France fining women for driving while wearing burqas.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1044516_should-driving-while-wearing-burqas-be-illegal-how-about-helmets

Europe trying to outlaw burqas

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63F1QS20100416

Now not only Canada but Europe is trying to make it illegal for Afghan women to wear burqas in public.

Quebec to outlaw the niqab

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/785036--quebec-niqab-bill-would-make-muslim-women-unveil

Quebec Premier introduced legislation to outlaw Muslim women from wearing the niqab to give or receive a public service. This includes hospital visits, universities, drivers licenses, etc. He says that it is for security and communication purposes. The law does not ban other types of veils, just the one that covers everything but the eyes.

FGM vs abortion

“The Planting of Girls” is a documentary by Viola Shafik that explores the reasons, conditions and consequences of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision in Egypt. This practice has been outlawed in many countries, although still practiced in secret in a few. In the documentary there was a doctor who explained the biological and medical aspects of this practice, and also a woman from an NGO who educated local women on the basics of how their bodies and minds work in reference to sexual behavior.

Informing women about the risks and educating them about the real consequences of this historical practice is the best way to persuade them to end the practice. The philosopher Rousseau said that just because a practice has historical legacy does not make it right. Educating the women who were brought up in a culture that condones the practice and continue it might make them realize that they are the ones who have the power to stop it.

During the documentary it was mentioned that in places where FGM is illegal it is still done but under worse conditions. Instead of going to a hospital that has sterile equipment and a skilled doctor, girls are instead mutilated in dirty homes with tools that are not meant for medical purposes with a higher risk of infection and death. When this point was brought up it reminded me a lot of the abortion debate in the United States. In states where it is illegal abortions are still performed, however in a less safe and less clean environment, putting girls at even more risk.

I also noticed a correlation between FGM and abortion when it came to religion. In the U.S. religion used as a reason for abortion to be outlawed, while religion is used to justify FGM. While these practices might have a religious context or argument to them, a woman's health should be considered first.

While the practice of FGM is wrong, at least according to most of the Western world, it should also be considered that it is a cultural practice and that making it illegal could be the health and well being of girls at risk. They need to decide, as a culture, to end this horrific practice, imposing laws on them will not make it stop.

The Rights of a Married Woman in Iran

Divorce Iranian Style is a documentary that takes place in Iranian courthouse and shows the different situations that occur for couples trying to get a divorce. It brings up a lot of issues that most people in the West don’t consider when trying to get a divorce. Personal Status laws are a huge aspect of marriage and divorce in Iran. The judge told one woman whose husband was trying to divorce her that she needed to “make herself pretty at home” if she wanted to divorce to go through. Marriage contracts are also of the utmost importance when trying to make a case for divorce.

One of the women wanted a divorce from her husband and cited both an age difference that was discovered to be incompatible and that her husband wasn’t allowing her to study as was specified in their marriage contract as her reasons. However, as Sonbol states “Men and not women have the absolute right to abrogate a marriage at will.” It is also stated, though, that there are certain assumptions not included in a marriage contract that are socially and legally recognized, that the responsibility of a husband to financially support his wife. There is contention though over what is included in this financial support. Would the woman’s husband have to pay for her schooling that is in the contract? Either way she cannot divorce him without his consent, which in the documentary he is not willing to give.

The documentary also shows a woman who is losing custody of her children because she had gotten remarried. This is a strange phenomenon to me because in the United States courts have a tendency to side with the mother in custody battles. This mother also pointed out that her child’s grades were dropping when she was with her father. The judge commented on this but still the woman was not granted custody. I don’t agree with how custody is tied to marriage in this way. While I understand that the male-female dynamic in Iran is very much favoring the men, the children should never suffer. I think the issue of custody should be looked at as a completely separate entity and take the children’s lives, wants, needs and well being into account, not just the marriage and remarriage of the parents.

To Veil or Not to Veil

Muslim women and the practice of veiling has been a topic of discussion throughout history. Homa Hoodfar points out the first mention of women being veiled is in an Assyrian legal text in the thirteenth century B.C. Back in those times it was specified that “respectable” women were to be veiled. It was forbidden for prostitutes to do so. The veil was a sign of status.

This reminds me, in a way, of the way celebrities in modern times and in the Western world decide to cover themselves up. It is a sign of status still. And no one ever questions these people for not wanting to be seen.

It is also mentioned that veiling is not discussed directly in the Qur’an. Hoodfar says that there are two passages in the book that are often misinterpreted which is how women’s veiling may have come to be. One passage says that’s a woman’s bosom and jewelry should be covered, another says that women should wrap their robes close to their bodies to prevent being molested in public. Both verses have been taken to mean that all women should be completely covered.

Veiling is also discussed in an explanatory way. The article says that sometimes a veil can be worn to intensify beauty much like women in the West wear makeup. This point gets into the issue of how the West views the veil. Ahmed discusses the views of the Western world as well, and talks about Cromer and his hypocritical feminism in the saving of Muslim women. He is against them being veiled however he still doesn’t want them to be provided with equal educational opportunities, like to learn medicine for instance.

Muslim women, both Ahmed and Hoodfar point out, don’t appreciate being seen as charity cases or like they have to be saved from degradation. Many are comfortable in their culture and wear the veil out of respect for their culture and religion. They are more offended when Westerners who don’t understand intervene in an attempt to “help them.” The veil is a complex issue that is debated a lot between the Muslim world and the West.

A woman is not permitted to desire

In Rhoda Kanaaneh’s article she describes the life of a daughter in traditional Palestinian roles and how she loses her sense of self through them. She illustrates well how the female self is a commodity. Lina Khatib’s article discussed how the female self is used in film as nothing more than a tool for revenge or metaphor for injustice. Both of these articles have a large contrast to what we saw of “women’s chit chat.”

In the movie the audience is exposed to women and their point of view. Only the women are shown (at least in the sections shown in class). There are no men present. The camera focuses solely on one or more women of a family that designs furniture. This is very different that the views of women one would have after watching any of the films that Khatib spoke about. While the media are a little different, “Women’s Chit Chat” is a documentary while the movies Khatib spoke of were cinematic, there are very differing views being portrayed. The cinematic movies that were mentioned all contain women being raped either as an “instrument of indirect political oppression” or with women used as scapegoats in a revenge situation. Not speaking freely and driving alone.

The Chit Chat movie was also not at like the story Kanaaneh told about women’s place is society. I feel like the reading does not necessarily reflect the current conditions of the Middle East, but may be more accurate as a historical context. She did a really good job of showing her reader exactly how a daughter of a king, and a daughter in general felt about her self and her place.

Khatib says that Turkish culture defines a rapist as the “enemy of honour.” However, cinema has exploited this. During this description the cultures of women as objects and not having a self identity match very closely with the story Kanaaneh told. Kanaaneh said that women are allowed to elicit desire but not feel desire, while in the movies they are used as objects of desire or to prove they are not allowed to have desire. The two articles portrayed the violent and demeaning culture women face, especially when they want to have their own thoughts, opinions, responsibilities or desires. One of the women simply did not want to marry a man and was kidnapped and raped three times because he desired her and that was that.