Thank you both. Your efforts to extend an understanding of your personal stories were successful. The idea of constricting freedom or equal rights, is hardly at play in Sarah's story. It seems that she moved toward greater personal freedom by willingly accepting some strictures of her religion.
One aspect of her choice really struck me. Having taken the subway line between Manhattan and the Bronx, I can appreciate Sarah finding relief from the relentless ogling, assorted frottage and challenge to autonomy that being a woman can present - spoken as a male observer only.
Jacqueline makes the opposite case about hoots and hollers from NY construction sites (let it slide), but seems to be aligned when complaining about the harassment that overwhelmed her in Tunisia.
It seems that they both argue for their right to "modesty." And it has manifested itself differently. I don't mean to reduce Sarah's religious conviction to choice of apparel. But, it seems that for her it is a clear signal to all observers that she is self identifying as a Muslim. And her wish to be treated accordingly.
As a free citizen in a Western democracy, she

Quoting mvantony: Nice diavlog. Jackie asked most of the questions and pressed most of the points that many would themselves, and Sarah did a great job of responding. I myself have trouble seeing what the big fuss is about Muslim women's dress in particular. If modesty is the issue, modest women's dress is found in other religions too, and among many secular women. If it's covering the head, what's so special about the head, as opposed to the legs or feet, say; also, men cover their heads in other religions? If it's only one of the sexes that has to do the elaborate dressing, that's true of men in several religions. If it's finding reasonable textual support for the dress, that worry extends to religious practice and ritual quite generally. Regarding women's (in)equality, the same issues arise in other religions too (e.g., Orthodox Judaism). Same goes for being forced to observe religious practices: it happens with children (in school and out) all over the world, and adults (i.e., who wish to stay within their communities). Is there really anything intrinsically more problematic about Muslim women's dress than about the dress of Orthodox Jews, Amish people, Nuns (all of whom use

Quoting gwlaw99: I really think the only issue is whether someone is forced by law or threated with violence for not complying. As long as someone is free to choose, who cares what they wear?

Ever see "The Devil Wears Prada"? Believe me, somebody cares... ;^) But your point is well taken, freedom should mean freedom of choice.

Is there really anything intrinsically more problematic about Muslim women's dress than about the dress of Orthodox Jews, Amish people, Nuns (all of whom use lots of black cloth), Tibetan monks (more colorful, but shaved heads), etc?

It certainly seems to be very similar in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. The freedom of choice aspect to dressing as you please seems clear (perhaps not to the French). Where it gets tricky -- as Sarah points out at the end -- is when clerics impose their (sexist) views on the rest of society (Ayatollahs in Iran suddenly requiring every Muslim in the country to cover her head; Saudi totalitarians denying a driver's license to females, etc; religious courts executing women for having sex outside of marriage. There are also very serious questions about imposing religious practices on minors. Circumcision, for example, is universal among Jewish males (at the age of 8 days) and female genital cutting is practiced on children by a small minority of Muslims and other religious groups.

I found this diavlog to be thoroughly unimpressive. In my opinion, Sarah skirted many of the tough discussions, and Jackie did not push them very hard. Sarah gives the impression of having given little thought to the larger issues related to the wearing of the hijab. Also, her reasons for wearing it seem to be all about her rather than about her faith. This makes her statements about how modesty is a means of removing the ego from one's faith sound like a hypocritical recitation of the party line. Much of what Sarah said either had an air of the disingenuous or was too vague to be meaningful or interesting. She states she is opposed to the external imposition of the wearing of the hijab, yet she sends her son to a school where it is imposed on the pre-pubescent female students. She must not be that opposed. Sarah admitted she might feel differently about the school if she had a daughter; it is unfortunate she cannot feel differently about it on behalf of the young female students who are not her daughters. And how

Me&: Very well said. That was my impression, too. I'll add that I could not shake the feeling throughout that although Sarah insists that her decision was a voluntary one that she made when she was an adult, she also presented as an apologist for an organization that really wants to remove the element of choice and make such dress styles compulsory. Whether this was her conscious intention or not, that's how it came across. I also had the nagging reminder from her constant refrain of buzz phrases like "democracy is a process" and "start a conversation" of the latest tropes being used by the creationists to try to sneak the Bible into science classes -- "freedom of speech" and "let the students decide for themselves." As with others who convert to a religion as adults, or who embrace a religion more deeply or in a more fundamentalist manner later in life, Sarah seems to have walled off a number of troubling questions in another part of her mind. I got the sense that she was kidding herself, or refusing to contemplate deeply, what this whole business of women covering themselves

Quoting Wonderment: It certainly seems to be very similar in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

The freedom of choice aspect to dressing as you please seems clear (perhaps not to the Fren Circumcision, for example, is universal among Jewish males (at the age of 8 days) and female genital cutting is practiced on children by a small minority of Muslims and other religious groups.

Well female circumcision is the equivalent of cutting off the entire head of the penis so it's not really the same thing. In addition made circumcision has been clinicly shown to drastically reduce the transmission of AIDS (half as likely) saving tens of thousands of lives. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/

Quoting mvantony: I don't get it. I can understand someone being against religious education for children generally (which isn't to say I agree with the position), but what's special about the-hijab-and-pre-pubescent-females? Is forcing ultra-orthodox kindergarten-age boys to wear a skull cap and other religious articles of clothing, keep their hair in a certain way, etc., less worse? For that matter, is forcing pre-pubescent boys and girls to learn bible stories, prayers, songs, other rituals, etc., any less worse? On what grounds might such distinctions be made?

In some senses, all these imposed cultural artifacts are about the same, and are equally bad. But in another way, there is something particular troubling about making young girls covering themselves up in this way. It seems to me that such rules risk creating warped images of one's own body at a time in life when it is not possible to think about these things for oneself. Such images can be very difficult to grow out of.

Great discussion. I'd like to see a recurring discussion around the theme of comparative religion and politics. Sarah rightly punctured the common presumption that the face veil somehow epitomizes gender inequality. Yes, there are places and instances where the veil is imposed on women for socio-political ends. However, the fact that that is not the case by and large should cause us to question such simplistic and false assumptions. What I find ironic about Jacqueline's opening comment expressing surprise that an elite (western) educated women would choose to wear hijab (religion as false consciousness in different clothing) is that the face veil, historically(i.e. pre-islam), derives from elites and to this day is still worn by adult male members of a fulani tribe in Africa.

Well female circumcision is the equivalent of cutting off the entire head of the penis so it's not really the same thing.

Not necessarily. It turns out there are several varieties. I personally find all of them barbaric, but I also find male circumcision barabric.

In addition made circumcision has been clinically shown to drastically reduce the transmission of AIDS (half as likely) saving tens of thousands of lives.

There is some new evidence to suggest that male circumcision may be helpful in reducing HIV (and other STD) transmission in certain parts of the world where male-female transmission is common. If so, that may help justify circumcision on medical grounds, but has nothing to do with the practice on religious grounds. Circumcision is not recommended by national health authorities in Europe, Australia or the USA.

I live in Los Angeles and see these women who cover themselves all the time. Being a diverse city and according to Robert Putnam a place where people are distrustful of one another which is an opinion I concur with. To get back to the topic at hand, why do the men not have to wear all this concealing attire? I also have noticed women from India where lots of clothing and the men dress more casual. I realize that the interviewer was trying to get Sarah to answer this to no avail. Perhaps if I was from the Middle East I would understand this "covering up" phenomenon but I am not and I don't. John

Another thing: making your kids wear all these costumes is going too far. However, in the quasi hood where I live teenagers wear some ridiculous looking outfits, too. I saw a kid recently whose pants were at least a foot below his ass and there was more underwear showing than jeans - and that's suppose to be cool. I don't think so. John

Actually both you and the 'heads are missing an argument about nationalism Minxin Pei pointed out in the context of anti-americanism.

American nationalism is hidden in plain sight. But even if Americans saw it, they wouldn’t recognize it as nationalism. That’s because American nationalism is a different breed from its foreign cousins and exhibits three unique characteristics.

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot. As President George W. Bush said in his Fourth of July speech last year: “There is no American race; there’s only an American creed.” And in American eyes, the superiority of that creed is self-evident. American political institutions and ideals, coupled with the practical achievements attributed to them, have firmly convinced Americans that their values ought to be universal. Conversely, when Americans are threatened, they see attacks on them as primarily attacks on their values. Consider how American elites and the public interpreted the September 11 terrorist attacks. Most readily embraced the notion that the attacks embodied an assault on U.S. democratic freedoms

This point and the 'heads' discussion of men's vs women's apparel reminds me of Malcolm X's autobiography and the movie. When Malcolm X converted and was released from prison, he adopted a conservative mode of attire and hair style completely different from his Harlem period, and which still challenges mainstream norms. And, that conversion was as much a part of his transformation as was his religious education. Individually, he might not stand out, but as part of a group of men in identical garb and hairstyle, the effect was intimidating. Even today, this "uniform" is easily recognizable and communicates a certain regimentation and discipline. Yet, no one told Malcolm to remove his suit and straighten or grow out his hair again. On the other hand, women in the organization did wear a veil or scarf, and sometimes a niqab.

Interestingly, there was little of the feminist argument, that covering the female body protects girls and women from masculine and media notions of femininity. Like the aggrieved and ethnic notions of nationalism, media images of femininity is a topic I encounter in ROK. The bulimic and surgical practices common among pre=marriage women is extreme. There is also a common notion that unmarried women with short hair are slutty, but long hair connotes modesty. Married women who are no longer bearing children almost reflexively get the "old woman" haircut, which is permed and short and cease concern about weight and clothing. Young "marketable" women also try to whiten their skin, and pale tones are favors over darker hues. Rounder eyes and straighter noses are also highly esteemed. On one hand, I find Asian women attractive, as I do most dark-haired women. But, chicken-legged, bulimic, over-pancaked, clothes horses with passive-aggressive attitudes do not appeal to me. my wife obsesses about her figure, but she exercises and eats well to do it, rather than getting plastic surgery or starving herself. Actually when I first met her she was slightly heavier, and I tell her I prefer that. I think most men, and I would believe Muslim men are no exception, know

I would ask Sayeed one question. Beyond culture, religion, and history, or any notions of femininity, isn't the hijab and niqab a geographically determined mode of dress inapplicable to non-Eurasian climates and geography?

Quoting Baltimoron: Interestingly, there was little of the feminist argument, that covering the female body protects girls and women from masculine and media notions of femininity.

Who needs protection?

Like the aggrieved and ethnic notions of nationalism, media images of femininity is a topic I encounter in ROK. The bulimic and surgical practices common among pre=marriage women is extreme. There is also a common notion that unmarried women with short hair are slutty, but long hair connotes modesty. Married women who are no longer bearing children almost reflexively get the "old woman" haircut, which is permed and short and cease concern about weight and clothing. Young "marketable" women also try to whiten their skin, and pale tones are favors over darker hues. Rounder eyes and straighter noses are also highly esteemed. On one hand, I find Asian women attractive, as I do most dark-haired women. But, chicken-legged, bulimic, over-pancaked, clothes horses with passive-aggressive attitudes do not appeal to me. my wife obsesses about her figure, but she exercises and eats well to do it, rather than getting plastic surgery or starving herself. Actually when I first met her she was slightly heavier, and I tell her I prefer that. I think most men, and I would believe Muslim men are

No, I used to hear more feminist pushback, that the hijab and niqab were actually preferable to western dress.

Quoting Baltimoron: No, I used to hear more feminist pushback, that the hijab and niqab were actually preferable to western dress.

How long ago?

Since the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe the discussions took place in the context of the burqa.

Quoting Baltimoron: Since the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe the discussions took place in the context of the burqa.

Do you think that in that context the hijab or the niqab would truly make a difference?

No, the burqa is just a local form of dress. Western men and women make the argument that this conservative form of Muslim dress is an inconvenience to women and represents the worst caricatures of religious traditions afflicting women, like dowries or clan revenge. But, feminists have made this argument, that the hijab is liberating, because it frees a woman from having to choose between media images of the way the female body should be. That's why I mentioned the Korean case, because it's an extreme form of media-and male-inflicted notions of how women should act and dress.

Quoting Baltimoron: No, the burqa is just a local form of dress. Western men and women make the argument that this conservative form of Muslim dress is an inconvenience to women and represents the worst caricatures of religious traditions afflicting women, like dowries or clan revenge.

Yes, I understand that.

But, feminists have made this argument, that the hijab is liberating, because it frees a woman from having to choose between media images of the way the female body should be.

This is what I would call freedom by "counter". I mean what kind of freedom can you have if you have to choose the opposite of something else? I think that what's liberating is to dress (the main topic in this case), in whatever way is practical, convenient or to one's liking. That should include all possibilities as appropriate options.

That's why I mentioned the Korean case, because it's an extreme form of media-and male-inflicted notions of how women should act and dress.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't like an imposition of any kind.
What I find puzzling is that the US which in many respects is supposed to be advanced in "women liberation" relative to other more conservative Western cultures, has

Firstly, in the context of ethnic populations where clothing marks one's group, clothing is not just an individual choice. Even in America, which is in many ways more "pluralistic", clothing is a very visible way to make a statement. Think mohawks and bling. I think your notion of convenience is ideal. Secondly, perhaps it has something to do with the intersection of capitalism and biology. Until babies in a test tube is a viable option, I think women will have to deal with male and capitalist fears of what would happen if less workers were available for labor.

Quoting Baltimoron: Secondly, perhaps it has something to do with the intersection of capitalism and biology. Until babies in a test tube is a viable option, I think women will have to deal with male and capitalist fears of what would happen if less workers were available for labor.

Oh, Baltimoron, you will have to elaborate on this. I'm still under residual effects of anesthesia and my thought process is definitely slow...

Quoting Ocean: Oh, Baltimoron, you will have to elaborate on this. I'm still under residual effects of anesthesia and my thought process is definitely slow...

Gosh! Either you fainted after my request, or you are writing a textbook on sexual practices! What I'm asking is about the Barbie stereotype... What's wrong with the women in this country that buy into that image? Oh, forget it!

Not only did she appear to dodge questions, she also seemed to talk over Jackie when the conversation drifted towards some of those larger areas.

Sarah and Jackie wanted to limit the discussion to dress code. That's fine, but the problem is that dress code is all about sexuality. "Modesty" is really a euphemism for "proper sexual conduct," and in Middle Eastern religions like Islam and Judaism, codes of sexual conduct developed in male-dominated, patriarchal, polygamous societies. King Solomon had 1,000 wives to control, and I'm sure Mohammad and the boys had analogous challenges. Judaism has a very complex doctrine of Tzniut , which encompasses dress code, menstruation, touch (forbidden between unmarried members of opposite sex), etc. In other words, "covering up" is inseparable from the rest of the sexual code, which is inseparable from male power and privilege, which in turn is inseparable from the overall literalist interpretation of scripture. So restricting the conversation to the veil doesn't really work. You have to talk about the veil as a symbol of beliefs about male power, homosexuality, virginity, divorce (only a male can divorce a female in Judaism, for example, not vice versa), extramarital sex, circumcision, menstruation, masturbation, age of consent for sex, and so on. Women, for

i was raised in the phd-getting muslim american immigrant community. here is the general stuff i heard "behind the curtain" so to speak 1) a woman who reserves her beauty for her husband is super-cool 2) women who covered less where proportionally less "good." this is even with the assent of women who never covered their hair, like my mother. her basic attitude was that she thought they were better chix than her, the hijabis, but she couldn't be bothered 3) there was more ambivalence about the ninja-women. a substantial number thought they were really cool, especially if they went whole hog and segregated themselves from all non-relative dudes over the age of 12, but a substantial number thought that it was pious posing and pretty weird. it seems that the hijabis were more likely to have the former attitude than "bad muslim" women like my mother. IOW, the hijabis related to the ninjas like how non-hijabis related to to hijabis. 4) all this stuff sarah says about relationship to god and modesty is fine, but i never heard that crap. mostly it was about parceling the hotitude of women as a scarce resource

If one defines modesty in the sense that it is non-egotistical and unassuming, then wearing a hijab as a means of standing out in a crowd, as a way of starting coverstations about your religion, as a way to show how down you are with the non-white classes ("hey, I'm not really a rich girl! I grew up in the Bronx); well then, that is brazen hypocrisy. Want to be modest and unassuming in a secular city, take off the hijab and blend in. Next time, get a guest who isn't so shy and guilt-ridden to press your muslim apologists.

Quoting Wonderment: Sarah and Jackie wanted to limit the discussion to dress code. That's fine, but the problem is that dress code is all about sexuality.

"Modesty" is really a euphemism for "proper sexual conduct," and in Middle Eastern religions like Islam and Judaism, codes of sexual conduct developed in male-dominated, patriarchal, polygamous societies.

King Solomon had 1,000 wives to control, and I'm sure Mohammad and the boys had analogous challenges.

Judaism has a very complex doctrine of Tzniut , which encompasses dress code, menstruation, touch (forbidden between unmarried members of opposite sex), etc.

In other words, "covering up" is inseparable from the rest of the sexual code, which is inseparable from male power and privilege, which in turn is inseparable from the overall literalist interpretation of scripture.

So restricting the conversation to the veil doesn't really work. You have to talk about the veil as a symbol of beliefs about male power, homosexuality, virginity, divorce (only a male can divorce a female in Judaism, for example, not vice versa), extramarital sex, circumcision, menstruation, masturbation, age of consent for sex, and so on.

Women, for example, in Judaism, as vessels of impurity (menstruation) cannot touch holy objects like the Torah. Only men count in a prayer meeting. As a result of taboos like

Let's not forget that the ruler or whatever he is from Iran says there is no homosexualtiy in his country. That along with denying the Holocaust makes him one uninformed man. John

Quoting Globalcop:
Want to be modest and unassuming in a secular city, take off the hijab and blend in.

Do you mean - look like all the other Barbies?
And instead of wondering if she is a Muslim, we could assume that she is fond of non-fat lattes and fashionable shoes?
Your comment suggests that you haven't spent much time in a "secular" city.

Where's Abu Noor when you need him?!

i totally agree with the gist of globocap's comment though. dressing differently sets you off. ninjas and hijabis get MORE looks, not less. to get the least attention you need to dress like the median of the population, not extremely deviated. basically, it's like people who get mohawks and piercings; they're making a statement. just adding a non-existent supernatural entity doesn't really change the dynamics, we know the banal reasons why people dress the way they do. there are certain european cultures where exchange students hav to change the way they dress because they're sending the "wrong signals" (at least in the eyes of the host family). the semantics is different, but these are all of a piece.

Quoting razib: ninjas and hijabis get MORE looks, not less. to get the least attention you need to dress like the median of the population, not extremely deviated.

That's some heteronormative crap. Your sexist postulate is only surpassed in incredulity by your assumptive hubris.

Sarah went to an elite prep school, followed that with Princeton. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt regarding her intelligence and awareness. It seems to me that she may have made a conscious choice to limit the parameters of the implications of her commitment to the veil.

I have no doubt she is an extremely intelligent women, but what you're suggesting is what Brendan alluded to as well -- a kind of post-modern religion, or post-Princeton religion -- a willful suspension of disbelief in modern secular thought, and religion as a kind of conscious theater. If that's the case, I get it completely. No need to explain the head-covering at all. Such an approach is perfectly compatible with liberal Princeton values. The problem arises when Princeton clashes with mosque, synagogue, church or temple.

They are not ideals I esteem greatly, but I don't think her choice needs to be marginalized.

I actually like religion and expressions of religious culture. So I don't want to marginalize anyone. Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, has already found many modes of peaceful and liberal coexistence within secular societies, and Sarah is undoubtedly a great ambassador for a more orthodox Islam. But

Quoting Wonderment: But I'd still like to hear her views on the more delicate subjects that I mentioned in the previous post.

Me too.

if its true, it's all good. also, you should use sophistic terminology appropriately, right? the weirdo-look-at-me-i'm-a-freak applies to both sexes. so not heteronormative ;-) mebee logocentric and linear because it's predicated in reality as opposed to prissy*-PC-platitudes. * oops, that *was* heteronormative!

Quoting razib: if its true, it's all good. also, you should use sophistic terminology appropriately, right? the weirdo-look-at-me-i'm-a-freak applies to both sexes. so not heteronormative. mebee logocentric and linear because it's predicated in reality as opposed to prissy-PC-platitudes.

Were even! I'm just pulling your chain.

See Wonderment! I couldn't feel more unworthy to lead this discussion. I was just pointing out elements that I thought were lacking, and trying to preempt rebuttals.

i knew that. you're not as good as me. perhaps its your logocentric linear nature which just doesn't give you the holistic flexibility that i have as a man of color (moc).

23 minutes in, Sarah Sayeed's combative defensiveness is starting to grate me.

While I appreciate Jacqueline's hard questioning, I wish Bloggingheads could arrange someone who is knowledgeable about the Koran to debate effectively with a practicing muslim. Islam claims to be a complete way of life. The last religion for humanity. I wish someone knowledgeable to question those claims and many more. This diavlog got better as it went along but it was mostly a meditation on the hijab.

Quoting Me&theboys: I found this diavlog to be thoroughly unimpressive. [...] Perhaps Jackie could repeat the discussion with someone who does not need such kid glove treatment and who has a more thoughtful perspective to offer.

I don't share the sentiment expressed in your first sentence, but I agree with your closing proposal. Kudos to Jacqueline Shire who stumbled into this topic during a previous diavlog (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/316) and was surprised at the time by the amount of controversy that resulted from it. For her to come back to this issue I am sure required a certain amount of courage.

Quoting Baltimoron: I would ask Sayeed one question. Beyond culture, religion, and history, or any notions of femininity, isn't the hijab and niqab a geographically determined mode of dress inapplicable to non-Eurasian climates and geography?

Dress is not 'beyond culture . . .' It is the quintessential cultural artifact. So the answer to your question is quite simple: no. In fact, if you were going to make a geographical determinist argument for the hijab or niqab, the reverse premise is more logical. It is non-Eurasian peoples/climates (i.e. desert/arid ecologies) that is most suitable for its historical emergence.

Isn't the Arabian peninsula part of the Eurasian landmass?

Quoting mvantony: I don't get it. I can understand someone being against religious education for children generally (which isn't to say I agree with the position), but what's special about the-hijab-and-pre-pubescent-females? Is forcing ultra-orthodox kindergarten-age boys to wear a skull cap and other religious articles of clothing, keep their hair in a certain way, etc., less worse? For that matter, is forcing pre-pubescent boys and girls to learn bible stories, prayers, songs, other rituals, etc., any less worse? On what grounds might such distinctions be made?

Also, saying the hijab is "externally imposed" seems a bit like saying that coming to a violin lesson with a violin is externally imposed on children whose parents send them to violin lessons. The school, after all, is an Islamic school. If parents don't want Islamic practices imposed on their children, then an Islamic school isn't a very wise choice for them, is it?

I was not making a judgmental comment about sending one's kids to a school where wearing the hijab is required. I was commenting that such a practice seems inconsistent with the claim made by Sarah that wearing the hijab should be a personal and voluntary decision made by each individual and not

Quoting Wonderment: Sarah and Jackie wanted to limit the discussion to dress code. That's fine, but the problem is that dress code is all about sexuality.

"Modesty" is really a euphemism for "proper sexual conduct," and in Middle Eastern religions like Islam and Judaism, codes of sexual conduct developed in male-dominated, patriarchal, polygamous societies................

.........In other words, "covering up" is inseparable from the rest of the sexual code, which is inseparable from male power and privilege, which in turn is inseparable from the overall literalist interpretation of scripture.

So restricting the conversation to the veil doesn't really work. You have to talk about the veil as a symbol of beliefs about male power, homosexuality, virginity, divorce (only a male can divorce a female in Judaism, for example, not vice versa), extramarital sex, circumcision, menstruation, masturbation, age of consent for sex, and so on.

EXACTLY! The fact that this point escaped mention, even obliquely, is the problem with this diavlog.

I am, as usual, late in commenting here. I would really like to see this subject discussed by two women raised in Muslim traditions who now have differeing views. My first choice would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Until I read her book I pretty much assumed that 2nd generation Muslims living in the US and Europe were free to choose their style of dress. I saw no problem with whatever choice they made. Now that I know about kitchen table top genital mutilation and honor killings in Texas I see that we still have a long way to go, baby.

Amen to that! I agree with your recommendation for Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. I thought that she would be a good opponent for Reza Aslan.

An old post from Razib that points out how the "modesty" argument is sometimes crap is here. Nationalism can be both triumphalist and aggrieved, and I think American nationalism also exhibits elements of the latter. Daniel Larison had an interesting series of posts on nationalism & patriotism, but since I can't find a good roundup I'll just link to this one as exemplary.

Quoting Me&theboys: EXACTLY! The fact that this point escaped mention, even obliquely, is the problem with this diavlog.

Many problems with this diavlog I would say. Jackie said that she was uncomfortable discussing this topic and I can understand why. She was refraining from challenging some of, what to me, were, Sarah's nonsensical statements. First, Sarah gave as a hint of her real dilemma when she talked about her formative years struggling to reconcile the multiple cultures she lived in. It wasn't about Muslim-non-Muslim only, it was about elite-non-elite, about how you interpret and express womanhood, how to relate to others, etc. She was talking about significant identity problems. I don't try to imply that Sara's issues are unique, of course, identity issues are typical of adolescence, and many times beyond. But, it seems to me, that Sarah's definition of her own identity was problematic at a deeper level. It isn't clear to me what lies in the center of that difficulty, but she certainly struggled for years. In my opinion, some of her arguments are so weak and shallow, that they show that the struggle is still there, covered up by her hijab. I think Jackie should have challenged Sarah more forcefully when she tried to

Quoting Baltimoron: Isn't the Arabian peninsula part of the Eurasian landmass?

The short answer is no. Eurasia includes modern day countries/territories such as Iran, Turkey, and parts of central asia to name a few. The longer answer entails a diatribe about the wide diversity of climates within Eurasia which would effectively render it conceptually useless in explaining the hijab or niqab.

Quoting mvantony: So I see no contradiction: with adult women, Sarah believes that wearing the hijab should be a personal decision; with small girls, she may be somewhat uncertain about what she believes, not having given it sufficient thought. But she obviously doesn't have the settled view that it's bad for Muslim parents to make such decisions for their daughters.

I think this is a good example of Sarah's own ambivalence, as I posted elsewhere. She is still struggling with contradictory principles.

Your post is terrifically interesting, as are related posts of yours that T.G.G.P. links to. Couple of questions for you: 1. Do you have any view as to whether the Islamic Resurgence (as Huntington calls it) in Muslim countries was powered at all by the up close and personal dynamics you described? It sounds like your parents are pretty liberal (for lack of a better word) and you extended that attitude. By contrast, zillions of bright young things in Cairo reacted against their liberal parents. Any quick and dirty ideas why? 2. What's your view of Muslim assimilation in the US? Do you think Islam will become "protestantized" to the extent that Judaism and Catholicism have? Do you think there is much likelihood of revanchist Islam among American-born Muslims?

I found the diavlog ultimately unsatisfying, as well. Sarah seems to dominate the conversation and wouldn't stop talking when Jackie wanted to interject something. Maybe this is just a result of being 23 myself, but Jackie mentions that she too doesn't get the same street reactions she used to, but she attributes it to being older. I wonder whether this could be the case for Sarah as well. She did say that she started covering as part of child rearing and being a good influence. I imagine that covering could responsible for the effect she describes, but maybe it's not the whole story?

Since nobody had said anything yet, I'd like to say that Sarah fundamentally misunderstands the nature of democracy. I would recommend to her Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "Liberty or Equality", even though I've only gotten to chapter 3 so far.

I haven't read that book myself, but I think she understands the American system with its protection of freedom of expression pretty well.

Quoting mvantony: She's uncertain about small girls, but not about adult women. There are no contradictory principles here: one concerns adults, and the other is about children. It's just like there's no contradiction in believing that adults should be free to choose how much TV they watch but believing that children shouldn't (or being unsure about how much freedom children should be given with respect to their TV watching).

Yes, I understand. She seems relatively clearer about adults. But you say (and I agree with that observation):

...with small girls, she may be somewhat uncertain about what she believes, not having given it sufficient thought.

She is clearly struggling with this idea. If one of the reasons to wear a hijab is, for example, modesty, as a strategy to curb the "ego", she shouldn't hesitate. Even little girls show off their hair. And wouldn't it be natural to start curbing the ego at an early age? She is struggling with different sets of principles. The idea of imposition is uncomfortable to her. She seems to say that she voluntarily allows Islam to impose restrictions on her. So, she creates an illusion of freedom underneath the more obvious external restrictions. It is a

Quoting Ocean: It is a withdrawal from the world. She finds refuge where she feels safer.

Indulge me if you will. Why is that not acceptable? I agree she seemed conflicted, But I assumed that she was aware that the hijab is a buffer from the "real world." Sort of existing in two worlds at once (not to imply schizophrenia).

Quoting graz: Indulge me if you will. Why is that not acceptable? I agree she seemed conflicted, But I assumed that she was aware that the hijab is a buffer from the "real world." Sort of existing in two worlds at once (not to imply schizophrenia).

I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. It's certainly an option. As a matter of fact it is a very good option, if as I speculate, this is a retreat because she hasn't been able to resolve certain contradictions. In the best case, she will eventually make up her mind and embrace wholeheartedly whatever she ends up believing. There is a chance, however, if she doesn't resolve it, that her ambivalence will throw her into many more conflicts in the future. Retreating more and more will make her separate completely from the rest of reality, and she will only be able to tolerate what goes on in her bubble. That isn't a particularly helpful place to be. It would be a place of necessity and not choice. But, again, she isn't there yet.

Quoting Ocean: ... But, it seems to me, that Sarah's definition of her own identity was problematic at a deeper level. It isn't clear to me what lies in the center of that difficulty, but she certainly struggled for years. In my opinion, some of her arguments are so weak and shallow, that they show that the struggle is still there, covered up by her hijab.

[...]

It wouldn't be surprising that someone who can't completely resolve internal conflict, will embrace some dogmatic position in order to end the discomfort of ambivalence. This is, of course, an external imposition, which suppresses her free will, and therefore forces her to abandon her intolerable ambivalence. Every now and then, a bit of the "other side" filters through and she says things like, if she lived in a country where hijab was imposed, she may consider not wearing it, or that she hopes there will be changes in the future. If her wearing her hijab is so deeply rooted in her religious beliefs, why would she consider or hope otherwise? I think her message is: "since I can't make up my mind, I'll do what I'm told, and I'll repeat the reasons behind them without challenging

Quoting Me&theboys: I was not making a judgmental comment about sending one's kids to a school where wearing the hijab is required. I was commenting that such a practice seems inconsistent with the claim made by Sarah that wearing the hijab should be a personal and voluntary decision made by each individual and not something that is forced or externally imposed on females. Just one of several inconsistencies and vague statements made by Sarah which remained unexplored in this ultimately unsatisfying diavlog.

You can make the same observation about compulsory education in the USA. If we live in a open, free society that respects the individual liberty the idea of forced education seems inconsistent with that idea. I find most of the comments here critical of the hijab to be suspect, predicated as I believe it is on a 'we know what's best for them' view of gender. Harping on little girls being forced to wear hijab in school is a convenient trope to deploy when the very idea of an adult woman choosing to wear hijab is unimaginable. Bourgeois feminism is in love with Ayaan

I don't get it. I can understand someone being against religious education for children generally (which isn't to say I agree with the position), but what's special about the-hijab-and-pre-pubescent-females? Is forcing ultra-orthodox kindergarten-age boys to wear a skull cap and other religious articles of clothing, keep their hair in a certain way, etc., less worse? For that matter, is forcing pre-pubescent boys and girls to learn bible stories, prayers, songs, other rituals, etc., any less worse? On what grounds might such distinctions be made?

I think this is generally true. Parenting is "coercive," and it should be, provided you want to transmit culture to children. That's why it's only the big issues that bother me. My criteria are a) permanency (circumcision, male and female), b) educationally debilititating (creationism), c) deeply bigoted (racism and homophobia), e) harmful to health (faith healing, etc.) , f) disproportionately punitive (corporal punishment for masturbation, etc) Any of those rightly triggers the secular alarm system designed to protect human rights, including those of children. Now, religious groups may have good defenses of their practices and they may win, of course. Circumcision for male Jewish babies appears to be a case where religious Jews prevailed. I would be deeply troubled, however, if other groups (including some Muslim sects) prevailed on female circumcision.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: You can make the same observation about compulsory education in the USA. If we live in a open, free society that respects the individual liberty the idea of forced education seems inconsistent with that idea.

I wouldn't draw that conclusion so quickly. I would imagine that the vast majority of people in this country and, for this matter, the world, consider education a necessity to be able to function in this world. This idea doesn't belong to an individual culture, religion, or country. As I understand it, "forced" education is a mechanism of protection for children, so that they are given the opportunity of education, even when the parents may, for their own peculiar reasons, have other plans for them.

I find most of the comments here critical of the hijab to be suspect, predicated as I believe it is on a 'we know what's best for them' view of gender. Harping on little girls being forced to wear hijab in school is a convenient trope to deploy when the very idea of an adult woman choosing to wear hijab is unimaginable. Bourgeois feminism is in love with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others like her because she

Quoting grits-n-gravy: You can make the same observation about compulsory education in the USA. If we live in a open, free society that respects the individual liberty the idea of forced education seems inconsistent with that idea.

That might be the dumbest rebuttal I've read in a while. Why don't you just go all the way and compare mandated wearing of a hijab to parents "compelling" their children to eat? You go to school to learn how to learn, not to get indoctrinated, despite what some on the paranoid right might like to believe. You have a wide choice of education options, too, from public schools to private to parochial to home-schooling. Further, the more education you receive, the better able you are to question mindless authority. Once you know how to read, the whole world's thoughts are available to you.

Quoting Wonderment: That's why it's only the big issues that bother me. My criteria are a) permanency (circumcision, male and female), b) educationally debilititating (creationism), c) deeply bigoted (racism and homophobia), e) harmful to health (faith healing, etc.) , f) disproportionately punitive (corporal punishment for masturbation, etc)

I'd argue that sufficiently fundamentalist religious indoctrination all by itself meets (b), (c), and (d), and comes close to meeting (a). It takes a long time and a lot of work to overcome the prejudices and narrowmindedness that come from being bombarded with religious dogma at too young an age. Many never do.

I'd argue that sufficiently fundamentalist religious indoctrination all by itself meets (b), (c), and (d), and comes close to meeting (a). It takes a long time and a lot of work to overcome the prejudices and narrowmindedness that come from being bombarded with religious dogma at too young an age. Many never do.

Maybe. But you have to make intelligent public policy out of the gooey democratic mix of conflicting rights. Banning religious indoctrination, like Stalin and Mao did, is one extreme that's obviously oppressive and impractical. (I know you do not support anything remotely like this.) So you're left with a public/private educational system. But if the public system goes too far in alienating believers, it can lose lots of customers, thus reducing secular thought in the society at large. Catholic parochial schools have always offered a relatively cheap alternative to public school education, and Jewish and Muslim schools also compete well. Then there's the whole home-schooling movement which has been a great boon to the Protestant Evangelicals. I was at our local lake yesterday. There was a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish children playing there. Summer day camp kids up from LA. The

Quoting bjkeefe: That might be the dumbest rebuttal I've read in a while?

Why? Because you said so? Your silly attempt at reductio ad absurdum is wide of the mark.

You go to school to learn how to learn, not to get indoctrinated, despite what some on the paranoid right might like to believe. You have a wide choice of education options, too, from public schools to private to parochial to home-schooling. Further, the more education you receive, the better able you are to question mindless authority. Once you know how to read, the whole world's thoughts are available to you.

You obviously are not acquainted with the literature on critical pedagogy, which sees schools as instruments of indoctrination. There is a big difference between schooling and education, though they are often used synonmously. But to return to your bogus contention, all schools have dress codes to varying degrees. It makes no sense to complain that muslim schools are forcing girls to adopt an Islamic dress code (duh?) when the State is forcing parents to send their kids to school or 'school' them at home. As far as the latter option is concerned, the State of California

Quoting Wonderment: -- But when these kids outperform their public school peers on the SATs, there's not much of an argument on educational achievement grounds.

Now, if you talk to the parents of these kids, you'll get -- as Sarah suggested -- a mix of views and values. Some will think the schools overdo the religion, others will think the schools should never allow those Laker t-shirts. What they'll agree on, however, is that public schools -- with the sex, drugs and My Space tolerance -- are an abysmal failure.

These are muddy waters. As long as people continue to pull out the kids that for various reasons (which you didn't elaborate on) are more likely to be high achievers from public schools, the gap will be wider. Those families who don't have the resources to send their children to private schools are stuck with whatever is left. I would pay more attention to making a real effort to improve public secular education, so that no-one feels like their children have to be pulled out. If parents want religion in their children's lives, they should impart it at home, church or temple. I do have problems with any segregation regardless

As long as people continue to pull out the kids that for various reasons (which you didn't elaborate on) are more likely to be high achievers from public schools, the gap will be wider. Those families who don't have the resources to send their children to private schools are stuck with whatever is left. I would pay more attention to making a real effort to improve public secular education, so that no-one feels like their children have to be pulled out.

Right, but one of the reasons parents pull kids out is that the schools won't teach "intelligent design" or alternative "theories" to evolution. To them, that is tantamount to teaching atheism. Another reason is sex education. Are the schools teaching that abortion is "murder?" Are they teaching that homosexuality is wrong behavior, i.e., sinful? Are they advocating abstinence only policies for teens? And then there are dress codes. Are girls allowed to walk around in low-cut outfits and mini-skirts?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Your silly attempt at reductio ad absurdum is wide of the mark.

I'll let you answer yourself:

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Why? Because you said so?

As for your next unsupported, reference-free assertion:

You obviously are not acquainted with the literature on critical pedagogy, which sees schools as instruments of indoctrination.

Oh please. "Acquainted with the literature?" You mean you've read a few wingnut papers which matched your existing views.

Quoting graz: Do you mean - look like all the other Barbies?
And instead of wondering if she is a Muslim, we could assume that she is fond of non-fat lattes and fashionable shoes?
Your comment suggests that you haven't spent much time in a "secular" city.

41 years in the heart of Chicago. You're projecting your presumptuosness, it is more likely most people wouldn't make any assumptions about her, at least none as binding as the conclusion people draw from seeing the hijab. Then there's you, who presumes to know how and where I grew up from one post in a forum. So all women not wearing hijabs look like Barbie. Dude, you're seriously messed up. Can you address my actual point? How is standing out, intentionally wearing a hijab in provoke comments and draw attention in any way modest, unassuming, non-egocentric behavior?

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll let you answer yourself:

As for your next unsupported, reference-free assertion:

Oh please. "Acquainted with the literature?"

You mean you've read a few wingnut papers which matched your existing views.

First, it was 'paranoid right'; now its wingnuts. Are you suggesting critical pedagogy is right wing stuff? LoL!

Quoting grits-n-gravy: First, it was 'paranoid right'; now its wingnuts.

The two terms are synonymous as I use them.

Are you suggesting critical pedagogy is right wing stuff? LoL!

Not at all. I am saying that critical pedagogy has not come to the unified conclusion that you pretend it has. I don't read the literature myself, but I have enough relatives and friends who are college professors and other sorts of education professionals to know this. I grant there may be a line of thought that looks at the problems of "indoctrination," although I suspect it's really more concerns about things like too much emphasis on rote learning or teaching to the test, but in any case, I am sure that you're exaggerating. There's one other possibility, I suppose. If the right has defined the term "critical pedagogy" for its own purposes, while everyone who actually participates in this field just calls it pedagogy and does not feel the need to state the implied qualifier, you might have a case about the uniformity of views. That is, we could have a situation much like the ones with the terms "family values" and "pro-life," for example.

thank you!!! I almost posted a long-winded rant about brendan's last post. but you said what i meant (without sounding like an ass). you rock!

Quoting Globalcop: 41 years in the heart of Chicago. You're projecting your presumptuosness, it is more likely most people wouldn't make any assumptions about her, at least none as binding as the conclusion people draw from seeing the hijab. Then there's you, who presumes to know how and where I grew up from one post in a forum.

So all women not wearing hijabs look like Barbie. Dude, you're seriously messed up.

Can you address my actual point? How is standing out, intentionally wearing a hijab in provoke comments and draw attention in any way modest, unassuming, non-egocentric behavior?

I'm happy to hear about your inner-city heartland experience. My post was a counter to your insult of her right to choose (attire).
You are mixing the perception of difference - on your part, with her right to self expression. I doubt that her description of modesty - confused as it was by most accounts here in the forum - relates to your strict desire for her conformity. As for Barbie. Your Chicago gals are more the big-boned brunette type, right?

Quoting Wonderment: Right, but one of the reasons parents pull kids out is that the schools won't teach "intelligent design" or alternative "theories" to evolution. To them, that is tantamount to teaching atheism.

Intelligent design and alternative theories of evolution are inventions, not supported by any kind of factual data, to cover up pure religious belief. It belongs outside of schools. Again, parents can teach them at home, or take their children to religious centers for that. Why do they need to have science legitimize these beliefs? The fact that some people are afraid of atheism, is more telling about their own insecurity. I don't teach my children religion as I don't have one. But, I'm not afraid of their exposure to religion as they encounter it in their everyday life. When time comes, they will decide what suits them best.

Another reason is sex education. Are the schools teaching that abortion is "murder?" Are they teaching that homosexuality is wrong behavior, i.e., sinful? Are they advocating abstinence only policies for teens? And then there are dress codes. Are girls allowed to walk around in low-cut outfits and mini-skirts?

I'm assuming you are playing devil's advocate here. I feel really tempted when reading the above, to

I. Don't. Care.

My post(s) never mentioned, much less insulted, her right to choose. It pointed out the hypocrisy, rarely addressed, of stating that the hijab is a means of living up to Islamic codes of modesty while also stating (or simply behaving as if) it is a means of getting attention. I've seen at least three panel discussion/debates on this topic in different forums in Chicago and each time the participants defending hijabs make the same conflicting claims as Sarah: I need to be modest; I want to show people I'm Muslim, especially post-911. At least obnoxious evangelists don't claim to be unassuming. Every argument I've heard coming from the pro-hijab side is loaded with disengenousness and hypocrisy. Just once I'd like a clear honest answer. However, I suspect that the same impulses that bring one to do such a thing, also prevent clear thinking and honest answers on the topic. I'd like to hear more about the Cult comparisons, I think they're apt. Listening to Sarah explain modesty, can you blame people for being confused? But she didn't disagree with and seemed pleased with Shire's definition, which is the one I use to expose the hypocrisy.

Quoting graz: I'm happy to hear

Quoting Globalcop: My post(s) never mentioned, much less insulted, her right to choose. It pointed out the hypocrisy, rarely addressed, of stating that the hijab is a means of living up to Islamic codes of modesty while also stating (or simply behaving as if) it is a means of getting attention.

I've seen at least three panel discussion/debates on this topic in different forums in Chicago and each time the participants defending hijabs make the same conflicting claims as Sarah: I need to be modest; I want to show people I'm Muslim, especially post-911.

At least obnoxious evangelists don't claim to be unassuming.

Every argument I've heard coming from the pro-hijab side is loaded with disengenousness and hypocrisy. Just once I'd like a clear honest answer. However, I suspect that the same impulses that bring one to do such a thing, also prevent clear thinking and honest answers on the topic.

I'd like to hear more about the Cult comparisons, I think they're apt.

I would not be the one to explain it away. And I do share your interest in a greater understanding of the apparent contradictions. Sorry to go aggro on your first comment. I was reacting to the general

Quoting graz: I would not be the one to explain it away. And I do share your interest in a greater understanding of the apparent contradictions. Sorry to go aggro on your first comment. I was reacting to the general tenor of the attack on her that seems better placed on Muslim practice in general.
Hitchens might be right... Religion -------- (fill in the blank) everything.

Why haven't we seen Hitchens on BHTV? He should be on weekly. Here we are together, on one of my few trips from small town Chicago to Manhattan.

Quoting Globalcop: Why haven't we seen Hitchens on BHTV? He should be on weekly.

Here we are together, on one of my few trips from small town Chicago to Manhattan.

That's cool. Thanks for that.
But her (Chicago) shoulders are big.

Oh, please, do diatribe! it can't be any worse than the invective and silliness on the Boards, and might just be more appropriate. As I understand, the breadth of the landmass makes its climate unique.There is also the isolation of the Arabian communities from other areas to consider, when discussing how sartorial habits migrated from region to region.

Globalcop: There must be a joke to be made, involving the third head in the picture, but hanged if I can think of it. Plus, I'm jealous. Nice shot. Did you get to talk to him much?

Thank God he's wearing his flag pin.

Quoting Wonderment: Thank God he's wearing his flag pin.

Doesn't look like an American flag, though. Globalcop: do you remember what that was?

The hypocrisy charge, I feel, is more imagined than real. Modesty and the struggle for recognition often exist in tension, that much is true. But that is not to say they are mutually exclusive psychological states, because they're not to my understanding. In fact, one can make a strong case that they are symbiotic.

How many drinks did Hitchens have at this point? If for nothing else, Hitchens on bhTv would set a new standard for beverages.

Reza is a Shia, Ayaan is a Sunni. So, cant have that. We need a knowledgeable debater with Sarah. Someone who has lived in the Muslim world, knows Arabic, Knows the Koran, and knows the Islamic world outside the middle east.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The hypocrisy charge, I feel, is more imagined than real. Modesty and the struggle for recognition often exist in tension, that much is true. But that is not to say they are mutually exclusive psychological states, because they're not to my understanding. In fact, one can make a strong case that they are symbiotic.

Yes, they are two sides of the same coin. However, it's difficult to understand how you can satisfy both coherently by wearing the hijab. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. It's too intolerant. I do think it is an inconsistency, an unresolved internal struggle.

It took a certain amount of courage on Jackie's part to talk about these matters at all, and a certain amount of courage on Sarah's to have personal preferences paraded like this. But, I take your general point: sometimes a little courage is worse than no courage at all. I waited patiently for the two commentators to get to some feminist discussion of the very meaning of covering the hair. Without that discussion, this exchange was a little lifeless. The feminist critique that I wish Jackie had raised goes something like this: Whether or not you believe that Abrahamic religions are just twaddle handed down by goat-herding patriarchs, you still have to explain why these religions seem to regard women as a terrible wild card whose power to distract men from a) worshiping God, and b) running the planet, must be sharply curtailed by any means necessary. The list of screeners and inhibitors varies across cultures: sometimes, a lacy scarf worn only in church is sufficient; or an opaque scarf worn at all times is enough to do the trick. Most cultures require a shirt be worn at all times, but others are

good idea to talk about these issues. bad idea to use dumb people.

Quoting rgajria: We need a knowledgeable debater with Sarah. Someone who has lived in the Muslim world, knows Arabic, Knows the Koran, and knows the Islamic world outside the middle east.

Living in the so-called "muslim world" is not pre-requisite for knowing Arabic, Qur'an, and the wider Muslim community. We need to get beyond this notion that an Muslim immigrant (especially an Arab) is the last word on all things Islamic.

Quoting Ocean: Yes, they are two sides of the same coin. However, it's difficult to understand how you can satisfy both coherently by wearing the hijab. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. It's too intolerant. I do think it is an inconsistency, an unresolved internal struggle.

The issue from my perspective is not to resolve or satisfy the dilemma but rather to manage it. Covering your hair is only ONE tool in the proverbial arsenal; and not the most important one at that.

It wasn't dumb at all, just incomplete. In fact, given how carefully Jackie in particular stepped around the various minefields, I'd say it was pretty smart.

So - I haven't read enough to know whether someone's already asked this, but: did Sarah's headphones work? Either that or she basically refuses to listen, at least at times. She certainly refuses to deal with the questions about women in sports with any degree of openness.

In fact, given how carefully Jackie in particular stepped around the various minefields, I'd say it was pretty smart.

Jackie is very sympathetic to religious traditions and beliefs. She showed that in a previous discussion on Bheads. There was no way she was going to conduct a hostile Q&A. Second, she probably got Sarah to do the interview under certain ground rules -- we'll keep the discussion to headgear. We don't have to talk about menstruation, masturbation or homosexuality, much less FGC (which is only practiced by a tiny minority of Muslims anyway and has absolutely ZERO to do with Pakistani culture). So while a lot of us would have preferred an interview that was more confrontational and probing, that's not where Jackie and Sarah are coming from. Given who they are and what they wanted to accomplish in this interview, they both did a great job.

For those of you who might be wondering, Sarah Sayeed was having some trouble hearing Jackie Shire during the recording process. It was a volume issue with the headsets.

Quoting bjkeefe: Doesn't look like an American flag, though.

Globalcop: do you remember what that was?

It's his flag of Kurdistan, where he has many friends and traveled many times. I hope to get there sometime over the next 12 months during my deployment beginning in October, but I'll probably have to go on my own time as they seem to have things under control up there and don't need US infantry in the way. I got to speak with him a bit on a prior book discussion in Chicago, but this time I made sure to be last in line for the signing (it was a discussion of his biography of Thomas Jefferson) so we could walk out together. He and I chatted for about the length of two cigarettes and it was great. I wish I'd known then that the Army would eventually raise the age to join to 42 and I'd soon be in, I'd like for him to know I'm on my way over there to help push back the foes of freedom and fight for the Kurds and good and honorable people of Iraq. Here's a pic I took of him at the earlier stop in Chicago

Globalcop: Thanks for the reply, and thanks for the additional information about yourself. Be safe.

Quoting Globalcop: It's his flag of Kurdistan, where he has many friends and traveled many times. I hope to get there sometime over the next 12 months during my deployment beginning in October, but I'll probably have to go on my own time as they seem to have things under control up there and don't need US infantry in the way.

I'd like to echo Brendan's sentiment, good luck.

I think there's a difference between being confrontational and being probing. I'm not being coy when I defended Jackie as giving a smart interview, but there are non-confrontational ways to ask if separate facilities can ever be truly equal facilities. And there are polite ways to ask why men aren't the ones who are subject to the kind of discomfort and containment that the hijab imposes on women. Jackie could have described the standard feminist critique of veiling -- that it's one of many practices that limit female autonomy and makes femininity Other and masculinity normative -- and asked for a response.

Quoting January: I think there's a difference between being confrontational and being probing. I'm not being coy when I defended Jackie as giving a smart interview, but there are non-confrontational ways to ask if separate facilities can ever be truly equal facilities. And there are polite ways to ask why men aren't the ones who are subject to the kind of discomfort and containment that the hijab imposes on women. Jackie could have described the standard feminist critique of veiling -- that it's one of many practices that limit female autonomy and makes femininity Other and masculinity normative -- and asked for a response.

Agreed. And Wonderment, you are being generous in saying they did a great job. Jackie was too guarded and too gentle. I would have pursued the points that January is referring to above. And Sarah, too shallow for my taste... Not a bad interview, just not great.

Quoting January: And there are polite ways to ask why men aren't the ones who are subject to the kind of discomfort and containment
that the hijab imposes on women.

Headscarves-and that's what we're really talking about--don't "impose" unique "discomfort and containment". I rarely hear people asking why women wearing skirts and high heel shoes are subjecting themselves to "discomfort and containment". This kind of language is not helpful to advancing understanding and dialogue. And those wishing Jackie had taken a more confrontational and forceful approach are probably not looking for understanding but rather seeking affirmation of their biases and presuppositions.

Jackie could have described the standard feminist critique of veiling -- that it's one of many practices that limit female autonomy and makes femininity Other and masculinity normative -- and asked for a response.

Again, headscarves do not limit female autonomy. In fact, in countries like the KSA and Iran, the exact opposite is the case. Fatima Mernissi wrote an excellent book many years ago called, Beyond the Veil:Male-Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society which contained a "A Note to the Western Reader". It is worth reading. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...esult#PPR29,M1

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Headscarves-and that's what we're really talking about--don't "impose" unique "discomfort and containment". I rarely hear people asking why women wearing skirts and high heel shoes are subjecting themselves to "discomfort and containment".

This kind of language is not helpful to advancing understanding and dialogue. And those wishing Jackie had taken a more confrontational and forceful approach are probably not looking for understanding but rather seeking affirmation of their biases and presuppositions.

I don't think that acquiescence to this kind of repression inflicted by Muslim men onto Muslim women, validates it in any way. It only confirms that the repression is so profound that it has aborted any hope for free-thinking. The point is not about what women wear, but about the pressure put on them to comply and abandon other options. And the lack of similar demands on men. I agree that one has to try to "understand", in fact I favor being more forceful in eliciting answers from Sarah. I really wanted to know whether behind the more obvious differences in opinions about the hijab, there was, perhaps something that I could relate to, and truly understand. But, Sarah offered, what to me were, weak

Quoting Ocean: I don't think that acquiescence to this kind of repression inflicted by Muslim men onto Muslim women, validates it in any way. It only confirms that the repression is so profound that it has aborted any hope for free-thinking.

And you think a western culture that promotes a woman prancing around in booty-shorts and 'hello-navel' shirts reflects free thinking autonomy, not false consciousness? You got it all twisted.

The point is not about what women wear, but about the pressure put on them to comply and abandon other options. And the lack of similar demands on men.

Social pressure is fact of human cultural existence. All cultures attempt to police their boundaries in order to control the terms on which they will change. To pretend that that pressure is anymore prevalent or insidious in Muslim societies reflects a distorted understanding of muslim societies at best. The main problem I have with your point is its presumed point of reference for evaluating gender relations in Muslim cultures is rooted in classic liberalism and not in the logic of muslim traditions. Of course you are free to do

Quoting grits-n-gravy: And you think a western culture that promotes a woman prancing around in booty-shorts and 'hello-navel' shirts reflects free thinking autonomy, not false consciousness? You got it all twisted.

No, I didn't. The difference is about "promoting" vs imposing/ demanding.
Besides, the booty shorts and hello-navel refers to a very limited group of young women. And TOTALLY optional, no consequences of any kind.

Social pressure is fact of human cultural existence. All cultures attempt to police their boundaries in order to control the terms on which they will change. To pretend that that pressure is anymore prevalent or insidious in Muslim societies reflects a distorted understanding of Muslim societies at best.

I don't know that it is distorted. I do have very limited understanding of Muslim society. I have two close friends who are Muslim, they don't wear hijab and don't agree with its use. I still would have liked to hear at least ONE argument that would help me understand.

The main problem I have with your point is its presumed point of reference for evaluating gender relations in Muslim cultures is rooted in classic liberalism and not in the logic of Muslim traditions. Of course you are free

Grits-n-gravy, That is exactly what I am saying. A commenter who can comment with equal competence on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tunisia, and Turkey. Someone who understands all sides.
When did I say that the Arab conception of Islam was the last word.

1. Do you have any view as to whether the Islamic Resurgence (as Huntington calls it) in Muslim countries was powered at all by the up close and personal dynamics you described?

I tend to go for rather materialist explanations. I'd say the demographic youth-bulge was a big factor, as was the decline in popularity of communism and secular nationalism (especially after Nasser got whipped by Israel).

It sounds like your parents are pretty liberal (for lack of a better word) and you extended that attitude.

My dad is a rather normal, suburban, corporate managerial, mainline Protestant Republican, whose only real political issue is guns, as he's a hunter. He thinks the NRA goes too far though. My mom is apolitical but I would suspect she'd be left-leaning if she bothered with politics at all. I started out thinking I was a conservative, discovered that my own beliefs matched up with libertarianism, and then kept moving to the right.

By contrast, zillions of bright young things in Cairo reacted against their liberal parents. Any quick and dirty ideas why?

If you're talking Egypt, I'd say it's previous liberalism was due to British colonialism rather than the political sentiments

Quoting mvantony: I'm not sure whether he's what you're looking for, but I'd really like to see Ali Eteraz here on BHTV.

He is a darling of the secular left. I'd like to see him go toe-to-toe with a neo-traditionalist like Sherman Jackson

Quoting Ocean: No, I didn't. The difference is about "promoting" vs imposing/ demanding.
Besides, the booty shorts and hello-navel refers to a very limited group of young women. And TOTALLY optional, no consequences of any kind.

I don’t think we’re talking about a big difference here. I was addressing your point about acquiescence and false consciousness, which is not a case of “imposing” or coercion beyond what can be ascribed to normal cultural conditioning. In the vast majority of Muslim societies, women face no dire consequences for not covering their hair in public.

I don't know that it is distorted. I do have very limited understanding of Muslim society. I have two close friends who are Muslim, they don't wear hijab and don't agree with its use. I still would have liked to hear at least ONE argument that would help me understand.

Understand what? Why it is required? Why do muslim choose to wear it? What? I don’t think muslim women have to apologize (a main reason why I dislike premise of this bh dialog) for adopting a mode of dress that satisfies a religious and cultural expectation.

Yes, I agree that I'm looking at this from non-Muslim standpoint. I also agree it's difficult or impossible to understand gender relations or any

Quoting grits-n-gravy: It’s not a big deal when you consider the vast majority of muslim women are not harassed and intimidated for not wearing headscarves. Sorry, but I can’t respect an opinion that feigned concern for women in KSA and Iran when there are countless women and girls around the world, including in America, that are in need not only my concern but also help on issues ranging from education to AIDs.

Up to your last paragraph I was succeeding, more or less, in finding some parallel in our respective thinking processes, so that I, at least, could follow your reasoning even when I still disagree with the final result. And then we get to this last paragraph. I may agree with you that the vast majority of Muslim women are not harassed or intimidated. But the fact that there are a significant number of women who are harassed and intimidated is no less of a concern. When something is wrong, it's wrong whether it happens to one, many or all. Why would we denounce torture, murder, rape, etc, if it only happens to a small number of people? I'm giving this examples as a hyperbole to make clear

Quoting Ocean: And then we get to this last paragraph. I may agree with you that the vast majority of Muslim women are not harassed or intimidated. But the fact that there are a significant number of women who are harassed and intimidated is no less of a concern.

I'm confident there are many muslim women who are harassed for inappropriate dress. But a significant number? I'm not persuaded.

When something is wrong, it's wrong whether it happens to one, many or all. Why would we denounce torture, murder, rape, etc, if it only happens to a small number of people? I'm giving this examples as a hyperbole to make clear what my point is. We don't denounce what we think is wrong only when it happens to the majority.

When I said it was "no big deal" I wasn't suggesting it wasn't wrong, only that we need to keep this in perspective. So far, we haven't even defined "harassment and intimidation". That can range from glares and verbal abuse to being accosted by the moral police. And this reaction is concentrated in only a few Muslim societies. The question is not so much whether to denounce it

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The topic [women and islam] was blurred to begin with because, as Edward Said pointed out years ago in Covering Islam, media culture in the West almost always presents Islam as oppressive, and what more subtle way to do that than to ostensibly and innocently talk about why one elite, educated muslim woman chose to wear 'hijab', which most lay person in the West perceive as a symbol of inequality and oppression. And since that is the REAL topic, or least the subtext, why are we even discussing it when there are so many positive strides being made by Muslim women in the Arab world and beyond?

Let's see if we can settle this. I don't have an agenda for or against Islam. I am not religious. I do have views that are quite representative of Western liberalism, but not exclusively so. I don't know whether someone else had an agenda for this diavlog. If that is the case, and I inadvertently became an instrument to facilitate that agenda, I must apologize, and reassure you that it wasn't my intention.
My agenda, if you want, is about gender inequality, regardless of cause, rationale or alleged justification. I am not an activist, but I do feel strongly about