CNN’s “Veiled Wife” Headline Fail and France’s Burqa Ban
“Veiled wife costs man French citizenship,” the headline reads. The premise of the news story is that a man was forcing his wife to wear a full veil and “does not allow her the freedom to go and come as she pleases, and bans her from going out with her face unveiled, and rejects the principles of secularism and equality between man and woman” — and the husband thus was denied French citizenship (his wife is already a French citizen). So what cost the man his chance at French citizenship again? His own behavior, not his wife, who is the victim of her controlling, oppressive husband if all the details here are accurate. A headline that reads “Veiled wife costs man…” implies that the woman did something wrong to cost her husband some privilege; it shifts the blame onto her. Major. headline. fail.
And while we’re talking about veils and men in positions of power — whether husbands or politicians — deciding what women must or must not wear, France’s proposed ban on the wearing of full veils in public is anything but unproblematic itself.
As RaceWire concludes after examining the burqa-ban issue,
No one, of course, can claim to represent the sentiments of all those who could be subject to the ban. And that’s precisely the point: restricting a certain kind of religious dress—for all the rhetoric about women’s liberation and cultural democracy—leaves no room between absolutes, no space for individual choice in self-expression.
A friend weighed in on this just yesterday too:
It’s difficult for me to distinguish between actions that may be carried out to “free” women and those that may purge the growing Muslim population in France. Either way I cannot imagine that forcing women to partially undress (please keep in mind that if you were always wearing a garment in public you may not feel comfortable if suddenly forced to go out without it) is a way to make women feel free. There is a difference between freedom to not wear something and being unable to make the choice for yourself. Taking choices from women is not granting them any special freedom.
Your thoughts?
—
Photo by Flickr user Water Lemon
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
If women want to wear it, let them wear it. I think it is completely unfair to say this is all men forcing it upon women, undoubtedly there are some women who do this out of tradition or religious beliefs. I don’t think it is right to not allow them to wear it, even if it will keep other women from being oppressed by men. And just saying, personally, I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to interfere in things like this. I agree that the title of that headline is a major fail.
Well…it is CNN. I like how your friend put it about the French gov’t hoping to use oppression to fight oppression. It’s the same sort of lunacy we see within the AR movement—all the different variations of eating animals to “save” animals. Or in the military: waging a war to gain peace. The concept of granting women or men permission to wear or do something is nonsense. That women need to first be “given” permission is at the heart of oppression. As long as this ideology of control persists and is the foundation for thoughts, there can be no true freedom. And the thing we need least is permission from any gov’t. Of course, I hesitate to slam the French gov’t when our own crazy-ass gov’t is in the process of trying to crush the AETA 4 (and other political activists) and what’s left of our liberties.
What would men do… if other men in another country were forced to wear ridiculous outfits at all times? What if there was a cult in Illinois demanding young men dress as Abraham Lincoln 24/7 against their will? What would other men think of this?
How would men act if other men were prisoners in relationships and obligated by other men to walk around dressed head to toe in iron age uniforms and if they disobeyed…then these men could be beaten and punished by other bigger men.
What if the men being oppressed were dark skinned and the men forcing them to dress in such embarrassing ways were light skinned?
There would be outrage all over the world and the practices would be condemned as racist and or oppressive.
Regarding the burkas..it’s pure sexism with the added gift that is the criminal insanity of religious traditions.
We are so slow to notice the degree of how religion and peoples faith allow humans to perpetuate oppression against other humans and non humans that would almost never be tolerated in any other circumstance.
Would women really choose to dress in such confined clothing and to be made ashamed of their own bodies in this way if given freedom and equality not to do so?
There is only one answer to this question.