Opinion: Feminism and the Hijab

It’s a Sunday afternoon and I’m drinking a cup of tea at a cafe in my hometown. Sitting across from me is my former high school teacher, whom I remained in touch with after graduation. Temperatures are starting to rise now that summer has reached our country, but the weather isn't the only thing that's hot today: our conversation is slowly evolving into a very heated debate. The reason why? I see a place for the hijab within feminism – she does not.

Some argue that contemporary feminism is so different from that of the feminists before us, that this represents a gap that's too large for us to bridge. A defining characteristic of contemporary feminism is its focus on intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe the overlapping forms of discrimination (racism & sexism) experienced by Black women (also known as misogynoir). The term has since come in use to describe “the ways in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination combine, overlap, or intersect in the experiences of marginalized individuals." Feminism that is not intersectional is often labeled white feminism, as it only caters to (CisHet, able-bodied) white women, rather than to all women.

I'm generally skeptical of the idea that there are unbridgeable gaps between our feminisms, but when I'm talking to my former teacher, I can't help but wonder if it's true. Now, I do not want to call her feminism “white” – but I cannot possibly call it intersectional, either.

The feminism she grew up with, centered on the fight for abortion, freedom from religious oppression, and sexual liberation. She's from a generation of feminists that rejected the notion that women had to cater to the male gaze & simply "sit still and look pretty." Growing up in the Bible belt of the Netherlands, she vehemently rejected conservative Christian policing of women's bodies, as she witnessed first-hand that girls were made to wear long skirts, weren't allowed to cut their hair, and were never to show any nudity.

Against this backdrop, it's understandable that she'd view the hijab through a prism of religious oppression – and it's only logical that this shapes her feminism. Seen through her specific feminist lens, the hijab is inherently oppressive: according to her understanding, there's no male equivalent, women wear a hijab to hide themselves from the male gaze, and many women across the world are forced to wear a hijab by men. In her view, the hijab, regardless of whether it is worn by choice, is a symbol of religious oppression. Wearing a hijab, she claims, "is like spitting in the faces of those who are forced to wear it.”

Yet still, she has never shied away from calling women's clothes too revealing, commenting on their heels, or from noting that they're wearing too much makeup – which she sees as catering to the male gaze, instead.

Now, I try not to judge her for holding these views. I try to understand that we are both a product of our time. And I can't possibly deny that religion has frequently been used as a tool to oppress anyone who is not straight, cisgender, or male. But our feminisms diverge on the topic of women's clothing & agency – and seeing that it would be dishonest to call her views intersectional, it's questionable whether they should even be called feminist.

Before continuing my general argument regarding women's clothing & agency, I want to note that, because of our whiteness, white women/non-men can be both the oppressed and the oppressor. We are just as capable of upholding white supremacy, and thus of marginalizing people of color, as our male counterparts are. We must be cognizant of the fact that, in addition to inadequately addressing the struggles of women of color (WOC), white feminism is also often tainted by white saviorism and ethnocentrism. But logic should tell us that we are most certainly not better equipped to address the oppression experienced by WOC, than WOC are themselves.

Of course, not all hijabis are WOC, and critiques of veiling oneself are not inherently Islamophobic. Still, I want to draw attention to Edward Said's Orientalism & the relation between colonial ideology, Islamophobia, and Muslim womanhood, here.

Said's main argument was that 'the Orient' (a dated term for Asia) doesn't actually exist other than as a European construct. That is to say, 'the Orient' is a Western intellectual product: "an image of the 'other' that allows —by defining this 'other'— the identification of oneself as European or Western." According to Said, this construct was part of the cultural dimension of colonialism, and he coined the term Orientalism to describe how “a subtle but persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples & culture” maintains Western hegemony over the non-Western world in general, but in particular over 'the Middle East.'

Gentry & Whitworth argue that this gaze now extends to all areas associated with Islam, and that gender dynamics exist within this gaze as well. This is known as Neo-Orientalism, “a means of articulating a subordinating discourse regarding societies associated with Islam." Within a Neo-Orientalist frame, Islam is portrayed as hostile to women's liberty, while Muslim women are portrayed as oppressed, docile beings, who lack agency & who are coerced into their actions by Muslim men.

If these themes seem familiar, it's because they're often invoked to justify discriminatory policies against Muslim women, such as burqa/hijab bans — because apparently policing women's clothing is okay as long as it's done by white, Western men.

What would logically follow, then, is that rather than adequately addressing the forms of oppression experienced by Muslim women - many of whom are of color - white feminism is more likely to contribute to this very oppression.

But you don't actually have to develop an in-depth understanding of Orientalism or intersectionality to understand why the argument made by my former teacher falls short in terms of women's liberation. Throughout our debate, she stated that "until the hijab is no longer forced on women anywhere / until there is a male equivalent," she would not see it as neutral; as just another piece of clothing; as not oppressive of women.

And herein lies the very issue with this argument: it fails to acknowledge that there is no neutral clothing for women. Much like there is no male equivalent of the hijab (at least, as seen through her lens), neither is there one of women’s skirts being “too short" or their cleavages being “too deep.” There is no male equivalent of “too much” or “too little” clothing. There is no male equivalent of “covered up because of oppression” or “revealed because of oppression.” This is because there is no male equivalent of the oppression that women face.

Claiming that certain items of clothing are inherently oppressive, only perpetuates the notion that women’s bodies are inherently political. It facilitates the framing of women's bodies as a battlefield of societal contestations. If anything, it sustains a reality in which what women wear can never truly be neutral — not like it can be for men, at least.

By claiming the hijab to be inherently oppressive, one deprives the wearer of her ability to make a choice. The observer decides for her; decides that it is oppressive despite her own views — much like society constantly decides for women what is or isn't empowering to them. If the popular opinion is that it's oppressive or somehow rooted in internalized misogyny (like many earlier feminists thought of makeup, revealing clothes, heels, etc.), her own opinion or sense of empowerment is deemed irrelevant - and her agency is inhibited.

Within this narrative, women's choices are always situated in relation to men. Wearing revealing clothes, heels, and makeup means you are catering to the male gaze. Covering your hair or body means you are hiding yourself from it. Either way, your personal choices always involve and revolve around men. What this really means, then, is that there's no choice you can make that is not somehow informed by the male gaze.

Thus, I believe that people's perception of the hijab as inherently oppressive, although often well-intended, is nonetheless problematic because they are fighting the wrong battle. You cannot fight the fact that women are forced to wear headscarves, without dismantling gender inequality and patriarchy as a whole. And you cannot liberate women from oppressive clothing in general by further politicizing their bodies.

Gender equality is not achieved through ridding the world of the “oppressive” hijab. It is achieved when such an item of clothing is no longer used to oppress women. By claiming the piece of clothing itself to be oppressive, the blame is distributed to those wearing it by choice — when really it should be distributed to those forcing it on others. It's not about the clothes we wear, or even about the reasons why we choose to wear them. It's about the reasons why our clothes are politicized in the first place; why our clothes are used to oppress us; and why this is so often done in relation to our sexuality in particular.

Whether it's a government forcing women to cover their hair, or one prohibiting them from doing so, they're really not that different: both are policing women's bodies; both are depriving them of their agency; and both are using their bodies as a political tool.

We need to stop deciding for (other) women what is or is not empowering to them, as no such system is in place to control men’s bodies and freedom of choice. We need to stop equating the clothes women wear with their intelligence, level of self-respect, or their value as people.

We must realize that by calling specific pieces of clothing inherently oppressive or patriarchal —whether it's a hijab or a miniskirt— we are centering women's choice of clothing around men, rather than around their personal taste & individual freedom. And we must understand that, ultimately, we all live within the same patriarchal system, albeit a different variation thereof, with different degrees of oppression in different areas of life.

Our fight shouldn’t be against particular items of clothing, or centered on just one version of liberation and empowerment. Our fight should be intersectional. Our fight should be for all women. Our fight should liberate women from being forced to cover their bodies, as well as from being forced to reveal them. Our fight should be for freedom of choice; like that of men.

Our fight should be about giving women their agency back.