A few weeks ago, Slate highlighted Iran as a topic for cartoonists. I didn’t look at all 290 cartoons (I got to 203, though!), which lampooned several years of Iran’s place in the headlines. The general consensus among cartoonists is that there are four topics which make up Iran: Ahmedinejad, nuclear issues, angry-looking mullahs, and ladies in burqas.
(sigh) How many times do I need to go over this?! Women in Iran do not wear niqabs. Show me a woman in niqab in Iran, and I will kindly point you to a map that proves you are in some other country. The last time a woman wore a face veil in Iran was in the early 1900s, before Reza Shah outlawed all veils. The most conservative dress possible in Iran is a chador. In more rural areas, closer to the Gulf, you may see Baluchi women covering their faces with traditional masks. Or you may see Afghan refugees wearing the chadaari (known to the west as a burqa). However, the vast majority of Iranian women of whatever ethnic group do not wear these types of clothing. You can see a great slide show about different styles of hejab in Iran here.
Civics lesson finished. Here are the cartoons that really busted my brain:
This first cartoon, drawn by Signe Wilkinson, shows a Tehrani vendor trying to sell “Iranian Barbies,” which all wear niqab. So Ms. Wilkinson hasn’t done her homework, which especially shows with her use of “Jihad Barbie” and “Nuclear Barbie,” ascribing negative, stereotypically terrorist, roles to these dolls to make them “Iranian.” Despite the fact that Iranian women do not blow themselves up for any jihad, despite the fact that the CIA released a report that Iran is not a nuclear threat.*
The second cartoon, drawn by Dana Summers, shows Ahmedinejad inviting an Iranian woman to wear any of her niqabs. One more time: in reality, an Iranian woman will most likely not own a niqab, let alone a closet full of them. And, in reality, what the woman in the cartoon is wearing is much more likely to be her outfit while she’s out and about. Also, the carbon-copy illustration of the niqab makes it seem like one niqab is just like another, which is ridiculously myopic. Finally, juxtaposing Ahmedinejad to this whole wardrobe decision makes it seem like he’s responsible for it (wrong again: the mandatory hejab policy was instituted by Ayatollah Khomeini).
This third cartoon, drawn by Ammer for an Austrian publication, illustrates a showdown between Iran and the U.S. It’s refreshing to see Iran characterized as neither a bearded mullah or Ahmedinejad, but this illustration is incorrect still.
In Western public discourse, the niqab has come to represent “The Other,” and this image reinforces that connotation. The swaggering male cowboy, played by the U.S., is facing off against this mysterious, exotic, possibly-dangerous unknown female labeled “Iran” over something they both seemingly want: Baghdad. It’s a U.S. vs. Iran showdown that leaves out viewers who a) are both Iranian and American, b) are both Muslim (including those who wear niqab) and American, or c) all of the above.
The characterization of Iran as a woman (who is ostensibly unarmed) is also alarming because of the connotations of feminizing a country. A feminine (and thus lesser) country can be overpowered, exploited, and raped. While any of these can happen to men in reality, they are not often associated with white male experiences or, in this case, countries with male (and thus greater) characterization. In this cartoon, the female Muslim Iran is fixin’ to get herself into trouble by standing up to male non-Muslim America, and the cartoon thus foretells of a possible outcome of overpowering, rape, and/or murder of this Muslim woman.
These cartoons all display a great arrogance towards Muslim women, as well as a palpable misunderstanding of differences among cultures in which women cover themselves a specific way to follow religious and cultural norms.
*For a great analysis on hejab in political propaganda and Iranian women’s roles in movements in movements that could be considered a type of jihad (namely, fighting against Iraq in the ’80s), check out Fagheh Shirazi’s book The Veil Unveiled.
Great post!
Wow, this was interesting reading. Thank you! I am not Muslim, and grew up in suburban America — I had no concept of the diversity of veils, scarves, etc. before I started reading blogs like this. (Both Muslim women I have been friends with to date were Indian, and neither wore a headscarf of any sort that I ever saw.)I wish there were more attempts to portray this diversity, which is COMPLETELY TYPICAL variation among women, in mainstream media. I want to know about other people, and all I am told about Muslim women is that they are nothing more than transports for their clothing.Thankfully, Muslim women know how to write blogs and correct my bad education
When I was in Qom in the 1980′s, I saw some local women whose faces were completely covered (including the eyes) by a black cotton cloth, which they wore in addition to black chadors. At that time, I also saw pictures of Azeri (?) women from around the Tabriz area who covered the lower half of their faces with their head-scarves or maghnehs when they wore the chador. And, some women around Bandar Abbas wore masks with bright cotton chadors (the overall effect was more like a butterfly than anything intimidating).But I never saw any woman in an Afghan-style burqa or Saudi-style niqab. Not even Iranian Arab women (many of whom wore chadors instead of the traditional abaya).I am sick and tired of cartoonists “otherizing” Muslim women. And yeah, I completely agree with the commentary on the cowboy-veiled woman cartoon. Scary stuff.
What really struck me was the extent to which, once again, Muslim women, Iran, and any conflicts between Iran and the U.S. are reduced to clothing. It’s as though a) all muslim and/or Iranian women (not the same thing, of course!) are reducible to their clothing, b)covering or being required to cover is the sole problem women who wear hijab face (if in fact it’s a problem for them at all), c) women in the U.S. (muslim and non-muslim) are never hassled about their own clothing choices, and d) all conflicts between Iran and the U.S. can be reduced to issues of who covers what and What Must Be Done About It.No big surprise, unfortunately, but honestly, you’d think at some point folks would get beyond the clothes.
ugh. I can’t stand stupidity and ignorance. I’ve never seen any Iranian niqabis, either.
Thanks for your comments, ladies! Anonymous(es), you make really good points.
That last one was very disturbing.This was a very interesting read!
Just to add, not all Afghan refugees wear the burkha.Hazara women in Iran are not known to even wear the niqab nor the burkha, ditto in Afghanistan too.
“No big surprise, unfortunately, but honestly, you’d think at some point folks would get beyond the clothes.”Speaking as an American myself, do I need to point out the degree to which America is a media and consumer-driven culture? We’re all about the visual shorthand.Indeed, I’d argue that one of the reasons why the wind went out of the sails of the Cold War in the 1980s was because, through increased television access behind the Iron Curtain, we got to see the supposedly monolithic Soviet populace, and realized that they looked like nothing so much as impoverished Midwesterners. Kinda hard to hate on the so-called “enemy” when he looks and dresses like your Uncle Phil from Milwaukee.
I think that the comments on the last cartoon are very insightfull and interesting. But maybe because I am a white female European I initiallty saw something else than the rest of you. I saw USA being described in a stereotype that is in no way flattering: A white overweight male with a silly hat, a crooked nose and a bad posture. USA portraid as a John Wayne-looking cowboy I see as a remark to American self perception as the sherif of the world (not an image too popular over here – and the cartoon is European).The woman has piercing eyes, a powerful body language and does not look intimidated but seems to stand her ground.That’s what I see when I first look at the cartoon. I see the woman as quite powerfull and the man slightly ridiculed. But it’s all in the eyes of the beholder, no?I don’t meen to say that it is not a (wrong) stereotype to show a woman from Iran in a niqab, nor do I think that what I see is the same as what the cartoonist intended. But cartoons are usually build on stereotypes. And you don’t see many Americans dressed as John Wayne either, do you?My point is just, that this woman in the picture does not seem weak to me. And I like that. That’s all
/Nanna
It’s a U.S. vs. Iran showdown that leaves out viewers who a) are both Iranian and American, b) are both Muslim (including those who wear niqab) and American, or c) all of the above.And d. Iraqis. If Iran being shown as a woman is menacing, how about showing Iraq as a land devoid of people, an object that can be traded or fought over with no regard to the populace. Another thing that interests me about this piece is the juxtaposition of the obviously-false caricature (or visual shorthand) of the US, vs. the equally-false, but generally widely accepted, caricature of the Iranian woman. I’m not sure what it means, but I noticed it almost immediately.
i found the second cartoon silly. accompany this text to say you why.
i am iranian and moslem. i study in the medical university in the field of Physician.
you should definitely change your idea.
in iran we have a variety of cultures. some of them wear black cloths (just when they want to go out. of course they wear anything they want when they are in home.) and the others wear colorful ones(especially those who live in small cities).
so, they were black cloth called “chador” or”manto” when they want to leave home.i can assure you that more than 90%of women who live in iran do not wear “niqab”.they wear this just in some cities that are located in the south because of really bad and hot weather!
just to save the beauty of their skin against sun!
i found the second cartoon silly.
[This comment has been edited to fit within comment moderation guidelines.]