A new crackdown on even minor alterations of the hijab is taking place in Iran. Guards are appearing at the gates of universities. They turn away insufficiently hidden women.
“I believe Hijab is an invisible political tool for the stagnant, patriarchal politics… a view that gives priority to woman’s sexuality over her other human dimensions,” [a student said] in a telephone interview from Tehran.
“Undoubtedly, the totalitarian system’s patronising way of thinking encourages people to deny their bodies, wear unkempt clothes, and gravitate toward sadness, and it has no room for human health and development. This thinking cannot be effective in reducing abnormal behaviour in the society,” she said.
June 10th, 2010 at 8:02PM
Not one to shrink from controversy-
Although I might go along with the burkha as objectionable – and even bought a “Burka for Barbie” at my Unitarian Church – I am getting a little tired of marginal cases. To be specific, the hijab.
I have had two students in class who were wearers of the hijab. One was in a biomaterials course – she was a graduate student in vetrinary medicine. I was giving a class in which I passed around a penile prosthesis and was worried about embarrassing her, so I spoke to her before class about whether she would be offended about this. No problem.
Anothe woman was a PhD student in medicinal chemistry. She did an outstanding job in my class and on her prelim oral. It was very easy to talk to her and her hijab left plenty of her face uncovered so that we could speak as human beings.
We have many beautiful Somali women on our campus – Minnesota – who wear the hijab. Many Somalis in our local Target are wearer’s of the hijab.
Sorry, UD. I just don’t get your antipathy to the hijab. Burkha, maybe…
Best,
Bill
June 10th, 2010 at 8:37PM
No antipathy to the hijab, Bill. Antipathy to governments keeping women out of university if they don’t wear it.
June 11th, 2010 at 6:27PM
“I believe Hijab is an invisible political tool for the stagnant, patriarchal politics… a view that gives priority to woman’s sexuality over her other human dimensions,”
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it certainly seems to be damning the hijab independent of political or social oppression?
June 11th, 2010 at 8:33PM
The comment is inelegant, but the part I think worth attending to is the idea that total or almost total covering up of a woman “gives priority to woman’s sexuality over her other human dimensions.”
June 11th, 2010 at 9:07PM
I simply don’t buy it, UD.
The Sister Mary Sunshines of my youth were every bit as much covered up as the wearer’s of a hijab.
I taught at a college where the president wore the old nun’s outfit. She had obtained a PhD in chemistry in the lab of a Nobel Prize winner. Others went to places like Berkeley for graduate school.
I don’t buy that the nun’s outfits gave priority to their sexuality over other human dimensions. By an odd coincidence I had a conversation with a young pharmacist the other day, who wore a hijab. She brought up the example of the nuns when I asked her how she felt about wearing a hijab.
June 11th, 2010 at 9:09PM
that should be wearers.