1. Despite reservations about the headscarf, the political
scientist Mossuz-Lavau argues against the law to ban headscarves. What is at
the crux of her argument? Is it valid? (162)
This article heavily
criticizes France's law to ban headscarves and religious-oriented clothing
and symbols from French public schools. This law
was blatantly directed at the Muslim and Islamic communities of
France for the traditional code of dress worn by women of this religion. The
veils and headscarves worn by the women of Muslim and Islamic culture are a
symbol of their loyalty to their husbands as well as a way to make female
sexuality more discreet. The traditional dress exemplifies the ideology of
modesty, sexual unavailability, and attempts to "curb the dangerous
sexuality of women." (154) But, the French people took this another
way.
The people of France,
especially those in charge, saw this form of dress as immodest, conspicuous,
excessive, and even perverse. These thoughts by the people of France led me to scratch my
head in confusion. This part of the Muslim religion was doing just the
opposite. In what galaxy does covering up the female body promote sexuality,
perversion, and immodesty? How does their form of showing loyalty to their spouse
inhibit feelings of promoting ambiguous female sexuality? The attempts to
downsize free expression as well as the French people's inherent
irrationality continued with insight from a French spokesperson Jaques Chirac.
Chirac stated that this form of expression was a sign of aggression and was
"taking away a man's right to see behind the veil." (159) Jacques saw
this as a form of castration to the entire male population. Chirac's ignorance
and blatant objectification of women is appalling. His ridiculous argument
points to the fact that a man's sexual desires far outweigh a female's right to
religious choice and free expression.
Opponents of the veil
and headscarf were also obsessed with the thought that veils denied the mixing
of the sexes. It formed a barrier between natural inter-gender interactions and
promoted the strict sexual segregation of Islam. Although this argument has
slightly more credibility than the arguments of Jaques Chirac, it still does
not promote the interests and opinions of the Muslim women who choose this form
of dress. They should have a right to practice their religion as they please
without government interference. This touches directly on the crux of Janine
Mossuz-Lavau's argument on this pressing issue.
Janine Mossuz-Lavau's
touches on both sides of the argument while consequentially siding against the
ban of headscarves. Mossuz-Lavau says that these veils deprived these
women of sexual liberation. It designated the women "as a source of
sin" and "a potential whore." (162) This division of sexes and
blanketed sexuality can increase the potential of rape and other sex crimes due
to the feeling of the bar between male and female. But, something
takes precedence above all of this, and that is the freedom of
expression. These women have every right to express themselves and promote
their religion as necessary. France should be promoting the freedom of religion
and speech, not destroying it. In my opinion, this gives Mossuz-Lavau's
argument a great deal of credibility; although there is backlash to their
religious expression, these women have every right to express themselves and
their religion as they choose. This idea of religious oppression has been far
too prominent in our worlds' history and it is time to continue to this culture
change through the evolution of women's rights, free expression, and equality.
SOURCES:
Due to this topic being
mostly opinionated, my main source for this blog was the article itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment