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

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 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.

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?

I agree. I just doubt there's much ground for focusing on Muslim women's dress in particular here. Religious law doesn't apply only to dress, and it isn't restricted to Islam. For a favorable outcome in a Jewish rabbinical court (being granted a divorce in Israel), for example, one also has to play by the rules, whether one would otherwise chose to do so or not. Religious law aside, there's little doubt that people (mainly children and women) are treated violently or threatened with violence for failing to engage in "appropriate" religious behavior. But that's not restricted to Islam (even though it may be more prevalent there than elsewhere) or to the hijab within Islam.

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

Quoting Me&theboys: 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.

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

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