Women and Culture

Sahar

I recently read an article by Alison M. Jaggar called Saving Amina: Global Justice for Women and Intercultural Dialogue.  The article is a great overview of the pressing issue on how to reconcile difference within feminist discourse and the current strategies employed in dealing with non-western women’s oppression.

Jaggar assesses the influential feminist approaches of Susan Moller Okin and Martha Nussbaum on women and culture. In her famous essay ‘Why Multiculturalism is Bad for Women’, Okin provides a defense of why we should not allow cultural rights to minority groups which have illiberal practices that curtail individual rights-especially that of women members. Jaggar also discusses Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach which is an attempt to counter cultural relativism which she claims legitimises cultural practices that are unjust to women. Her capabilities approach, she claims,  are based on universal values and in response to the charge that these values aren’t in fact universal, she invokes the concept of ‘adaptive preferences’–preferences and judgements which are ‘corrupted’ or ‘mistaken’ as a result of unjust social circumstances. In other words, such women suffer from false consciousness.

Both Okin’s and Nussbaum’s analyses do not address the question: How is it that when women are oppressed in Western countries we do not understand their oppression as cultural? Why is it that a case of domestic violence in a Muslim family is almost always framed as Islamic? The discrepancy is disturbing.

Being familiar with both Okin and Nussbaum’s work and finding flaws in the paradigm they operate in, I was not surprised to see Jaggar highlight problems within their analyses.  Both Okin and Nussbaum demonstrate the shortcomings of mainstream Western feminist discourse in that they rely on orientalist understandings of non-Western cultures. It is automatically assumed that non-Western cultures are illiberal. Most disturbingly, Jaggar points out how the oppression these women experience is understood as a manifestation of culture.  This ‘culture blaming’ has resulted in an imperialistic tendency where Western culture is represented as superior and liberating for women, whereas non-western culture simply isn’t.  Further, non-western cultures are assumed to be hermetically sealed and static.

This brings me to Jaggar’s principal point: analyses of women’s experiences in non-western countries need to go beyond ‘culture blaming’ (sati, FGC) and recognise the role of Western colonialism and its impact on non-Western culture, especially in poor countries.

Jaggar comes dangerously close to painting Islamic fundamentalism and revivalism in reactionary terms alone and not recognizing the intrinsic reality that Islam is a powerful belief system in many Muslim societies, and not just one which is merely adopted because the other choice was Western. However, she rightly points out that the plight of women in poorer countries is not the moral responsibility of local cultures alone but Western colonial intervention and current economic policies. Jaggar proposes we need to take a step back and evaluate the economic and political system that globally governs countries. She uses the example of increasing militarism in poorer countries has meant more money is spent on military than on basic necessities of the population. This, coupled with poverty maintained by neo-liberal policies, has ensured an uncertain and dangerous environment for women. (and children). Instead, Okin and Nussbaum’s feminism focuses on the cultural factors responsible for the disadvantages women in many non-Western societies find themselves in.

Jaggar’s theses, ‘culture blaming, ‘autonomy of culture’ and ‘the west is best’ are underlined in the case of Amina Lawal. Lawal was a Nigerian woman who had a child out of wedlock. She was convicted of adultery by a Sharia court and sentenced to death. In response, Western feminist groups began an international campaign to ’save’ Amina from what was perceived to be Islamic culture.  As Jaggar rightly points out, these campaigns end up doing the opposite of what they set out to achieve. Because of the political and historical role of colonialism, local groups and governments see these campaigns as a threat to national sovereignty or an encroachment on their culture by the west. Furthermore, the implication of the campaign to save Lawal became a moral of ‘white sisters’ obligated to save the poor and downtrodden ‘third world woman’. The activism of Nigerian women’s groups was completely undermined and ignored.

Jaggar concludes, “Rather than simply blaming Amina Lawal’s culture, we should begin by taking our own feet off her neck”.  Indeed, Western feminists ought to first deal with their own backyard and campaign against Western governments and institutions which exacerbate the poverty of women and foment reactionary politics in poorer countries.  The latter’s world is already drowning in the destruction brought on from years of colonialism; wavering from one war to the next and whose economic status is depended upon the whims of Western driven neo-liberalism

Muslimah of the Week: Khadija

This week’s Muslimah of the Week is Khadija bint Khuwaylid.  She was a woman of nobility and great wealth.  Her father was a merchant, and after his death she successfully managed the family business and maintained the family’s fortune.  Being a successful business woman, she used to dispatch goods to Syria. Historians write her caravan was equal to the general caravans of Quraysh. She hired men and paid them on the basis of partnership. She even hired Muhammad (pbuh), who was 25 years old at the time, to work for her even though he had little experience in business.  To her surprise, Muhammad (pbuh) made a hefty profit for her.

Khadija was a widow who was twice married but lost both her husbands to war. Despite her refusal to marry again and the fact that Muhammad( pbuh) was 15 years younger than her, she was so impressed by Muhammad (pbuh) business skills, she asked him to marry her.  Yes, a Muslim woman proposed to a man, and not any man, but a man who soon after was revealed as the Prophet of Islam.  Further, the man was younger than her. In today’s context, the idea of a woman, regardless of her being a Muslim or not, proposing to a man strikes us as strange.  It’s even rarer when the woman is so much older than him. We generally expect men to do the proposing because it fits ideal romantic scenarios but disturbingly implying an insecurity in women who need the tick of approval by a man; not the other way around.

What’s interesting about her was she did not believe in nor worshipped idols, which was the practice of the time. However, she was the first Muslim (After the Prophet (pbuh) of course). During the first revelations, she saw the genuineness of the Prophet’s experience when he thought he was going crazy.

Khadija earned the titles of Ameera-Quraish (Princess of Quraish) and al-Tahira (The Pure One), and Khdija al-Kubra (Khadija The Great). Narrators speak very highly of her character. We are told she used to feed and clothe the poor, and provide for the marriage of those of her kin who lacked the means to marry.

Khadija’s life provides a counter claim to Western and even some Muslim assumptions of Muslim women’s role being limited to the domestic context.

 

 

Why feminists need to start lovin’ the hijab

So I was reading the news this morning and I chanced upon this. It seems the hijab has set off a national controversy in Norway. It all started when a Muslim woman petitioned to wear her hijab with her police uniform. And from there things pretty much went downhill when another Muslim woman set fire to a hijab on International Women’s Day. Oh, don’t you just love these gliberal feminists! They are quick to flutter their hankies on behalf of feminism, but rather see a Muslim woman’s brains splattered to the walls of her house than see her trapped in a hijab!

Anyway, my annoyance this morning was short-lived for I read another article. Gauri van Gulik from Human Rights Watch explains why attacking hijab-wearing women are counterproductive to the cause of gender equality. Here are a few choice snippets worth repeating:

“Some feminists seek these bans in the name of helping Muslim women, whom they often see as uniformly oppressed. Anti-immigration politicians seek these policies because they see people who refuse to “fit in” as a threat to western society. But these arguments are detrimental both to women’s rights and to peaceful integration, and the women most likely to be affected are rarely consulted.”

“Some supporters of these bans maintain that wearing a headscarf is inherently demeaning. They contend that a headscarf-wearing teacher is unable to promote gender equality and freedom of choice among her students. But these well-meaning arguments run counter to the very tenet of gender equality: women’s ability to make decisions about their lives without interference from the state or others.”

“The argument to ban the headscarf in the name of “cultural integration,” is at times expressed as open hostility toward non-white, or non-Judeo-Christian, immigrants.”

“But banning the headscarf is the worst possible policy response to the need to bring people into mainstream society. Our research showed that the ban serves to exclude, rather than include.”

“Gender equality and peaceful integration should be prime objectives for anyone concerned with public policy. These objectives are not met by excluding women who make a choice to cover their hair.”

Naturally I now want to bake van Gulik a cake.

-F

Muslimah of the Week

Sahar

Muslim women are in need of role models. Many of us look to women from Western backgrounds to seek inspiration from. Islam’s history is riddled with examples of admirable women. We either don’t hear about these women today ’cause Muslims are too busy telling women how to dress appropriately; or they are represented to us in a way that appeals to patriarchal expectations.

Each week, Nuseiba is going to feature a woman from Islam’s history, and hopefully will briefly shed light on her character and contributions to the community she lived in. We feature these women in the hope that Muslim women of today are reassured that women from our history were not just identified as the mother, daughter or the wife of some known man. They made great contributions.  For our non-Muslim readers, it will also help to dispel common misconceptions that Muslim women were, and continue to be, submissive and oppressed.


I begin with Aisha bint Abu Bakr as- Siddiq ibn Abi Quhafa who was the third wife of the Prophet. Much of what we know of Aisha is usually clouded in controversy—either by Shia and Sunni’s squabbling over her status; or by Western criticism of her age during the time she consummated her marriage to the Prophet. I won’t dwell on these issues and rather stress some points that are missed in these debates.

In reference to the Qur’an’s description in 33: 6, Aisha is often known as the ‘Mother of believers’. She was a learned woman who was known for her impressive intelligence and memory which enabled her to record how the Prophet lived. Aisha is one of Islam’s early scholars who explained its history and tradition. She often taught men because she had impressive knowledge of Arabic poetry, genealogy and Islamic ethics. Muslims after Mohammad’s death went to her for guidance and leadership. The Prophet had once said that it is through Aisha we should learn ‘half our religion’.

2210 ahadith are attributed to Aisha, many of which are considered authentic references. This is why some scholars and historians have credited her with establishing up to half of  Sharia law, and why many Muslim jurists hold her in high regard.

Aisha was also a military leader. We often get caught up in the battle of Camel and what it meant for Shia and Sunni but fail to see what else it demonstrated. A woman had mobilized and led an army. We are often impressed and even surprised by females in the army, but this was a woman who was leading an entire army in battle. That’s unthinkable even today!

Thus, Aisha serves as a role model for women’s political, scholarly and legal participation in Muslim communities.

Thanks, but no thanks, ‘sister’

F

I recently read two very interesting articles. First article wonders why today’s women are feeling utterly useless and provides several insights I thought were interesting. It seems despite having a flourishing career, a doting husband and cute-as-hell kids, and being a well-traveled jet-setter, women still feel unworthy and can’t help but compare themselves with other similarly successful women. It appears “having it all” is no longer enough to keep a woman happy.

The second article is excellent. I love an honest feminist and Zoe Lewis is exactly that. She bravely admits that she “should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking”. I’m sure her article has earned the ire of fellow feminists everywhere, which is a shame really because they are missing out on an important realization: “I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams – to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.” God, the raw honesty! Doesn’t it make you wanna bake her a cake or something?

Reading these two articles made me realize two things:

1. Women can’t be friends under capitalism.
It appears that women are quite the obedient little capitalists: “You want it all, you can have it all!” Who cares about sisterhood and solidarity when there are better things on offer… like shoes, gossip mags, rampant rabbits that lasts all night long unlike men, chick flicks, clothes-induced credit card debt and a new hair style to compliment it, and CHOCOLATE! You go, girl! The world is completely yours for the taking…

It’s tragic. There’s no neutrality. No real affection. No real sisterhood. You either bitch about other women or you fuck them. And what’s worse is the constant judgment… What is she wearing? She’s a total slut! She doesn’t deserve that promotion even if she’s totally qualified! Stop talking to my boyfriend! Who does she think she is?… and my personal favourite is from the movie ‘Spanglish’, when Tea Leoni says to her new Spanish maid “You are GORGEOUS!”, her mother adds, “She didn’t mean that as a compliment, she meant it as an accusation.” It’s never-ending and it’s everywhere.

2. Apart from a vagina, women of colour feminists don’t have anything in common with white feminists.
I don’t particularly care for white feminists. What they have on offer is nothing more than a feminist-brand that’s predominantly consumed by white women… and women of colour who have forgotten the colour they were born with. Thanks, but no thank, ‘sister’. White Feminism is devoid of any real substance precisely because its ideology is essentially capitalist, and therefore patriarchal. It gives the illusion of choice to its consumer, but there is no real choice available. This point is a recurring theme in the coffee-bland neurosis that is Sex & the City. Through out the series we see Carrie’s perpetual indecision regarding shoes (“Should I buy this shoe or that one…they are both nice…) and the men in her life (“Is he the one?”). And Samantha’s depart from men into the arms of her lesbian lover is described as “It’s like ten dicks!” … Yes, you can indeed have it all because you are, uh, worth it, but it’s better to be in the anxiety of choice than to actually choose.

In the meantime, while we wait for white feminists to make up their mind, sisterhood meets its demise and the lack of solidarity further divides common interests and weakens the unity of all women, whatever the colour and religion. And on a radio somewhere Katie Perry sings a lyrics heavy with accusation: You change your mind/Like a girl changes clothes/Yeah you, PMS/Like a bitch/I would know/Cause you’re hot then you’re cold/You’re yes then you’re no/You’re in then you’re out/You’re up then you’re down/You’re wrong when it’s right/It’s black and it’s white/We fight, we break up/We kiss, we make up…

What it Means to be Feminine

Sahar

For a female, growing up in an Afghan household is not always a walk in the park. One has to deal with conservative expectations of what a woman is, how she should behave and how she must present herself in her community. Expectations of women’s behaviour aren’t exactly limited to Afghanis or Muslim households, but also apply in the broader Western society we live in. With minor variations, there are particular qualities that signify ‘feminine’ and are attributable to women.

I’ve always been considered quite a ‘masculine’ girl. During high school, I was mouthy, had a bit of an attitude and was quite opinionated. I found myself cringing or getting defensive in response to anyone who would point out that I was not behaving like a woman. As a result, I developed a bit of a complex. What is interesting though, it was not necessarily my appearance that triggered these responses but my behaviour. “Why don’t you ever act like a woman Sahar”? Male friends always keep telling me. “You know, you’d make a great woman if you just get over your penis envy”. In my university years, I remember Muslim male friends getting together talking about politics and telling me to “shut up and look pretty”. Politics was male domain and my presence was more of a display, an exhibition.

These suggestions typify the responses from many men I’ve known over the years. It was not until much later that I started to understand such remarks.

Although my appearance identifies me as a woman, and to some men, even an attractive one (go figure). I have long hair, dress well and generally take care of my appearance. There are aspects of my personality that for many men do not fit aptly with my appearance. So there really isn’t anything ‘butch’ about my appearance. I am, however, politically active, confrontational at times, opinionated, ambitious, and independent. I know how to defend myself; in other words, I’m competent. These qualities aren’t normally identified with women and aren’t recognised as ‘feminine’. So being ‘feminine’ means not only to look ‘feminine’ but behave in a particular way as well. Being ‘feminine’ usually connotes lacking an intelligent opinion, dependent, passive/timid, incompetent, and so on. If you lack these qualities, the signifiers of ‘femininity’, you’re either deemed unattractive or just ‘masculine’

It is not that I don’t think there is an intrinsic difference in men and women, and that it does not translate into different types of behaviour—I’m increasingly realizing that difference does indeed exist. Aside from biological differences, there are certain inherent behavioral differences. Within feminist circles, that’s a controversial statement to make. I agree with feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan who argues that behavioural differences in men and women do exist. Socialization cannot simply explain them. However, I contest the exploitation of our differences in society. Certain types of qualities are only attributed to men, and these qualities are often valued more in society. That is where the socialisation role has its affect.

‘Masculine’ attributes, like independence, competitive drive, ambition, being learned are considered the ‘tools’ in order to get ahead. These qualities we identify with those who are successful; and success is often considered a male domain. This is why many women feel they need to practically mimic men’s behaviour to have any credibility in positions of power. Women’s qualities are meant to be complementary to this and not as valued. In fact, the limited attributes that define femininity are perceived pejoratively. Femininity conjures up weakness, submission, coyness. In other words, women are socialized and identified by a more subordinate femininity.

A subordinate femininity is not the example set by the first Muslim women in our tradition. They provide us with an example of what it is to be a woman. We have the example of Nuseiba who the blog is named after. She fought in battles and was known for her courage and bravery. The qualities that she possessed and was praised for, even by the Prophet himself, are qualities we associate with men. Then there is Aisha, one of the wives of the Prophet, who was a highly learned woman and narrated over 2000 hadith. The Prophet’s first wife, Khadija, was a confident business woman who even proposed to the Prophet. These are examples of women who weren’t caught up in the superficial experiences of what is considered to be ‘womanhood’, but showed strength, intelligence, leadership and a type of femininity that was valued in the community. History seems to have been re-written, and the image of these women seems to have been moulded into something different. Today, the prevailing image of what is truly feminine does not go beyond the domestic.

Ignoring this tradition, it is interesting to see how Muslim men are intimidated by women who are ambitious, successful and confident. Initially, they find them attractive or curious, but this attraction eventuates into either shunning them or moulding them into what they believe a woman should be like.

Islam’s female figures remind us that there is more to femininity than what is commonly understood. While women do have distinctive qualities, for instance, being more in tune with human emotion and compassionate, which enables better ethics; however, they can also be strong, independent, assertive, confident and successful. That is what femininity is all about. It’s time we stop seeing femininity in submissive terms.

So rather than the reactionary feminine attributes that are always presented in pink, giggly, shopaholic, too emotionally dependent, and timid forms, it’ll be nice to go beyond these and recognize qualities in women that fosters an understanding of their genuine contribution to society. Perhaps then maybe men won’t find it so perplexing to encounter a woman who prioritises developing her mind and contributing to her community than say, shopping and getting dolled up.

White Femininity

Sahar

I have started to notice a disturbing trend among Asian women (especially Middle Eastern); many of whom have chosen to replace their dark locks with streaks of blonde. I’m perturbed by this trend for a number of reasons; one being, majority of them don’t really look good with lighter hair, and many in fact look artificial and plastic. There aren’t many universal norms I would embrace without hesitation, but one I can vouch for is that blonde hair and black eye brows is a transgression; yet that doesn’t stop the peroxide queens.

This post isn’t about  berating these women, okay; maybe it is a little– only because I’ve seen a ridiculous number of photos taken in Middle Eastern weddings in which Barbie doll-esque women pose in provocative ways; dark skin unflatteringly clashing with blonde. But my main focus is to highlight the political forces behind this trend and its implications.

I make the comparison to a Barbie doll not only for pejorative purposes, but because of its political association. Barbie conjures up the image of a flaxen-haired, perfect-body beauty. Whether she is real or not, Barbie embodies a particular ideal. While growing up, I had my share of Barbie dolls and looking back now, I always remember how the blonder her hair, the more beautiful she appeared. There was of course the occasional black or dark-haired doll, but she was always secondary, never catching our full attention. Always in the background. The idea of blonde being an ideal has been instilled in many of us, especially those of us of a non-Anglo/European background. This is perhaps because society has always been fixated with the idea of blondes. In ancient history, the most prominent female figures of Greek mythology were blonde: Helen of Troy and Aphrodite. According to Joanna Pitmann, in Elizabethan times, women would use pigeon dung and powdered silver to bleach their hair. In the recent past, there was Marilyn Monroe and Farah Fawcett.

In today’s media we have of course playboy king or lecher I should say, Hugh Hefner and his scantily clad peroxide ‘bunnies’. These women are still considered beauties and bring home the adage blondes have more fun. Then we have famous blondes like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears who have nothing much to offer other than filling up magazine space. Additionally, celebrities who are of African,Latino or Middle Eastern extraction–Beyonce Knowles, Keisha Cole, Jennifer Lopez , Tyra Banks and Shakira have opted to dye their hair blonde or close to it which is quite telling. In fact, there was controversy over a L’Oreal ad where Beyonce was looking remarkably white; her hair blonde, straightened and skin tone lightened. The transformation was disturbing.

What we can take from these examples is the reality that blonde is still considered the standard of beauty. Hair has always been a signifier of beauty, status and femininity but it’s a type of femininity women are meant to adhere to. In the capitalist market place where woman is produced, the blonde is the highest currency. She defines femininity; a white femininity. Women of colour are aware of how their appearance is considered less attractive in the marketplace. Of course there will be the occasional fashion trend which exploits their ‘exotic’ features, but this is never lasting and devoid of any real recognition. One must yield to a type of blonde in order to look more ‘white’ and more importantly, ‘recognisable’ as a woman.

Many African American women would be familiar with the stories of their past where African women were encouraged to straighten their hair in order to resemble the hair of white American women. Not only was lighter hair considered a signifier of beauty, but so was straightened hair. Thus, women and men grew afros as an act of defiance. Today, for many female African American celebrities, growing a dark afro could mean tampering with their career or on a broader scale, hindering their access to power and acceptance.

This access to power is conditional because of the broader message being communicated: The Fanonian turn white or disappear. Jessica Shminn agrees, and points out that the popularity of blondes connotes a racial domination in which “blondeness is coded as white, and the hegemony of the blonde ideal corresponds with the continuing domination of whites”.

So what first appears to be a trivial trend is essentially tied up with power, and operates under a disturbing rationale. To return to our Asian sisters who claim they ‘choose’ to dye their hair blonde because it is ‘different’; is it really difference that appeals to them or is this trend a symptom of a broader issue of a historically instilled inferiority complex in those mimicking a racial ideal?