(Apr 18, 2017 01:40 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]Thus, comparing the freedom of choice to wear hijabs/headscarfs can not be compared to the compuslory wearing of them. Thus arguement abiding the mandatory wearing off them not being obsessive sexualised enslavement of women would thus be illegitimised. thoughts... ?
There have been non-theists who still deemed themselves to be Jewish, Catholic, etc (like Isaac Asimov and Jerry Garcia, respectively). Ergo these labels can be used to designate identification with a culture, not just the religious beliefs.
In such cases, the societal orientation (as considered in full) may have been stripped down to just family ties and gatherings, charitable contributions, retention of some basic moral principles, ethos (disposition of the community) -- a few gestures, idioms, customs and practices that have had the "theism" castrated from them -- and traditional accoutrements / clothing.
This emphasis on cultural identity as opposed to the doxastic attributes of Islam seems to be what Noorhan Maamoon is emphasizing in the quote at bottom. She's still a "Muslim woman", but not necessarily with respect to accommodating its native oppression of women or sporting the "old school" meanings of the apparel. (However, the option to embrace a classic role is still there, but available within the context of feminism liberty of choices rather than patriarchal dictation).
Intersectionality is about understanding the complexity which feminist issues acquire for anyone who identifies with multiple groups (ranging over ethnic, racial, non-binary / genderqueer, religious, ideological / political, etc categories) that are not necessarily favored in a Euro-Anglo capitalist environment. A complexity which often fails to penetrate the cognitive filters of the "white feminism" that emerged in the struggles and peculiarities of the aforementioned backdrop.
Muslim women like Maamoon exhibit their "freedom" by demonstrating that they can still retain / relate to certain aspects of their culture for any number of varying reasons, as well as recruiting classic elements of its garb for potential fashion creativity. In contrast, Native American designers are much further along or have a greater spectrum of raw material and themes to work with in that respect:
Native American fashion is not a static notion
NOORHAN MAAMOON: [...] Groups like Femen, which is “an international women’s movement of brave topless female activists painted with the slogans and crowned with flowers,” call themselves feminists and yet try to pull off the hijabs of Muslim women. This white feminism ignores a core tenet of real feminism, which is allowing women to be whatever they want to be, be it head-honcho, housewife or hijabi.
[...] Non-intersectional feminists thought I was oppressed by my patriarchal Arab and Muslim cultures. Why did I wear that? Was I forced to wear it? Will I be ‘honor killed’ if I took it off? (I really hope the last question was a failed joke, but I still can’t tell if the girl who asked me that was serious or not.) According to this set of people, I was a victim.
Each of these incidents is the direct result of being identifiably Muslim. Those interactions boiled down to people reducing me to my hijab in order to project their perceived idea of Islam on me, ironically enough.
It is as though there is a disconnect between the hijab and the person who wears it. “For wearers, the headscarf can have a range of meaning beyond the obviously religious,” write Korteweg and Yurdakul. --Wearing a headscarf is a symbol of freedom ... Daily Trojan ... April 27, 2016
