burkhas and such

[sapiens]

I'm not sure if this is still done (or if it makes for a good thread). What do people think about women in the military being forced to cover their faces in some countries (in deference to the culture, but ignoring the rights of the woman)? If you have an opinion, what is your rationale?

[The_Dude]

i completely agree w/ it.

we're there, so we should obey their laws.

but i also think the laws are just a bunch of religious bull shit, but that doesnt matter. the country is a sovereign nation and any foreign nations visiting should follow local laws.

[Macheath]

Well, it seems like this is just one of the many "rights" that are lost upon joining the military. I mean, they have to wear uniforms too.

As to whether they should defer to the country's culture, well, if the military judges that wearing veils will help win hearts and minds (potentially stopping the recruitment of guerillas), then its a good thing from a strategic standpoint.

If a civilan female journalist is told to wear the veil or not get the interview, then she can either defer or ring up her boss to explain why they won't have a story.

[hiredgun]

While I don't agree with the laws themselves, that's a sacrifice that you make when you join the military. We must obey local customs if our army is stationed in a foreign country.

[splck]

When in Rome, do as the Roman's do.

[Dragonlich]

Well, it depends... if women from these Muslim countries agree to wear some western-style clothes when they come here, Western women should wear Burkhas when they go there. Simple.

Oh wait, I forgot: we're the only ones that have to change.

[i8one2]

Go Dragonlich, these are our militay personel, doing military work on behave of the host nation, however, if you are off duty a certain amount of respect for the host countries culture would be fine.. When I was in korea, I always bowed to my host when we met and I entered their home, and always, always took off my shoes... again same difference.

[The_Dude]

we shouldnt be there in the first place

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Multi-cultural has a hard time working anywhere. Maybe less hard in places where people know more languages - definitely harder in invaded and (partially) subjugated "sovereign nations". I really wonder about "our" motives although I don't wonder about our fearless leader's. He smirks entirely too much.

[kurty[B]]

Originally Posted by The_Dude

we shouldnt be there in the first place

We shouldn't be where? In a country where women are required to wear burkhas? If you mean we shouldn't be there as in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that our military women are not required to wear burkhas there. But we are also stationed in other countries. Kuwait, Saudi, Emirates, and the list goes on. I do not know what countries might require women to wear burkhas, but if it is part of our agreement with that country for women to dress like thus for us to be there than I feel we should respect it. Our service members are not allowed to have alcohol over "there" (there being the Middle East) because of our agreement with those governments.

So, which "there" are you talking about?

[ColonelSpecial]

I would say yes, for protection. I don't understand much about Muslim culture but in Muslim culture in Muslim countries, women can be hurt because of not wearing a scarf or burka. I don't see any reason to be hurt because of it.

[connyosis]

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Well, it depends... if women from these Muslim countries agree to wear some western-style clothes when they come here, Western women should wear Burkhas when they go there. Simple.

Oh wait, I forgot: we're the only ones that have to change.

Well, western countries usually don't have rules about what women should wear do they? (And if they do, how is that any better?) So no, there is no reason women from muslim countries should be forced to wear western type clothing when in a western country.

[ratbastid]

Wow, modern?, you're digging up some crusty old threads today.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Sorry, I'm newbie. Can you be more specific or helpful? Thanks.
I mean, I see what you mean, but what brought me to this place was a "discussion" about burkhas I was having with my dearly beloved (and overboard feminist) wife. Does this address your concern?

[Sticky]

I think that the example clouds the ability to come to an answer.
There is a snesitivity to this example.

let's try anothe example and see if we can come to a solution.

In the U.S. (in places that I know anyway) you can spit on the street. In Singapore it is illegal to spit on the street.

Should U.S. servicemen and women be allowed to spit on the street in Singapore? (this assumes that there is no agreement between the U.S. and Singapore)
No, they should be subject to the laws of the land like anyone else.

If they want they can spit on the street but that is a choice they make and they have to accept the consequences.




So back the burkah example.
If the law of the land is that women must wear burkhas and there is no agreement between the U.S. and the other land that servicewomen don't have to where them then the U.S. servicewomen are subject to the laws of the land.
The servicewomen can choose not to wear one but she must be willing to accept the consequences.
- possibility being disciplined by the service for breaking local laws.
- possibility of being charged by the locale according to their laws.



In both cases the U.S. service can decide to use its influence to try to get the serviceman/servicewoman out of the trouble, but if there is no prior agreement then that is after the fact.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

Sorry, I'm newbie. Can you be more specific or helpful? Thanks.
I mean, I see what you mean, but what brought me to this place was a "discussion" about burkhas I was having with my dearly beloved (and overboard feminist) wife. Does this address your concern?

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).

[jorgelito]

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.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Does anybody think guys in the burkha places might get too excited sometimes?
I think it's really gross to spit in the street.
Should I move or just go to another thread?

[Intense1]

There is a difference in what someone is required to do/not do (i.e. wear a burkha off base) and what is prudent to do/not do. If the US is truly trying to "win the hearts and minds" of those countries in which we have military stationed, then it is incumbent upon us to do the "little things".

And female military personnel wearing burkhas when they are off duty and off base is not too much to ask, if it will win some hearts and minds. Or at the least, give extremists one less reason to try and blow up the aforementioned military personnel.

Being a woman myself and having to wear salwarkurta (also known as punjabies - the long dress like top with matching pants and a head scarf around the neck) when I spent four months in Nepal was not a chore for me, as it attracted less attention to the fact that my hair is medium brown, my eyes are green, and my face is white, unlike most every other woman on the street. And since I was there as a part of a Christian youth workers' training school, every little bit of anonymity I could get in this very Hindu kingdom helped.