When one considers feminism and gender equality today, many might argue that the fight has been won. After all, in Western society today, women can vote, work and drive. All, it appears, but dictate their own clothing.
France recently passed a law banning women from wearing the burqa in public, in an attempt to save women from male oppression, often linked to the garment. However, in the process, the choice of the burqa-wearing female was simply pushed to the side. On the other side of the coin, men were dictating how women should dress appropriately.
Again, women must conform Western society's ideas of femininity and what paternalism deems is appropriate to wear. The only choice these women have is dressing in a manner which will please the society they descend from or the society they live in. Their own preference becomes insignificant in comparison to the right of the male to govern the female and to set the standards of society.
Dictating women, for women - by men
According to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the burqa does not function as a symbol of religion. Rather, it is a symbol of female oppression, and, thus, not welcome in France. However, the law simply shifts the person dictating the woman from being the husband or head of household, to being a MP in France. The woman herself does not enter the debate.
Herein lies the problem. Much over fighting for the right of women to govern their own bodies, and, thus, their own sense of fashion, the French Parliament, undoubtedly anxious over Muslim immigration to Europe, battled for the right of government to control what women could, and should, wear.
Isobel Coleman argues that the legislation, despite attempting to allow cultural and material assimilation, might actually give a rise to Muslim fundamentalism. After all, this law is targeted against the clothing of those of a certain religion.
Oppression at your own cost
It tends to be quite obvious that this is an attempt to allow women to assimilate to the French culture, while, at the same time, attempting to free them from male oppression. However, it must be questioned how fining them for wearing clothing they may or may not have been forced to wear will free them from oppression. Although the fine for men caught forcing women to wear the burqa is higher than for women caught wearing it, it is undoubtedly difficult to prove where force and oppression entered the decision of the wearing of the garment.
Had the woman been forced to wear the veil without proof of coercion, she would consequently be fined for being oppressed. The law itself does, simply put, not even attempt to solve the problems that lead to female oppression in the first place. Instead, it chooses to oppress women from a different angle, while, at the same time, assuming women should not be allowed to choose their own clothing.
Conclusion
Thus, the question is not why a French man seemingly has a higher right to dictate female clothing than a Muslim man – somehow, when considering how easily the law was passed, it seems a given that the choice lies with the males. It must, however, be asked why women who choose to wear the burqa cannot do so, and how fining the victim will raise women's rights in France.
Much in the style of Judge Julian Hall , the crime becomes that of the woman who chooses not to dress in the manner required by the paternal Western society. If women choose to cover their body, that should be their choice, as much as it should be their choice to show skin without having to take responsibility for male behaviour regarding her clothing. Dictating female clothing in order to conform to a male-orientated society is oppression – even if attempting liberty.
Eyrun Bernhardsdottir - Eyrun is a full-time student at Birkbeck College, University of London, where she is studying a M.Sc. in Global Governance and Public ...
