wearing a hijab with make-up & jewelry

[RainbowUnicorn]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39618574

conjuring a material obsesion with pretence of appearance ?
i wear the Hijab because...
i wear the make-up because...
i wear the jewelry because...

if it was optional to wear a headscarf/Hijab then i would suggest the hijab/head scarf is religous symbolism

if it was compulsory by social conformity or legal framework to wear a hijab/headscarf then i would suggest the make-up & jewelry to be acts of protest & rebelion assuming it is not materialistic obsession.


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... ?

[Zinjanthropos]

Personally, go ahead and wear the thing. However I don't think wearing it should supersede anything to do with national security, or a court case, etc. 

Most of us cover their private parts 24/7 and we think nothing of it. I can understand that just because it's not all glamorous and it's open to debate if one can be recognized/identified by what they're concealing. When it comes to hiding physical features, does a person's face belong in the same category with sex organs and bare butts?

[C C]

Just complement the headscarf and oriental bling with dark glasses and a Breton-striped garment. The religious symbolism / terrorist phobia then shifts to the interpretative context of "hipster cool" and revived beatnik fashion.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Personally, go ahead and wear the thing. However I don't think wearing it should supersede anything to do with national security, or a court case, etc. 

Most of us cover their private parts 24/7 and we think nothing of it. I can understand that just because it's not all glamorous and it's open to debate if one can be recognized/identified by what they're concealing. When it comes to hiding physical features, does a person's face belong in the same category with sex organs and bare butts?

the legal and social freedom to wear what you want...
definitions of culture & customs...

my question is not soo much about what is defined as "covering" or not covering, more soo the spiritual/religious aspect of definition of purpose & intent.

example if you/a person was to define their religious freedom by wearing a mini skirt how does that differ in terms to wearing an arm band or head-scarf.
is there a sense of projected judgemental definition by way of sexualisation in terms of clothing ?
if a man or women is permitted to wear a head scarf(religously motivated or not) in a work place where there is an expectation to abide by a common generic rule, whos moral judgement is being passed by declaring a mini skirt is innapropriate ?
thus the transferance and relative comparrison to anything generically like make-up or jewelry ?

is dress code in the modern western society defined around gender applicable in todays environment ?

i.e if a man goes to work wearing a dress...
would that be deemed as an offensive attack upon the people in that area ?
would a corporate(for arguement sake) entity by its definition of psychopathy(legal & socially assumed non liability to emotional accountability in a litigious capacity,  legally & socially void of empathy ) be socially acceptable to define an act of attack/abuse by way of gender to declare it offensive ?

err go the process in which one chooses to expres a freedom is subject to approval.
how do we as a society define that approval as a "freedom" ?

Thus ; is "Freedom of expresion" devoid of gender conformity complaince ?

[C C]

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

[RainbowUnicorn]

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

Those interactions boiled down to people reducing me to my hijab in order to project their perceived idea of Islam on me,

The Level playing field & the constraints of perceptual norms.
Subjective normalcy & the indoctrination of idealisms in a qwasi subversive ego-centric deportment.

How can one offer freedom when one is biased by moral absolutes in subjective idioms...


Comparative thiest projectionism "carrying a bible in public and using it in reference to stangers"

if one is unable to read and write freely, what value is a book other than a tool of enslavement.

[Zinjanthropos]

Hijabs? I still struggle with people wearing a symbolic instrument of execution (some with a victim attached) around their necks or pinned to their clothing.

[Secular Sanity]

The Level playing field & the constraints of perceptual norms.
Subjective normalcy & the indoctrination of idealisms in a qwasi subversive ego-centric deportment.

How can one offer freedom when one is biased by moral absolutes in subjective idioms...


Comparative thiest projectionism "carrying a bible in public and using it in reference to stangers"

if one is unable to read and write freely, what value is a book other than a tool of enslavement.

"Veiling did not originate with the advent of Islam. Statuettes depicting veiled priestesses precede all major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), dating back as far as 2500 BCE. Elite women in ancient Mesopotamia and in the Byzantine, Greek, and Persian empires wore the veil as a sign of respectability and high status. In ancient Mesopotamia, Assyria had explicit sumptuary laws detailing which women must veil and which women must not, depending upon the woman's class, rank, and occupation in society. Female slaves and prostitutes were forbidden to veil and faced harsh penalties if they did so. Veiling was thus not only a marker of aristocratic rank, but also served to "differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publicly available". [1]

In Sumerian Civilization, veiling was a symbol for women who were under the protection of men; in other words, it was a class status for the women who were married. Ahmed indicates “Wives and daughters of seigniors” were obliged to veil, “concubines accompanying their mistress had to veil; former sacred prostitutes, now married, had to veil; but harlots and slaves were forbidden to veil.”

The veil as an image is aimed to mark the upper classes and mostly to make difference between respectable women and the others. Another function of the veil is to identify which women belong to male protection. [2]

The first recorded instance of veiling for women is recorded in the Bible in Genesis, chapter 24, verse 65, when Rebecca first sees Isaac, and veils herself. Another is found later from an Assyrian legal text from the 13th century BC, which restricted its use to noble women and forbade prostitutes and common women from adopting it."[3]

1 Corinthians 11:4-16

Most of them want to wear it.  It allows them to inflict shame and to scoff at the disgraceful wretches below them.

I happen to agree with Martha C. Nussbaum, though, who said that people who inflict shame are very often not expressing virtuous motives or high ideals, but rather a shrinking from their own human weakness and rage against the very limits of human life. Their anger is not really, or at least, not only, anger at immorality and vice.  Behind moralism is something much more primitive, something that inherently involves the humiliation and dehumanization of others, because it is only in that way that the self can defend its fragile narcissism. [4]

Sure, it’s a mate guarding strategy, but what man or woman, for that matter, doesn’t utilize some form or another.  

"Mate guarding tactics employed by males tend to be hiding the female from intersexual threats; this could be not bringing the mate to social events in which other competing males may be present. Another is to request that the female wear items that indicate possession, this could be a wedding ring or the males jacket for example. Males may also provide and demonstrate the quality of resources they have to offer (e.g. buying the mate gifts, or paying for a meal). Men are also more likely to employ threatening and violent behavior towards intersexual rivals." [5]

[Zinjanthropos]

"Mate guarding tactics employed by males tend to be hiding the female from intersexual threats; 

I can see how the face could be seen as an object of sexual desire. Exactly why in my earlier post I equated the veil with covering the sex organs and rear ends (OMG ...boobs too). Guys in a bizarre manner are sort of protecting an investment, so I can't fault the ladies for anything when it's really the men or the social pressure applied by men that's responsible for concealment. 

If it is a man's behavior that forces this issue then wearing the hijab is the not the greatest form of freedom of expression a woman can have. Even being trendy or fashionable can be seen as social pressure for a veil.

[Secular Sanity]

I can see how the face could be seen as an object of sexual desire. Exactly why in my earlier post I equated the veil with covering the sex organs and rear ends (OMG ...boobs too). Guys in a bizarre manner are sort of protecting an investment, so I can't fault the ladies for anything when it's really the men or the social pressure applied by men that's responsible for concealment. 

If it is a man's behavior that forces this issue then wearing the hijab is the not the greatest form of freedom of expression a woman can have. Even being trendy or fashionable can be seen as social pressure for a veil.

The hijab is a head covering.  The niqab covers the face.

There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars in Islam as to the permissibility of covering the face.

The majority of scholarly opinions state that the niqab is optional at most, though even here there are disagreements as to when it becomes forbidden even for those who choose to wear it of their own accord. A minority of scholarly opinions, on the other hand, state it is outright obligatory (fard) to wear niqab at all times (when in the presence of non-mahram males), while other minority scholarly opinions state it is outright prohibited and against Islam to wear niqab at any time (whether in the presence of non-mahram or not).

The niqab has continued to arouse debate between Muslim scholars and jurists both past and present concerning whether it is fard (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended/preferable), or 'urf (cultural).

Hair is a symbol of femininity.  

Hairstyles are markers and signifiers of social class, age, marital status, racial identification, political beliefs, and attitudes about gender. Women displayed availability for marriage through their hair. [1]

Scientists also view the ability to grow very long hair as a result of sexual selection, since long and healthy hair is a sign of fertility and youth. An evolutionary biology explanation for this attraction is that hair length and quality can act as a cue to youth and health, signifying a woman's reproductive potential. [2]