On Obama, hijab and women’s rights

ELANA SZTOKMAN

WHEN President Obama uttered the words “women’s rights” during his speech at Cairo University last week, my ears perked up.¬†The fact that a US president is putting women’s rights up there on the international agenda ‚Äî on par with peace in the Middle East, no less ‚Äî is indeed historic.

That he has the guts to say to a room full of Egyptian men that women’s rights in the Muslim world are a topic that needs addressing, was quite a thrill.¬†The fact that there was some applause after he made that opening statement, “the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights,” was absolutely startling. Signs of change, perhaps.¬†But when Obama started to outline the details of his vision for women’s rights in the Muslim world, that’s when I started to bristle.
Because although issues of education and literacy are obviously vital, these issues barely skim the surface of what Muslim women have to face.¬†But more than that, Obama’s underlying philosophy guiding his approach, one that is nestled in the cultural relativism that tells people to look the other way when women are hurt in the name of religion, signals a very troubling trend in gender, religion and politics.

Obama said: “I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.”¬†So first of all, what view that a woman who covers her hair is less equal? With all due respect, as someone who has been studying and writing about women and religion for some time, I can honestly say, what the hell is he talking about?¬†What I think he may be referring to is the claim made primarily by religious people that liberal feminists are condescending towards women who choose a traditional lifestyle.

I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s talking about. But even if that’s the case, it’s a bungled statement.
Liberal feminists do not look down on women who cover their hair, but see the cultural demands placed upon women’s bodies as wrong and unfair, and a violation of democratic principles.

A woman can certainly choose to cover her hair, but the type of rhetoric that accompanies religious demands for female body cover are often very damaging for women’s freedom, health and overall well-being.¬†Obama continued in the next sentence: “But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.”

Okay, I don’t entirely understand this either. What is he trying to say? The first sentence was condemning people in “the west” who see hijab-clad women as inferior.¬†Now the “but” we were expecting was not an exploration of how hijab can humiliate women, but about the importance of education.

Did I miss something? What’s the connection? His message seems clear: Okay guys, you can keep the hijab but make sure your girls get an education.¬†And with that he skipped right over an entire world of issues around women’s body in religion.¬†I wonder, why bring did he up hijab in his opening if he wasn’t going to talk about it at all? I think he was just trying to score points with those who disagree with liberal feminists.¬†He was trying to say, okay, I hear your point. Those liberal feminists can be really mean and offensive to you. So forget that ‚Äî let’s talk about education.

The inferred, unspoken sentence in between is where he talks, man to man as it were, about those annoying liberal feminists.
In case the thousands of Egyptian men in the audience did not hear clearly enough that Obama was trying to say, “Hey, I hear you guys,” he made himself perfectly clear in the next sentence:
“Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world.”

Did Obama just say that Muslim countries are better to women than the US?! Are we to understand that since the late Benazir Bhutto was head of Pakistan and Hillary Clinton recently suffered a sexism-filled loss in America, that women are better off under Islam?¬†Let’s talk about this for a moment.

What about the fact that in Saudi Arabia women cannot drive? Or that the first four women in history were only last month elected to parliament in Kuwait? Or that according to rankings of the International Parliamentary Union, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman are ranked last in the world because they have ZERO women in government? And that they are followed closely by Yemen, Bahrain and Lebanon?

Actually, Egypt, the country in which the hall full of men applauded at “women’s rights”, there are a total of 8 women out of 442 representatives in the upper parliament ‚Äî a total of 1.8% representation.¬†Egypt, in fact, ranks 134 in the world in terms of gender and politics. That’s pretty low. Even compared to America’s ranking at 73.¬†Sure, Mr Obama, you have plenty of work to do. But let’s face it, the Muslim world has even more work to do.

And we’re just talking about democracy and basic rights. We haven’t even gotten to honour killings, genital cutting, polygamy or child brides.¬†Dutch-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, interviewed by Jeb Golinkin for the New Majority, said as follows:
“President Obama’s speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab.¬†”He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings:

These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that.¬†”I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because ‚Ķthey have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States.”¬†In other words, Obama’s post-modernist, relativist stance offers protection for those who wish to oppress women. That is their way. It is their culture. Let them do it.

Obama is ultimately a man talking to men about women. Women are still objects and outsiders. And women’s freedom is the price to pay for improving relations between men in America and the Arab world.¬†Hirsi Ali continued: “In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street.¬†”They are forced into marriages their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights.

They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women.”¬†Obama, then, ignored the really important issues like women’s basic rights and safety. He did it in order to make nice with a room full of Arab men.¬†Once again, women’s rights, even when given lip service, are relegated to last.¬†As Phyllis Chesler wrote: “I fear that President Obama does not understand the difference between a free choice and a forced choice the difference between womens’ human rights and the subordination of women in the name of religion.”

Indeed.