Thursday, May 04, 2006
Backsliding on Women’s Lib
Women in the U.S. have choices these days, not like in the Victorian era and similar times. (Men, by extension, have also been freed from male roles to some extent, at least in the U.S.) These choices include a woman’s sexual life, expanding her options beyond chaste virgin or prostitute. Sounds good, but…
Signs abound that we’re backsliding on women’s (and men’s) liberation. We see it in commercials showing the “Mom” wondering what to fix for dinner, how to get stains out of the laundry, or cleaning the floors after the kids have tracked in mud. Let’s not forget the “Dad” who has fallen off the roof trying to realign the satellite dish, kills the dandelions while leaving the grass green, or stumbles around in the kitchen to feed the kids when “Mom” is sick and ends up calling for pizza. (Yes, there are exceptions such as “Father Sun” cooking up a batch of eggs and sausage before heading out to his job of lighting and heating the Earth, as he explains it to his cute-as-a-button young daughter. Of course, she’s used to seeing “Mom” cook breakfast.)
Having grown up during the time when women in this country were in a battle to get out of their restrictive roles and into being human beings, I am rather alarmed at this trend. In addition, the streets of many U.S. cities are starting to look like Tehran, at least in terms of “shrouded women,” i.e., Muslim women who wear a range of cover-ups. Most just wear hijab (loose clothing topped by a type of scarf worn around the head and under the chin). The other day, however, while my husband and I were enjoying gyros and kafta at a small Mid-eastern restaurant, in walked a being covered in a black head-to-toe burqa, with the only anatomical feature showing being two eyes from behind a pair of glasses.
My first thought was that this creature looked like the creepy Ghost of Christmas Future from the 1951 version of “A Christmas Carol,” starring Alistair Sim. My second thought was that it could be either gender. (The burqa hides both the male and female anatomy equally well. In a Muslim country, where tolerance of homosexuality is zero, this is a very handy thing.) My third thought was how I never wanted to be forced to smother under such coverings, especially having been part of the movement in this country that brought women out into the world while bringing out the “househusband” in any man that wanted to be one (see The Kitchen Sink Papers: My Life as a Househusband by Mike McGrady, published by Doubleday in 1975).
Sharia law says that a woman must cover herself in public so as not to draw sexual attention from men. ["O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." (33:59) from Wikipedia] Women raised in a Muslim household are taught this from birth and many accept it. I can understand that. After all, I was raised to wear my bra and other undergarments – well, UNDER garments. Unlike some performers who prance around on stage and sing lyrics about sucking parts of male anatomies, I dress fairly modestly. Yet to a Muslim – man or woman – I am dressed obscenely in public if my femaleness can be clearly ascertained and my hair is uncovered. I am, therefore, in their eyes, a “whore.” (Knowing this makes dealing with such “shrouded” women at the bank or store to be unsettling.) Wearing slacks, a high-necked top, and a sweater is not like wearing a tube top, mini-skirt and stiletto-heeled pumps. In other words, standards vary.
The concept of “whore” (or “slut” or whatever similar word you choose) is a big slide backwards. It says that women don’t have a right to choose when and where they will have sex if they want to be seen as “decent.” It also keeps women in the role of “sexual partner and baby maker.” And, no, I am not advocating that women go out bed-hopping. There are some very good, self-responsible reasons for a woman choosing her sexual partner(s) wisely. First and foremost is the chance of becoming pregnant from the encounter. Second is the possibility of contracting an STD (sexually transmitted disease) or HIV (which usually leads to AIDS).
The real problem is thinking that women are divided by society into those that are sexually chaste and those that are sexually whoring. This is expressed well in an article by Karen Green. This either/or view of women has gone on for centuries, and is only heightened by the “specter women.” Such segregation also keeps women and men from interacting socially. Many men enjoy just being around women, being friends. Many women likewise enjoy the company of men, not necessarily in a sexual way. I have had mostly male friends in the past.
Also, there were several excuses – er, reasons why men wanted women to be virgin when they married and remain a “one man woman” after the nuptials. None of them are legitimate today. First, performance comparison – a man would be concerned about his bride comparing him to past lovers. (All I can say to any man who still thinks this way is: “Grow up!”) Second, offspring fatherhood – making sure the husband was the genetic father of the child his wife was baring. (Simple paternity tests are available now.)
My husband and I have a pact between us, signified by the vows we spoke before a Justice of the Peace and the rings we both wear on the third finger of our left hands. That pact says, among other things, that we choose each other sexually and otherwise, and no others. Who we were with before that is irrelevant. As rational beings, we focus on what is important – our lives together now. Others must decide for themselves if this is the approach they want to take, or if they want a life more like Hugh Hefner or Ivana Trump.
As for the “shrouded women,” until they can throw off the “burqa,” figuratively and literally speaking, they will not be thought of as human beings (individuals) first and females second. By first being individuals, women – and men – will be thought of as self-responsible and having rights. They can function as equals in society. While women “activists in the Muslim world are less preoccupied with what women wear than with securing other freedoms such as access to education, better health care for their families, or wider opportunities for work,” in reality, wearing hijab keeps them from these things, since it enforces the view of them as sex objects and reproduction machines. I have to differ with those who are in effect putting the cart before the horse. Throwing off the restrictive clothing will help Muslim women throw off the limits on their rights. The dress is also an interference to getting a good job, to moving freely in society, to being seen as just as capable as a man. Why did women in the ‘70s adopt a softened version of a man’s business suit? So that in a office of men wearing suits, the women could fit in and be seen as being there for serious matters, not to party.
Just something to think about next time you see one of these “specter women” haunting the streets, with their sons and little “specter” daughters in tow.
Copyright © 2006 A.C. Cargill
Go to full article...
