By Jennie
Earlier this week, the lower house of the French parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on the niqab, the face veil favored by some devout Muslim women. In September the vote will go to the French senate, where it’s expected to pass, though it may face constitutional challenges.
The ban is favored by a majority of French voters (some detractors feel that it’s nothing more than a ploy by President Nicolas Sarkozy to appeal to France’s far-right). Those opposed to the ban include Muslim groups and civil rights organizations, who see it as being motivated by religious (and perhaps racial) prejudice.
France apparently has Europe’s largest Muslim population – around 8% of the population identifies as Muslim. Most Muslim women in France opt for the less enshrouding headscarves, if they conform to any dress codes at all. Only a small percentage wear the niqab, which covers the face entirely, leaving only the eyes (and in some cases a small portion of the forehead) visible.
As a liberal American, I have a number of feelings about restrictive Muslim dress and bans on the same. Some of my feelings contradict others. In no particular order:
-I have no problem with physical modesty as a general principle (I’m pretty neutral on it). My problem is that “modesty” seems to more often than not be wrapped up in fear of women’s sexuality. Furthermore, it seems that the burden for *men’s* sexual thoughts and behavior gets put on women. My understanding is that one of the reasons for headscarves is that uncovered hair is seen as sexually provocative in some parts of the world, much as uncovered breasts might be here. Different societies and cultures sexualize parts of women’s bodies – ankles, hair, breasts, etc. – and the burden inevitably then falls on women to keep those things covered to avoid inciting men’s lust. The notion that men should exercise self-control doesn’t seem to enter into the equation.
- I do know that there are women who voluntarily cover themselves out of religious devotion or for related reasons. But in cultures and subcultures where women and their thoughts and feelings are devalued, how much freedom of choice does one truly have? It’s hard to know how much external or internalized pressure a woman may be under to conform to the wishes of her father, husband, family. I acknowledge that it’s hard for me to see this from any worldview but my own, but I find it hard to comprehend that hiding every inch of your skin is liberating.
- As an American, while on the one hand the freedom I value is at odds with the restrictions placed on women in traditional Muslim societies, that very same respect for freedom means that I am put off by laws of the sort that the French parliament passed. First of all, I do see it as infringing on the free practice of religion. Second of all, barring compelling reasons to the contrary, I think people should be allowed to dress as they like. I do not see any compelling reasons to ban the wearing of the niqab. There have been court cases in the U.S., I believe (or maybe in Canada? maybe both) where the issue of driver’s license photos of shrouded women has been examined. My feeling on that is that 1) driving is a privilege, not a right and 2) there is a compelling reason to be able to identify someone from their photo I.D. So those who argue that women should not be made to remove their veils for such photos don’t get much understanding from me. But other than that, I don’t believe the state has a right to dictate dress.
-That said, I realize I’m seeing this from my own cultural perspective; I mean, we ban the baring of certain body parts here in the U.S. I really don’t care if women go around topless, partly because I do see breasts as a body part that have just sort of been arbitrarily sexualized. I wouldn’t want to walk around topless, for any number of reasons, but I don’t care if other women do. As for going completely naked, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, but by the mores of our culture it’s not acceptable and I’m okay with that.
-Which may make me a hypocrite, because I suspect that to some degree the French ban has to do with the mores of their culture. European cultures have traditionally valued conformity a lot more than our individualistic American culture, and the French in particular seem zealous about protecting themselves from the influence of outside cultures (witness their attempts to eradicate English words from common usage). It’s pretty clear that this ban is tied up in the racial tensions that have plagued France for years now, and the troubles with the underclass of African and other immigrants, many of whom are Muslim. The racial element makes it ugly, but it also makes it kind of understandable. Even in non-conformist, maverick America, there are those who feel that we need an official language and fear that “others” are taking over and changing our cultural identity. So maybe we aren’t that different.
- I don’t have the same visceral distaste for French culture that I know a lot of Americans have, but I can’t help but be aware that France does have a history of prejudice against minorities – certainly there has been an ugly streak of anti-Semitism in French society for centuries. That’s not to say that their culture is worse or more racist than others; it’s simply makes it hard to see the niqab ban in a neutral light.
As you can see, I’m pretty conflicted. What do you think? Is France going too far, or do they have the right idea?









Comments
35 Responses to French Parliament Moves to Ban Veils
Hmmm, Jennie…you preface your article as a ‘liberal woman’. I don’t think ‘the veil’ is what most liberal American women would tolerate. It is seen as ‘subservience’ to their men who are their judge, not by their god. (Afterall…those who wear the veil are stoned to death for their indescretions.)
As far as photo ID’s…driver’s license, passports etc., driving may be a privilege, but passports etc? Since 9-11 we all have to think twice about what is the price of freedom. (Thumb prints/eye scans are coming, but not for a long time.)
You’re conflicted? No veils… no religious emblems in their schools already! Personally, I celebrate the cultures of others, but DO NOT think that should ever be in lieu of what is unique about our own. I’d expect the same would be what the French are yelling for. (They are now feeling what immigration, gone amok, is all about. Dial #1 for ‘farsi’ etc.)
Jennie I have to say I agree with a lot of what you said with few exceptions. I never want to see religious expression suppressed. France does have many problems with the Muslim community. I do think the underlying issue here is security. Would you want someone entering a bank fully covered or an airplane ? There is a problem with terrorism and Muslims, although a small minority which has a very large impact. I also think when you come to a country it is your duty to assimilate to their culture not the other way around. If you wish to live as a practicing Muslim with all that entails then maybe you should emigrate to a country that will fully accept you and understand your ways , not make a country change to please you.
I do take exception with you saying you are a ” Liberal Women “. If that is true…which I don’t doubt…. why would you not fully object to women being a second class citizen. Don’t you have a problem with Mormon women or very religious Jews ? Maybe not. I have always believed that the women rights movement was to allow Women to be free to do what they want, not forced wearing the niqab as they are in many countries.
So after my post I read this……
Europe
Related Articles
French officials say rioters burned cars and shot at police while protesting the police shooting of a man accused of robbing a casino.
The riot erupted late Friday night in the southeastern city of Grenoble.
Officials said the rioters also torched shops and attacked a streetcar (tramway) line. Police said some rioters also shot at officers and that they returned fire.
The French newspaper Le Monde says the youths started their rampage after hearing a Muslim imam give a ceremony for an alleged robber, who died Thursday night after being chased by police and exchanging gunfire.
I don’t think that France should ban the niqab except where there is a security issue.
I support religious expression that causes no harm. I support the rights of parents to raise their children in their own faith. I support the rights of all people to give their parents a hard time about religion as teens (and the rights of their parents to battle right back.) On the age of majority, people should be permitted to reject the religious or cultural practices they do not espouse.
If France can justify the ban on security reasons as in the driver’s license issue, I would support the ban.
As for going completely naked, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, but by the mores of our culture it’s not acceptable and I’m okay with that.
First off I want to say that I do have a problem with any man or woman walking around naked. I am not a prude but I don’t think we need to be subjected to it. I would drive myself crazy wondering who last sat on a chair that I wanted to sit on and what bodily secretions did they leave behind.
Ok then….. I agree that if France is doing this for safety and security reasons I can understand this. However the more I read up on it the more it seems that advocates for the ban in France have characterized full-face veils as contrary to French Republican values and incompatible with gender equality. So what is the real reason behind this ?
I think that France can probably address their security concerns by placing restrictions on complete covering of the face in well-defined high risk locations as well as requiring individuals to reveal their faces for identity checks. They probably are already doing this to an extent. If they can’t then I would support the ban.
Pam, Pam, Pam……………We would solve the worlds problems if just the women went naked !
Any excuse in the book, right Stu?
Here is my issue with the veils–which is a similar issue to my problem with fundamentalist Christians “modern modest” a la the Duggars–I think it is nearly impossible to separate out where it is done out of real choice and belief and where it is done simply for preservation and cultural pressure. Recently my hometown became the temporary home of approximately 30 Saudi families owing to an exchange program with our local university and the Saudi government. It is still odd to me to see fully veiled women walking two steps behind their husband dressed in shorts, flips, and t-shirts in the 90 degree heat. I originally had more to say but I’m not sure it made any sense because this topic sends the liberal feminist in me in circles (much like it does to Jennie).
I don’t understand how a person can be a liberal feminist and not be outraged at the subjugation of women anywhere in the world , let alone there own neighborhood.
Oh believe me Stu, I am. They literally walk behind their husbands and male children. It has been 90 degrees here lately and they wear dark full covering (though some do not cover their faces, only hair). Not necessarily on topic but I highly recommend The Stoning of Soraya M. as a look at post-revolution Iranian society and the ways women are still treated. No matter what the previous regime may have been guilty of, it was more liberal and at least helped move forward women’s rights in Islamic nations. Oddly, many of the more liberal members of the Iranian government under the Shah fled to France–and now the niqab, banned in Iran during the 1930s and not actually legally required in many countries, should be such a hotly debated topic where those populations settled.
As to the safety issue, I actually agree with the governments that for identification purposes (like passports and driver’s licenses) regardless of what you think your rights are, there is an overriding safety concern that the government has not only the right to regulate, but the responsibility to regulate.
If a society treats women as second class citizens isn’t that their business ? Religious Jews wear head covering and are not allowed to touch other men….not even shake hands. They are not allowed to sit with men at Temple. They for the most part lead happy lives…their choice.
At least in America they can leave is they choose, not easy but you can.
When it comes to Security…no excuses at all.
As you can see, I’m pretty conflicted. What do you think? Is France going too far, or do they have the right idea?~Jennie
Me too, this is perplexing to me. Great article Jennie, it made me think. I can’t come to any conclusion between religious freedom and the rights of women. I don’t have a problem with the issue of security. Some things just have to be that way.
Hmmm, Jennie…you preface your article as a ‘liberal woman’. I don’t think ‘the veil’ is what most liberal American women would tolerate. It is seen as ’subservience’ to their men who are their judge, not by their god. (Afterall…those who wear the veil are stoned to death for their indescretions.)
For me, liberality means accepting other ways of thinking and ways of life. I don’t always have to understand or approve, but that doesn’t mean I believe that other peoples’ practices should be banned, to a point. Where the “point” is would be the question. It’s easy for me to say that religious or cultural tradition is not enough reason to allow female genital mutilation. It’s more complicated with what may be seen as more benign forms of oppression.
I’m not sure I understand your point about subservience to men – I don’t pretend to know much about Muslim religious laws, but I’m pretty sure that God has *something* to do with the reasons for the veil. At least ostensibly – I tend to see most religious laws (whatever the religion) as mostly culturally driven. Meaning, people blame Islam for violence or oppression, but I see those as cultural issues rather than flaws in the religion.
As far as photo ID’s…driver’s license, passports etc., driving may be a privilege, but passports etc? Since 9-11 we all have to think twice about what is the price of freedom. (Thumb prints/eye scans are coming, but not for a long time.)
Yeah, I don’t know how this is handled in places like Saudi Arabia but I’m pretty sure that we’re not going to allow people to obscure their identity on passports any time soon.
You’re conflicted? No veils… no religious emblems in their schools already! Personally, I celebrate the cultures of others, but DO NOT think that should ever be in lieu of what is unique about our own. I’d expect the same would be what the French are yelling for. (They are now feeling what immigration, gone amok, is all about. Dial #1 for ‘farsi’ etc.)
I understand the fears of people who think that their culture is being pushed out, I really do. I don’t see inhibiting religious practices as a valid response to that, not in a civilized country. When you say “no religious emblems in their schools”, do you mean that you can’t wear a cross or a Star of David in French schools? From what I’ve read, that does not seem to be the case; rather such emblems are reviewed on a case by case basis, which makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time is subject to abuse or unbalanced enforcement. If a headscarf is always seen as an ostentatious (and therefore banned) religious symbol, while a yarmulke is considered discreet, that seems to me to be de facto religious discrimination, and unworthy of a civilized nation as France is supposed to be.
I do think the underlying issue here is security. Would you want someone entering a bank fully covered or an airplane ?
I’m not sure about a bank. It’s not like I can’t go into a bank myself with a covered weapon or a bomb strapped to my body. I mean, I can’t legally, but there are plenty of clothing choices short of muslim-style gowns that would allow me to conceal such things.
I’m not sure the French are even claiming this as a security issue – are they? That seems disingenuous. It’s not like the niqab is the only way that a person can conceal or alter their appearance. Hats, sunglasses, makeup, wigs, the list goes on and on.
I also think when you come to a country it is your duty to assimilate to their culture not the other way around. If you wish to live as a practicing Muslim with all that entails then maybe you should emigrate to a country that will fully accept you and understand your ways , not make a country change to please you.
I sort of agree, to a point (Stu and I agreeing – expect ice cream in Hell soon). On the one hand, in a “melting pot” like America, I think ideally newcomers bring something of their ways and that enriches the culture here. If all newcomers were just expected to assimilate, we wouldn’t have Italian restaurants or celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in the U.S. We would all be expected to appropriate the culture of the Puritans who originally settled here.
On the other hand, there have been times when I’ve seen extreme examples of immigrants whose beliefs are so in opposition to the cultures they have moved to that I have wonder why they moved there in the first place. I remember once seeing an interview with an extremist imam who had emigrated to the UK and was explaining to the interviewer his beliefs (which were anathema to me) and his plans to impose them in the UK, and it made me angry. The beliefs (smiting unbelievers, etc.) were awful enough; what right did he have to impose them, or even think to impose them, on a culture that had taken him in? But that is religious zealotry for you.
I do take exception with you saying you are a ” Liberal Women “. If that is true…which I don’t doubt…. why would you not fully object to women being a second class citizen. Don’t you have a problem with Mormon women or very religious Jews ? Maybe not. I have always believed that the women rights movement was to allow Women to be free to do what they want, not forced wearing the niqab as they are in many countries.
See my answer in the post above – there is what I believe is right and what I believe I have the right to impose on others. Like it or not, some women do wear the veil voluntarily. I support the right of a woman to choose to wear it just as I support the right of a woman to choose not to wear it. That’s what choice is all about.
I don’t have a “problem” with Mormon women or very religious Jews, though I may have issues with some of their beliefs and practices.
First off I want to say that I do have a problem with any man or woman walking around naked. I am not a prude but I don’t think we need to be subjected to it. I would drive myself crazy wondering who last sat on a chair that I wanted to sit on and what bodily secretions did they leave behind.
Seriously! There is basic hygiene to consider! I was just in NYC and I can’t imagine the subways in the heat and humidity if you threw in random nudity.
My only point there was that it’s cultural values, rather than strict morality (whatever you consider that to mean) that dictate what body parts we don’t need to be subjected to. Myself, I don’t care about female breasts, and can see the argument that male chests are not sexualized (at least not to the degree that we feel the need to dictate that they be covered in public), so in a way it’s unfair to force women to cover theirs. But I certainly don’t want to see men walking around with their, uh “twig and berries” (as Austin Powers would put it) hanging out. At the same time, I recognize this as an inculcated cultural prejudice; there are tribes in various parts of the world where male nudity does not have any taboo attached to it.
I’m getting off of the niqab track but I guess it just lead me to think about idea of a woman’s hair as sexually provocative and needing to be covered for the sake of decency. We don’t usually even question the idea that the female breast is a “sexual body part”, but the more I think about it the more I think all of those definitions – what’s sexual and what isn’t, what should be private – are very arbitrary and culturally-driven.
I sort of agree, to a point (Stu and I agreeing – expect ice cream in Hell soon)
Jennie …..It’s here already !!
Here is my issue with the veils–which is a similar issue to my problem with fundamentalist Christians “modern modest” a la the Duggars–I think it is nearly impossible to separate out where it is done out of real choice and belief and where it is done simply for preservation and cultural pressure. Recently my hometown became the temporary home of approximately 30 Saudi families owing to an exchange program with our local university and the Saudi government. It is still odd to me to see fully veiled women walking two steps behind their husband dressed in shorts, flips, and t-shirts in the 90 degree heat. I originally had more to say but I’m not sure it made any sense because this topic sends the liberal feminist in me in circles (much like it does to Jennie).
Yeah, it’s difficult. I agree that it’s impossible to know what’s choice and what’s not. I guess I could say that I don’t know how much my own beliefs are my choice and how much I have been brainwashed or influenced. But of course in my mind my beliefs aren’t as extreme or limiting as the Duggars’ or those of fundamentalist Muslims. I just don’t know. (As an aside, watching the Duggars’ show has given me a different perspective, one that complicates it even more in my mind. Because as much as I don’t agree with their beliefs on a lot of things, and as much as I may see the way they raise their children as problematic, they do seem to be a happy, loving, well-adjusted family. Maybe even some of those families where the wife is swathed in yards of cloth in 90-degree-heat and walking two steps behind her husband – maybe those families are happy, loving and well-adjusted in their own way. It doesn’t mean that their way of life is not extremely problematic to me.)
A friend sent me the link to The Canvas Prison and I found it so scary and upsetting. Please watch it to get a true picture of how Radical Islam is treating, or should I say “mis-treating” the women who live with them. It is horrifying to see the disrespect and disgust placed upon these women. Why as “liberated” American women are we not doing something to stop this? Where is the outrage from the Women’s Movement and the Human Rights Groups?
As far as the original question of France banning the Niqab, I, like Jennie, am conflicted. I guess if I felt the women were wearing it out of their own personal choice, rather than because of fear, it might make a difference. The thought that they are covering themselves from head to toe or they will be beaten or even worse stoned to death is hard to comprehend. I agree it is a safety issue from many aspects and extemely divisive. The fact that the women have no freedom to decide their own path is so sad.
Jennie,
The way the driver’s license thing is handled in Saudi Arabia is simple. The women are not allowed to drive.
Holly, I couldn’t get your link to work, but I found it. Very disturbing. I cannot fathom the oppression and am so grateful that I was born here.
Erin Kate – thank you for mentioning ‘The Stoning of Soraya M’ – I have heard of it, but haven’t read it. I will be checking it out. I also see a movie was adapted from it.
Holly - I did watch the slideshow you linked to. Very disturbing. It gave me a truer picture of what it might feel like to wear one of these garments. “Prison” is a good description.
I am not certain how much energy and resources feminist and human rights groups are putting into opposing the mistreatment and violance against women that is going on in radical Islam countries. I looked on the NOW website and I do see some fact sheets they have published, but I am not sure what they are doing beyond that. I am not sure what can be done, to be honest (and that is depressing).
Sorry the link for The Canvas Prison didn’t work, if you can’t find it, it is also on Youtube.
Jennie, I totally understand what you are saying about The Duggars, it’s kind of how I feel about the Ultra Orthodox Jews who have moved into the neighborhood where I grew up. When I see these young girls and young women in the long skirts and long sleeves in 100 degree heat in the summer, it seems ridiculous to me. What upsets me more is that the culture is so steeped in education but once the girls reach 18 and graduate from High School they are highly discouraged from going to college and highly encouraged to get married and start having children. These are almost “arranged marriages” and it’s not uncommon to see a woman of 22 maybe 25 with four or five children! This is only my opinion but the lifestyle of this group seems incredibly sexist. On the other hand, just like the Duggars, they seem content and the children are always very well behaved and respectful. As a woman, it just seems so “limiting”! I guess they don’t know any different.
A friend sent me the link to The Canvas Prison and I found it so scary and upsetting. Please watch it to get a true picture of how Radical Islam is treating, or should I say “mis-treating” the women who live with them.
I couldn’t get the link to work, but I can just imagine. The one thing I would say is that I don’t consider it an issue of ”radical Islam” but a cultural issue. Islam is just the excuse that these people use for their repression, the same way Christianity has been used throughout the ages for evil purposes. It’s not the religion that’s the problem; it’s human beings and their essential flaws.
It is horrifying to see the disrespect and disgust placed upon these women. Why as “liberated” American women are we not doing something to stop this? Where is the outrage from the Women’s Movement and the Human Rights Groups?
I’ve definitely seen outrage from feminists and human rights groups – why do you assume that there isn’t any? Like Anya, I think it’s more an issue of there not being much they can do except promote awareness.
The way the driver’s license thing is handled in Saudi Arabia is simple. The women are not allowed to drive.
Good point - I was aware of that but wasn’t thinking. I saw something the other day (the link was on Jezebel.com) about an American journalist working in Saudi Arabia. Her job was made incredibly difficult because she wasn’t allowed to drive, had to have a letter verifying that she wasn’t a prostitute (!) in order to check into a hotel, and had difficulty interviewing men because of the rules about women not being allowed alone in the company of men who are not their relatives. I really can’t imagine how restrictive the culture is there.
At the risk of getting too political and harming the detente we’ve (sorta) reached here, I have to say that I was very unhappy with the close relationship the Bush administration maintained with Saudi Arabia, not just because of their treatment of women but because of their support (however tacit) of terrorists. I’m not that familiar with whether there has been any difference in the Obama administration policies. I do realize that there are political realities that sometimes force us into partnership with countries whose practices we abhor, but I don’t have to like it. Also, I always fear another Afghanistan, where it turns out we were aiding those whose ultimate goal was to destroy us.
As for the Duggars and Orthodox Jews, yeah, it bothers me, but I also realize that at least for some people, a limited life is okay. The problem is that there are those that chafe against that, and they are the ones who really suffer in restrictive societies – whether it’s just banishment or something as extreme as stoning. In the Bay Area, I have very little experience with Orthodox Jews; I was just in NYC and saw a number of Hasidic Jewish men (I think they were Hasidic, at least; my niece’s teenaged friend, who was with us, mistook one for Amish!) . When I was leaving, at JFK I saw some Hasidic Jews with women who were scarfed and very modestly dressed (i.e. covered) in some pretty extreme heat. It’s very foreign to me. I do have judgment about it.
The Duggars pay lip service (at least) to being accepting of whatever choices their children make, but who knows how they would really be if one of their daughters, say, totally rejected their way of life. I think it would be hard for them because I think that conformity is something of a requirement for the success of cults and closed societies like the Quiverful movement.
At the risk of getting too political and harming the detente we’ve (sorta) reached here, I have to say that I was very unhappy with the close relationship the Bush administration maintained with Saudi Arabia, not just because of their treatment of women but because of their support (however tacit) of terrorists.
Jennie,
I agree with you about the Bush Admin and their relationship with Saudi Arabia and President Clinton was close and even more protective of them. In fact, when Hillary Clinton ran for President, The William J. Clinton Foundation had to disclose that between 10 and 25 million was given to them by Saudi Arabia. As for President Obama I really don’t know what his relationship with the Saudi’s is.
I don’t know why the link for The Canvas Prison didn’t work but it can be viewed on Youtube. To me it shows that it is not the women that want the “right” to wear the Niqab in France, but the men that want it forced on them. It is so barbaric and backwards.
If anyone on IW knows of an action that we can take either individually or collectively to protest this treatment of women, please let me know. This topic has been very “thought-provoking”.
I didn’t know the quiverful movement was considered a cult or closed society. I thought they allowed contact with people who were not members of their movement. The Duggars travel all over the place, don’t they? They have non-quiverful people filming them throughout the year, and they seem to get along fine. I have seen very little of the show, but there was a ‘normal’ cousin on it. She dressed normally, listened to pop music, and they were very nice to her.
I consider certain branches of Islam to be oppressive and unjust. Certainly having your life threatened or taken away for not wearing a headscarf is oppressive. Big difference.
So when the religion is tough, not in the mainstream, strict, it is not necessarily illegal to me. As long as members are free to choose to leave it without fear of harm, their practices should be protected by the law, wrong as I may think they are.
There will always be a struggle between some of these religious groups who aren’t integrated. The Amish challenged regulations in PA a few years back about licensing midwives. Some members wanted nothing to do with passing tests designed by the state because their religious sensibility prevents them from acknowledging any authority beside God’s. I forget if they won the religious exemption.
Holly, you are correct in the political realm…but I can go back one step & say that Ronald Reagan was the steward w. the Saudi-American relationship. All dates back to the ’Evil Empire’ during his all-out attack during the ‘cold war’. ;0)
Politically speaking…..
What i find objectionable is when a person has a political leaning and always seems to know what the OTHER party did and then kind of goes blank when it comes to the politicians they like or lean towards.
The reality of being President is a lot different than running to be President. I think our current President is learning that in a big way. Our current President and many administrations before them have had a cozy relationship with the Saudis, and who knows what the truth is as to why.
Ann, If you have netflix it is available as an instant play. I watched it this morning, and I won’t lie–it took me about three stops and starts to watch it. The actual stoning is pretty graphic. It does very good job, however, of showing how corrupted the system is, and how easy it is even for the righteous men to be lead astray.
Erin Kate
I just saw that on my netflix this am when I was picking the instant play movies to watch. I added it.
Thanks
I didn’t know the quiverful movement was considered a cult or closed society. I thought they allowed contact with people who were not members of their movement. The Duggars travel all over the place, don’t they? They have non-quiverful people filming them throughout the year, and they seem to get along fine. I have seen very little of the show, but there was a ‘normal’ cousin on it. She dressed normally, listened to pop music, and they were very nice to her.
I probably shouldn’t equate the Quiverful folks with a cult – I really don’t know enough about them. I would agree that going by the Duggars, they are not cult-like. They do have some extreme beliefs, from my understanding. How accepting they are of those that step out of line may vary from family to family. I’m not sure their way of life prepares one very well for mainstream society, but again, going by the Duggars, I don’t think that way of life is worthy of total condemnation.
I probably shouldn’t equate the the Quiverful folks with a cult – Jennie
That made me absolutely guffaw, I’m not sure why. I definitely don’t think they count as cult like or a closed society. They have made choices that are quite different from the mainstream but I think that a family with the exact same views and beliefs that had what society views as an acceptable number of children, because that was all they were physically able to have, would be viewed much differently. I don’t think its the Duggar’s beliefs so much as their amazing fertility that really causes the controversy.
I agree that the number of children is what attracts public attention. Maybe I’d liken them more to the Amish, though they aren’t as clannish as the Amish (at least in my understanding). I do think some of the “issues” that people have with the Duggars/Quiverful that could be considered legitimate would have to do with the fact that they don’t really seem to emphasize higher education or encourage their children to follow any but a pretty narrow path. I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world, but I do understand people having judgment about it.
I think the assertion that the way of life for people like the Duggars is problematic because “they don’t really seem to emphasize higher education or encourage their children to follow any but a pretty narrow path” is grounded in assumptions that come from cultural bias in my opinion.
The major assumption is that the pursuit of higher education automatically makes one more adept and prepared for life. I’d answer, what life? The life of running in the rat race, chasing a career and always trying to get ahead? I’d challenge that by saying, what is wrong with not having a desire to pursue a career as a woman? I think the problem with the feminist movement today is the notion that every woman deep down feels enslaved by domestic life and ALL want to break free. The truth is that some women very much enjoy being a stay-at-home mom and not working. I think if the movement were true to the original intent, it should be supportive of any woman’s choice to live her life so long as living life that way is her choice.
I have a problem with people judging people like the Duggars. They are hard-working, productive members of society. The family has no debt at all and has found savvy ways to ensure that this remains the case (I.E. agreeing to do the TV show). They are moral, they are not criminals and their biggest offense is that they don’t cut their hair, wear modern clothes have a bunch of children, and live a very traditional lifestyle. I don’t get why Americans feel that they have the right to judge religious groups like Hasidic Jews or fundamental Christians who are not a drain on society and are self sufficient. Yet, there would be pearl clutching and accusations of hatred if one said something negative about someone from the city who has a flat screen tvs, cable and whatever else on the taxpayers dime.
As far as Muslim women go, I have absolutely no problem with them covering up if that is their choice. It’s none of our business. The only time it becomes our business is when (as was already stated) it’s a security issue (which is another topic altogether). As much as I disagree with the Muslim lifestyle (and I wouldn’t want to live like the Duggars either), I believe in religious freedom and I get a bit alarmed when a government wants to limit something that has to do with religious practice. It’s a slippery slope that I don’t like.
The major assumption is that the pursuit of higher education automatically makes one more adept and prepared for life. I’d answer, what life? The life of running in the rat race, chasing a career and always trying to get ahead?
There are many reasons to pursue education besides a desire to “get ahead” and enter the rat race. Some people pursue it for careers with the intention of entering professions where they can help people; some people simply just love to learn.
I agree that not everyone is suited for higher education, but I’d like to think that everyone has the opportunity.
I’d challenge that by saying, what is wrong with not having a desire to pursue a career as a woman? I think the problem with the feminist movement today is the notion that every woman deep down feels enslaved by domestic life and ALL want to break free. The truth is that some women very much enjoy being a stay-at-home mom and not working. I think if the movement were true to the original intent, it should be supportive of any woman’s choice to live her life so long as living life that way is her choice.
I really don’t think that’s a tenet of the modern feminist movement - I think there is often a tension and divide between working mothers and stay-at-home mothers, both of whom can feel judged and be guilty of judging in turn.
I agree that some woman enjoy and choose to be stay-at-home moms. Some women choose to be veiled. The women who have the choice aren’t the issue – it’s the ones who aren’t given a choice.
Choice should be the only issue….you either have it or not.
Also higher education can also be used just so your mind doesn’t go to mush.