My (brief) critique was towards like what Fatemah said – the linear understanding we have of sexual expression today. The hijab is my expression of my sexuality as much as apple bottom booty shorts.

This is a wonderful site, however!

bookmarked!
Jazak’Allah’Khairun for it!

“Sobia’s comment brings up an idea: if there are laws against sexism, whether enforced or not, I think there is a different mindset than if it’s just social restrictions. Someone who has been wronged may feel that s/he has hope of getting justice, and thus might attempt to do something about it.”

You were right. This played out in the recent post Haressment=Jail Time! Although many women face social taboos concerning sexual haressment in Egypt, Noha case gave many women Confidence in the legal system. Perhaps because of that, more women will hope to seek Justice regardless of public opinion.

Either way, I don’t think we can play the “which is worse” game. Oppression Olympics never goes anywhere productive. It’s a question of figuring out what is most pressing and fixing whatever that is.

I thought that it would be intuitive that unethical laws should be overturned. I suppose it’s not. So I’ll say it clearly. Yes, it’s unethical so it should be overturned. (Not really sure how you would think that I would want unethical laws?? I’m also not sure why you would jump to such an odd conclusion.)

However, your position that social restrictions are just as bad as legal ones is one with which I will disagree. Although social oppressions can have devastating consequences the fact that they cannot be justified by law, and the legislated ones can, to me makes a lot of difference. If someone in Canada experiences sexism they can legally contest that and get retribution upon the culprit. How that actually works out in the end may be different, but the law is there to protect them. They cannot be punished for acting against an injustice. However, if someone in say Saudi experiences sexism, and the law allows for it, what is their immediate retribution? How can they get the culprit punished? In fact, very often if one acts against the injustice they themselves can be punished by law. This cannot happen in a place of social restrictions.

To me the issues are different.

Not sure if you heard this, but the woman has since admitted she lied and no attack occurred. She has been charged with filing a false police report.

My point was that social restrictions are just as bad as legal ones. Just because restrictions are cultural and not codified doesn’t mean they’re any less restrictive than discriminatory laws in Saudi Arabia. One can point to a number of examples of minority groups or people that have been granted legal equality, and yet are still extremely disadvantaged both socially and economically. Like I (tried to) explain, the legal system doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Consider if laws were to change in Saudi Arabia. Such strictly legal change may not necessarily have the desired social effect one would hope. Such inequality often takes longer to eradicate because people like to focus solely on legal rights, rather than the broader social and economic context. Government’s aren’t the only problem.

I also initially questioned your stance on the hijab ban because I find your argument contradictory. If I take your point to be that legally entrenched misogyny is worse than a misogynistic culture, then your point that the hijab ban is simply “intrusive and unethical” is like I said, contradictory. The law is still legal discrimination, but you only describe it as “intrusive and unethical”, not a law that should be overturned like other discriminatory laws.

And if you still don’t think I understand your point, then please clarify what you mean.

You just are not getting my point. There is no point in re-writing what I’ve written. Just re-read it for my response.

“So please, there’s more in the West for women than this “superficial standard of beauty”!”

My point is that having “more available” really depends what you mean by “women”.