Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bhurkas and oppression

  1. Aug 10, 2009 #1

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not sure how close this is skirting to being banned, but we'll see. Please, let's stay on-topic.

    We are seeing more and more middle-eastern garb here in the West. I am particularly talking about the full-length covered outfits. I believe they're called burkhas or burkas or burqas, but I think there are similar outifts by different names. Please educate me.

    My wife sees these as a sign of oppression - as do many other people. Women are forced to wear these head-to-toe outfits - even in the heat of summer - as part of their religion (so as not to excite and entice the men).

    I'm not refuting whether is is viewed as a sign of oppression, I am questioning the generalization. And this is what I've come here to ask.

    It seems to me that it is quite possible that any - or even many - women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion, much like Jews wear a kippah/yarmulke or Amish wear their traditional garb. The key here hinges on not knowing whether an individual is being forced.

    If this is the case, then one cannot, by rights, look at any individual wearing a burkha and decide that they are being oppressed. In other words, there cannot be a crime in principle, there can only be a crime in circumstance.

    Just like it is unfair to look at porn mag models and decide they are "symbols" that are setting back the women's movement 20 years (this is actually objectifying her, labeling her, removing her individualism) - so it is unfair to objectifiy an individual as being any symbol of oppression without knowing their specific circumstance.

    What think? Are all women that wear bhurkas - even hypothetical women that might do so voluntarily - being oppressed? Is it generally accepted (outiside of the Mid-East) that the bhurka is a symbol of oppression anywhere it is found?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2009 #2
    I very rarely see women dressed like that around here. Usually they are elderly women and may as easily be eastern european and just wearing a head scarf.

    There is actually one young lady I see frequently dressed like this though. She works at a coffee house. I have no idea whether her family owns the store but either way she is regularly there out on her own at a job with no parental supervision. I get no impression that she is being forced or oppressed in any way.
     
  4. Aug 10, 2009 #3
    I think there can be some health risks involved namely vitamin D deficiency.
     
  5. Aug 10, 2009 #4

    ideasrule

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I disagree. Almost everybody in North Korea supports the government voluntarily, but that doesn't mean the North Korean government isn't oppressive; it simply means the citizens are brainwashed since birth to worship their leaders. Similarly, a large percentage of Islamic women (but not as large as the percentage of North Koreans who support the government) may willingly wear burqas, but that doesn't mean they are not being oppressed; it means they've been indoctrinated since birth by religion to accept the oppression.

    A similar thing happened with the Canadian, and presumably also American, women's rights movement. In many cases, women's rights advocates received less opposition from men like their fathers than from women, who censured them for violating tradition. It would be ridiculous to say those women weren't being repressed by society, despite being denied jobs, forbidden to vote, and having little property rights on the basis of nothing but their gender.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009
  6. Aug 10, 2009 #5

    ideasrule

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    It's also difficult to define the meaning of "voluntarily". Is the fear of ostracization enough to make a decision involuntary, for example? How about fear of being perceived as "weird"? How about hearing a story like this one:



    about a girl who was murdered for standing up to religious oppression?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  7. Aug 10, 2009 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Pun intended?
     
  8. Aug 10, 2009 #7

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The most insidious (and effective) kind of oppression is one that is voluntarily self-imposed.
     
  9. Aug 10, 2009 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion"

    And why do they, if they suddenly realize they forgot to buy tomatoes, go to the elaborate length of taking on the burka before going out, rather than just run over to the shop in their everyday clothes?

    Or, even worse, that they think they must wait to go out until a male guardian (say, a son) can accompany them to the store?
     
  10. Aug 10, 2009 #9
    I've seen the Burka worn a few times here in Toronto and I admit it bothers me. I'm not really sure why though.
    It's a bit like seeing a person with a ski mask on in the summer. I associate it with concealed identity.
     
  11. Aug 10, 2009 #10
    Same reason that some people will put on makeup or hair gel just to go to their local shop for 5 mins. It isn't something that is difficult to put on and it is a norm for them. I have to put on my jeans to go to the shops which is an inconvenience for me. I am sure I wouldn't get arrested for indecent exposure if I didn't but I do it because it is a norm for me.

    Most of the women (just as the men) are very religious. They all believe in someones interpretation of the Kuran and that if they disobey, they will burn for an eternity.
     
  12. Aug 10, 2009 #11
    Its never really bothered me at all. Sometimes I even find it somewhat attractive. I really like a pretty face. Admittedly though I never really feel like I could just strick up a conversation with a woman in a burqa.

    Most of the women I have seen in burqas seem to be going about their life like any other person. Occasionally I see the woman walking behind her husband and being submissive though I can't say that I have never seen this among women of other cultures aswell.
     
  13. Aug 10, 2009 #12

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  14. Aug 10, 2009 #13
  15. Aug 10, 2009 #14

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Perhaps so, but deciding that a particular person is being oppressed because they are brainwashed is, in itself, removing their human right to be treated as if they are a sound-minded, responsible person acting of their own accord.

    i.e. it seems to me, it is just as objectifying to judge someone without knowing them - even if you think you're helping them.
     
  16. Aug 10, 2009 #15
    You nailed it down.

    We have this law in France which forbids "ostensible" religious clothing in (some) public places (at least schools and official government buildings). The crucial concept is "ostensible". It seems to have a different meaning in English. In French it means "designed to show, whose purpose is to display a message". It's not an obvious concept to use in the public law. Besides, it seems to difficult to apply in the US altogether, because of the emphasis on the individual's freedom of speech. The emphasis in France compared to the US is more on the community (yeah, we're communists).

    I guess I should have read mgb_phys links before commenting.
     
  17. Aug 10, 2009 #16
    Does French law guarantee freedom of religion and if so, how does it mesh with the law which you mentioned?
     
  18. Aug 10, 2009 #17

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It doesn't ban them (religous symbols) in public, it bans them in public (ie state) schools, the French constitution has a very strong separation of church/state rule. They are permitted in private religious run schools, ironically a lot of Muslim students attend catholic schools where the headdress is allowed.

    The ban on religous symbols in schools was an attempt to improve racial harmony in schools and prevent a "them and us" mindset. Remember France like most of Europe has a much higher levels of immigrants than the US and a lot of them from muslim countries.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009
  19. Aug 10, 2009 #18
    Yes.
    Freedom of religion in France
    laicite in general and the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State in particular
    Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
    to the extent that the cult has not been officially classified in a "sectarian list". The "official list of sects" again is not easy to define. Mostly it has to be considered on a case by case basis by an official "Parliamentary Commission on Cults". The most important criteria for falling into the sect category are risks for the individual (mental or financial hazards) and challenge to the collective order.
    As long as it has not been classified as a "sectarian cult", that is to say harmful for yourself or the republic, you have personal freedom in your own system of belief. As a consequence of "laicite", "ostensible" religious display is forbidden in public and republican places, preventing interferences between different individual beliefs. This is precisely the warrant of freedom of religion from the point of view of "laicite".

    From the above articles in wiki you can contemplate the depth of the philosophical gap between US and French politics in this context.
     
  20. Aug 10, 2009 #19

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

    150px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg
     
  21. Aug 10, 2009 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A proponent of moral relativism would say that we cannot judge, but the reality is that we live in a moral absolutist world, whether people like it or not (and in my experience, people tend to be against moral absolutism at first blush).

    Simply put, the requirement that women cover themselves this way for the purpose of modesty is a direct, specific, and blatant form of oppression. It is a visible manifestation of the more abhorrent forms of oppression that permeate many islamic cultures.

    If it could be shown that there was no association between wearing a Bhurka and gender oppression, then a case could be made that this is just a harmless tradition or fashion statement. But I doubt that such statistics exist.
     
  22. Aug 10, 2009 #21

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But what if a given woman were wearing it voluntarily, because she chose to? The act of wearing it is the choice of the individual, not a symbol of some larger cause.
     
  23. Aug 10, 2009 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In my opinion, when you have such strong results-based evidence for the question, it isn't necessary to delve into the philosophy of the issue: it is what it is and you shouldn't let philosophy distract you from reality. This is the logic our supreme court uses when deciding on such issues. Ie, "separate but equal" could theoretically really be equal, but the reality is that it never is, so you outlaw it .

    There is no traditional or statistical reason to associate the wearing of a yarmulke or Amish dress with oppression so no reason to consider the issue. Whether a person is really wearing these things of their own free will, uninformed or informed, is irrelevant. Perhaps there is a better example where it isn't as clear, but these examples (a yarmulke and a bhurka) are on opposite extremes of the issue.
     
  24. Aug 10, 2009 #23

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The only way for one to prove they were wearing it voluntarily and for oppression to not be a factor is for the person to not be muslim and to have no muslim influence involved in the decision. For a muslim, the dress and the oppression cannot be divorced from each other because the dress is a component of the oppression.
     
  25. Aug 10, 2009 #24

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For reference, here is a list of countries and their male and female literacy rates: http://www.mrdowling.com/800literacyfemale.html [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  26. Aug 10, 2009 #25
    Actually it isn't for a 'muslim'. Burqa's are not required by Islam and are never mentioned in the Quran.

    I think it's a cultural type of oppression. Just as 'oppression' here in North America was the female in the kitchen doing everything the male needs to keep da bills coming in. This is just the 'popular' form of oppression in this part of the world.

    I would also just like to point out to Dave that most people in this thread are NOT considering the persons who live in say Canada who wear different garments of their own free accord. Regardless of those individuals existing the Burqa in MANY case is still a sign of oppression. However for your OP I don't think it is FAIR to assume that based upon seeing them dressed as such. I do believe most people do make this assumption though because they do not understand.

    As well, it is possible for a female to wear this without any other influence other than what she wants to do. I had a friend who decided on their own to wear a hijab (like a burqa no face veil). Her parents and family actually insisted that she didn't wear it because of how the public would view her. Of course she did it anyways. She told me the first question out of a lot of peoples mouths had to do with how she was being 'forced' into wearing it.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook