Tendo seguido a discussão acalorada sobre o uso de fatos de corpo inteiro por atletas muçulmanas nos Jogos Olímpicos, bem como sobre a proibição do burkini em algumas praias francesas, penso que alguns factos são - deliberadamente ou não - deixados de fora da equação.
Jogos Olímpicos no Rio de Janeiro, 2016
(imagem retirada do You Tube)
Por um lado, alguns vêem nessas imagens a confirmação de seus medos do Islão, a espalhar e a ameaçar a nossa maneira de viver, a defender a opressão e submisão das mulheres no mundo islâmico, e não só. Essas pessoas não parecem saber ou reconhecer o quão diversa e plural é a prática do Islão em todo o mundo. Além disso, parecem ignorar especialmente o facto do uso do véu (um termo usado para se referir genericamente ao hijab, chador, niqab e burqa) ser, em muitos casos, uma opção para muitas mulheres muçulmanas, um símbolo não só da sua crença religiosa, mas também de identidade, de liberdade ou, simplesmente, de uma proveniência rural (como o é ainda, por exemplo, na Grécia e noutros países do sul europeu, onde as mulheres mais velhas nas aldeias não considerariam sair das suas casas sem cobrir a cabeça com o lenço - ainda nos lembramos de onde vem isso?). O livro de Leila Ahmed “A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America” ajudou-me a colocar esta questão no seu contexto histórico e permitiu-me conhecer algumas perspectivas contemporâneas [vejam também estevídeo dos LA Times, onde muçulmanas americanas explicam o que seu hijab significa para elas].
À esquerda, Jennifer Lopez na gala do Met, 2016 (imagem retirada de ibtimes.com). À direita, publicidade dos Dolce & Gabbana (imagem retirada do Pinterest).
Outra questão que as pessoas neste lado do argumento parecem afirmar, enquanto expressam a sua preocupação em relação ao véu e o lugar da mulher no mundo islâmico, é que o lugar das mulheres no "Ocidente" não é mais um problema. Olhemos para o equipamento revelador das atletas do vólei de praia (uma moda bastante diferente da do equipamento dos atletas do sexo masculino na mesma modalidade), as actrizes de Hollywood que aparecem praticamente nuas em eventos públicos, a presença sexualizada das mulheres na publicidade de todos os tipos de produtos, etc. (para referir apenas alguns exemplos mais superficiais relacionados com a aparência, sem entrar nos promenores da vida diária social, profissional e doméstica): São estas imagens que representam a libertação das mulheres e o progresso ocidental ou, simplesmente, os dois lados da mesma moeda? Os que se mostram preocupados com o lugar da mulher no mundo islâmico raramente expressam preocupações em relação à forma como as mulheres no “Ocidente” são vistas, tratadas, devem comportar-se ou vestir-se para agradar, e o nível de escolha ou imposição social nestes casos. Este não será mais um assunto?
Do outro lado, temos os defensores da liberdade de escolha para as mulheres. Estas pessoas não vêem o véu como uma ameaça ao nosso modo de vida e um símbolo da opressão das mulheres. Defendem o direito das mulheres de usar roupa modesta (não muito diferente daquela considerada apropriada nos meios conservadores cristãos ou judáicos). Considero que faço parte deste grupo de pessoas e é por isso, provavelmente, que me sinto particularmente incomodada com as omissões nos seus argumentos. A omissão mais significativa, na minha opinião, é que o uso ou não do hijab ou do burkini não é uma escolha para todas as mulheres muçulmanas. E é aqui que tudo começa. Apesar disto nem sempre ser mencionado, como se não fosse um assunto, toda esta discussão sobre a liberdade de vestir um hijab ou um burkini (ou até a burqa, uma vez que este grupo mostra-se particularmente tolerante perante pessoas que escondem a sua identitade no espaço público) está a acontecer porque muitas mulheres no mundo são obrigadas a cobrir-se, a desaparecer. Porque são mulheres.
Gostei de ler o artigo de Sarah Malik no Sydney Morning Herald sobre a proibição do burkini. Informativo, claro, expressa, com razão, a preocupação que a proibição vai empurrar as mulheres muçulmanas de volta para a margem, considerando-a "um ataque contra as comunidades minoritárias, alvo já de vigilância reforçada e assédio, que ocupam a parte inferior da hierarquia social; e os seus membros mais vulneráveis – as mulheres muçulmanas ". Como a maioria dos argumentos deste lado, no entanto, não menciona que as roupas modestas não são uma opção para muitas mulheres muçulmanas, incluindo algumas em França. Defende o direito das mulheres muçulmanas de se cobrirem, mas não se refere às mulheres muçulmanas que não desejam cobrir-se e que são obrigadas. Sarah Malik vai mais longe e afirma que para aquelas que "não se sentem confortáveis com a exibição de belos corpos exigida na praia, várias formas deste fato dão liberdade para usufruir e abandonar-se alegramente". Não é este um passo para trás? Será que vamos aceitar a imposição de um "corpo de praia" e sugerir que todos aqueles que não o têm podem optar pelo burkini, a fim de se sentirem mais confortáveis? O Presidente (muçulmano) da Câmara de Londres, Sadiq Khan, seguiu, de facto, um outro caminho, ao proibir nos transportes publicidade que envergonha os que têm corpos diferentes dos considerados “bonitos”, afirmando que "Como pai de duas adolescentes, estou extremamente preocupado com este tipo de publicidade que faz as pessoas sentirem-se rebaixadas, particularmente as mulheres, e fá-las sentirem-se envergonhadas dos seus corpos. Já é tempo disto chegar ao fim." (ler mais no The Telegraph)
(Imagem retirada do The Telegraph)
Há dois artigos recentes que ajudam a trazer algum equilíbrio na argumentação, lembrando-nos que há todo um outro lado na questão da liberdade de usar o hijab (ou o burkini): o direito de não o usar, o que não é garantido a muitas muçulmanas. O primeiro apareceu no Washington Post e intitulava-se AsMuslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the hijab in the name of interfaith solidarity. Referia-se à iniciativa do Dia do Hijab, que achei desde o primeiro momento algo estranha e de alguma forma a demonstração de alguma falta de respeito e solidariedade para com as mulheres muçulmanas oprimidas e humilhadas que não têm escolha. As jornalistas Asra Q. Nomani e Hala Arafa (que se identificam como muçulmanas “mainstream”, nascidas no Egipto e na Índia; Asra é também co-fundadora do Movimento de Reforma Muçulmana) rejeitam a interpretação de que o hijab é meramente um símbolo de modéstia e dignidade adoptado por mulheres fiéis ao Islão; recordam teólogos que já a partir do século VII e até aos nossos dias estabeleceram que as muçulmanas não são obrigadas a cobrir as suas cabeças; e, mais importante, reivindicam a sua religião e o seu direito islâmico de orar sem lenço e partilham a sua experiência de lhes ser negada a entrada à maioria das mesquitas em todo o mundo, incluindo nos Estados Unidos, sem o hijab.
O segundo artigo foi escrito por Nervana Mahmoud, comentadora dos assuntos do Médio Oriente. Em The Right not to Use a Burkini, Mahmoud relembra o seu tempo como uma jovem a crescer no Egipto. A ascensão do islamismo e a definitiva viragem conservadora nos anos 80 foram tempos em que "a pressão social aumentou, forçando as mulheres a cobrirem os seus corpos para manter a sua ‘honra’. Qualquer mulher sem lenço é considerada fácil, decadente, à procura de atenção.” O seu muito interessante artigo termina assim: "As mulheres muçulmanas que optam por usar fatos de banho comuns só querem desfrutar do simples prazer de sentir as ondas do mar a acariciar a sua pele e tocar no seu cabelo, sem julgamento externos de sua moral ou crenças religiosas. Uma vez aceite o conceito de igualdade e diversidade nos países muçulmanos, irá capacitar os muçulmanos para defender o burkini nos países ocidentais. Vamos ser francos: o preconceito, neste contexto, originou no seio das comunidades muçulmanas e nunca será resolvido até os muçulmanos realmente abraçarem a liberdade para todos, e não apenas para as mulheres que vestem o burkini." Isto vale também para os não-muçulmanos defensores da pró-escolha.
Os meus pensamentos finais vão para alguns homens e mulheres muito especiais e que fiquei a conhecer nestes últimos dias, ao ler as notícias:
(Imagem retirada do Twitter)
No Irão, homens publicam nas redes sociais fotos de eles próprios usando hijabs em protesto contra as leis rígidas que regem as mulheres. Sim, no Irão ... (ver mais no New York Times).
Massoma Muradi (imagem retirada do The National)
No Afeganistão, Masooma Muradi, a única governadora provincial do sexo feminino, continua firme, contra uma tradição patriarcal machista e apesar de ser tratada por muitos com falta de respeito (ler mais no The National).
(Imagem retirada da página de Facebook de Faduma Dayib)
Finalmente, Fadumo Dayib, que foi refugiada na Finlândia e que é hoje diplomada pelo Harvard e mãe de quatro filhos, é o primeiro candidato presidencial do sexo feminino na Somália, seu país de origem. Recebeu ameaças de morte e preparou o seu testamento para o caso de algo lhe acontecer. E afirma: "Em termos das ameaças que estou a receber, parece-me que, na verdade, são um sinal positivo de que estou a fazer a coisa certa. Como resultado do que estou a fazer, as mulheres somali deixarão de ser relegado para os quartos e obrigadas a ficar lá. Vão sair dali e nunca vão voltar." (ler mais no Identities.MIC).
Sinto profundo respeito por essas pessoas, que resistem, fazem perguntas, tiram-nos do conforto, dão-nos esperança e empurram o mundo para a frente. E que nos lembram quais são as coisas que nos unem.
fonte:
MARIA VLACHOU
--in
Choices
Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, 2016 (image taken from You Tube)
Having followed the heated discussion regarding the appearance of Muslim women athletes in the Olympics with full-body suits, as well as the ban of the burkini on some French beaches, I find that some facts are – deliberately or not – left out of the equation.
On the one side, some see in these images a confirmation of their fears of Islam, spreading and threatening our way of living, defending the oppression and submission of women in the Islamic world and beyond. These people don’t seem to know or recognise how diverse and plural the practice of Islam is around the world. Furthermore, they seem to especially ignore the fact that the use of the veil (a term used to refer generally to the hijab, chador, niqab and burqa) is in many cases a choice for many Muslim women, a symbol not only of religious belief, but also of identity, of freedom or, simply, of a rural background (as it still is, for instance, in Greece and other countries of the European south, where older women coming from villages would not consider coming out of their homes without covering their heads – do we still remember where this comes from?). Leila Ahmed’s “A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America” helped me put this whole issue into a historical context and allowed me to get to know some contemporary perspectives [watch also this LA Times video, whereAmerican Muslims explain what their hijab means to them].
On the left, Jennifez Lopez at the Met Gala, 2016 (image taken from ibtimes.com). On the right, Dolce & Gabbana ad (image taken from Pinterest)
Another issue that people on this side of the argument seem to claim, as they express concern regarding the veil and the place of women in the Muslim world, is that the place of women in the “West” is no longer an issue. Let’s consider the revealing attire of beach volley women athletes (quite a different fashion from that of male athletes in the same sport), Hollywood actresses appearing practically naked in public events, the sexualised presence of women in the advertisement of all sorts of products, etc., to mention only some more superficial examples related to appearances and not getting into the details of daily social, professional and domestic life: are these images representing women’s liberation and “western” progress or simply the two sides of the same coin? Those who express concern regarding the place of woman in the Islamic world rarely do they raise concerns regarding the way women are seen, treated, expected to behave or dress in the “West” in order to please and the level of choice or social imposition in these cases. Is this no longer an issue?
On the other side, we have the defenders of freedom of choice for women. These people do not see the veil as a threat to our way of living and a symbol of the oppression of women. They defend the right of women to follow the rules of modest clothing (not all that different from rules in conservative Christian or Jewish communities). I consider myself to be part of this group of people and this is probably why I am particularly bothered about omissions in their arguments. The most significant omission, in my view, is the fact that wearing or not the hijab or the burkini is not a choice for every Muslim woman. And this is where it all starts. Although this is not always mentioned, as if it was no longer an issue, the whole discussion about the freedom to wear a hijab or a burkini (or even the burqa, as this group seems to be particularly tolerant in what concerns people concealing their identity in the public space), this whole discussion is taking place because many women around the world are obliged to cover, to disappear. Because they are women.
I liked reading Sarah Malik’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the ban of the burkini. Informative, clear, it rightly expresses concerns that the ban will push Muslim women back to the sidelines and considers it “an attack on minority communities, already subject to increased surveillance and harassment, who occupy the very bottom of the social hierarchy; and its most vulnerable members - Muslim women”. As most arguments on this side, though, it fails to mention that modest clothing is not an option for many Muslim women, including some in France. It defends the right of Muslim women to cover, but doesn’t refer to Muslim women who don’t wish to cover and are obliged to. Sarah Malik actually goes as far as to state that for those who “don't feel comfortable with the body beautiful display otherwise required on the beach, various forms of the suit give freedom to frolic with joyous abandon”. Isn’t this a step backwards? Are we going to accept the imposition of a “beach body” and suggest that all those who don’t have it may opt for the burkini in order to feel more comfortable? London’s (Muslim) mayor, Sadiq Khan, went the other way, actually, banning body shaming publicity from transport and stating that “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.” (read article in The Telegraph).
(Image taken from The Telegraph)
There are two recent articles that set the record straight for me, reminding us that there is a whole other side to the freedom of wearing the hijab (or the burkini): the right not to wear it, which is not guaranteed to too many Muslim women. The first appeared on the Washington Post and was entitled As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the hijab in the name of interfaith solidarity. It referred to the initiative Wear a Hijab Day, which I found bizarre in the first place and somehow showing lack of respect and solidarity for all oppressed and humiliated Muslim women around the world. JournalistsAsra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa (who identify themselves as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and in India; Asra is also co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement) reject the interpretation that the hijab is merely a symbol of modesty and dignity adopted by faithful female followers of Islam; they recall theologians who from as early as the 7thcentury and up to our days have established that Muslim women are not required to cover their heads; and, most importantly, they are reclaiming their religion and their Islamic right to pray without a headscarf and share their experience of being denied entry to most mosques around the world, including in the United States, without a hijab.
The second article was written by Nervana Mahmoud, a commentator on Middle East issues. In The Right Not to Wear a Burkini. Mahmoud recalls her time as a young woman growing up in Egypt. The rise of Islamism and the definite conservative turn in the 80s were times where “social pressure mounted, forcing women to cover their bodies to maintain their ‘honor’. Any uncovered woman was deemed loose, decadent, and attention seeking.” Her very interesting article ends like this: “Muslim women who opt to wear ordinary swimming costumes only want to enjoy the simple pleasure of feeling the sea waves caressing their skin and touching their hair, without external judgment of their morals or religious beliefs. Once the concept of equality and diversity is accepted in Muslim countries, it will empower Muslims to defend the burkini in Western countries. Let’s be frank: prejudice in this context originated within the Muslim communities, and will never be solved until Muslims truly embrace freedom for all, and not just for burkini-wearing women”. That goes for non-Muslim pro-choice defenders too.
My final thoughts go to some men and women that I consider very special and whom I also got to know in these last days by reading the news:
(Image taken from Twitter)
In Iran, men post photos of themselves wearing hijabs in protest of strict laws governing women. Yes, in Iran… (see more in the New York Times).
Masooma Muradi (mage taken from The National)
In Afghanistan, Masooma Muradi, the only female provincial governor, is standing her ground, against a sexist patriarchal tradition and despite being treated by many with lack of respect (read more in The National).
(Image taken from Fadumo Dayib's Facebook page)
Finally, Fadumo Dayib, once a Somali refugee in Finland and today a Harvard graduate and mother, is the first female presidential candidate in Somalia. She has received death threats and has prepared her will in case something happens to her. She states: “In terms of the threats that I've been getting, I see that actually as a positive sign that I am doing the right thing. As a result of what I am doing, Somali women will no longer be relegated to the back rooms and told to stay there. They'll come out and they'll never go back.” (read more on Identities.MIC).
Kudos to these people, for resisting, asking questions, dis-comforting us, giving us hope and pushing the world forward. And for showing us which are the things that unite us.
Posted by Maria Vlachou at 11:01
Choices
Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, 2016 (image taken from You Tube)
Having followed the heated discussion regarding the appearance of Muslim women athletes in the Olympics with full-body suits, as well as the ban of the burkini on some French beaches, I find that some facts are – deliberately or not – left out of the equation.
On the one side, some see in these images a confirmation of their fears of Islam, spreading and threatening our way of living, defending the oppression and submission of women in the Islamic world and beyond. These people don’t seem to know or recognise how diverse and plural the practice of Islam is around the world. Furthermore, they seem to especially ignore the fact that the use of the veil (a term used to refer generally to the hijab, chador, niqab and burqa) is in many cases a choice for many Muslim women, a symbol not only of religious belief, but also of identity, of freedom or, simply, of a rural background (as it still is, for instance, in Greece and other countries of the European south, where older women coming from villages would not consider coming out of their homes without covering their heads – do we still remember where this comes from?). Leila Ahmed’s “A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America” helped me put this whole issue into a historical context and allowed me to get to know some contemporary perspectives [watch also this LA Times video, whereAmerican Muslims explain what their hijab means to them].
On the left, Jennifez Lopez at the Met Gala, 2016 (image taken from ibtimes.com). On the right, Dolce & Gabbana ad (image taken from Pinterest)
Another issue that people on this side of the argument seem to claim, as they express concern regarding the veil and the place of women in the Muslim world, is that the place of women in the “West” is no longer an issue. Let’s consider the revealing attire of beach volley women athletes (quite a different fashion from that of male athletes in the same sport), Hollywood actresses appearing practically naked in public events, the sexualised presence of women in the advertisement of all sorts of products, etc., to mention only some more superficial examples related to appearances and not getting into the details of daily social, professional and domestic life: are these images representing women’s liberation and “western” progress or simply the two sides of the same coin? Those who express concern regarding the place of woman in the Islamic world rarely do they raise concerns regarding the way women are seen, treated, expected to behave or dress in the “West” in order to please and the level of choice or social imposition in these cases. Is this no longer an issue?
On the other side, we have the defenders of freedom of choice for women. These people do not see the veil as a threat to our way of living and a symbol of the oppression of women. They defend the right of women to follow the rules of modest clothing (not all that different from rules in conservative Christian or Jewish communities). I consider myself to be part of this group of people and this is probably why I am particularly bothered about omissions in their arguments. The most significant omission, in my view, is the fact that wearing or not the hijab or the burkini is not a choice for every Muslim woman. And this is where it all starts. Although this is not always mentioned, as if it was no longer an issue, the whole discussion about the freedom to wear a hijab or a burkini (or even the burqa, as this group seems to be particularly tolerant in what concerns people concealing their identity in the public space), this whole discussion is taking place because many women around the world are obliged to cover, to disappear. Because they are women.
I liked reading Sarah Malik’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the ban of the burkini. Informative, clear, it rightly expresses concerns that the ban will push Muslim women back to the sidelines and considers it “an attack on minority communities, already subject to increased surveillance and harassment, who occupy the very bottom of the social hierarchy; and its most vulnerable members - Muslim women”. As most arguments on this side, though, it fails to mention that modest clothing is not an option for many Muslim women, including some in France. It defends the right of Muslim women to cover, but doesn’t refer to Muslim women who don’t wish to cover and are obliged to. Sarah Malik actually goes as far as to state that for those who “don't feel comfortable with the body beautiful display otherwise required on the beach, various forms of the suit give freedom to frolic with joyous abandon”. Isn’t this a step backwards? Are we going to accept the imposition of a “beach body” and suggest that all those who don’t have it may opt for the burkini in order to feel more comfortable? London’s (Muslim) mayor, Sadiq Khan, went the other way, actually, banning body shaming publicity from transport and stating that “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.” (read article in The Telegraph).
(Image taken from The Telegraph)
There are two recent articles that set the record straight for me, reminding us that there is a whole other side to the freedom of wearing the hijab (or the burkini): the right not to wear it, which is not guaranteed to too many Muslim women. The first appeared on the Washington Post and was entitled As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the hijab in the name of interfaith solidarity. It referred to the initiative Wear a Hijab Day, which I found bizarre in the first place and somehow showing lack of respect and solidarity for all oppressed and humiliated Muslim women around the world. JournalistsAsra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa (who identify themselves as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and in India; Asra is also co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement) reject the interpretation that the hijab is merely a symbol of modesty and dignity adopted by faithful female followers of Islam; they recall theologians who from as early as the 7thcentury and up to our days have established that Muslim women are not required to cover their heads; and, most importantly, they are reclaiming their religion and their Islamic right to pray without a headscarf and share their experience of being denied entry to most mosques around the world, including in the United States, without a hijab.
The second article was written by Nervana Mahmoud, a commentator on Middle East issues. In The Right Not to Wear a Burkini. Mahmoud recalls her time as a young woman growing up in Egypt. The rise of Islamism and the definite conservative turn in the 80s were times where “social pressure mounted, forcing women to cover their bodies to maintain their ‘honor’. Any uncovered woman was deemed loose, decadent, and attention seeking.” Her very interesting article ends like this: “Muslim women who opt to wear ordinary swimming costumes only want to enjoy the simple pleasure of feeling the sea waves caressing their skin and touching their hair, without external judgment of their morals or religious beliefs. Once the concept of equality and diversity is accepted in Muslim countries, it will empower Muslims to defend the burkini in Western countries. Let’s be frank: prejudice in this context originated within the Muslim communities, and will never be solved until Muslims truly embrace freedom for all, and not just for burkini-wearing women”. That goes for non-Muslim pro-choice defenders too.
My final thoughts go to some men and women that I consider very special and whom I also got to know in these last days by reading the news:
(Image taken from Twitter)
In Iran, men post photos of themselves wearing hijabs in protest of strict laws governing women. Yes, in Iran… (see more in the New York Times).
Masooma Muradi (mage taken from The National)
In Afghanistan, Masooma Muradi, the only female provincial governor, is standing her ground, against a sexist patriarchal tradition and despite being treated by many with lack of respect (read more in The National).
(Image taken from Fadumo Dayib's Facebook page)
Finally, Fadumo Dayib, once a Somali refugee in Finland and today a Harvard graduate and mother, is the first female presidential candidate in Somalia. She has received death threats and has prepared her will in case something happens to her. She states: “In terms of the threats that I've been getting, I see that actually as a positive sign that I am doing the right thing. As a result of what I am doing, Somali women will no longer be relegated to the back rooms and told to stay there. They'll come out and they'll never go back.” (read more on Identities.MIC).
Kudos to these people, for resisting, asking questions, dis-comforting us, giving us hope and pushing the world forward. And for showing us which are the things that unite us.
Posted by Maria Vlachou at 11:01
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário