22 June, 2009 | Leave a Comment
Two images from France:
[1] This ad for Galeries Lafayette is plastered all over the Paris metro. I find it a particularly repugnant example of the rape culture in which we live:
In billboard size in the metro, it’s even more shocking. And it’s at virtually every station. This woman, all greased up, is in a rather graphic sex pose and as we can see, she’s really just “asking for it.” I really can’t imagine this being in the London Underground or NYC subway system – what do others think? As a woman, I feel this ad contributes to an unsafe environment that encourages sexual objectification and rape and I think it should be taken down immediately. And as for children and teens seeing this everyday, I just feel sick about it. I wish my French were good enough to write a scathing letter to both the metro bosses and Galeries Lafayette.
[2] President Sarkozy has launched a campaign against women wearing the burka in France. “In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years” Sarkozy said “The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.” [Quotes and photo from the AP.] For other signs of subservience and debasement, see the Galeries Lafayette ad above.
Sarkozy will likely be getting a lot of world headlines out of this. I feel torn about this issue. France bans Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in school and I agree with that – I think all religious clothing and signs of all faiths should be banned from public schools. I also agree that the burka is a garment of severe oppression. I don’t believe, as some may argue, that women “choose” to wear the burka and therefore, they should not be interfered with. When women wear the full burka, they have difficulty seeing and breathing, not to mention the fact that it seeks to erase their existence. It is harmful on many levels, both physically and psychologically. The women wearing the burka (who are in the extreme minority of Muslim women in Europe) are likely subjected to terrible oppression at home, which is why they are wearing this. I doubt that many women would choose to wear this if they had full agency. Thus, a government ban in theory would help liberate these women in some small way.
In practice, though, how would this work? Women wearing the burka in public would be arrested? Sent home? Have their burka confiscated? All this would do is further victimize women who are already severely oppressed. The women would be punished, not the men forcing them to wear this, thus they would become doubly victimized. Perhaps their husbands/fathers wouldn’t even allow them to leave home at all, thus making their lives even more horrible. The only people to suffer in this burka ban would be the women – the very people Sarkozy claims he wants to protect and help. [I don't believe that is his motive, however.] Perhaps if women forced to wear the burka were reported to social services, then the whole family situation could be investigated and addressed to check for abuse. I am completely in favor of the government investigating claims that women are being subjected to religious oppression, whether we are talking about Islam or any other faith. Sadly, I doubt this is what the burka ban is really intended to do.
When juxtaposing this with the omnipresent Galeries Lafayette ad, I see two extremes, both very bad for women. It goes without saying why the burka is horrific and evil, but I have a feeling Sarkozy and his government ministers would see no problem at all with the image presented all over Paris by the Galeries Lafayette woman – indeed, Sarkozy’s wife is a famous model known for posing nude. They’d probably see the half-naked bikini lady as the epitome of Western freedom to which the burka lady should aspire.
It’s easy to point at the burka lady in horror. It’s much more difficult to honestly examine all the ways in which women are debased, all the ways in which our position in society is undermined because we are sexually objectified and exploited. The Galeries Lafayette ad and all it represents is much more of a threat to society than a few thousand women who wear the burka.
Link:
- Comments RSS
-
Lucette Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 amCombined your two pictures show three women. What do you have to say about the one not talked about? How does she differ from the other two, in your opinion?
I don’t think that is technically a picture of a burka – the scarf and veil seem to be separate from the rest of the outfit making it a niqab. A niqab is a bit less constricting than a burka – though it covers most of the same areas.
The lady wearing basically nothing is also being erased and made invisible because her sexuality overshadows her personality and the rest of her (her nudity is her burka to use your metaphor). Sex sells, so she becomes the personification of sex rather than than a person – a woman who has thoughts or emotions unrelated to male fantasy.
By banning the head scarf in schools, isn’t Sarkozy worried that some girls won’t get an education because of it? By banning a head scarf/hijab in soccer, don’t we worry about little girls no longer participating in sports?
Are we not punishing the woman by making her participation in our world contingent on getting rid of the scarf/hijab – of not meeting us and getting to know us – and us them – unless they get rid of it? I get the feeling that we know them as “the women who should not be wearing scarfs” rather than as Layla or Nada or Monia. Maybe should forget about the scarf for a moment and get to know them as Layla or Nada or Monia – as persons.
And think of it, if Layla or Nada or Monia are having trouble at home, they could talk to us and we can give them help or information about what they can do about it. As long as we make getting to know us contingent on taking off the hijab (or, in the case of the picture, a niqab), we isolate them from us and us from them.
Women are erased only if we allow ourselves to become a body or an outfit and not a person (or allow ourselves to see each other as such). Next time you see a woman wearing a hijab (or even a niqab) promise me that you would talk to her like you would the woman in the brown dress. Oppression is easier with isolation and separation. Why should a scarf separate her from us or us from her?
-
The points you are making are the same exact ones I made in my post – banning the burka will only punish the woman. That is exactly what I have said repeatedly.
Also, I think you are making assumptions that I don’t know women who wear the hijab – on the contrary, I live in London where such a thing is commonplace. There is no comparison between a hijab and a burka and my focus is not on the hijab, except for my comment about agreeing with the headscarf ban in French schools. I would imagine that by law, French children have no choice but to attend school, thus, the headscarf ban will not prevent girls from attending school, otherwise the parents will be arrested. Children are not old enough to decide whether they want to wear a hijab or a cross around their neck or any other symbol of religion and I think banning these things in school is a good idea. When children are adults, they can make their own choices.
-
Caroline Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 amNot interested in “getting to know” someone whose face I can’t see. The burka tells me firmly that I have no business looking at or addressing Mona or whomever — stops me in my tracks, just as it’s supposed to. I am irked by the lack of understanding on the part of people who wear or force others to wear the burka that a big component of Western interaction is to show your face as equals and look someone in the eye — men, women, whomever. Even that greasy lady on the subway is looking at me. Hey, I’ll take it.
Charles Bremner in the Times of London has interesting observations on Sarkozy’s veil laws. A hard core of French people like things very much their way and so do militant Muslim types. Let’s see how this struggle plays out between these tough customers.
-
Jan Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pmAn interesting post, and I mostly agree with all of it. One doubt though: You say that the ad “encourages sexual objectification”. Of course it does. But does it “encourage” rape? I wonder. Is it not like saying that detective fiction encourages crime, or car commercials encourage theft?
-
For me, sexual objectification leads to dehumanization. And dehumanization is intrinsic to rape.
The Galeries Lafayette ad invites male viewers to imagine that the woman is ready for sex. She is naked from the waist down, with her whole body in a position for sex. She has her eyes closed as well, signifying passivity. It’s also significant that while she is naked from the waist down, she is holding the bikini top over her breast, as if for the sake of ‘modesty,’ which makes no sense given how she is posed and given the fact that she is otherwise naked. So for me this is just another signal that she is a ‘tease.’ We don’t know if she wants sex or is willing to have it, but nevertheless she is posed in a way that says she is an object ready for the taking, regardless of what she wants. The fact that this ad is blown up to huge size all over the Paris metro system is disturbing. It’s one of the most disgusting advertisements I’ve ever seen.
-
Caroline Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 pmThe French love racy images in public. You are right that this image would not be tolerated in NY or London. In Italy it would barely induce a yawn.
I don’tsee rape imagery here really…more a foolish (and irritating) type of heavily Photoshopped male fantasy. Hopefully people have been exposed to enough of these trashy images to see through them. There is, however, the risk that some will take them the wrong way. I think among the people who might view this ad as an incitement to rape you could probably count hard-core Muslim men.
-
Dorothy Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pmthe fact that she keeps her top makes it seem like a rape-scene indeed, where the victim gets deprived of only the “essential” clothing while keeping (and holding on(!) to, like she does!) the rest of it to prevent further tearing it away.
sorry if someone already mentioned that, haven’t read all the comments yet… -
Caroline, yes, I agree that in certain European countries, nudity and a certain degree of sexual explicitness in the media is much more common than it is for us anglophones. However, I do think this particular ad crosses the line. If it were just in a women’s magazine, its impact would not be as great as it is now, with it in billboard size and plastered all over Paris. That takes it to another level.
I’m not saying that this ad alone is going to encourage someone to rape (though anything is possible). But this ad does not exist in a vacuum and taken together with all of the other crap out there, it helps create an environment of rape culture.
I also want to ad that although some countries in Europe are more comfortable with nudity/sexuality in the mainstream media, I don’t think this translates into any sort of sexual liberation. Rather, the same old patriarchal norms are re-enforced. The bodies we see are still the perfect, unattainable bodies and the gender dynamics still place women in a subservient position. Same old story.
-
Just read your comment, Dorothy. Very good point!!!
-
“The bodies we see are still the perfect, unattainable bodies…”
Particularly true here, given that they’ve lengthened her legs to a Barbie-like unnatural length.
What is she supposed to be? 6′11″? Blech.
-
Lucette Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 3:38 amRE: For me, sexual objectification leads to dehumanization. And dehumanization is intrinsic to rape.
That is a good point. That it isn’t just the nudity aspect of it but the sexual imagery. The girl seems to have one desire – and one purpose.
RE: Not interested in “getting to know” someone whose face I can’t see. The burka tells me firmly that I have no business looking at or addressing Mona or whomever — stops me in my tracks, just as it’s supposed to.
People are people. There are slight differences between a niqab and a burka. Don’t care for either, but then I figure that short sleeved t-shirts are for the spring and fall because the summer is too hot for them. For all you know, she may be a widow who isn’t ready for male attention to her features. Her “indoor clothes” (if Fulla and Nada – like Barbie – have them then so must she) – could be identical to your outdoor clothes – you may like the same fashions.
RE: There is no comparison between a hijab and a burka and my focus is not on the hijab, except for my comment about agreeing with the headscarf ban in French schools.
In multiculturalism it shouldn’t matter what a person wears in public school – as long as it is not too offensive or revealing (ie most teachers prefer not to have to stare at bare middriffs all day long).
Odds are that the Hijab is more cultural than religious, if one tweaks these things out – the Koran only states modesty (or so they say). I think in France it is more about preserving French culture than protecting little girls.
If there is a ban in the public school, then the little girls who wear hijabs start going to private schools and only mix with their own kind. If there isn’t, then the little girls play with other little girls and are exposed to other ideas. They may decide to keep wearing the hijab or to stop wearing it.
Personally, I think that Sarkozy would prefer that French culture remains pure. If he can’t expel these women from the country, he could either force them to completely conform to French culture or force them to completely separate themselves from it.
The down (or up) side to multiculturalism is that it changes the host culture – that cultural traditions are mixed and matched and what existed before now exists in a new form.
I also think that Sarkozy has his counterparts in some Mosques with purists who do not want their flock to “westernize” at all – or to associate with other westerners. Separation of the populations is fine with them also.
Did you see the video about the female rapper in Iran (they show a male band first) – think you will like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RLB4vas_0c
Full video on the CBC shows female race car driver as well along with the scarfless wife of the band’s singer (if the feed works outside of Canada):
-
Lucette Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 4:04 amOh the three names:
Layla is Baber’s daughter in Little Mosque on the Prairie who doesn’t want to wear the hijab and gets her way – despite her father’s preferences. Actually she does wear the hijab for a week – she dyes her hair and doesn’t want her father to find out.
Nada is the red haired green eyed friend of Fulla – Fulla is like barbie only flatter and her skirts are longer.
Monia is Monia Mazigh – the hijab wearing wife of Maher Arar. When her husband was renditioned, she fought tooth and nail to get him back. She is actually a different ancestry than her husband. She is also an economics professor.
LMOTP – Ban The Burka S2E3 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQK2J1gWbdw -
Lucette Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 7:03 amSorry for coming on so strong. My assumption in the original post was wrong.
Used to edit – sorry for the triple post.
The Canadian Council of Muslim Women – promotes women’s rights but respects diversity in the Muslim community – did not comment on this issue.
From the Muslim Canadian Congress:
“MCC welcomes President
Sarkozy’s comment on the Burka”http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20090624.html
From the Canadian Muslim Union:
“We in the CMU believe that there is no requirement in Islam for women to cover their faces. We feel that the practice is a relic of an earlier misogynist society. None the less, we also believe that the State has no business telling women how to dress let alone how to practice their religion. And when such an edict is clearly addressed towards a very small segment of one religious group, this can only be seen as an attack on one of our fundamental freedoms.”
http://www.muslimunion.ca/20071019.html
From the Canadian Arab Federation (refers to the niqab as well):
“Quebecers should accept hijab and move on- report”
Salaam (another Canadian Muslim group) is so excited that their founder is the Grand Marshal of this year’s Toronto gay pride parade that they have made no comment on the “Burka” issue.
-
Caroline Says:
July 4th, 2009 at 12:28 amHIjab? Fine. Burka? No.
I want to see your face if I am doing business with you or talking to you or admitting you onto property or being taught by you or teaching you. It is part of Wesetern interaction. Lucette, you’re ignoring this part of the equation in your very long posts.
