“This is America not Saudi Arabia”
“The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. This is America not Saudi Arabia” that is what the editor of Vogue magazine Anna Wintour stated on learning why Hillary Clinton decided not to appear in Vogue magazine for fear of looking too feminine.
Now.. Does being mannish relate in any way to Saudi Arabia? Or is mentioning Saudi Arabia in every statement that associate demeaning and degrading women a norm these days!
Let me go back a bit through feminism history in the west and America to explain that women had to look like men to be taken seriously not too long ago, so as not to be perceived as sexual objects. And from what I gather, some women like Senator Clinton believe this is applied still in the 21st century, not in Saudi Arabia but in the United States of America!
Feminism became an organized movement in the 19th century as people increasingly came to believe that women were being treated unfairly. (So as you can see, women were dehumanized and marginalized in the west before the feminist movement). The utopian socialist Charles Fourier coined the word feminisme in 1837. As early as 1808, he argued that the extension of women’s rights was the general principle of all social progress.
In the nineteenth century, concerns were all linked by a single element: clothing, which accentuated, reinforced, and promoted gender difference. Fashion determined that the female image should have aesthetic sensibility, physical delicacy, and womanly grace. These qualities had negative consequences for women who wished to vote, obtain higher education, or work. Aesthetic sensibility translated into a preoccupation with silly frills, and other non-essentials, it lead to the view of women as light-minded creatures.. (Just a reminder, women were perceived this way in the WEST).
Women’s physical delicacy, a myth due in part to the physical constraints of women’s fashion by forcing women’s bodies into unnatural contours, corsets often caused the uterus to prolapse. This complaint became so common that “pessaries” (a device to hold internal organs in place) became a regular yet unmentionable fashion accessory. Additionally, corsets not only forced ribs to grow directly into the lungs, but also weakened the spine preventing any sort of strenuous activity, physical or mental and was used as an argument against female higher education. Imagine that!
Of course, without advanced training, women were effectively barred from any lucrative profession. Fashion forced women to remain in the domestic sphere, the ideal frame for their natural grace and moral superiority. It is no wonder that feminists such as Annie Denton Cridge argued for dress reform which blurred gender difference; it was the first step toward increased political, educational, and occupational opportunity for women.
Proper young girls remained inside homes sewing or playing with dolls, while young men were free to engage in physical activity and play outdoors. Proper young ladies were trained to enjoy “feminine” pursuits to help them acquire a husband and the financial security he would bring.
Women had to be frightened away from specific medical training or any training which could draw them away from domestic work. This need to keep women in the home generated article after article, and book after book, all proving *scientifically* that female education was directly linked to female illness. Dr. Clarke noted cases of young women who graduated from school or college with undeveloped ovaries. Later they became sterile ! gynecologists such as Dr. William Goodell stated definitively that “female boarding schools and public schools … breed a host of sickly girls” plagued by “manifold diseases, both functional and structural” including “neuralgic pains,” “irregular menstruation,” “spinal irritation, irritable bladder, painful ovaries, and various pelvic aches and congestions”. The famed neurologist S. Weir Mitchell argued that intellectual work is “dangerous” for women, “sexually incapacitative to a varying amount,” and the cause of “hysteria, or hysterical hypochondriasis”. Sir James Crichton Browne declared in the medical journal Lancet that education causes women’s brains to consume themselves, resulting in “nervous disturbances, insomnia, anaemia . . . general delicacy,” and “anorexia scholastica”.
Women also such as Miss M. A. Hardaker, argued in 1882 that since the male brain is larger than that of the female, one can establish “an exact correspondence between brain-substance and intelligence,” since “in the case of every other organ of the body we know there is an ascertainable correspondence between size and condition, and the amount of work that an organ can do”. Just as larger heart will pump more blood than a small one, a larger brain will pump more intelligence. Eliza Lynn Linton pointed out that education took both a moral and physical toll on women: it not only made women “arrogant, pretentious and vain” “It ruined them for pregnancy, lactation, and child rearing”. She condemns the young intellectual woman who selfishly risks her reproductive organs.
The desire to educate or support oneself was not a noble effort, but an indication of hormonal deficiency. Either one was a “womanly” woman, whose happy ovaries generated a healthy maternal urge; or an unnatural “mannish” female, whose natural instincts had been perverted into a craving for “public applause, an audience, excitement, notoriety”. Lacking the warm love and validation provided by a husband and children, such failed women could only hope to be “lecturers, professors, entitled to wear gowns and hoods, and put letters after their names”. They are more to be pitied than despised, since their personal ambition exposes their deficiency of womanly grace and force.
That is how women were perceived in America in the 19th century. Women then have gone through the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism since the 1800s to the 1990s to reach where they have today, and yet some still worry that they look too feminine to be taken seriously!
Give us Saudi’s a break.. we women have only just started to go to schools in 1964! We still have a long way to go but we are heading towards the right direction.
A note to remember, Women were never perceived as a lesser being than man in Islam unlike some other cultures.
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
That’s actually a really common smear made by anti-feminists in the West-that feminists are characterized as ugly, mannish/unladylike, lesbians and/or they just hate men(hi the Beauty Myth is really a great book.)
By saying this ain’t Saudi Arabia, I don’t think she cares about what rights women have in Saudi Arabia(or in North America for that matter,) just how unglamourously she thinks they dress over there. I could go into all the levels of how her statement makes no sense whatsover, but I wouldn’t think about it too hard-she obviously didn’t.
مرحبا رشا كيف الحال اشكرك على الرسالة مع انى مافهمت شيء اذا ممكن تكتبى لى العربي عشان افهمك معليش ثقافتى فرنسية ههههههههههههههه اتمنى تكونى بخير وصحة انا اسمى طاهر من جده عمرى 33سنة
“Women were never perceived as being a lesser being in Islam”.
Are you referring to the “ideal” Islam or Islam as it is currently practiced? Actions speak louder than words; based on the position and accepted treatment of women within certain Muslim societies, it would appear that women are, indeed, considered lesser beings. Or at the very least, the equal status does not translate into equal respect.
Gila, yes, she means “ideal” Islam. Not many of the core values of Islam are actually being practiced the way they’re supposed to in our societies, unfortunately. However, in many Muslim countries, like my own (Bahrain), women have lots of equal opportunities. The situation is constantly improving.
Unfortunately true, but if Islam was being correctly applied, it wouldn’t really be this way.
Thank you for the clarification!
I understand the author’s comments and I agree with him to a certain level.
Sometimes when I look at my young sister, I feel sorry for her being a female in Saudi Arabia. Males can do nothing INSIDE Saudi Arabia compared with some other countries so how about the females?
“This is America not Saudi Arabia” was his point of view and instead of looking back to the history, I would discover what made him feel what he felt and help in improving our lovely Saudi Arabia.
Women are very much equal in ISLAM. It is the Saudi practice of Islam that is not in line with the holy Quran.
Your description of how women were treated in the West is very close to the way Saudi treats women today. Blacks in America were given the right to vote long before women.
I find whenever someone says a bad word about Saudi Arabia, instead of dealing with the issue, you point a finger back at the USA instead of facing the problem head on.
It reminds me of little children. “MoM said you ate to many cookies” Johnny repliied “but mikey ate more than me” same mentality everytime Saudi shown in a bad light.
Saudimedic, before you point your fingers as well, you should read the other articles that the author wrote which offer a lot of valid and brave criticism of certain Saudi traditions and societal practices - where is she pointing a finger at the USA? Is it so wrong to be sick of the way Arab women in general are portrayed in US media? No, it’s not. Pointing out these problems are not wrong, as long as we don’t deny our problems which Rasha certainly doesn’t. Please read the article carefully before passing on these baseless judgments.
Seems like this is a bash Rasha weeK!!
Well, Dear Saudimedic.
If you read what I wrote carefully you would understand that what I ask for is not to use Saudi Arabia in every sentence that degrades women.
I am only reminding everyone the fact that women were marginalized in most societies, but the rest of the world is ahead of us. Women in the past had the same problems we are having in Saudi Arabia today. We are taking progressive steps.. I am proud to say, although we Saudi women started much later.
As I mentioned in the article, Girls schools were only open in the 1960s!! that is not too long ago. Even then many parents didn’t allow their girls to attend! Now, almost 50 years later, we have Saudi women teachers,doctors, researchers, nurses, businesswomen and even lawyers.. There is still so much lacking before women reach an independence and the rights they seek.. but we are moving towards that..
Rasha, as a “western feminist” I can only respond by saying that often people make progress in one area and simply - while ignoring any sort of cultural differences - expect others to “catch up” immediately. This is an unfair and ignorant view of many activists, especially here in the States. Anyone who has been present, or worked on, worlwide movements knows and understands that the perfect formula of what worked in one country will work exactly the same in another. I applaud you for trying to progress the women’s movement in Saudi.
However, in reading the comments for this article, I found myself questioning what exactly the MEY readers feel is the solution here.
I often hear (or read) that “ideal” Islam is not being practiced in any current Muslim countries, but if it were, all human rights would be respected (or at least to a larger degree then they are now). This leads me to 2 points:
1. Who agrees on what is “ideal?” Which religious scholars, and which sects? If we are talking about a democratic system, then you immediately run the risk of fairly electing extremists who will not support or protect human rights….but who are still implementing their idea of a “perfect” religion. (Please note, this is not a comment simply on Muslim countries - as a Christian living in the US, I would put President George W. Bush in this same category….I don’t think he has made many “Christian-like” decisions in office, but I do believe he is convinced he has.)
2. Since no religion can remain perfect or “ideal” once put in the hands of sinful humans, isn’t this actually an argument for the seperation of Church and State? Most of the world’s countries which “best” defend human rights (and I put “best” in quotes because certainly every country has significant room to progress) do practice the seperation of church and state.
Therefore, it seems unproductive to me for a society to strive to implement a more “perfect” religious ideal when often people don’t agree on what is “ideal;” and that history has clearly taught us that countries who seperate religion and the state are the best defenders of human rights.
I noticed a missing word in my above comment - first paragraph. “what worked in one country will NEVER work exactly the same in another”
sorry about that!
Hi Jessica, to answer one of your questions:
This is impossible for many Muslims to accept, the Quran is supposed to act as our constitution. While many Muslims understand and dislike the consequences of that, more would pick this religion over human rights (and let’s face it, “ideal” Islam is rarely being practiced in any of the Muslim countries right now, where censorship and crimes are rampant.) If this wasn’t the case, we would have crawled out of these struggles a long time ago.
For a lot of people, just the idea of separating religion from politics is a sin. Remember, there are many people suffering in prison all over the Muslim world simply for putting these discussions on the table.
Hi Esra’a, Thanks for replying to my comment.
I think it comes down to the extent of the interplay between religion and politics. I still vote with my morals and religious principles in mind, but I live in a democratic system where if I am in the minority on such issues I ‘lose.’ This is the choice one would have to make, and from what I understand of your comment, you are saying most people in the Muslim world would still choose religious rule over democratic rule.
I think many Christians, too, used to feel that seperation of church and state was a sin - look at the Catholic/Protestant issues in Ireland, the Church of England, ect. However, society (and religion’s reaction to society) was able to evolve and still keep religion as founding principles for democracy. In fact, many Catholics would credit Catholicism with the ideal of seperation of church and state…although that’s debatable, in my opinion.
I understand that there are many people who are persecuted in the Muslim world for purporting these ideals, as there were many people jailed/killed for making this same argument back in the time of Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots. Unfortunately, it’s often persecution that moves change, so it’s a necessary evil. I admire anyone who is in that situation and who is still able to steadfastly hold onto their ideals and principles.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t believe that the seperation of church and state should be an ideal “impossible” for Muslims to accept, because it may be the only viable solution. If it is right now impossible to accept, then I would say that there needs to be an evolution of understanding what is acceptable or not.
Of course, this is easy for me to say because I am not Muslim and I would not be persecuted for stating this opinion in my country.
Hi Jessica,
Be aware of the many hypocrisies involved in certain Muslim people claiming to want democracy. It is alarming. A perfect case is Kareem’s, lots of Muslim activists and supposed advocates for “free speech” refused to support him and in fact justified his imprisonment, simply because they were “offended” by his posts. Many people who want democracy here barely understand what it means, all they want is political freedom, but they would have no idea what to do with it, it seems. Not if they justify people like Kareem being imprisoned. I am against religion dominating people’s lives when they lead to illogical situations such as this. Everyone wants freedom for themselves, but many refuse to understand that real democracy means feelings will get hurt all the time, ideologies will be questioned, people will be criticized. And what are they going to do? Burn tires in violent rallies and threaten others with death every time someone writes a blog post or article criticizing their political or religious beliefs? It drives me nuts. I want to see more Muslims fight for minority religions, and those being violently persecuted in our societies, before they run around claiming to want democracy. I dislike it very much when Muslims pout about discrimination and Arab-Muslims racism when we ourselves discriminate and are racist against so many minorities in our own cultures. Who are we fooling? Anyways, this is besides the point. But I felt like mentioning it here to prove how hypocritical and self-important many people are. I’m sure this applies to people other than Muslims, but our experiences are somewhat worse and more frequent than in other societies (at least that I’m aware of.)
It is very hard, my heart goes out to the thousands of people who as we speak are being tortured in prison simply for holding and expressing certain opinions. For as long as such people are being imprisoned, and whose imprisonment is being justified and uncared for by the masses, we can’t possibly function properly under any democracy. Not until people learn to fight these grave injustices, regardless of political and religious stances.
I don’t see this happening without the extremist elements in our societies rising violently. Right now, simply too many people oppose this idea, and something like this can result in major political and social instabilities. There are many steps to take before putting this sort of thing into action, don’t you think so Jessica?
I still think that woman was just thinking about how women in Saudi have to wear icky black gowns.
Last I heard Saudi women were suing Batman claiming that his costume was a serious copyright violation.
… Not really.
In any case, just because they have to wear that doesn’t mean the entire world has to look down on and pity them. It makes a lot of hard-working, intelligent Saudi women sick to be repeatedly treated like this.
Also, I fail to see how her comment was even a valid comparison. I mean, think about it. Hillary doesn’t appear on the front page of her silly boob-obsessed magazine and this is relevant to Saudi women how exactly? It’s not like Hillary is walking around with an abaya. Her not wanting to appear too “feminine” has nothing to do with how Saudi women live their lives - they don’t dress like that to be taken more seriously or to be more “mannish” looking. The comment just makes no sense, I’m surprised Time emphasized it so much.
Yeah, that was my original point, it’s retarded. But it’s Vogue, what were you expecting?
Yeah, and it’s Anna, who dresses up like Sherlock Holmes.
I wasn’t expecting much from Vogue of course, but Time highlighting it is what irked me.
Esra’a–just looked at that photo. Man, but that woman is scary-looking.
General Advice…
Feedback is always one way and it reflects the impact of what is written on the person…
So, try not to take it personal