This is a really loaded ask packed with many dangerous presumptions, so I hope you weren’t expecting a simple yes or no. Also, before I even answer this (essentially insulting) question, it bears making the following disclaimers.
First, I don’t like the term hijabi deployed in most contexts, especially with regards to feminism, because it creates this insidious isolation of an entire demographic. Let us not pathologize human beings in such a way. Only a bigoted fool would honestly believe that by the virtue of practicing Islam and wearing a headscarf could a vast myriad of women from different political backgrounds, races/nationalities, social environments, economic brackets and their thoughts about women’s liberation be compiled under such a homogenous label. Ironically, attempting to validate such a stigmatization of millions of women itself is a decidedly anti feminist and fundamentally misogynistic act. (For the record, if a woman who wears hijab refers to herself as such, that’s entirely her right, but that’s not a title that should be imposed on her, which was done here).
Secondly, the idea that any woman has to unconditionally identify with feminism as a structure to prove herself credible is stifling and harmful. There are many justifications for women, especially women who are marginalized racially or by heteronormative standards not to identify with American mainstream feminism (which is generally understood as the three waves of feminism and were/are transparently flawed). For example, the formation of second wave feminism was so white centered and racially alienating that it provided as part of the reason Black American women created womanism, which aligned itself more with intersectionality. But for argument’s sake, I’ll assume by “feminist”, you mean general euphemism for women who are principled in their analysis and approaches to gendered oppression.
I have to wonder what your idea of a “proper” feminist must be if Muslim women who wear the hijab are actively alienated from it. Honestly, ask yourself. Because you didn’t say Muslim women as a whole, so is it the concept of veiling that perturbs you? Or perhaps you didn’t know that there are Muslim women who don’t wear the hijab? But then it seems to be only Muslim women who observe head scarves that you make a point to interrogate, because there are women of different faiths outside of Islam that don a veil and yet, they are not speculated about in the same manner.
It sounds to me that there two possible outcomes to have resulted in this question.
One, you might believe that women who wear the hijab do so in spite of other women and perpetually sneer at those who are understood as dressing “provocatively”. To your apparent dismay, there are hijab wearing Muslim women who regard their clothing choices as a personal act and do not wish to impose it on others. Simultaneously, there are liberal feminists (FEMEN and less extreme variations) that believe that publicly embracing sexuality and viewing it as a means of liberation (which is patently false and not to mention, alienates women who not wish to be open about sexuality in such a manner) who are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they consider covering up (especially and at times, primarily in the context of Islam) to be an innate form of oppression and subsequently anti feminist. This is not only incorrect, it lends way to legitimizing racism and Islamophobia as a feminist stance, which leads to my following point.
Two, you could believe that by the virtue of observing the hijab, a woman is so oppressed that she cannot possibly be in the position to have profound feminist views and praxis. This assumption occurs under a presupposed mythical conditional misogyny and a singular form of oppression. This stance, by its very core obscures the nature of sexism. To assume this line of thinking is to deliberately erase the oppression faced by women in so called “sexually liberated” spaces and locations. Whether it be pornography where rape and abuse have become nearly indistinguishable from the act of sex itself and the objectification of women’s bodies normalized or the proliferation of rape culture where a woman dressing in a particular fashion becomes the topic of speculation, rather than the commonality of sexual assault itself, women are scrutinized. By your own logic, women who have been subjected to the worst forms of misogynistic violence would not be credible voices either, but of course, you know better than that.
What seems to be lost on you, however is that women are a second class in almost every viable sector in most societies. Say it with me- patriarchy is a global force. This is by no turn the oppression faced by women into a uniformity, devoid of nuance by class, race, geopolitics and so forth. And neither would I ever deny the very specific narratives of women who wear the hijab (especially in a post 9/11 state where they’re so visibly Muslim- a narrative that I can’t speak about and won’t encroach upon). But my ultimate purpose is to reiterate that misogyny and hardship faced by women is indeed almost unanimously understood (there are only a small sector of women whose lives are made so comfortable by their other sociopolitical and economic privileges that they can evade the fundamental struggle of womanhood).
Pontification about the hijab is useless and demonizing. By questioning the legitimacy of millions of women’s political views and the how they can improve the lives of themselves and their fellow women by such an arbitrary standard is pompous navel gazing. So, tldr, to answer your very trite and unyieldingly orientalistic question “can a hijabi be a proper feminist?” Yes. And no. It depends on the views they hold, ways they enact such views and if they feel comfortable associating with the term feminism. Just like another classification of woman.
Amazon tribe fights back against illegal loggers, environmental destruction
September 8, 2014
Brazil is the most dangerous place in the world to be an environmentalist. It accounts for about half of all recorded killings of environmental advocates.
And those numbers are going up, globally. As I reported recently for Foreign Policy:
Between 2002 and 2013, at least 908 people were killed because of their environmental advocacy, according to “Deadly Environment,” a new report from the investigative nonprofit Global Witness. That’s an average of at least one environmentalist murdered every week, and in the last four years, the rate of the murders has doubled. In 2012, the deadliest year on record, 147 deaths were recorded, three times more than a decade earlier. “There were almost certainly more cases,” the report says, “but the nature of the problem makes information hard to find, and even harder to verify.”
That incredibly dangerous environment makes what photographer Lunae Parracho documented even more incredible.
Ka’apor warriors ventured into the Alto Turiacu territory in the Amazon basin to track down illegal loggers, tie them up, and sabotage their equipment.
They stole their chainsaws and cut the logs so the loggers couldn’t profit from them.
They released the loggers, but only after taking their shoes and clothes, and setting their trucks on fire.
Fuck the (tone) police: Why men can stop telling me to be emotional about feminist issues
September 8, 2014
Have you ever noticed how almost every debate or conversation between groups of men and women, especially those concerning the topics of rape and/or domestic violence, almost inevitably involve a man in the conversation telling one or all of the women to ‘stop being emotional’, or accusing women of arguing emotionally while asserting that he is merely arguing facts?
First, let me say – tone policing is boring. If somebody is delivering points in a way you don’t like, it doesn’t make their points invalid. It just means you do not like the delivery. Big deal. Get over it and deal with it.
Second — why the shit should women not be emotional when talking about rape/domestic violence? Let’s recap some stats:
- 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes
- 1 in 5 Black women will be raped in their lifetimes
- 1 in 5 white women will be raped in their lifetimes
- 1 in 7 Latina women will be raped in their lifetimes
- 1 in 4 women will be the victims of domestic abuse
The overwhelming majority of these crimes, nearly 100%, will be performed by men. Even if the victim is a man, the perpetrator is usually also a man.
So I guess I just wanna know why some brilliant minds think it’s inappropriate for women to speak emotionally about a topic that so devastatingly affects so many of us?
And here is what I want to say to the women reading this:
It’s okay to get emotional. Cry. Scream. Be loud. Be aggressive. Talk how you feel. Feel your feelings and let it out. You do not have to be calm and cool and precise when discussing crimes against you, your demographic, your friends and family members. Men who insist upon this insist upon it for THEIR comfort. They want you to adapt your speech and tone to accommodate THEM. It is only and solely and entirely for THEM to feel comfortable in the conversation. To feel welcome. To exist in a discourse which caters to them.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW MEN TO SET THE TONE FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO NEGOTIATE TERMS! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT HAVING YOUR TONE POLICED BY A MAN WHO WOULD PREFER A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION BE MORE SUITED TO HIS OWN CONVERSATION STYLE!
Men commit the majority of these crimes. Women experience most of the aftermath. And then when discussing it we are also supposed to adapt our speech to make men more comfortable? Please. No. Go ahead. Subvert the existing white male dominated acceptable speech paradigm and get emotional. Get loud! Get angry! Flip the script. Why shouldn’t you? That is a lot of violence toward women. That is a lot of hurt. A lot of pain. Why on Earth would we not get emotional? You do not have to be cold, distant, calculating or use School English to discuss your pain or the pain of other women, the abuse, the violence.
Do not let men control these conversations. Stay loud. Stay angry. Stay crying. Yell if you want to. And if a dude comes around and tells you to tone it down because he can’t hear you if you don’t, kick his ass OUT of the conversation. Do not adapt to him. Have him adapt to you. Women have been adapting to the will and desire of men for far too long, and it is disgusting that even in conversations involving women and pertaining to topics that mostly affect women and include women that have been harmed in these ways, that any bro wants to just saunter in and set up the terms of what is and is not allowable in that conversation. If he cannot hear you unless you speak in a way that is agreeable to him, do not give him the power to change the tone of a conversation. Take the entitlement away. We can set the terms. We should set the terms. Let’s set the terms.
MBC will be launching a new variety show called, “Hello! Stranger” featuring an all-foreign cast! In the first episode, GOT7’s Jackson is featured as a guest.
Caro Rabino Nilton Bonder,
Sei que estou em falta em mandar uma resposta assim que recebi seu e-mail receptivo ao meu chamado. Agora não vem a caso o porquê de minha demora. Gostaria de escrever ao rabino de alma e coração abertos pois me sinto perdida, triste, desolada por ser judia. Na verdade, uma judia não praticante. Já que a história de parte de minha família judia, data da perseguição europeia aos judeus na época da alemanha nazista e meu avô nunca quis ensinar seus filhos e por consequente, seus netos os ritos, cultura judaica, que seja. Me considero uma judia de sangue( esse termo me irrita, na verdade) e uma pessoa que decidiu não seguir o judaísmo e seus dogmas e não viver a paralisação diante do sofrimentos dos outros.
Sim. O que quero dizer com isso? Quero dizer que por ser brasileira, ter nascido nessa terna por obra de fatos conjecturais, sinto uma imensa vergonha da comunidade judaica brasileira e seu silenciamento quanto as atrocidades cometidas por Israel. Um estado judeu em que judeus de todo mundo, até os que não nasceram naquele pedaço terra juram aliança e proteger ” a terra dos seus antepassados”. Só eu vejo algo de muito errado nessa afirmação? Será que os palestinos devem pagar e como estão pagando a 66 anos por um genocídio que não foi praticado por eles? Somos mais especiais por sermos judeus, por termos “sangue judeu” do que outros povos que tb viveram e vivem semelhantes suplícios?
Sinto uma raiva descomunal e muita tristeza por ao falar o que penso ser tratada como uma pária da comunidade judaica, por ser trada como uma pessoa que odeia seu próprio povo, uma pessoa que odeia a si mesma, enfim, uma pessoa que propaga o ódio. Pois é isso o que me comentam. Não só a mim mas outros judeus brasileiros que possuem coragem de ir contra a maré. Esse dias uma judia brasileira ao descrever suas impressões sobre as atrocidades cometida na Palestina e Israel pelo governo israelense foi execrada, xingada, disseram até que ela não era judia, mas hj em dia sabemos que ser judeu não é mais ter nascido de um útero judeu, não é mesmo? e foi ameaçada de morte por pessoas que se mostravam judias, a juventude judaica brasileira. E eu me pergunto: Isso é certo?
Será que devemos viver com medo do que falamos em nossos próprios redutos? Devemos ficar calado e seguir a cartilha do bom judeu, aquele que um dia almeja a “terra santa”? Por que eu como judia devo seguir Israel cegamente? Judeus são um grupos de pessoas diversas, com background completamente diferente um do outro. Por que eu devo adora Israel? Pq se diz um estado judeu que veio para salvar todos os judeus do mundo de perseguição? Mas a que preço? A custa da vida e inocentes, rabinos?
Por que não há um repúdio nesse quesito por vcs aqui no Brasil? Eu tenho vergonha, desculpe-me dizer, da comunidade judaica brasileira. VERGONHA! Por ser passível e apoiar o genocídio, apartheid, punição coletiva de um outro povo que vive naquelas terras a tanto tempo ou mais que os judeus que vieram do Brooklyn, da ex URSS, de países europeus e do Brasil.
Precisava tirar isso do meu peito. O seu livro alma imoral deixa muitas questões paralelas a essa. Então eu pergunto: Por que te calas?
Has anybody ever called for the mass murder of you, your family, your people?
Has that threat ever held a true gravity, a legacy of massacres or invasions or mass rapes behind it, daily bombings and tortures and assaults?
Have you ever wondered, while walking on the street, that you might be…
African American Islam in the Modern Era
East of the Sun (West of the Moon): Islam, the Ahmadis and African America
A Brief Look at the Roots and Development of the Nation of Islam
Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy & Hugh Jackman Doing A Litting Dancing On The Graham Norton Show
IT’S A DANCING DREAM!!