THE NSS IS BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND THAT ISLAM IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN CATHOLICISM...
As the niqab controversy shows, not all women are feminists
Posted: Wed, 18 Sep 2013
by Anne Marie Waters
The legend that is Julie Bindel (who, I must confess, I
have a teeny bit of a crush on) has this morning produced another
brilliant article on the silence of so-called "feminists" with regard to
the misogynist monstrosity known as the niqab.
I must however pick up on one point and, while I don't dispute it, I
think it is in need of some addition — and that is of course the matter
of "choice". This is all we ever hear: "but I wear it by choice". Julie
has rightly pointed out the absurdity of the notion that this is a
genuine choice given the pressure both from community and from religious
doctrine itself. But I have a question — even if it is a choice, so
what? I choose to round up every niqab and burka on the planet and bury
them in the deepest pit under the deepest ocean in the world — will this
choice be honoured? Of course not, so what makes these women's choices
so much more important than mine?
Judge Murphy, who
should be ashamed that he capitulated to the bullying of one woman and
turned open justice (not to mention one law for all) on its head, said
there is an elephant in the court-room and he's right. But here's
another elephant — women can be misogynist woman-haters too and we must
not forget this. In fact, women's misogyny is far more dangerous because
it legitimises the virgin/whore dichotomy and gives it a credibility
that it simply wouldn't have if it stemmed from the mind of a man. In
short, just because a woman chooses the niqab does not make the niqab ok
— it remains a tool of subjugation and suppression, and it would
continue to be just that even if every woman in the world supported it.
On
Monday, I appeared on Sky news to discuss the stupid and dangerous
legal precedent that had just been set. My fellow guest was a fully
veiled woman who confidently argued that if women can wear skimpy
clothes, they too can wear the niqab. Though of course I couldn't see
her face, she spat out her contempt for mini-skirts and those who wear
them with a deafening ferocity. I can't help but think that if pushed
even slightly further, she could well be found to hold the despicable
view that any woman who isn't covered in a black cloak is a whore and a
slut who deserves every bit of sexual harassment (or rape) that she's
got coming to her. Is this view ok because it comes from a woman? No, if
anything it's worse.
In 'The Handmaid's Tale' —
which I read only recently and wondered whether Margaret Atwood realised
she was describing a present-day Islamic state — the masterful author
portrays the futuristic nightmare of a Christian
fundamentalist-dominated USA where women enjoy one of two roles: you
guessed it, a virgin or a whore. The virgins are shrouded from head to
toe and made all but invisible, while the whores wear next-to-nothing
and live in a brothel with the sole function of providing sexual
pleasure to any man who seeks it. Atwood so brilliantly depicts the role
of women themselves in helping to bring this situation about. A small
group of select females are given a morsel of so-called power
(attractive in a world where they are otherwise powerless) and in
exchange, they collude in the vile suppression of their sisters;
legitimising, sanitising, and empowering misogyny so that it looks
slightly less misogynistic. If a woman says it's ok, then is must be ok.
Right?
That is exactly what is happening here. The
bullies who demanded that the security concerns of a Birmingham College
be brushed aside, and centuries of British judicial common-sense
dismissed, are colluding in the oppression of other women and deserve to
be held to account for doing so. It's their choice after all, so they
choose the condemnation that accompanies it.
Another
couple of points that need to be made are these. This debate is not
about clothing, but visibility and invisibility. The state has no right
to tell people what to wear, but it does have a right to demand that all
are held to equal standards of behaviour and if the rest of us are
unable to cover our faces, why is one group so special? It's not.
Second
is the most ridiculous argument that the burqa/niqab are somehow
comparable to high heels or make-up! Oh please, they're getting
desperate now. I don't believe that high heels deem a woman heinous and
unseeable. And women in high heels are still visible to a jury as far as
I'm aware.
Let me make this clear — I love women.
The bravest, strongest, wisest, and most compassionate people in my life
are women. It is precisely for this reason that I hold something close
to contempt for those women who connive against the rest of us by
empowering and elevating devices designed to control us, and our
sexuality. Equally, some of the bravest and most noble fighters for
women (and for human rights generally) are, and always have been, men.
Anyone
who stands up for the right of women to be treated as autonomous human
beings is my ally, and those who oppose it are my enemy — this is the
case irrespective of what genitals they possess.
It
is worth remembering also that there were many women who opposed
universal suffrage — where would we be if we honoured the choice of
those women?
Please, you so-called feminists, please keep this in mind
the next time your politically correct cowardice prompts you to betray
everything you claim to believe in.
Anne Marie Waters is the spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign and council member of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire