All-Too-Realistic Body Image

Feministe reports on a popular Middle-Eastern doll who sports Barbie's curves, but keeps them modestly hidden away under a hijab. The American version has been accused of setting an unrealistic standard for prepubescent girls, but the problem with her Muslim counterpart Fulla may be just the opposite:

"My friends and I loved Barbie more than anything," [a 15-year-old girl] said. "But maybe it's good that girls have Fulla now. If the girls put scarves on their dolls when they're young, it might make it easier when their time comes. Sometimes it is difficult for girls to put on the hijab. They feel it is the end of childhood." "Fulla shows girls that the hijab is a normal part of a woman's life."

Of course, I'll agree with Feministe's Jill that there's nothing wrong with a genuinely free choice to wear the hijab, but as she puts it:

There's something incredibly painful about that quote, isn't there? When a doll serves to ease you out of a life of relative freedom and into one where it seems that at least some young women feel very contrained, and where they recognize that something has been lost?

Comments

[Ruthless]

"contrained" at the very least, and we haven't even got to genital mutilation.

[Johnny Clarke]

Jill apparently never saw the version of Barbie where she's working at McDonald's. Nothing against McDonald's, but Jill's statement rings true in America, as well.

[Shem]

Not exactly the same thing Johnny. Nobody will stone a woman for refusing to work at McDonalds. Nor does any little girl see McDonalds Barbie as being indicative of her future, unless of course she's got tremendously low expectations.

[dead_elvis]

Speaking of self-image and the recent touting of being mentioned in Playboy-

Could it just be that the entire Reason staff is in severe need of therapy?

[Stevo Darkly]

I went to see a therapist. He showed me an inkblot and said, "What does this look like to you?" I didn't want to say. He said, "Oh, come now, there's no need to be embarrassed. Everybody sees something. Just say whatever first popped into your mind. What does it look like to you?" And I said, "Well ... I think it looks like Number 13 in the Rorschach Series to test for obsessive-compulsive disorder. But I'm sure that's just me." Then he looked kind of depressed. So I said, "OK, it's a butterfly."

(Credit: Emo Phillips)

[JMoore]

"...there's nothing wrong with a genuinely free choice to..."

I don't mean to get all philosophical, especially when there are reason H&R readers lurking nearby, but this tiny passing statement encapsulates what I see as one of the inherent weaknesses of libertarian thought. Please tell me how often, and under what circumstances, anyone has a "genuinely free choice." Especially a child.

[Jennifer]

That was a horribly sad story. About ten years ago I read a memoir written by a woman who was one of the five thousand or so Saudi princesses, and for all the pitiful anecdotes in the book, the one that really stuck with me described the first time she put on an abaya to go outdoors; she wore the kind that covered a lot of the face in addition to the body, and the cloth took away her peripheral vision so that she now had a much, much smaller view of the world, and all framed in black.

Cultural relativism be damned; there's something obscene about a society that will put fully half of its population under lifelong gender-based house arrest. And their utter hatred/fear of the female body makes the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look positively humane.

[quasibill]

"Please tell me how often, and under what circumstances, anyone has a "genuinely free choice." Especially a child."

Children generally don't, because they are generally emotionally, intellectually, and physically unable to exercise it or be responsible for it.

Adults generally do. The point that even most libertarians miss is that a competent adult almost always has free choice (absent something like murder by surprise)- even when under physical coercion. You can always choose to die, or be beaten, or whatever. A libertarian says that it is morally wrong to engage in physical coercion of any form. But that doesn't change the fact that the victim did have a choice.

Some things are worth dying for. But morally speaking, the only person with the right to determine what is worth dying for is the person who will be doing the dying...

[quasibill]

Jennifer -

Read that same book. Like you said, quite a worldview shifter.

That said, some people do choose restrictive lifestyles because of the sense of community created. A recent sociological study showed that the entry costs of the group (the restrictive lifestyle) served to create a stronger bond and sense of shared purpose between those in the group. Sorta like why there is pledging in fraternities and sororities. So, I wouldn't want to prevent people from joining such groups. But I would fight like hell to protect someone who wanted to leave such a group.

[Jennifer]

a competent adult almost always has free choice (absent something like murder by surprise)- even when under physical coercion. You can always choose to die, or be beaten, or whatever. A libertarian says that it is morally wrong to engage in physical coercion of any form. But that doesn't change the fact that the victim did have a choice.

If you're saying that Saudi women choose to wear their abayas (when, after all, they're perfectly free to just have their heads cut off or have acid thrown in their faces instead). . . . reason #4,327,976 why almost nobody takes libertarianism seriously.

[Jennifer]

A recent sociological study showed that the entry costs of the group (the restrictive lifestyle) served to create a stronger bond and sense of shared purpose between those in the group. Sorta like why there is pledging in fraternities and sororities. So, I wouldn't want to prevent people from joining such groups. But I would fight like hell to protect someone who wanted to leave such a group.

Very few women choose to be Saudi--they're born into it. Not a choice at all.

[JMoore]

When I was a child, the monks and priests used to tell me that I had a choice between God and the devil.

Choice A: obedience
Choice B: eternal damnation

Hmmm....which one to choose....

[quasibill]

"If you're saying that Saudi women choose to wear their abayas (when, after all, they're perfectly free to just have their heads cut off or have acid thrown in their faces instead). . . . reason #4,327,976 why almost nobody takes libertarianism seriously."

Nicely dodging the point and bringing up a straw man. Did you even read my post, or did you make up your mind first, skim a sentence or two, and then post?

The point is about having a choice. They have a choice. If you actually read my post, you would have seen that I mentioned that morality comes into play after you determine whether there is a choice. Is it moral for someone to create these options? Again, if you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I said "no."

So, had you actually read my post, you would have known that I don't think that from a moral standpoint, Saudi women have a free choice - physical coercion is involved in one of the options.

However, it is a mistake in logic to say that they had no choice. Rather, it is a moral judgment that they have no free choice.

So its clear you didn't actually read my post and responded to what you thought I might say. If I were as snarky as you, I'd say it is Reason #x why you never make any sense. But I'm not 🙂

[quasibill]

"Very few women choose to be Saudi--they're born into it. Not a choice at all."

And why I would say that as children, they really don't have a choice at all, not even in the logical sense. They just aren't competent in any of the necessary areas to possibly exercise it.

However, once they are adults, they can escape. If slaves could escape the South, these women can escape to Israel, or the U.S., or to the Kurdish region, or Europe. Would it be easy? no. Is it right that they have to risk their lives to exercise their natural liberty? No. Do they have a choice to submit or try to escape? yes. Is it what I would deem a morally "free" choice. No.

[quasibill]

"When I was a child, the monks and priests used to tell me that I had a choice between God and the devil."

As a child, you had no choice. However, as an adult, I'm guessing that such talk doesn't coerce you in any way, shape or form. I'm guessing that what the priests said about eternal damnation isn't much of a concern to you anymore.

Or, I could be wrong.

[JMoore]

No, quasibill, you're not wrong. You just completely missed the point.

[Rodney]

Maybe a Barbie in a Catholic School uniform could help tiny Papists adjust.

[JMoore]

Actually, Rodney, I found images of Christ's torture and execution quite helpful in adjusting to the frequent smacks on my head. 🙂

[Evan Williams]

Quasibill,

Good god, yes, in a purist sense, inside of a vacuum, you are logically correct. And if this were a quiz in a Language & Logic 101 course, you'd get a big fat "A". But most people don't operate their lives under such strict technical interpretations; this discussion surely isn't about that. By your standards, there are only a very miniscule amount of instances where adults actually have no choice...however, who lives their life in such technically stringent logical definitions? Nobody I know. Who carries on broad philosophical discussions in a tight, logically & linguically strict manner? Nobody I know. Believe it or not, in reality, the way we use a great many terms, such as "choice", is not in the strictest logical sense...and by introducing such logical absolutism into this broad debate, you add nothing meaningful in terms of reality. Just saying. You are correct that, when I have a gun pointed at my head, I have the "choice" of whether to give in, or die. But logical absolutism doesn't help this debate whatsoever.

[Jennifer]

Jesus, Quasibill, stop being so enamored of semantics that you lose sight of non-theoretical reality.

[Eric II]

However, once they are adults, they can escape.

Not always. A Saudi woman has to obtain the permission of a male relative in order to travel abroad. There were some infamous cases of American women who married Saudi men and were trying to flee the country being turned away at the US embassy. That policy's been changed, but for any woman in a similar position today, leaving would still mean probably never seeing her children again.

[alkurta]

In Saudi Arabia, the women are not allowed to go anywhere unacompanied by a male relative.

An escaping woman would be spotted pretty quickly.

A slave escaping from the south could travel through the woods and drink water from the streams until he (or she) made it to the north.

A modern Saudi woman would have a much harder time trying to survive in the desert.

I won't say its impossible for a woman to escape from Saudi Arabia but it would be an order of magnitude harder than it would be for a Southern slave.

[a]

There's something incredibly painful about that quote, isn't there? When a doll serves to ease you out of a life of relative freedom and into one where it seems that at least some young women feel very contrained, and where they recognize that something has been lost?

Doesn't this logic equally apply to potty-teaching a child?

[Eric II]

Doesn't this logic equally apply to potty-teaching a child?

You don't seriously think that being forced to cover your hair in public is the same as being forced to use a toilet, do you?

No, wait, don't answer that.

[a]

Very few women choose to be Saudi

and you know this how? One Saudi eased restrictions on naturalizations, they got flooded with requests including many women.

In the strippers thread yesterday you accuse Hak that he is strongly opinionated with nothing much to based on. You seem to have a lot of strong opinions about this with not much to base them on, except may be a book written 10 years ago by someone anonymous.

[a]

Eric,

read the quote again:

When a doll serves to ease you out of a life of relative freedom

doesn't potty-teaching ease a child out of relative freedom?

[Annie Savoy]

Well, actually, nobody on this planet ever really chooses each other. I mean, it's all a question of quantum physics, molecular attraction, and timing. Why, there are laws we don't understand that bring us together and tear us apart. Uh, it's like pheromones. You get three ants together, they can't do dick. You get 300 million of them, they can build a cathedral.

[a]

Oh, and by the way the article talks about the Middle East not just Saudi Arabia. So, all these execuses about choice and what not do not apply for the entire ME.

[quasibill]

Look, I know it is semantics, but when you arguing a philosophical point, semantics are important. If you blur the distinction, those on the left or on the right will call you on it and destroy your argument about liberty.

It's not about getting an "A", it's about being clear about what you believe. If you say that you have NO choice when physical coercion is present, those on the left, like Jennifer, will argue that employees have no choice but to continue working for employers that make outrageous demands like restricting your dating options. And you won't be able to clearly reject that reasoning. If, however, you acknowledge that there is a choice, but that morally, there is no "free" choice because physical coercion is present, you can clearly reject her reasoning.

Likewise, those on the right will talk about how the innocent victims of our bombings in Iraq would have gladly chosen to die for the glorious democracy we're building, you can clearly say that as a moral decision, only they had the right to make that choice. We didn't.

If you get sloppy about what is and what is not a choice, and what is and what is not a moral judgment, you can't make the necessary clear distinctions between what is a "free" choice. And after all, that is exactly the question that started this question.

[Ebby Calvin Laloosh]

Hey, what's all this "molecule" stuff?

[Jennifer]

So, A, you're saying it's only prejudice that makes me think most Saudi women didn't choose to be Saudi? And this critique coming from the person who compares forced abaya-wearing with potty-training? When kids regularly get acid thrown in their faces as punishment for nighttime "accidents" I'll take that comparison seriously.

[Jennifer]

it's about being clear about what you believe. If you say that you have NO choice when physical coercion is present, those on the left, like Jennifer, will argue that employees have no choice but to continue working for employers that make outrageous demands like restricting your dating options. And you won't be able to clearly reject that reasoning.

Even my left-wing self can see that the poorest, most oppressed American worker has a hell of a lot more options than a woman in an Islamic theocracy.

[Eric II]

doesn't potty-teaching ease a child out of relative freedom

It's the context that matters. Potty training is done to get children to reach a basic standard of human sanitation. No kind of similar justification can be used to force a girl to cover her hair.

Which gets back to the line about there being "something incredibly painful" to the blogger in question about the doll being used to train girls to accept having to wear the hijab. I don't think anyone would find it "incredibly painful" to hear that their neighbors are potty-training one of their kids, at least unless it's being done in a way that's really out of the ordinary.

[a]

So, A, you're saying it's only prejudice that makes me think most Saudi women didn't choose to be Saudi?

No what you claimed that very few women choose to be saudi. And I challenged that claim. You obviously have no facts to stand on with respect to this claim.

[thoreau]

I don't have any rigorous philosophical justification for what I'm about to say, and I couldn't care less:

There's nothing wrong with potty-training a kid. But violent punishments for grown women who don't wear a burka? Seriously messed up.

What's the difference? Well, for me the difference is one of FREAKIN COMMON SENSE! The rigorous philosophical justification is left as an exercise for any student who actually cares.

[Jennifer]

You know, I remember this one dork I knew in grad school, who tried very hard to overcome various physical and personality deficiencies (i.e., he was a fat unattractive geek with poor hygiene) through pompous over-intellectualism.

So one day, I'm chatting with an acquaintance who'd just seen one of those armageddon movies about the Earth being hit by a giant meteor. And the acquaintance took it really seriously--I guess before that, she never knew that there was, indeed, a chance that a giant rock from space could hit the Earth and wipe out humanity.

Now, semanticists know that a "meteor" is a rock actually flying through space, or burning up in the atmosphere, whereas a "meteroite" is a space rock which has already landed on the ground. She did NOT know this, and kept talking about "a meteorite" striking the earth. (I knew the difference, but there was no way I could correct her without being rude.) The pompous pseudo-intellectual interrupted our conversation with the lofty observation that there was no way a "meteorite" could ever strike the earth.

And he was right, so far as that went, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed possible for space rocks to strike the earth, which is what my acquaintance was REALLY talking about.

And this discussion of choice versus non-choice in relation to Middle Eastern women sounds like the same damned thing.

[John]

Does anyone else think it is funny that this doll is probably made in China, a country where they love beer, atheism & pork products?

[thoreau]

I can never remember the semantic distinction between meteors, meteorites, or even asteroids. You're ahead of me in that area of science, Jennifer.

The arrogant grad student that you described should petition to have my Ph.D. revoked.

[JMoore]

Jennifer,

Right on!

It seems I may have started this particular outbreak of philosophy. Sorry. I made the comment before I'd had my fifth cup of coffee, so I was clearly out of my mind.

[a]

Potty training is done to get children to reach a basic standard of human sanitation. No kind of similar justification can be used to force a girl to cover her hair.

Now we are getting some where. So, the blogger didn't like because it eases a child out of relative freedom as she puts it, but because she think it is teaching something that shouldn't be thought to a young girl. I disagree with her since this is better left to the parents to decide.

The fact of the matter, parents make decisions for their kids all the time. I don't have a problem with a parent teaching their little girl how to wear a hijab. It is their choice as long as the girl has the choice whether to wear it or not when she grows up.

The likes of Jennifer jump up and down to defend the rights of Saudi women not to be forced wear the hijab, but ignores the plight of Turkish and Tunisian women when they are forced to take it off. That is not being pro women's rights, that is being a hypocrite.

[Phil]

thoreau, I suggest you read some books about meteors, meteorites and asteroids before you embarrass yourself further.

[Evan Williams]

Quasibill,

But what you fail to understand is that this sort of technical/semantic equivocation of being forced to do something at gunpoint, and having to make a "hard" choice between two bad options, does not serve this argument well. Yes, it started in "relative" choice, but while one can earnestly discuss the differences between being "forced" to wear a burka, and being "forced" to work at a dead-end job, you had to immediately take it to the abstract extreme.

Yes, it is important to enlighten idiot leftists on the difference between "not having a choice" and "having bad choices", so that they don't make the mistake of equivocating a welfare mom with a slave. But that can be done without making yourself look, as Jennifer put it, pompous & over-intellectual. When you say, "women in SA surely do have a choice!", it just makes them recoil in horror---and makes you look batshit loony. At the same time, why in the hell would you need to preach this shit to the H&R choir? Most if not all of us understand that a dead-end job is not for a lack of choices.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau--

I suggest you learn the distinctions of space rocks before you embarrass yourself further.

But seriously, here's a mnemonic device to help: the "ite" ending of "meteorite" would in most contexts refer to something smaller, right? And a meteroite will be at least a little smaller than it was as a meteor, since some of it burned away in the atmosphere.

The likes of Jennifer jump up and down to defend the rights of Saudi women not to be forced wear the hijab, but ignores the plight of Turkish and Tunisian women when they are forced to take it off.

Please cut and paste the quote where I ignored the plight of such women.

[Evan Williams]

Jennifer:

If you're a leftist, I'd hate to see how QB defines a libertarian...

[Evan Williams]

The likes of Jennifer jump up and down to defend the rights of Saudi women not to be forced wear the hijab, but ignores the plight of Turkish and Tunisian women when they are forced to take it off. That is not being pro women's rights, that is being a hypocrite.

There has to be a logical fallacy to define this rationale. Somebody help me out. I discuss the plight of "X"; as a result, I am "ignoring" the plight of anything that is not "X".

Like, just yesterday, I was talking about the plight of the Katrina victims; yet, I didn't mention the plight of the Tsunami victims - therefore, I am a hypocrit.

[quasibill]

"And this discussion of choice versus non-choice in relation to Middle Eastern women sounds like the same damned thing."

Thanks for showing the shallowness of your position by resorting to a long winded ad hominem.

Did a lot to convince me that you are right. No really. Count me in as a believer. You are all knowing, all seeing, and the only person who truly understands.

[Jennifer]

Thanks for showing the shallowness of your position by resorting to a long winded ad hominem.

Does anybody want to explain to Quasibill why this is not an example of ad hominem?

[thoreau]

This forum used to have a lot of purity enforcers. Lately, we've just got a lot of absurdity enforcers.

The difference is small, but lately it's noticeable.

[Larry A]

Jennifer: If you're saying that Saudi women choose to wear their abayas (when, after all, they're perfectly free to just have their heads cut off or have acid thrown in their faces instead). . . . reason #4,327,976 why almost nobody takes libertarianism seriously.

I think there's a distinction. As a libertarian I don't think that Saudi women have a realistic choice to forego abayas. But I damn well think they ought to have it.

[quasibill]

"At the same time, why in the hell would you need to preach this shit to the H&R choir? Most if not all of us understand that a dead-end job is not for a lack of choices."

Ask Jennifer. And you'll also get the answer to why I consider her, on the topic of labor law at least, a leftist.

"But that can be done without making yourself look, as Jennifer put it, pompous & over-intellectual"

I'm sorry if I came off pompous or "over"-intellectual (isn't that a term popular among creationists?). But I find it hard to believe that you found me pompous but Jennifer humble in this discussion. If you did, I'm not so sure there's a point in trying to have a meaningful discussion here. I'll just stick to "2nd amendment forever!" and other such platitudes in the future...

[quasibill]

"Does anybody want to explain to Quasibill why this is not an example of ad hominem? "

Why don't you?

Here's why I found it one. Jennifer describes someone she found pompous and ridiculous for making a point on semantics in the physical sciences. She then states that this discussion (which I am involved in, and am accused of focusing on semantics by none other Jennifer herself) reminds her of this pompous, ridiculous person.

Sorry if I took that as a personal attack. Might I say that I am reminded of a conversation I had with a dumb blond prostitute a while back where she advocated inherently contradictory positions. This discussion reminds me a lot of that time. No offense meant, Jennifer...

[a]

Please cut and paste the quote where I ignored the plight of such women.

How many times did you write in support of Turkish/Tunisian women's rights compared to Saudi women?

I was talking about the plight of the Katrina victims; yet, I didn't mention the plight of the Tsunami victims

We are talking about women's right in the middle east choosing to wear or not to wear the hijab. If you write in support of one but not the other, not just once, but everytime the subject comes up. It seems that it isn't an issue of the right to choose, tt is just that you hate the sight of women wearing it whether by choice or not. Hence, you are a hypocrite.

[Jennifer]

Alll right, Quasibill, here goes: first of all, in a strictly semantic sense, an ad hominem attack would be "Oh, no need to listen to what he's saying, since that's just Quasibill saying it." Attacking the man, not the argument, in other words. Secondly, your connection with the "meteorite" man is this: focusing on a semantic dictionary definition in order to ignore reality. As Evan said, if someone is holding a gun to your head, you have a "choice" only in the narrowest, most literal sense of the word.

And I'm not offended by comparisons to dumb blonde prostitutes, especially since everybody here knows I'm not a dumb blonde prostitute, but a smart redhead ex-stripper.

[Eric II]

The fact of the matter, parents make decisions for their kids all the time. I don't have a problem with a parent teaching their little girl how to wear a hijab. It is their choice as long as the girl has the choice whether to wear it or not when she grows up.

To be honest, this is a grey area for me. On one hand, I generally find it hard to justify making it illegal for a parent to tell their children what to wear. At the same time, I find it pretty distasteful in this context.

Regardless, one can condemn a behavior without demanding that it be made illegal. And I think you'll find a lot more people condemning a parent's decision to force a daughter to wear a hijab against her will than in forcing a child to be potty-trained.

The likes of Jennifer jump up and down to defend the rights of Saudi women not to be forced wear the hijab, but ignores the plight of Turkish and Tunisian women when they are forced to take it off.

As I understand it, Turkish and Tunisian women aren't allowed to wear the hijab in schools and other government buildings, but are free to wear it elsewhere. While I disagree with such policies, I don't think that it's the oppressive equivalent of what you see in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

[thoreau]

Jennifer, if you're so smart then why don't you know the meaning of the word "serf"?

Huh?

[Evan Williams]

a,

That you don't see the absurdity in that, is telling. This topic thread was specifically about the use of dolls to get girls ready for their lifetime of forced burka wearing.

Now, if the discussion had also been about the girls in Turkey & Tunisia being prepared for a lifetime of forced non-burka wearing, and Jennifer chose to focus only on the former, then I might see your point. But the article for which this post was written focused on one thing, and one thing only. And, while I can't speak for Jennifer, I'd have to venture that, if she was asked whether she thought it was right to prohibit women from wearing burkas, she'd say no.

[quasibill]

"As Evan said, if someone is holding a gun to your head, you have a "choice" only in the narrowest, most literal sense of the word."

Which was my point all along. And again, it is more than a "semantic" difference. It is a philosophical one, and one worth noting, even if you only dismiss it.

Again, the funny part of this is that I actually agree with you on this issue - these women in the ME (to make the other poster happy) don't have free choice, by and large. But I arrive at that conclusion because physical coercion is involved. Not simply because I disagree with the custom. And I thought I made that abundantly clear from the beginning.

[mediageek]

Doesn't this logic equally apply to potty-teaching a child?

Only if you're a fucking moron.

[Julian Sanchez]

I think this really is a semantic difference, because nobody's actually going to dispute the point. There are just too many senses of "freedom" and "choice" in play.

There's the sort of metaphysical free-will sense of choice, which, as you prefer, either everyone or (more likely) nobody has. There's the more ordinary sense of any conscious act: You weren't hypnotized or making a reflex motion or something. There's a slightly thicker notion that adds some idea of reflectivity: You had the relevant information, weren't strung out on drugs, delerious, etc., so there's some fit between your broader aims, practical reasoning, and the intended outcome. Then there's the looser notion of free choice among live, non-awful options--the sense in which someone held up at gunpoint or offered the only dose of antidote to a poison at an exhorbitant price might say "I had no choice" (though, literally, they did). Relatedly, there's free choice as among psychologically realistic options: I "could" in some sense commit a random murder tomorrow, but there's another sense in which (I'd like to think) I could not.

One thing you'll note, though, is that in none of these senses is the presence or absence of physical coercion (or fraud) a unique boundary line between a genuinely free or unfree choice. I think it's probably a mistake to insist that our notion of what makes for political unfreedom be isomorphic with the conditions of (any of several viable senses of) what it means to make a "free choice." My "freedom" to refuse to hand over my wallet to the mugger is the same as my "freedom" to refuse to buy the only antidote to the poison I've swallowed. Assuming the seller didn't poison me, there's injustice in the first scenario and not the second, but that shouldn't enter into the analysis of whether, in an apolitical sense, my choice is a free one.

[quasibill]

"I think this really is a semantic difference, because nobody's actually going to dispute the point. There are just too many senses of "freedom" and "choice" in play."

Well to prove that I'm not overly intellectual, you lost me there. It seems to me that if there are too many senses in play, people will dispute which sense you are using.

I was trying to nail down the use I was using to be explicit with my reasoning, hoping for meaningful discussion on it, rather than being called pompous or "dorky" or over-intellectual. And finally, Julian did provide that, with his example of the person in need of antidote where the supplier didn't poison him. That's a good challenge, and one that I'm going to have to think about the implications of. I'm still inclined to believe that morally speaking, that scenario doesn't give you the right to use physical coercion. But it is a meaningful discussion, finally.

[mediageek]

So let me ask this question then:

For some, the coercion is cultural, in other words, girls in these cultures are raised with the notion that, upon reaching maturity they are going to have to cover up.

If you aren't presented with the fact that no, you don't have to wear a burka is it still coercion?

To offer up a hypothetical, let's say that tonight Jennifer decided to convert to Islam, and tomorrow puts an order in with http://www.justburkas.com.

From where I sit, she has indeed made a choice to willingly engage in such a culture.

However a girl who is raised from birth with the notion doesn't have that choice because she's never told of the availability of other options. Only the most rebellious and/or creative women would come to the conclusion that they can choose to walk away from it, and then only at great personal risk. That's hardly a free choice.

[Jennifer]

Mediageek--

In the Middle East. it's not even a case of wearing the hijab because your culture says you should; it's a case of wearing it because you'll be imprisoned, or worse, if you don't.

[mediageek]

Well, the post started with a question in mind, but then morphed into a statement when I got distracted and had to work.

Anyway, input is appreciated. Do I make any sense?

[mediageek]

Jennifer, agreed. But what about, say, the woman who lives in a Muslim community in Detroit. The only people who give a damn are the ones in the immediate community.

Is it a free choice if she decides to wear a covering?

[Jennifer]

To add to what I said to mediageek, in some Middle Eastern countries, even though the law doesn't specifically require the hijab, many men take it upon themselves to punish women who don't, and the government does nothing. In practice, there is no difference between a government that says "I'll throw acid in your face if you show it in public," and a government who says "I won't punish the people who throw acid in your face if you show it in public."

Lynching black people was never technically legal in the South, but since the government did squat to stop it, it may as well have been.

[Jennifer]

Mediageek--

That's more of a gray area than black-and-white, I think. Once you talk about things that you're not legally required to do, but do because of cultural imperatives--who knows? I won't pick my nose in public--there's no law against it, but there WILL be social consequences if I do. But to question whether I have the "choice" to pick my nose in public, in comparison to whether Middle Eastern women have a "choice" to wear hijab, kind of cheapens the word a bit, I think.

[quasibill]

" In practice, there is no difference between a government that says "I'll throw acid in your face if you show it in public," and a government who says "I won't punish the people who throw acid in your face if you show it in public.""

Agreed, and to take it a step further, a government that would punish the woman for "self-help" against the man is noxious as well.

"Lynching black people was never technically legal in the South, but since the government did squat to stop it, it may as well have been."

Correct. And again, add the fact that the government did encourage such lynchings in many ways, such as with gun control laws and prosecutions of "uppity" types who had the gall to try to defend themselves from mobs.

If government isn't going to protect your rights, it should at least get out of the way when you do it for yourself.

[mediageek]

I don't think most Middle Eastern women have a choice*. It's built into the culture, as indicated by the hijabed Barbie knockoff in the article Julian linked to.

Donning my ethnocentric asshole hat, I would go so far as to say that Middle Eastern culture is patently stupid.

*Though this is changing. My ex girlfriend worked as a contractor in Kuwait and her experience with Kuwaiti women is that this generation is much more liberal and westernized than the ones that preceeded it. It was her belief that the Middle East won't have much of a choice but to drop this sexist idiocy within a generation or two.

[quasibill]

"However a girl who is raised from birth with the notion doesn't have that choice because she's never told of the availability of other options. "

If she is literally never able to become aware of other options, then, no, I would say that she is like a child, and therefore lacks the competence to exercise free will.

However, I doubt that even in SA the women are totally unaware of the options available in the west. Especially considering the madrassahs point to the west as the great Satan.

[mediageek]

quasibill, methinks you're being a bit too optimistic.

Offering up my own experience as an example, it took me several years to embrace the ideals of libertarianism. During that time there was a lot of reading- Rand, Rothbard, etc. as well as discussions with others, reading the web, and all that good stuff.

Now, I'm a slow learner, so maybe some of you came by your libertarianism naturally or picked it up quickly. But assuming that even in a free society it takes a National Review-style Republican to transform into an unabashed libertarian, how much harder must that transformation be in a country that would probably punish a woman caught reading a copy of "Atlas Shrugged?"

[mediageek]

Sorry, that should read "But assuming that even in a free society it takes several years for a National Review-style Republican to transform into an unabashed libertarian..."

[quasibill]

"But assuming that even in a free society it takes several years for a National Review-style Republican to transform into an unabashed libertarian...""

Well, I will admit that it took this committed moderate many years and much reading to become a libertarian as well. But I didn't think we were talking about wholesale philosophy, but about specific customs, etc. After all, there is nothing inherently unlibertarian about choosing to wear a veil. The problem comes when you are physically coerced. And I always had an aversion to being physically coerced into doing something I didn't want to do. So if they see that it is a possibility for women to walk unmasked, and they know that physical coercion is the only thing keeping them wearing one, they are at a point where they can exercise a meaningful choice. Again, the presence of physical coercion makes the coercers morally wrong.

But at the same time, if the physical coercion were eliminated, such a woman COULD freely choose to continue the custom.

Just to eliminate any doubt on the subject, I think it is a silly custom, and I would actively discourage its continuation if I were confronted with it. However, I can understand why some people might choose to continue it, and understand that it is not my place to use physical coercion to stop it - as opposed to using force to defend someone who doesn't want to follow the custom.

[JD]

Gah, so many comments already. I kind of wish H&R was threaded, because if like me you come in late, it's hard to respond to things earlier. That said -

Firstly, I recommend that anyone interested in the question of free will read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It's about free will in a philsophical sense, not a political one, but the two have obvious implications for each other.

Jennifer - I think one important thing to keep in mind is that libertarianism is a philosophy about the relationship between man and the state, and doesn't generally presume to say anything about religion, non-state-enforced morality, family structure, etc. (By way of comparison, look at Marxism, which has generally claimed to explain and guide everything under the sun, or feminism, which these days seems to encompass opinions about everything. My rule of thumb is: if it's an economic theory and a school of film criticism, it's bullshit.) I realize that this doesn't make us popular with everyone, especially closet authoritarians who want the state to impose their vision of utopia, or at least "correct behavior", on everyone and everything, but c'est la vie.

Here's a question that used to come up in my anthropology classes: There is much debate about women in Muslim countries being forced to wear the headscarf, abaya, burka, etc. Are women in America "forced" to wear clothes? In one sense, yes, since the state will take action against you if you don't. On the other hand, this doesn't generally enter into the thought processes of the average American woman when she gets up in the morning; she'd wear clothes even if there weren't a law saying she had to. Another school of thought might claim that she is not really free to choose due to her upbringing, cultural expectations, etc; I won't get into that at the moment. Now, we in America generally believe that certain dangly or sticky-out parts should not be exposed in public; in the Muslim world, they generally include hair in that category. Are they right or wrong? (For further theoretical questions, what if a South Pacific woman came here and argued that American women were not free because they wanted to wear clothes?) That's an issue of cultural relativism...which is pretty much outside the purview of mainstream libertarian thought. I would venture to say that American libertarians vary greatly on issues of cultural relativism depending on the individual and the issue; hence the dustup here.

[thoreau]

My rule of thumb is: if it's an economic theory and a school of film criticism, it's bullshit.

Hmm, I don't know what she said about films, but didn't Ayn Rand have strong opinions on which composers were most compatible with her philosophy?

[dead_elvis]

Last year I went through some old boxes. Came across a book by a prof I had in freshman philosophy, "On Freedom" by Frithjof Bergmann. I started reading through it, his basic tenent was that unless you have an action to chose from with which you can identify, then you're not exercising free will. Or some such nonsense, after a few chapters I put it away because it was pissing me off.

[quasibill]

"Hmm, I don't know what she said about films, but didn't Ayn Rand have strong opinions on which composers were most compatible with her philosophy?"

Well, if you asked Rand herself (I guess through John Edwards) she would most likely tell you she wasn't a libertarian. She and the Objectivists had a pretty nasty split from what are know known as libertarians in the late 60s/early 70s, and they still snipe quite a bit at each other.

They are very similar, but not identical. And, as always, the devil is in the details.

[thoreau]

quasibill-

I'm aware of the tribal schism. My point is that if Objectivism embraces economics AND music criticism, it fits JD's criterion for bullshit. (Yeah, I know, he said movies, not music, but I'm not stretching by that much.)

And yeah, I know, it contains a lot of ideas that may be great. But if the total package includes music criticism as well as economics, maybe that means that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Taking a perfectly good idea and expanding it into a Grand Unified Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything usually makes the original good idea into something worse, not better.

[Eric II]

Now, we in America generally believe that certain dangly or sticky-out parts should not be exposed in public; in the Muslim world, they generally include hair in that category.

In some places like Saudi Arabia, that's been the case for a while. But in places like Egypt, Iraq, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, the percentage of women wearing headscarves is noticeably higher now than it was in the recent past. In the latter two countries, there are a decent percentage of women who still don't wear one.

I'd pin this trend on a combination of the rise of traditionalist fears in the face of modernization, and the aggressive Saudi exporting of Wahhabism and its related values.

[quasibill]

"Taking a perfectly good idea and expanding it into a Grand Unified Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything usually makes the original good idea into something worse, not better."

Agreed. Which is Objectivism always turned me off as much as Marxism did. In contrast the libertarianism set forth by Rothbard and his ilk is what finally induced me over to the dark side. And that vision allows for differences in personal morality, which seemed to be the track JD was taking. So if you were using Rand to discredit JD's position, I'm not sure it works.

As an aside, Marx had some really good ideas about what was wrong with the mercantilist states of his time. He just came to the wrong conclusions. That's why you'll actually see much of the same type of criticism coming from both libertarian types and marxist types. The difference comes from the proposed solutions.

[thoreau]

quasibill-

I wasn't trying to discredit JD's position. I was trying to apply it. I liked the idea, and it provides a very simple explanation for why Objectivism, at least as practiced by some, is BS.

[mediageek]

Thoreau, Rand had some very deeply held views on criticism of art, be they music, movies, or plays.

She even wrote a book on it, titled The Romantic Manifesto

I've not read "The Romantic Manifesto" but she touched on the arts in "The Virtue of Selfishness," and it was pretty much her view that art should always strive to portray man in an idealized, proactive and heroic state. I seem to recall that she even levelled some criticism at the play "Waiting for Godot" in one of the essays though she didn't mention it by name.

[mediageek]

Thoreau, Rand had some very deeply held views on criticism of art, be they music, movies, or plays.

She even wrote a book on it, titled The Romantic Manifesto

I've not read "The Romantic Manifesto" but she touched on the arts in "The Virtue of Selfishness," and it was pretty much her view that art should always strive to portray man in an idealized, proactive and heroic state. I seem to recall that she even levelled some criticism at the play "Waiting for Godot" in one of the essays though she didn't mention it by name.

[Jennifer]

JD--

Things get a little sticky when you put it that way--what is the difference between the American insistence that at least five or six particular square inches of the body remain covered, versus the Saudi insistence that everything remain covered up? I don't know the concrete defnition (just as I can't tell you why The Last Supper is art and my ad-copy margin doodles are not, though I know this to be the case), but here are some observations:

In America, if you violate the dress code by going outside with no clothes on, you'll either go to jail or to a psych ward; you won't be executed or physically scarred for life. So all countries have dress codes, but some are much, much crueler about it than others.

Also, Americans are sensible enough to know that sometimes the dress code needs to be ignored. If my apartment caught on fire at night and I didn't have time to get dressed before running outside, under the circumstances I highly doubt I'd even be arrested for public indecency, let alone forced back into the burning building to find some clothes. Whereas a dozen or so girls burned to death in a Saudi school fire a couple of years ago, because the Saudi morality cops wouldn't let them leave the building without their headscarves.

Also, the parts we have to cover in America aren't exactly unique to ourselves; I mean, I've had my private parts my whole life, but I doubt I'd be able to identify them in a line-up. Whereas the Middle Eastern women, in covering their entire bodies, their hair and in many instances even their faces, have to hide EVERYTHING about their appearance that makes them unique individuals.

(The espresso machine at work is broken, so I'm severely undercaffeinated right now. I really hope that made sense. I also hope I remembered to put a point in there, somewhere.)

[Jennifer]

JD--

Things get a little sticky when you put it that way--what is the difference between the American insistence that at least five or six particular square inches of the body remain covered, versus the Saudi insistence that everything remain covered up? I don't know the concrete defnition (just as I can't tell you why The Last Supper is art and my ad-copy margin doodles are not, though I know this to be the case), but here are some observations:

In America, if you violate the dress code by going outside with no clothes on, you'll either go to jail or to a psych ward; you won't be executed or physically scarred for life. So all countries have dress codes, but some are much, much crueler about it than others.

Also, Americans are sensible enough to know that sometimes the dress code needs to be ignored. If my apartment caught on fire at night and I didn't have time to get dressed before running outside, under the circumstances I highly doubt I'd even be arrested for public indecency, let alone forced back into the burning building to find some clothes. Whereas a dozen or so girls burned to death in a Saudi school fire a couple of years ago, because the Saudi morality cops wouldn't let them leave the building without their headscarves.

Also, the parts we have to cover in America aren't exactly unique to ourselves; I mean, I've had my private parts my whole life, but I doubt I'd be able to identify them in a line-up. Whereas the Middle Eastern women, in covering their entire bodies, their hair and in many instances even their faces, have to hide EVERYTHING about their appearance that makes them unique individuals.

(The espresso machine at work is broken, so I'm severely undercaffeinated right now. I really hope that made sense. I also hope I remembered to put a point in there, somewhere.)

[Jennifer]

JD--

Things get a little sticky when you put it that way--what is the difference between the American insistence that at least five or six particular square inches of the body remain covered, versus the Saudi insistence that everything remain covered up? I don't know the concrete defnition (just as I can't tell you why The Last Supper is art and my ad-copy margin doodles are not, though I know this to be the case), but here are some observations:

In America, if you violate the dress code by going outside with no clothes on, you'll either go to jail or to a psych ward; you won't be executed or physically scarred for life. So all countries have dress codes, but some are much, much crueler about it than others.

Also, Americans are sensible enough to know that sometimes the dress code needs to be ignored. If my apartment caught on fire at night and I didn't have time to get dressed before running outside, under the circumstances I highly doubt I'd even be arrested for public indecency, let alone forced back into the burning building to find some clothes. Whereas a dozen or so girls burned to death in a Saudi school fire a couple of years ago, because the Saudi morality cops wouldn't let them leave the building without their headscarves.

Also, the parts we have to cover in America aren't exactly unique to ourselves; I mean, I've had my private parts my whole life, but I doubt I'd be able to identify them in a line-up. Whereas the Middle Eastern women, in covering their entire bodies, their hair and in many instances even their faces, have to hide EVERYTHING about their appearance that makes them unique individuals.

(The espresso machine at work is broken, so I'm severely undercaffeinated right now. I really hope that made sense. I also hope I remembered to put a point in there, somewhere.)

[Jennifer]

JD--

Things get a little sticky when you put it that way--what is the difference between the American insistence that at least five or six particular square inches of the body remain covered, versus the Saudi insistence that everything remain covered up? I don't know the concrete defnition (just as I can't tell you why The Last Supper is art and my ad-copy margin doodles are not, though I know this to be the case), but here are some observations:

In America, if you violate the dress code by going outside with no clothes on, you'll either go to jail or to a psych ward; you won't be executed or physically scarred for life. So all countries have dress codes, but some are much, much crueler about it than others.

Also, Americans are sensible enough to know that sometimes the dress code needs to be ignored. If my apartment caught on fire at night and I didn't have time to get dressed before running outside, under the circumstances I highly doubt I'd even be arrested for public indecency, let alone forced back into the burning building to find some clothes. Whereas a dozen or so girls burned to death in a Saudi school fire a couple of years ago, because the Saudi morality cops wouldn't let them leave the building without their headscarves.

Also, the parts we have to cover in America aren't exactly unique to ourselves; I mean, I've had my private parts my whole life, but I doubt I'd be able to identify them in a line-up. Whereas the Middle Eastern women, in covering their entire bodies, their hair and in many instances even their faces, have to hide EVERYTHING about their appearance that makes them unique individuals.

(The espresso machine at work is broken, so I'm severely undercaffeinated right now. I really hope that made sense. I also hope I remembered to put a point in there, somewhere.)

[Jennifer]

Just to eliminate any doubt on the subject, I think it is a silly custom, and I would actively discourage its continuation if I were confronted with it. However, I can understand why some people might choose to continue it, and understand that it is not my place to use physical coercion to stop it - as opposed to using force to defend someone who doesn't want to follow the custom.

But that is not the issue here. This isn't a case of women who choose to wear hijab instead of other clothes; this is a case of women who are (in a non-semantic, non-literally, not-actually-at-gunpoint sort of way) forced to wear hijab.

In these societies, the people with real "choice" in regards to hijab are not making the choice for themselves but enforcing their choice upon others. It's one thing to make the choice to wear hijab yourself, but quite another to take away all other choices but hijab, for others. And that is the issue here.

I don't know why I even bothered writing this, as I suspect this thread is dead.

[Ruthless O'Keefe]

Jennifer,
This thread be daid fer sure, and not to frighten you, but:

http://www.bettydodson.com/subgenit.htm

"I've had my private parts my whole life, but I doubt I'd be able to identify them in a line-up."

As one of Betty's acolytes, I would.
I'm not sayin' that's bad or good.

[mediageek]

You know, it really is quite amazing how a good photographer and lighting setup can make damn near anything look hot.

egads.