part of the confusion here. Many people commit acts of oppression in the name of religion, not because the religious law or writings are inherently oppressive, but because people like to feel they are justified. Well, king Henry IIX decided to change the religion, but most everyone else just works with what's there.
Like many areas, I wish people (both sexes) would dress modestly, but I am resistant to laws that would try to enforce any one standard, especially federal law.
I have to agree with Jazz on his above points. The only reasonable way to treat the burqa in this country is to assume that it's being worn voluntarily for religious purposes and respect it as such unless the woman complains of abuse. No new laws needed, thank you.
“There are people who are offended that the Catholic Church won't let women be priests and choose to convert to a Protestant faith in response.”
Hate to be the 400 pound gorilla in the room, but…..Protestants don't allow it either, or at least they're not “supposed” to. Rules of leadership are quite explicit in the New Testament.
An interesting discussion.
While my head tells me that the burqua is merely a visible garment of religious devotion, my heart tells me it is dangerous and demeaning to dismiss it's true function: to make women invisible, not individuals and certainly not equal members of society.
France has the right of it. In the West, we cannot tolerate the lowering of half of the human race to mobile shrouds. Indeed, every society denegrates women to varying degrees. But I would rather live in this society, where I am at least given the right to combat that denegration, to BE, to protest, than to live in a society in which I am nothing more than a breeding cow.
The Middle Eastern Islamic philosophy is what we should combat–culture not religion. That part of the world will continue to fester in squalor, hatred and ignorance until women are given their rightful place in the world.
When Jews, and Mormons and the Amish begin participating in honor killings or similar behavior, perhaps then they may be relevant to this discussion. Until then, dragging them into this is the worst kind of misdirection.
ffuzzy
“The problem is in your claim that doing so is politically risky, while there is no risk in bashing Islamic practices.
“
I suggest you type out your definition of what “antisemitism” is. I know of no definition that implies the need of fear of reprisal as part of the definition. You, however, clearly seem to have a specific formula for sniffing out the Jew haters.
Be careful, it's like the guy who went to the shrink and said, “Doc, I've got a rel problem.”
The shrink gave him a ink blot test to help isolate where the problem lay.
First inkblot – “that's 2 people having sex.”
2nd inkblot – “that's 2 people having sex.”
3rd inkblot – “that's 2 people having sex.”
Doctor says, “sir you do have a problem.”
“Me,” the guy says, “you're the one with the dirty pictures.”
not all criticism is racially or even culturally based.
Which could also be a sign of blending the culture of times with the religion. Certainly there were several women listed among the leadership, including female names among the church leaders, church founders, and apostles. As I pointed out before, several women were considered part of Jesus' “inner circle”. Can we read those laws while ignoring the examples?
Of the first four ministers of my current church, back around 1901, three of them were women.
Well put. (Except for the top requirement for men: the strapless kind slips all the time.)
After all, we made it through the polyester age and are still alive to tell the story.”
And, how sad it is that so many polyesters gave up their lives so that women could look sheik.
Not to be too cynical here, but there's a lot profit in the sexist countries but not a lot of profit in the racist ones.
Welcome, by the way.
The woman’s “form” is that way for a reason, dummies.
[You don’t need to know the reason]–say religious demigods.
No need to reason, religion can control you better than you can. If you don’t obey, they’ll find a way to screw you over or in some cases, KILL YOU! Which used to be in ALL CASES, but thanks to brave scientific reasoning people, secular laws have been created that religion reluctantly but absolutely MUST obey. Thank Science for it!
Religion needs to go away. Study objective truth, study science not superstition stupidity.
The short ridiculous history of the Mormons is murder and slaughter.
This cannot be denied.
However, all religion has a plank in that ship.
Duck, I have a comforter that needs stuffing. Do you mind if I pluck a few feathers?