http://www.feministe.us/blog/

Oh, good. That isn’t a stereotypical racist statement. No, no. Not at all.

Uh…not if the minority is dark-skinned and can exploit the guilt of western liberals to get its way by screaming ‘racism’ and ‘bigotrty.’

As for these women being feminist — first, yeah, it’s true, many of these women are not feminists. So what? If a woman is not feminist she doesn’t deserve rights? But beyond that, there are a significant number of Islamic Feminists who would adamently disagree with you. But seeing their point of view would mean looking at the world from outside the Western/Colonialist framework.

The first part of your post was a response to something I said. Was this paragraph also intended to be a response to me? Because I never commented on anything like this.

Which part was ignorant and bigotted? I would actually be interested to hear, as far as I can see I was looking at this from my pov so ignorance is not an appropriate term, indeed Western culture does assimilate, yoghurt does have culture and English is a germanic language with a latin based vocabulary. Ohh and Meltwater does move glaciers (or rather speeds up their movement really).

AS for bigotted I am interested, I did not express hatred or condemnation of a group, I have not shouted down other views, indeed I have been trying to make the point that this has multiple view points so this issue has been blown out of all proportion based on a comment which from its speaker’s pov was harmless and designed to aid the situation.

Men afaik don’t dictate what women can wear, I have never seen a man force a woman to wear, or not wear clothing of their choice in the UK. We have public decency laws but those apply to both sexes. Women have a choice as to what to wear, and often a greater choice than men. Some of their options might be considered “sexy”, “provocative” etc however thats the problem you have when your views interact with those of other people.

I would disagree that asking a person to do something and giving them an out with no consequences is the same as forcing them into a particular choice. Also there is a difference between yelling at someone in the street and asking politely, the first is human nature and is exemplified by children. People pick on whats different / interesting, its human nature and its what people do. People look at overweight people and think “fat”, they look at skinny people and think “eat a sammich”, they look at x and think y… its what people do. Some people voice this, others don”t however it is not the same as having a polite conversation. For example, people might yell “lose weight”, or a doctor might say “have you considered losing weight”, one can be classed as an insult (if you deign to give it that much interest) while the other is a polite enquiry.

Yeah western culture does try and assimilate others, its what made Britain the country it is today, English itself is an assimilation, its a germanic language with a latin vocabulary. I think what you ideally want is a society that is composed of separate communities that interact in a small way and appear cohesive… what we have instead is a melting pot of opinions, prejudices and views. There is a “British Culture” (though I have heard it put that a yoghurt has more culture), when you become British you adopt part of that and add to it. Sure there are people who don’t, and there are those that resist the changes however for the most part Western society is inclusive and does try to alter itself to support other views however it must remember (and appear) to still support the majority, society is a glacier and change is meltwater, the latter may move the glacier but it does so slowly.

[i]many of these women are not feminists. So what? If a woman is not feminist she doesn’t deserve rights?[/i]

Seriously WTF? When did anyone in this comments thread say Women don’t deserve rights? People are fighting for equality (as iirc Feminists are) then she has the right to wear the veil, he has the right to ask her to remove it and the pair compromise somewhere they both feel comfortable… thats how society works, compromise.

As for looking outside a Western/ Colonialist PoV well shucks, I thought this occurred in a Western country, under Western Laws between a Western man and a Western woman (not an immigrant => British born => British Citizen => British => Western). We might be looking at this wrongly however you have to consider that Britain has a population of 60Million, 1.5 Million are Muslim (roughly). Now I may be wrong but you cannot make laws to suit a minority over the rights of the majority. Here we have a minority (and a minority within a minority) making a huge hoo ha over a simple request offered by a partiall deaf minister to make it easier to understand the points being made… Mountains, mole hills and some conversion comes to mind.

I have lived in the Middle East (Kuwait, Katar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), Westerners don’t always fit in, they don’t always take the local customs to heart but in general they do try and respect the local customs and not upset too many people (very few bikini’s for example walking down the high street, or indeed pig based foods). Now this may be a rough generalisation but the minority does need to work with the majority to find a compromise both are happy with.

As a socialist feminist I defend anyone’s right to practice their religion and wear whatever the hell they like. But I find it pretty disturbing that few feminists in this country have spoken a word about the sexist ideology underpinning the veil in the aftermath of Straw’s comments, and that much of the left have taken a “defend the veil” stance wholly uncritical of it.

Not to mention the fact that those socialists who go on about a women’s right to wear what she likes in Britain, with regard to Muslim women veiling, are the same people who never have a thing to say about the right of women to wear what they like in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq. They’re the socialists who are gung-ho behind the Islamist “resistance” in Iraq, and who, on “anti-imperialist” grounds will never criticise the Iranian regime.

First, why does it have to be on the basis of being required by a specific religion? If someone says “It’s against my spiritual beliefs to have people look upon my face”, why does this need validation by some organized religion to be legitimate? Do people not have the right to express their individual spiritual beliefs?

Second, it seems to me that you’re projecting stereotypes on the black ski mask, but for the sake of argument let’s change it from a ski mask to some other face covering. It could be a black silk handkerchief (along the lines that Michael Jackson has taken to wearing) along with a black silk do-rag. Would it be discrimination for a politician to say “I’m not comfortable in meeting with you unless you take that off?”

And nobody thinks that this is blatant discrimination? Based on your size, no less, which is obviously not something under your control?

Well, that’s a very effective way of communicating your wish to have a valuable discussion with folks who have different views than your own.

•••

My ski mask analaogy is by no means idiotic. It’s a very good question. Nor is it racist. etc. Don’t make me barf. I think it is sick and presumptious for people to use accustions of “racism” whenever they cannot answer a question. Bean refuses to address it because s/he cannot. I notice that Maia has also not answered my question about her own personal response to the veil so I invite anyone else to:

“So two questions for you:
1. Have you ever been in the immediate presence of a veiled woman?
2. What was your reaction?”

(And when I wrote “veiled” I meant the most extreme version with at most the eyes visble.)

•••

I realized my politics are far to the right of the people here but I would ask you to get over your ownprejudice and fear and deal directly with my questions.

Now personally I see this as silly, I do not resort to violence unless threatened, however my physical presence does make people worry. So to minimise the inconvenience of others I have to make allowances. Similarly when its cold I like to wear my polar buff (great name for a neck / face covering btw!) and hat, of course this basically means that I am completely faceless to the world and rather threatening (or rather imposing). Again I have to make allowances like taking these down/off before entering buildings / around policemen.

The thing about society is that we live together, in an ideal world everyone would always do the right thing, we would be judged based on who we are not what we wear, how we act in public etc. However society is not ideal, we have to minimise our differences to fit into the mould that society requires to function. Think of a drunken friday/ saturday night… frankly the drunk fighting and sex appauls me, however society says its alright and these people have a right to get drunk. However I can expect these people to be sober on Monday and doing their job correctly.

The veil is a non-western society device, it does impede communication and does create distance (which it is designed to do). While we have to be accomodating to some extent of cultures we must also expect that people will conform to the minimum standards we ask of our society (so veilless security photos for example) and also that people will not react badly if they encounter something outside of their sphere of confidence. Jack Straw prefers not to have the veil as western society does not tend to use them, he asked the women to come within his circle, they voluntarily left theirs making communication easier. Life is about compromises not about everyone getting their own way 100% of the time, or even 95% of the time.

* Chris’ point that veils impede communication.
* My point about the necessity to adapt to host cultures.
* My point about the moral imbecility of equating Straw’s preference to see faces with the history of real racism.
* Amba’s point about the niqab not being part of any historical tradition.
* SM’s point about the eradication of individuality.

And probably some others.

The SAS, among other military special forces groups, wear ski masks. The IRA used to wear them all the time. Admittedly, those groups don’t go around meeting with politicians very often.

So forget about the real groups that do use ski masks, and just engage the freakin’ hypothetical. What if some member of a ski-mask-advocating group wanted to meet with the Home Secretary? Ought he meet with them? Is he being bigoted if he declines? Should the voters punish him?

Do, in other words, your fine principles hold up to the general case? Or just to the cases where privileged-victim groups are having their oxes gored?