Friday, April 20, 2012

women must bear the responsibility for men's virtue as well as their own

Women as the Keepers of Virtue, Men as the Victims:

'via Blog this'

(Who wants THAT responsibility?)

One of the most interesting - or perhaps disturbing - things about male attitudes towards women in Islam is the assumption that women must bear the responsibility for men's virtue as well as their own. Women must not only keep themselves pure, but they must not act to cause men to have impure thoughts - that's why women must remain so covered. Christians had similar attitudes not long ago and so have other cultures. What does this say about social attitudes towards women?
In an article entitled "Man's Moral Machinery," the King's Businessran a letter [in the 1920s] from "a young college man" who described himself as mentally unclean because "the women I know will not let me be clean." The "biggest stumbling block is the manner in which our women folks clothe themselves":
"What is a fellow going to do? We don't go around looking for these things, but we cannot help seeing them. No matter how much one may respect a girl, it is an effort for him to keep his thoughts from straying when she exposes too much of her body. ... Why should they go on dressing in a way to aggravate the sex tendency? The young man who is trying his utmost to keep himself clean for the sake of the woman he will marry ... has trouble enough without his sisters throwing a monkey wrench into his moral machinery."
It's interesting just how similar this is to what a young Muslim man might say today when exposed to Western women in a Western setting. Rather than assuming the responsibility of maintaining a proper attitude towards others around him, regardless of how they dress, this man blames those around him. He regards himself as enjoying the freedom to dress as he sees fit, but he can't accord others the same freedom when it threatens to make him "impure."
The imposition of greater restrictions on women, explained as necessary due to their inability to control themselves and their negative effect on men, means women become second-class citizens subject to the whims of first-class citizens. Men want to be completely free, but also want to limit the freedom of women according to the men's own internal, subject reactions to how women choose to exercise their freedom.
In this way, those who are having the negative thoughts and who end up enforcing repression against others become the victims of their sordid little morality play. As victims, they assume the authority to take control and see to it that no more evil happens again - not by controlling themselves, but by controlling others. The point of this control is to limit the ability of women to dress how they please and express themselves how they please - limitations not placed similarly on men.

Clothing as a Foundation for Political Rights

Strange as it may seem, the right to wear slacks or short skirts is actually part of the right of women to be fully equal members of society. Why? Because it represents their ability to be seen on their own terms, rather than allowing men to determine how women should be viewed. Furthermore, it demonstrates that women no more need to be controlled by men than men need to be controlled by others. It places men and women on an equal plane while in public.
Traditional religions blame women for the way men behave and thus tell women that it's their moral obligation and/or divinely ordained duty to cover up in order to protect men from their own reactions. Just as with the story of Adam and Eve, women are laden with the entire responsibility for whatever happens - if only she didn't dress so provocatively and behave in such a provocative manner, then she wouldn't have been subjected to the calls, the harassment, or even in some cases the rape.
Without the right to move around in public spaces just as freely as men - a right which includes being able to dress as freely as men - how can a group be said to have any rights at all? Almost all of your rights are exercised in a public manner, so restricting one's ability to move through public spaces is also a way to restrict all other rights - and perhaps make them worthless in practice. Women don't truly have a right to have careers outside the home, to vote, and so forth if the ability to exercise those rights requires covering up and being made more anonymous than men.

Clothing & Social Identity

The idea hat "clothes make the man" doesn't just refer to how others see you, but also how you see yourself. Wearing comfortable clothing can make you feel mentally relaxed; wearing good clothing can make you feel more professional; wearing a uniform can make you feel like part of a larger whole while subsuming a personal identity. It's little wonder that men would use clothing to aid in their control of women.
It's a "power thing" when women are forced to wear burqas because their ability to move equally and freely through society has been eliminated. It's a power thing when women cover up even a bit more than they would want because now they are self-conscious and directing their personal behavior according to the expected reactions of men around them. How often do men behave in such a manner?
And, if women simply dress however they wish, men get to experience the power of denigrating them publicly, establishing a primitive sort of hierarchy in which men as the bullies can think of themselves as being higher up the ladder than the women being bullied. There really aren't any good options here because almost any reaction merely validates the bullies' behavior while dressing to avoid their behavior merely validates how traditional religions portray the role and place of women in society.

No comments:

Post a Comment