A thin square of shiny polyester is the main player in Atiha Sen Gupta’s play, What Fatima Did. The plot focuses upon the sudden decision of a non-religious young woman to wear hijab. An insightful and funny look into the reaction of those around her, the play asked some very good questions about identity, religion, and culture. Despite not being a Londoner myself, I could relate to some of the struggles depicted. However, what was noticeably absent from the play was Fatima herself, and this left me confused about Gupta’s overall message.
The story is centered around a group of teenagers living in London. Their group consists of a set of twins named Fatima and Mo, and three other friends. Upon their return from summer vacation, the group discovers that Fatima has inexplicably decided to begin wearing hijab, and their reactions, in particular, that of her boyfriend George, present some interesting questions and challenges. The largest question, by far, was that of identity. What was refreshing was that the idea of religion was not in the forefront, rather the hijab was dissected in relation to the type of identity crisis that one would have at seventeen.
One of the strongest points is made by Ayesha, a self-proclaimed feminist in the group, who insists that the hijab is “stained with blood”, and is vehemently against what she believes it symbolizes. Ayesha also believes that Fatima is wearing hijab for culturally Muslim reasons rather than religious reasons. In her insinuation that it is a political statement rather than a religious one, Ayesha made an interesting point about the way in which some young Muslim women today decide to wear hijab. Especially in a Western nation, it becomes significant, at times, especially for an adolescent to find a balance between identities.
The reaction of Fatima’s mother was also interesting. She speaks of the struggle of women in her family against the hijab, and she is wildly against Fatima’s decision. She speaks of her grandmother’s struggle to protect her mother’s right not to wear hijab. I thought that her reaction was incredibly powerful. Once the hijab migrated to the west, I began to think about how its symbolism has changed. If it represented a lack of autonomy in the case of Fatima’s great-grandmother, could the hijab eventually become the symbol of a different type of Muslim woman?
The most obvious omission from the play was Fatima herself. She was not heard from or seen. Her absence helped the audience see the powerful impact of her decision. However, in the focus on the thoughts of others, I think Gupta reinforced a part of the hijab debate, which has bothered me for a long time. The voice of the “veiled” woman has been noticeably absent from the discussion, and I had hoped that the play would provide a look from a young Muslim woman’s perspective. While the reactions of those around her were significant and powerful, ultimately, the play left me with more questions about where Fatima was, rather than what she did.
This was written by Farah Banihali and originally published at Nuseiba.
Last month a forum was held at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas focusing on Islam and feminism. Called “Beyond the Veil: Islam and Feminism”, it involved Dr. Gary Bouma, a sociology academic at Monash University; Zainah Anwar, founder of Malaysian group Sisters in Islam (SIS) and a founding director of Musawah; and Dr. Shakira Hussein, an academic at ANU.
So with big expectations about the forum and the issues that would (potentially) be discussed, the title irritates me. Articles with the title “beyond/under/underneath/uncovering/taking off/doing something to the hijab/veil/burka” and other similar metaphors fixate on items of clothing and taking them off. The moderator mentioned that the word “beyond” was chosen because they wanted a discussion on Islam and feminism which included the hijab in the discussion but wasn’t fixated on it. It’s a valid sentiment, but it could have been done without the reference to it.
The forum goes over one hour long and some interesting points were made (you can download the podcast here). In this post, I wanted to focus on a few points made in the debate. The most interesting aspect was hearing Zainah Anwar speak. The development of gender politics in South East Asia is a really interesting area and I’ve done some research focusing on the work Sisters in Islam do in Malaysia.
Throughout the forum, Anwar highlights the challenge she believes Muslim feminists pose by questioning the authority of male-dominated institutions – “who decides this is the verse that determines the relationship between men and women? Who decides which interpretation will be favoured over the other?”
The question of “authority” is a significant one. Women’s groups are operating within a traditionally male-dominated environment. Law and social reform by these groups is met with a constant stream of arguments against their struggle in order to silence these dissenting voices within society. The recent experience of SIS highlights this point. They spoke out against the caning of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, but have been accused of being agents for foreign anti-Islamic groups.
On this issue, I’d add to Anwar that (it’s clichéd, but true) history is written by people with authority – people who shape our understanding of past events. For Islam, this means that a rich history of women’s leadership and empowerment is denied to women. Like Anwar states, these are tactics used by men to maintain the status quo: to silence and delegitimize dissenting voices in society.
Early in the forum, Hussein mentions an important point on discussions of Islam. Women are included in the discussion, but are routinely sidelined to discuss only the hijab, whereas men are given the space and power to discuss everything else which affects Muslims. Krista at MMW made a similar point when reviewing a forum organised by ISNA.
Another point which Hussein highlights is the obsession with the hijab. The hijab continues to be the focal point of the discussion on Islam and women’s rights especially among non-Muslims (Chesler v Wolf, anyone?) While discussion on Islamic feminism should go further than the hijab, Muslim women respond to those writers because our voices should be included within the debate. But the same issues get repeated again and again and it’s difficult to try and move beyond that discussion because so much of the focus is on the hijab. It’s something I’ve encountered here at Nuseiba – I’ve written a lot of non-hijab posts but there’s an equal amount of posts focussing on the hijab. I think I’ve discussed the hijab more on this blog than anywhere else, which is a little odd for me sometimes because I don’t have that much experience with it. In the end, the constant focus on the hijab obscures the real issue: challenging the structures which perpetuate the disempowerment of women.
Another point which was mentioned in the forum and is often overlooked is the diversity among Muslim woman’s dress. For the majority of Muslim women, the distinction isn’t as simple as being veiled/unveiled. Hussein discusses her experiences in Pakistan, and they’re quite similar to mine with the Kashmiris I know. I mentioned above that I don’t have much experience with the hijab and I don’t – in my family and wider community there’s only three women who wear the hijab. However, while women don’t wear the hijab, they do veil when the situation requires them to. Most of the women, including my mother, wear shalwar kameez and cover their hair with their dupattas when they need to. Veiling and unveiling is more a continuum of experience rather than a strict dichotomy. There are women who wear hijab and women who don’t, there are some women who fall in between those two positions, some women used to wear the hijab but decided to stop, some don’t wear the hijab but want to, some who don’t at all but wear modest clothes otherwise and not all women who wear hijab do so in the same way. These sound like simple enough points to be making, but it’s a diversity which is often overlooked in debates on women’s dress in Islam. In the end, there are no easy cookie-cutter categories to slot in Muslim women. The hijab represents just one aspect of that diversity.
One of the questions asked by the audience at the end of the forum was whether western feminists have a place commenting on Muslim women. It’s an issue that’s come up time and time again, on this blog and elsewhere. Both Anwar and Hussein stressed that in regards to gender politics within Islam, Muslim women must lead the way to change. Feminists decrying the Taliban were criticized for taking up that struggle ahead of the women they were ‘liberating’. Afghan women were sidelined in the debate and denied the agency to fight their own struggle.
Anwar also mentions an important point which Hussein has also mentioned elsewhere – imposed solutions do not work. You can’t force liberation on people. Anwar cites the example of Amina Lawal, where Nigerian women’s groups criticized the action taken by international human rights groups. The Nigerian women wanted to challenge their own legal system. Muslim women need to win the battle domestically so that the change is rooted within social practice and is sustainable over the long term. However, whether this means that western non-Muslim feminists are completely precluded from commenting on issues effecting Muslim women wasn’t ruled out by Anwar or Hussein. My own position is to say leave it alone. But while would be great if non-Muslim feminists stopped talking endlessly about the hijab and burqa and polygamy, etc., I don’t think they ever will. One commentator on Sahar’s last post said that Sahar wasn’t leaving much room for Western non-Muslim feminists to enter into a conversation about “global feminist interests”. Ultimately, maybe that’s the problem – the assumption that they have an interest at stake in the discussion on women’s rights within Islam.
While the forum didn’t completely challenge my ideas on Islam and feminism, the speakers mentioned some very interesting points – things which tend to be overlooked. Overall, the forum is a good introduction to the diversity of opinion in Islam and gender politics.
A recent headline article on CNN.com written by CNN correspondent John Blake entitled “Muslim Women Uncover Myths About the Hijab,” attempted to expose the “myths” surrounding the hijab. Though the title implies that the article contains insightful analysis of the popular misconceptions surrounding the hijab and the reasons why women wear it, the piece falls far short of this goal. Instead, under the pretext of sympathetically noting the discrimination faced by Muslim women and informing the public of the real purpose of the hijab, the article presents a distorted picture of the hijab’s Islamic history, the women who wear it, and the nature of the debate on this thorny issue in the Muslim community.
The central problem with the article is that Blake failed to cite authoritative sources. While the title implies that the piece contains the views of Muslim women, key parts of the analysis is based on quotes from random Muslim teenagers. It also appears that no Islamic scholars were directly interviewed for the piece. He interviewed Randa Abdel-Fattah, an Australian Muslim who writes teen fiction about Muslim teenagers struggling with issues such as wearing the hijab. While her comments are interesting, she is certainly no scholar. He also cites liberally from Faegheh Shirazi’s book “The Veil Unveiled,” particularly in explaining the Islamic history of the hijab. Shirazi, like Abdel-Fattah, is not an Islamic expert – her field of study is textile and clothing, not religion or history.
In fairness to Blake, the article does provide some welcome coverage of the discrimination faced by hijabi women from both the Muslim and non-Muslim communities in western countries. It also stresses the point that most women wear the hijab out of their own free choice, without pressure from family or community.
Despite these positive aspects of the article, Blake fails to capture the actual religious reasons for the hijab. In a section entitled the “surprising history behind the hijab,” he glosses over the actual Islamic history of the hijab. He notes that according to Shirazi, the Quran “encourages women to dress modestly,” and some take “the Quran’s advice as a command for women to wear the hijab, while others disagree.” According to Shirazi, the Quran is ambiguous about whether women have to wear the veil or not.
Blake fails to cite to or explain the verse in Surah An-Noor, which, contrary to Blake’s analysis, commands rather than encourages that both men and women guard their modesty, and provides that women should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands. (Quran, 24: 30–31). Neither does he reference the Islamic debate about the reason why the verses in Surah Al-Ahzaab were revealed, commanding the Prophet Muhammad’s wives and daughters and the believing women to cast their outer garments over their persons when abroad. (Quran, 33:59).
The nuanced debate among Islamic scholars regarding the applicability of these verses is neither mentioned nor discussed, and the reader is left with the misleading impression that the veil is entirely optional. Instead, Blake explains that the hijab predates Islam and while it used to be a symbol of prestige and status, by the 12th century the veil had been imposed on women in the Muslim world to exclude them from public life, and “a sign of distinction had been transformed into a sign of exclusion.”
These conclusions are all faulty. The fact that the veil pre-dated Islam is not directly relevant to the Islamic debate regarding the veil. Shirazi’s opinion that by the 12th century the veil had been imposed on women to exclude them from public life, given the context in which Blake uses it, is misleading. The reader is given no clue about why Shirazi made this conclusion. Whether she was referring to a particular country, culture, or people is unclear. What is clear is that Blake relies on this statement in showing that this exclusion from public life may have continued until today.
This inference is strengthened by his interviews with Sarah Hekmati, an Iranian-American who decided to wear the hijab as a teenager, and Hekmati’s mother. Hekmati explains that when she decided to wear the hijab she faced resistance from her own mother and others in the Iranian-American community. According to Blake, many Muslim American mothers oppose their daughter’s desire to wear the hijab because these mothers “often immigrated to the West so they could be free from wearing the hijab and other rules imposed on women.” Hekmati’s mother, for instance, stated that she was “befuddled” by her daughter’s choice. Further, many in the Iranian-American community “bothered” Hekmati: “They say, ‘We got rid of you guys. We came here because we don’t want to see you guys anymore.’”
The reactions of individuals in Hekmati’s mother’s generation from Iran, and others from the Iranian-American community, do not reflect the views of the broader Muslim-American community. While it may be true that Hekmati’s mother and others of her generation fled Iran after the Islamic revolution, partly to escape harsh new laws regarding the rights of women, these issues are particular to the Iranian-American community. Such issues do not exist for women from the Indian-American community or the Chinese-American community, for instance. Since there is no mention of the reasons why people from the Iranian-American community might hold such views, the reader is left with the impression that the Muslim American community in general discriminates against women who wear the hijab. This also supports Blake’s inference that the young women who wear the hijab in America are supported neither by their religions (since the hijab pre-dates Islam, is not clearly mandated by the religion, and is now a means of excluding women from public life) nor their families or communities.
Blake further undermines the credibility of the views of women who wear the hijab by focusing heavily on statements by Hekmati and Rowaida Abdelaziz, a Muslim high school senior from New Jersey. It may be that he took some statements they made out of context, but several of the comments they make are self-contradictory or clearly inapposite to fundamental Islamic precepts. He cites Hekmati as explaining that the hijab made her concerned about her relationship with boys: “Few asked her on dates. Guys always seemed to put her in the ‘friend category.’ She wondered if she was attractive. ‘I wondered at times: Am I always going to be a guy’s friend and nothing more.’” It is mystifying why Hekmati would wonder this, since she and some of the others interviewed also indicate that the purported purpose of their veiling is that they be treated as equals with men, without the additional distraction of sexual attraction between them. This statement makes not only Hekmati, but also every other woman interviewed sound either confused or misinformed about the purpose of the hijab.
Also problematic, Abdelaziz explains, “my mom says a girl is like a jewel. When you have something precious, you usually hide it. You want to make sure you keep it safe until that treasure is ready to be found.” However, at the end of the article, Blake mentions that Abdelazzis has had tense public encounters with people angry at her decision or those who pity her. This seems to invalidate her point that the hijab keeps her hidden and safe, “like a jewel.” Furthermore, Abdelazziz’s statement that wearing the hijab “feels really good” and that “it felt like I was missing something and now I’m complete” while interesting and commendable, seem rather far-fetched coming from a seventeen year old. It is also jarring that this piece, which purports to present the views of Muslim “women,” then ends with Abdelazzis’s statement that “I finally understand my purpose.” That statement would have been meaningful coming from a scholar who has studied the issue or a mature woman who has worn the hijab all her life, but is hard to take seriously coming from a seventeen year old. It is also difficult to believe, given the over-all bent of the article.
The reader is left with the ultimate picture of confused teenaged Muslim girls who are wearing the hijab with little support from their own communities, clinging to an out-dated practice that makes them stand out and socially isolates them. While the stated intent of this article appeared positive, its actual content is misleading and unpersuasive. If this piece had run in a high school newspaper, it would not have been a cause for such alarm. That it ran as a headline article on CNN.com under the guise of dispelling myths about the hijab is troubling.
Marwa El Sherbini is in the ground away from those who love her most.
She did not want to die, she did not choose to die.
She was murdered.
In Germany the Muslim community is ethnically homogeneous, with the vast majority being of Turkish ethnicity. Even without her headscarf, her coloring and ethnicity means that Marwa would have still looked like an ‘Auslander‘ and a Muslim one at that.
Yet, all over the media she is dubbed as the Headscarf Martyr or the Hijab Martyr, meaning that the focus is once again on Muslim women’s clothing and whether they should wear certain items or not. The case is even being conflated with Sarkosy’s proposal to ban the burqa.
Again, Muslim women’s bodies are being discussed only in terms of the clothes they wear and again the world offers its opinion without listening to Muslim women.
The problem with this talk of martyrdom and clothing, both in the Muslim and non-Muslim press, is that it allows focus to slip away from the true actor of the piece: Alex W., the murderer.
So surely the next steps should be to examine the cause of such hatred, look into any groups he associated with or extremist media sources he used.
Instead, the prosecutor of the original court case has swiftly categorized Alex W. as “a fanatical lone wolf”, pushing the focus back onto Muslim clothing once again.
With attacks against Muslims and building used by Muslims rising and this rise occurring alongside a increased popularity of the far right, now is the time to examine violent Islamophobia and racism, before more people are murdered or injured. The recent conviction of a white British man for planning racists bombings went virtually unreported as the mainstream media “wasn’t interested”. One wonders how many more lone wolves there needs to be before the media notices a pack mentality.
By having the same tired clothing discussions, this opportunity to address Islamophobic and racist violence is being lost in the spin of the “Hijab Martyr”. The truth is buried as deeply as Marwa’s body.
The truth being: Marwa did not die because she was wearing a hijab, she died because a racist murderer killed her.
Muslimah Media Watch thanks Yusuf Smith for the tip.
A recent anti-discrimination campaign in the Netherlands is using a poster of a hijabi, whose face is hidden behind the photo of a non-hijabi, as part of an advertising campaign to fight discrimination. The poster appears at bus stops, and says “Do you have to let yourself at home when going out?” At first, I was confused by what the poster meant. Was it saying that Muslim women who cover were hiding themselves or that Dutch society was making hijabis leave a part of their selves at home by pressuring them not to cover?
Image via Flickr.
After clicking on the link in the Flickr page where I saw the image of the poster, I concluded it was the latter. Using Google translate to help me understand the website, I discovered that the site was a website dedicated to fighting discrimination of all kinds in the Netherlands. In fact, the URL (“http://discriminatie.nl/”) actually means “discrimination”. The image of the hijabi hiding behind the photo of the non-hijabi that appears on the home page of the site is one of a few images done in a similar vein: a white woman whose face is hidden behind the photo a white man, a black man whose face is hidden behind the photo of a white man, and a gay couple with one of the men’s face hidden behind the photo of a woman.
I love the image of the hidden hijabi for two reasons. The first is that it comes from the Netherlands. The Islamophobia directed towards Muslims by Dutch society, as well as proposed ban on the burqa and niqab in other European countries, have been given extensive coverage in the media in recent years. Seeing an anti-discrimination ad campaign in the Netherlands featuring a Muslim woman is heartening to say the least, because it shows an attempt to truly embrace the diversity that exists in the Netherlands.
The second reason why I love this image is because it completely reverses the looker’s expectation of hijab. Instead of the hijab hiding some aspect of the woman, it is society’s pressure for conformity that is making the woman hide an aspect of herself. The discrimination that woman is receiving, which in turn is discouraging her from wearing hijab, is damaging to her, not her hijab. In fact, the hijab is given a role of liberator in the ad. By not discriminating against the woman for wearing hijab, by letting her wear it, we are liberating her to be who she wants to be in the public sphere. The ad stands out for me because of its simple imagery and symbolism.
The one critique I do have with the ad is that it can be ambiguous, as described in the introductory paragraph of the Flickr post. The ambiguity that can occur looking at the ad for the first time could lead some people to come away with the wrong message such as the idea that hijab is preventing the woman from being herself. This would obviously negate the actual intent of the ad. Still, it is a great ad and positive image of hijabis that is very welcomed.
The state of Georgia, which just last year infamously jailed a woman for wearing a hijab in a courtroom, is now under controversy again: this time Georgia State University is discriminating against a former student and visiting instructor.
The start of the bullying began when Dr. Mary Stuckey, a senior faculty member in the communications department asked Slma Shelbayah, a GSU alum and former Arabic instructor, if she was carrying any bombs under her headscarf. This account breaks down the chain of events well, as described by Shelbayah and Dr. Dona Stewart, the head of GSU’s Middle East Institute.
Shelbayah was harassed with this question repeatedly before she filed a formal complaint with the Dean of College of Arts and Sciences, with the help of Dr. Stewart, the director of the Middle East Institute. Dr. Stewart claims she suffered immediate mistreatment that “impaired her ability to fulfill federal grant commitments and harmed her career.” That and the racist remarks against Shelbayah prompted her to resign, after investing 13 years at GSU.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution briefly covers the story here, running a summary of the complaint filed by Ms. Shelbayah and Dr. Stewart, along with a standard university spokesperson quote.
In this AP story Dr. Stewart describes Dr. Stuckey’s insults this way:
“What started as a series of unbelievable comments in public over a period of eight days back in August — basically calling her a terrorist — developed into attempts to remove her.”
I understand no one has been convicted, but I believe this story misses the point: regardless of who is at fault, the university did not respond to Shelbayah’s complaint with the attention it deserves in a post 9/11 Islamophobic America. Instead, as stated in the plaintiffs’ press release, the university retaliated when Dr. Stewart refused to participate in its anti-Muslim game:
“The dean’s office demanded that Dr. Stewart remove Ms. Shelbayah from her visiting instructor position, cancelled Ms. Shelbayah’s registration for her doctoral courses, and declared Ms. Shelbayah ineligible to lead a study abroad program to Egypt previously approved by the president of the university. Dr. Stewart refused to meet the dean’s demands, believing they violated Ms. Shelbayah’s constitutional rights and lacked due process. Dr. Stewart was subjected to numerous hostile comments and retaliatory actions.”
is addressed directly to the individual or individuals whom it insults or stigmatizes and,
the speaker knows or reasonably should know would constitute “fighting words.” “Fighting words” are words, pictures, or other symbols that, by virtue of their form, are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for other human beings and would naturally tend to provoke acts of violence or imminent harm.
According to the EEOC, Dr. Stuckey insulted Shelbayah directly on more than one occasion by making references to her carrying bombs. There is no adult, let alone one educated in ideas of tolerance and diversity, who does not understand the weight of this insult.
It should be noted that Shelbayah’s initial response was to be passive. When the comments became unbearable, she took action. Even after she filed the complaint, she took the extra step to email to try to set things straight:
She wrote in a September 7 e-mail to the communications department chair, which was included in Stewart’s EEOC complaint, that “I want you to know that this incident has touched me personally on several levels, but in the end of it all, I feel that it has left me with more positive than negative! I feel that I’ve grown and developed through it all! I also want to say that Dr. Stuckey and I both feel that it has only brought us to a better understanding of each other and has also strengthened our relationship and connection with one another.”
Apparently Dr. Stuckey and university officials didn’t feel the same. According to the Inside Higher Ed article,
“A day later the associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences informed Shelbayah that she could not remain a visiting instructor while also being a graduate student in the department of communications. Though she had been admitted into the Ph.D. program with the university’s full endorsement that she would also be a visiting instructor — and her previous office-mate had done both as well — she was told that unwritten policies disallowed such a practice, Shelbayah said.”
Universities should be the example of fair treatment for all people, regardless of sex, race or religion. Discrimination should never be tolerated, by its professors or its students. Universities should be the example of fair treatment for all people, regardless of sex, race or religion. The university must examine the way it deals with issues of race and religion especially since this is not the first lawsuit filed by a professor alleging discrimination. Georgia State University owes Ms. Shelbayah and Dr. Stewart an apology.
In the Inside Higher Ed article, Dr. Stewart reflects the wisdom and maturity that tenured professors should have:
“As professors, we are in powerful positions,” said Stewart, who has been tenured since 2002 and worked at Georgia State since 1996. “We have an obligation not to abuse power, and in this case the professor clearly did that. I am simply not willing to sit by and watch this happen, and I’m shocked that our institution is willing to do so.”
So are we.
If you’d like to express your concern over this situation, you can contact President of Georgia State University Mark Becker at (404) 413-1300 or mbecker@gsu.edu, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Lauren Adamson (ladamson@gsu.edu).
Top image via CNN. Bottom image via IslamOnline.net
My eyebrows raised when I read this article on IslamOnline. The article, entitled Study: Men Objectify Scantily Clad Women, used a current study conducted by well-known Princeton psychologist, Dr. Susan Fiske, to promote modest clothing.
I am familiar with Dr. Fiske’s work, and I couldn’t help but question whether IslamOnline was misrepresenting the study in an effort to promote the necessity of hijab. As someone doing her Ph.D. in social psychology, I am familiar with how the results of social psychological studies can be manipulated through the use of language in such a way to support an argument one is trying to make and consequently taking the results out of context. And this is what seems to have happened in this IslamOnline article.
Amel Abdullah, the author of the piece, begins her article by describing the study and explaining the three main results. She reports that:
images of scantily clad women were better remembered by heterosexual male participants
when the male participants viewed scantily-clad women, areas of the brain associated with “tool use, hand manipulation, and the urge to take action” were activated
men who scored high on hostile sexism thought of these scantily-clad women as less human.
Immediately after presenting these findings, she starts discussing the role of the hijab and how it protects women. She makes a leap from images of women in bikinis to the hijab, which she describes as “religiously mandated modest dress that covers the shape of the body and includes the headscarf or veil.” This leap is highly inappropriate and illogical. Let me explain why.
I was able to obtain a lay summary of the study from Dr. Fiske and after comparing the lay summary to Abdullah’s article, found Abdullah’s work to be biased and her use of the study findings inappropriate.
To begin with, Abdullah’s terminology is very problematic and re-interprets the results to suit her argument. The lay summary for the study, as well as all media outlet reports, are clear that the four types of images used were of fully clothed men and women, and scantily clad men and women. Specifically, the images of scantily clad women were of women in bikinis. If one ignores the way in which Dr. Fiske and her research team operationally defined* “scantily clad” one risks misunderstanding the results. And this is what Abdullah has done.
IslamOnline explains (emphasis mine):
When psychologist Susan Fiske and a team of researchers at Princeton University performed MRI brain scans on heterosexual men who viewed a series of images showing both scantily clad and fully clothed men and women, they found that the men had an unmistakable response to women wearing less clothing.
The less they wore, the more likely it was for the premotor cortex and the posterior middle temporal gyrus to light up. These are the areas of the brain associated with tool use, hand manipulation, and the urge to take action.
It should not be “women wearing less clothing” but rather “women wearing bikinis.” Bikinis is clear. Less clothing is unclear. Less than what? We know that a bikini is a two-piece swimsuit. It usually exposes the midriff, legs, arms, etc. Additionally, saying that “the less they wore triggered these responses” implies that various levels of clothing coverage, or various stages of undress, were presented to the participants in the study.
This wording alters the realities of the study completely. Various stages of undress were not presented to the participants. Only two levels of clothing were presented. There were no measurements of reactions at varying levels of clothing. IslamOnline’s use of the phrase “less clothing” is deceptive and twists the findings of the study, which showed pictures of women in a very specific form of “less clothing” – the bikini.
The Daily Princetonian explains (emphasis mine):
Fiske’s team used an MRI machine to scan the brains of the students while they viewed a series of photographs of men and women, some of whom were fully clothed and others of whom wore only swimsuits.
The pictures of bikini-clad women activated brain regions associated with objects or “things you manipulate with your hands,” Fiske said.
The lay summary states (emphasis mine):
…heterosexual men, in a surprise memory test, were significantly better at recognizing bikini-clad female bodies (with heads removed), than they were at recognising any of the other three types of images or any kind of faces.
The researchers’ operational definition* of “fully clothed” was not provided. However, in my personal correspondence with Dr. Fiske, she mentioned that the effects of objectifying women were not seen for women in traditional Western attire. Therefore, my assumption is that “fully clothed” for this study was a woman wearing Western clothing, which is not the full hijab. Therefore, women who dress like the average North American/Westerner were not objectified by the male participants.
IslamOnline continues:
According to a lay summary of Fiske’s study provided to IslamOnline.net, when a man’s mentalizing network shuts down, this means he views sexualized women as “less human.”
The lay summary states:
As predicted, hostile sexism predicted less activation of otherwise reliable social cognition networks…in response to looking at bikini-clad women. This implicates more hostile attitudes in predicting deactivation of the mentalizing network, consistent with viewing sexualized women as less human.
Mentalizing is defined as “considering other people’s thoughts and feelings.” Therefore, men who held stronger hostile sexist** attitudes toward women were more likely to think of bikini-clad women as less human. Not all men and all women in any type of clothing.
Abdullah also speaks of Dr. Peter Glick’s study, in which he found that women in positions of power who wear provocative clothes at work may be less respected. However, within an American context, within which this study was conducted, what is provocative? What may be provocative in reference to full hijab is not going to be provocative in the average American context.
Top image via National Geographic News. Bottom image via IslamOnline.net
Abdullah then continues the rest of the article, describing the protective and mandatory nature of the hijab. Stating that the hijab protects women from unwanted sexual attention by using this study as proof is a stretch. Unfortunately, I think we all know women in full hijab who have been sexually harassed and/or assaulted. Using this study to prove its protective capabilities is deceptive. The current study found that images of women in bikinis were objectified, not images of women in pant suits, jeans and tank tops, professional skirts and blazers, and so on and so on. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, average, non-hijab, Western-attired women were not objectified. Therefore, one need not wear full hijab to not be objectified.
Now, to be very clear, I am not arguing against the hijab. I am saying that using this psychological study to imply that any clothing short of the full hijab makes one vulnerable to being objectified is nonsensical. This study does not prove that. No psychological study ever proves anything (but that’s scientific debate for another time). What this study implies is that heterosexual men are somehow hard-wired to objectify women in bikinis. That’s it.
In her article, Abdullah takes this study and the women involved completely out of their cultural contexts. Dr. Fiske’s study looked at images of women in average American attire and bikinis. To use this study to “prove” that full hijab will thus protect women from objectification assumes that if women are not in full hijab, then they may as well be wearing bikinis, because they’ll be objectified the same. And this of course is highly offensive to women who do not wear full hijab. We are then assumed to be fair game for objectification. And I’m not even going to get into the possible moral implications involved.
If one wants to use psychological studies to prove one’s point, then one should at least choose a study that actually does prove the point. Adullah’s use of early stage psychological studies, which the researchers have acknowledged require further investigation, only misuses and misrepresents findings which could have real and serious relevancies for other situations.
*An operational definition is defining a research concept, often a variable being measured, in such a way so as to enable others to independently measure the variable. This would mean one would have to define it in such as way to allow readers to understand exactly what the researcher means when she measures that variable. In this case “scantily clad” was defined as “bikini” so that we know exactly what was measured.
**Hostile sexism is a form of sexism conceptualized by Drs. Fiske and Glick. It is one of two forms sexism can take, with the other being benevolent sexism. Together the two concepts make up Ambivalent Sexism. Hostile sexism is the type of sexism most of us are familiar with – “Women are trying to get ahead of men,” “Women are trying to take our rights away,” etc. It’s usually hateful. Benevolent sexism sounds positive in tone but can also be seen to hold women back. “Only women have the special abilities to care for chidren therefore they must stay at home to take care of them,” “Women are too pure to be dealing with all those men out there so should stay inside the home.” etc. It usually places women on a pedestal.
Muslimah Media Watch
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In