Yeah, I agree.
If you have been taught to believe that your spouse determines what is and isn’t moral, and that if you were the wrong clothes you are an affront to an angry sky fairy, and are subject to punishment up to including torture (in this world or the next) and death it is. If you risk being shunned by or expelled from your family or community for not dressing to please your spouse it is.
By whom? To what degree? As a woman in the United States, I’m *expected *to wear a bra, to cover my breasts at the beach, to wear makeup in professional situations, to wear a fairly narrow range of uncomfortable shoes in pretty common situations . . . And I generally meet these expectations because to NOT meet them would, in some cases, make me extremely uncomfortable (i.e., no bra or shirt) or, in other cases (wearing shoes and makeup), would send a message of disrespect that I don’t want to send.
Am I oppressed?
Go back to **monstro’s **Daisy Dukes and Tube Tops. If I started wearing those to work, well, I’d be sent home as fast as I could walk in the door. And if I started wearing them everywhere, my family might not shun me, but they’d NEVER shut up about it, and I think they’d avoid being seen in public with me. Again, I think we can agree that criminal penalties for dress are odious, but that doesn’t mean everyone NOT breaking those laws is being oppressed. Again, in those same countries, a man wearing women’s clothing would face the same penalties. And we all agree that’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean that men that prefer men’s clothing are oppressed.
I think the line is somewhere after expressing negative feelings and somewhere before threatening divorce. I’m thinking it’s right about the point where there will be consequences beyond the spouse being displeased- whether the consequences are having to hear constant complaints where you comply just to shut him/her up, the silent treatment or a divorce. I am being oppressed when I don’t cut my hair because I want to avoid the way my husband will treat me if I do. That’s a very different situation than not cutting my hair out of my own desire to please him- and it will be almost impossible to distinguish between the two from the outside for any individual couple.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope, because I doubt anyone is going to really go to lengths to prevent you from living your life for not doing those things of which you’ve described.
If tomorrow you changed your mind on all those points and decided that you preferred not to wear a bra at all but feared social, professional, or legal consequences if you did what you wished, then I’d say that’s at least some kind of oppression.
I think the problem in this thread is the loaded term “oppression.” If someone will throw me in jail, beat on me, or impose certain restrictions on my freedom because of something I might want to do, then oppression may be the right word as it pertains to their actions regarding my conduct.
If someone thinks less of me, doesn’t want to be my friend, or pokes fun at me for doing something, then maybe they are wrong or are being an asshole, but “oppression” just doesn’t seem to fit that sort of action.
Suppose I wake up early and don’t have any creamer for my coffee. I run to the store with teeth unbrushed, hair uncombed, and walk into the store in flip flops and boxer shorts, balls half-way hanging out. People think I am a homeless guy or poke fun. Am I being oppressed? I think that is a bit much.
There comes a point where you are saying that others are not even allowed to have opinions unless their opinions are correct just like yours always are.
But is that attitude inherent to head-covering? Are all women who wear the hijab facing that level of pressure? Because I know women–and girls–who do, and it doesn’t seem to be the case.
And in any case, there’s plenty of Americans who’d feel utterly justified in beating a daughter for dressing like a slut. Less now, I think, than a generation ago, but when I was a girl, the idea that someone’s daddy would lay stripes on her for leaving the house like that was unremarkable–I mean, it was seen as extreme and distasteful, but not weird or degenerate.
Can you expand on this some more?
A couple of weeks ago, my coworker, boss, and I had to hold a public hearing. It is expected that officiants of a public hearing wear something a little spiffier than the usual business casual. My boss and I were wearing blazers, but my coworker showed up without one. My boss pointed it out in a semi-serious fashion, but as far as I know, my coworker wasn’t penalized.
Still, he bucked an expectation. I have no doubt in my mind that if the expectation is not met for the next public hearing, my coworker will hear about it from my boss again, and it won’t be “semi” serious this time.
Is my coworker “oppressed”? Or is he simply living in a society where one is expected to dress a certain way in certain contexts?
If being expected to conform to a standard is “oppressive”, then all of us are oppressed.
“Appropriate undergarments” is often buried in company dress codes. Western women absolutely face the risk of getting fired if they refuse to wear a bra.
My point is, I can’t possibly tell you if I would “really” prefer to give up wearing a bra because I am so steeped in the culture that says I should and because my own sense of modesty is shaped by that culture. And it seems hypocritical to point a finger at hijabs as a sign of oppression when I put on my over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder even if I am just getting gas–because I don’t want anyone think I’m low class.
Either one seems oppressive to me when backed up by an entire culture and society that heaps opprobrium on someone who dares to contravene its customs. And that doesn’t exclude muslim women who live in the US or other western countries, because many of them are still in an environment where their family and majority of people they know would contribute to the scorn should they violate these norms of dress. This is very similar to a person in an emotionally (and in some cases physically, since as MANY examples show, people are being hurt or even killed because of such things) abusive relationship. If you feel that such a person should simply leave and it’s on them if they don’t, then okay, that’s consistent with not viewing the clothing thing as an issue; they could just not do it, and leave.
This is why I view those who ‘choose’ to wear clothes of this nature - and it’s not restricted to muslims, for that matter, as I feel the same way about particularly strict dress norms by any group - as questionable in the freedom of their choice. If, after a generation or two of there being no significant pressure of that nature, a person wants to make the choice to wear such things, then I can fully believe it’s their choice and have no problem with it. But when the ‘choice’ is made with such strong weighting on one side of it by so many people around the person, I find it dubious.
But see, you’re exactly right here. This is exactly the same damn thing, except it’s just not as visible. I don’t single out the hijab or other muslim (or even Jewish Orthodox, etc) methods of dress as being the only ones worthy of scorn. I think it’s terrible even that our own society does these things. These things mentioned like wearing makeup or dressing in the opposite gender’s clothes (which men currently have it considerably worse than women on, actually; it’s pretty normal for women to wear pants and a shirt, but men have a lot more scorn if they wear skirts or dresses, etc.) or as Manda JO says about various little details, even ones that I rarely give much thought to, like the shoes thing. All of it is wrong, and all of it is oppressive to various degrees. Until these things are viewed no differently than the choice of whether to wear white or black clothes is (and shit, I imagine someone can probably come up with an example where people are scorned for wearing the wrong goddamn color) in our society, I’ll have a problem with it.
And it does mean that men that prefer men’s clothing are oppressed, just not necessarily in a way they notice. I am sure that some of the women who wear hijabs, or even the other completely-covering face-covering thing, actually want to, and would even if their society hadn’t pushed them into it. But they’re still being oppressed even if they don’t notice it, because…
Because this. Because if they changed their minds and decided not to, they would have to fear social, professional, or legal consequences.
Is ‘oppression’ too strong a word for the milder examples of this? Yeah, probably, but I’m not sure what word to use in its place for the mild examples, like monstro’s coworker that didn’t wear a blazer. But it is certainly more common to hear about actual, genuine violence connected to this sort of thing from muslims these days (and it’s more extreme than even in the past in our society; perhaps I’m wrong about this and there’s just as many examples from non-muslims, only I haven’t heard of them?). While it’s true that, as Manda JO points out, it used to be unremarkable to beat one’s daughter for dressing like a slut, it is now less acceptable - and in those places and areas where it is still acceptable, I have just as damn much scorn for it as for the muslims who do the same thing.
But in the end, keep in mind the comparison to someone in an abusive, especially *emotionally *abusive, relationship. Most of us think those people need help, whether they claim to or not. How do we separate the person that actually needs help from the person that doesn’t in a case like this?
I can join you on “legal”.
But I don’t think a guy is an oppressive bastard just because he doesn’t want to date a woman who lets her titties jiggle and flop all around when they’re out in public. That is not an attractive look necessarily. Losing suitors and friends is a social consequence that is painful, but is it oppressive? Since I don’t think anyone is entitled to friendship or romance, I don’t think so. But I do think people are entitled to dress however they want to dress without being thrown in prison, fined, or executed.
Several years ago, one of the uber bosses at my workplace sent out an email scolding employees for not adhering to the dress code. People were wearing spaghetti strap tank tops and flip flops. It was annoying finding this email in my inbox, but was it “oppressive”? Are we entitled to dress however we want to dress when we’re on the clock? No, we aren’t. Now, the braless thing is tricky because I can’t imagine HR scolding an employee for not wearing one. But should a big-bosomed braless employee expect to be promoted to high-profile positions that would put her in front of the camera? I don’t think so. Not any more than if she were a frumpy ragamuffin. If we accept that dress is a form of speech and that speech has consequences, then it follows that dress also has consequences. Including professional consequences. I’m okay with this, within reason.
African-American women and black women working in professional fields generally in America face intense pressure not to adopt natural hair styles. There are even reputable companies and entities—including the U.S. military—that actively discourage or prohibit black women’s wearing natural hair styles.
That means that they are required to adopt often expensive, uncomfortable, or even unhealthy practices to straighten their hair or cut their hair short and wear wigs.
It seems obvious to me that this is oppressive.
Perhaps we can all agree that the hijab is in no way uniquely oppressive? And that the issue of gendered standards in appearance and dress is knotty and nuanced? Because what is amazing to me is how certain Americans, generally conservative ones, will cluck their tongues and express pity and scorn for woman in hijabs, or super-conservative bathing suits, and hold them up as symbols of how oppressive Muslim cultures are, while actively perpetuating all sorts of similar gendered standards in our own society.
I will happily agree that conservatives are full of shit and hypocritical on this issue as much as they are full of shit and hypocritical on every other issue. Remember, the sole true conservative value is preservation of the hierarchy. Every position they take must be viewed through that lens.
At least women in the military are allowed to have SOME kind of hairstyle. They don’t allow the men to have more than a tiny bit of hair. I don’t even understand why this is the case. Either they both should be able to grow their hair out - within reason, I mean…not excessively so - or neither should be able to, in my (layman, civilian) opinion.
I agree it is oppressive because it is unfair to allow some people to wear natural hairstyles but not others. And we have a very ugly history in this country of white people regulating black women’s hair.
But do you think it would be oppressive to mandate that all employee’s hair be covered (as is often the case in the food industry)? Because it seems to me if you refuse to cover your hair and you’re fired, that doesn’t make you a victim of an oppressive system. That just makes you someone who doesn’t want to conform to the employee handbook. Most workplaces don’t require a head covering, but they do require something. I don’t think that’s inherently oppressive. Do you?
My favorite donut place is run by a Mennonite family. All the women who work there dress a specific way, with their hair covered a certain way. Are they oppressed or are they just practicing a faith that places importance on traditional values and not being a rugged individual? It’s weird that I never hear people (Fox News pundits or otherwise) bashing Mennonite/Amish bonnets. While hijabs are seen as “scary”, bonnets are portrayed as “cute”. But presumably both are imposed on women by a patriarchical system. If hijabs are a sympol of oppression, why not all feminine religious head garments? Why aren’t conservatives rushing out to Pennsylvania Dutch country to liberate all the poor oppressed women churning butter against their will? This is what is confusing me. Just saying “It’s all oppression!” doesn’t answer the question of why one thing (the hijab) gets so much more hate than all the other things that fulfill the same purpose.
We make some compromises to health and safety regulations. There are values to balance.
As far as the Amish are concerned, I view their rigid conformism in female dress just as suspiciously as I do all such restrictions. Individually I can’t tell you whether each one is confirming out of free desire or oppression, but collectively they are all effectively supporting a sexist, misogynist, and oppressive institution.