Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't know what the discussion was about, but you might find it interesting that a lot of feminist research has been conducted in these countries where women are attaining legal rights they didn't have before.
I personally know two women, one from my uni and one from Standford, who conducted ethnographies on middle eastern women and their views on how they are reconciling their traditional modes of life with their newly achieved legal statuses (although I forget which countries they went to). anyway, what I've learned from them and a couple professors who study this kind of thing, is that they are finding women, when given the choice, want to wear their burkhas as a symbol of resistance against what they view as western imperialism (or I should say encroachment on their tradtitional values -- since imperialism might be too abrasive for some people and mask the logic of such women's responses).
|
I've read about this too and discussed it as well. There is a certain logic to it that I find interesting and in addition to a "orientalized" cultural element, there is a also a gender dynamic at work.
There is a part of me that finds burkhas to be "oppressive" or what-not and I wonder if that's my western sense or effect of my whole-sale consumption of media perception. But in discussion, an interesting point was brought up. That burkhas were in fact, liberating, simply because they obscured the sexualized context of femininity and in a sense, leveled the playing field.
For example, in the west, revealing clothing can be argued as having a objectification or sexualizing effect whereas the burkha places the woman on a non-sexualized level due to the covering of all body parts.
However, there can also be an arguement that the burkha renders the woman in a lesser role as it makes them uniform and labeled.
Crap, I want to write more but I have to get ready for the holiday right now. I will do my best to explain my position later.