You quoted the end of my essay but the context for my point about Muslimahs is found a few paragraphs earlier when I write, ” As far as I’m concerned, the fact that all of this “outrage” and “concern” for Muslim and Arab women doesn’t ever translate into a large-scale western platform for their voices tells the tale.” So when I write that the “Burqa Barbie” flap is not about Muslimahs “after all” what I mean is that since none of the endless discussion about the “plight” of women in Islam ever amounts to increased self-representation for Muslimahs in the West I am suspicious of the motive for this concern. Of course you are right when you write that women are judged in a way that men never will be. But if (largely white) mainstream feminists (or conservatives for that matter) really cared about flesh and blood Muslimahs they’d actually listen to you. Since they don’t–and their entire mission to “save” you depends on a constructed image of your silent helplessness–I argue that they are only concerned with that image and not actual Muslimahs. A pose of feminist concern for Arab and Islamic women is an old Western strategy to justify colonial violence so I think there is historical precedent for this notion.

You may not agree but I hope I’ve made my argument more clear.

thanks,
Joe

I just don’t agree with trying to defend somthing thats so inherently sexist to begin with. How about creating a Burka clad (which as ES and Rochelle pointed out is questenable to begin with) doll with a body that exibits the Islamic idea of being happy with the natural bodies God has so graciously given us.

http://multiculturaltoybox.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/fullaoutdoor.jpeg

What is fascinating about Burqa Barbie is firstly that they think that an Arab garment should represent Afghan culture. It just shows the ignorance of some Westerners who think that you can lump all predominantly Islamic cultures under one tent and assume they’re all the same, the irony being, this is EXACTLY what the hardcore extremists are trying to do, and some Westerners have bought it hook, line and sinker. Secondly, it conflates probably the two most unattainable and damaging feminine ideals out there – the totally submissive woman, characterized by her faith and purity (burka), or by her beauty and availability (Barbie). In both cases it elevates what a woman does with her body, her exterior, over what she has in her mind, heart and soul, and what good deeds she performs. So in that sense, it is only natural that the two images should come together.

As for deeming the burqa a form of “cultural dress,” you are right to mention that “the Burqa was coerced in the first place” and is a form of “forced culture.” But then, I wonder, what exactly does “cultural dress” mean? Does it represent a “national” dress, or a dress worn by the “majority” of its residents? There will always be those who do not wear certain forms of “cultural dress” and those who are forced to wear something against their will. How do we categorize “cultural” clothing? For whom will the term apply?

First, I think there’s a misconception when we look at the media portrayal of Muslim women that women’s dress and the oppression of “beauty standards” are ignored in the western feminist discourse. In other words, that western feminists are fine with the standard Barbie, when they’re not. So when you say “Instead of singling out a single form of cultural dress…” I think you are ignoring the piles of literature out there by western feminists that critique western styles of clothing. Just because Fox news does not cover these debates, (as we know) does not mean they don’t exist.

I’ll quote Gloria Steinam here: “For women… bras, panties, bathing suits, and other stereotypical gear are visual reminders of a commercial, idealized feminine image that our real and diverse female bodies can’t possibly fit. Without these visual references, each individual woman’s body demands to be accepted on its own terms. We stop being comparatives. We begin to be unique.”

Second, here’s the problem I have with the burqa barbie, and all representations of “cultural dress”: Afghan women wear tons of different things. Perhaps they were forced (and yes, many of them were FORCED) to wear the burqa outside, but inside a myriad of styles were worn. So when you portray an Afghan women in a burqa and call it her “cultural dress” you are not only ignoring all other aspects of her culture but you are legitimizing the Taliban’s interpretation of her culture as opposed to her own articulation. It reduces her “culture” to her Burqa, which by the way I think was a big reason why the Burqa was coerced in the first place — to force a “culture” upon the society such that all other forms of dress were deemed as culturally “inauthentic” or “illegitimate.”

Why not have an Afghan woman in a headscarf? Why not a pantsuit? Why not a swimsuit? Afghan women wear all these things. Picking the Burqa and calling it “cultural dress” is nonsense. Call it what it was: “What Afghan women had to wear outside lest they risk violence.”

To answer your question about why this is news, I think it’s because Barbie is symbol of sex and beauty. If little girls start seeing Barbie in a burqa or fully clothed, well what happens to the status quo? What happened to female liberation…?

Just my take.