Freedom for Women—Veiled in a Burkha or Revealed in a Bikini?

Natalie Behring-Chisholm/Stringer/Getty Images

This week French President Sarkozy called for a ban to be placed on Muslim women who choose to express their faith by observing hijab and donning a burkha.  The French have been the most vocal and active in the arena of attacking religious freedom.  In 2004 they outlawed the use of headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps in their state schools.  The French defend their law which is designed to strictly adhere to their ideas of separation of church and state, but French liberalism is coming dangerously close to ending religious freedom.  Even worse it seems to be spreading to other parts of Europe.  Italy, Turkey, three Belgian towns and seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves.  While speaking in Cairo President Obama said it clearly, “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” Members of the French Parliament, from both the left and right called the burkha an “oppressive dress that breaches individual freedoms”.

Individual freedoms?  According to whom?  There are many in the world who would consider Western women oppressed because they feel compelled to don a style of dress that is made to entice and attract men.  Indeed, upon hearing the new French policy the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said, “Unfortunately, there is a pressure on women to dress skimpily in the West.”  I agree.

Perhaps the burkha could provide greater freedom than a skimpy bikini ever could.  It can be said that the burkha is a tyrannical and repressive piece of clothing forced on the women who wear it, but the same could be said of a bikini. Both the burkha and the bikini are worn to indulge the whims of men in the society they represent.  The burkha is worn to mask and conceal that which belongs or could belong to the men, and the bikini is worn to expose and display the same.  Both articles of clothing find their impetus in their effort to control and subjugate women.

Women long to adopt a carefree and liberating expression in their choice of clothing.  There are few women that can wear a bikini and feel comfortable in it.  Even supermodels lament because they feel their thighs or behinds are more ample than they should be.  Donning a large black covering in the morning could provide a liberation few Western women have experienced.  To arrive at work, school, or social occasion without first applying makeup, dressing the hair, and fussing over clothing would be a dream come true!

One need only to read the comments and remarks made about Hilary Clinton’s appearance to long for this type of freedom.  During her run for the democratic presidential nomination, what Mrs. Clinton said was never as important, as how she was dressed when she said it.  The criticism made about Mrs. Clinton’s hair, makeup, body type, and clothing took precedence over what she was saying.  Her legs were compared to tree trunks, her clothes called frumpy, and her hair and makeup was the topic of many water cooler gatherings.  In the same vein, such discussions did not take place about Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi when they were Prime Ministers of their countries.  The political pundits debated their political agendas and viewpoints, not their choice of clothing or makeup.  Perhaps this was because the males in their countries were conditioned to view respectable women in a non-sexual way, and therefore these women were taken more seriously than Hilary Clinton.

Men will be unable to view women as equal—as long as women continue to exercise their right to seduce men, and therefore objectify themselves.  If women will dress in a manner that does not engage a man’s libido and instead engages his mind, they will be able to experience true freedom and liberation.  Both women and men should be disturbed by this fact: the American voting public is unable to elect a woman even as a vice-president.  While India, in 1966 and Pakistan, in 1988—countries thought by the West to have little equality for women, had already elected women as Prime Ministers!

Shame, Shame, Shame!

Michael J. Totten, October 2007

Now that the war effort has shifted in focus to Afghanistan, it gives us a chance to stand back and look at Iraq through a different lens.  When American troops first landed in Iraq, I remember the accounts about the poor conditions of the Iraqi soldiers and the suffering of the people.  At first glance it seemed that the Iraqi people were quite joyful that they had been liberated from Saddam Hussein’s rule.  I watched the American soldiers on Iraqi soil receive a warm welcome.  By the time the first elections were over and the now iconic photos of women waving their purple dyed fingers began circulating, I noticed a subtle shift in the attitude of Iraqi sentiment—decidedly negative.Today, there is no mistake; Iraqis seem resentful, bitter and downright angry at the presence of Americans in their homeland.  Rather than offer an over simplified or easy answer that throws around ideas like “stealing oil” or “imperialism” I suggest the real answer regarding the Iraqi sentiment is something much deeper.When Iraq gained freedom, there was an essential ingredient missing—It was the chance to win independence for themselves.  When the noose around the necks of the pre-revolutionary Americans, grew so tight they could take no more, they fought tyranny with their own strength.  General George Washington crossed the Delaware River on Christmas in 1776, and his men were demoralized, hungry and barely alive.  Words by Thomas Paine boosted morale, “These are times that try men’s souls…Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph,” and inspired the historical victory.When India won their independence from the British, it was because the people of India decided to end the British exploitation for once and for all.  Gandhi’s call for the British to “Quit India” rallied pride and a sense of dignity in every Indian.  Each citizen had a chance to contribute to their own freedom–spinning cotton, making salt, or joining the march to boycott British goods.In the same way, Frenchmen while carrying a tremendous national debt and broken under the burden of over taxation, (sounds familiar!) achieved their own revolution which led to the establishment of their New Constitution.But the people of Iraq were denied this.  They did not win their own freedom.  Instead it was given to them, like a gift with a bow.  There is no doubt that the people of Iraq were oppressed by Saddam Hussein.  But it had not yet reached ignition point.  This moment may have been a year or even ten years away, but when Saddam was overthrown by the Americans, the noose around the collective Iraqi neck had not yet reached the moment of suffocation.  They were denied a chance to gather in the streets, circulate revolutionary papers, choose a leader and fight to overthrow an oppressive regime.  When Saddam was brought to justice, the power behind the accomplishment was not organically generated, but came from an outside source.  As many others who had felt tyranny before them, the people of Iraq at the time of their own choosing, would have overthrown Saddam Hussein in their own way and most importantly, with their own might.

The memory of the Iraqi people in relation to their independence is not one of ownership.   Since their independence was given to them and they did not earn it for themselves, their momentary happiness, viewed retrospectively, has turned into shame.  In many ways the global community asks Iraq to be grateful for a present they did not ask for and were not ready to receive.  The Iraqis are resentful toward America because America is the source of their shame.

Politically, the independence of Iraq seems a success, but the collective consciousness of the people of Iraq has been deeply bruised.  Shame is not easily erased and it will take time before Iraq can raise their eyes and look eye to eye at the rest of the world once more.