Are women from religions with major problems with sexual inequality (Orthodox Judaism, Islam, certain Christian sects) necessarily victims of sexism if they adopt the dress and modesty standards of their religions? Even if they say it's voluntary and not coerced? For example, some Orthodox Jewish women say that covering their hair with a scarf or wig is a beautiful act because it represents their marriage (only married women wear head coverings) and their spiritual growth. I have heard statements from hijab (Muslim headscarf) wearers who identify themselves as feminists and claim they feel empowered by the hijab because it represents a decision to opt out of standards of female beauty - e.g. "I'm forcing people to judge me for my personality and intellect, not my physical attractiveness or lack thereof." Is it possible for a woman to endorse a double standard of modesty without being brainwashed, deluded or oppressed?

IMO the important point is, how important is it, to always keep up the standard. If being caught with her pants or other clothing down, is a big catastrophe, then this puts a lot of preassue on her, which puts her in the oppressed category even it is self oppressed.

If she likes to wear thoose clothes for one reason or an other, but if due to some circumstances someone sees her without them, or if she also does some activity like for instance some sport, where she can't wear them, and it is no big deal, then i see no problem.

The same applies to other dress standards like wearing makeup as well.

I think it is possible for someone to fully voluntarily wear modest clothing without feeling at all repressed, but those from the outside might find it difficult to believe that there is no coercion. And to be perfectly frank, there's no less of a clothing double standard between men and women in cultures that tolerate revealing clothing. In fact, I'd say it's probably greater.

Take Hollywood. It helps to be good-looking regardless of gender, but if you're a man, you can typically still have a good career without looks, as long as you're funny, dramatic, or macho enough. The same cannot be said for women. It's very rare to be a successful woman in Hollywood without being hot.

The woman in the hijab who says she feels liberated from being judged by her looks may be on to something.

This is a thorny subject with many layers. Of course there are women who cover themselves voluntarily out of a desire to show modesty. But, there is always the question of who defined what the "proper" way to express that sense of modesty. It does seem to circle back to the men who have traditionally made the rules. I guess the most important thing is that the woman is getting something out of it, not just mindlessly following rules. That probably goes for any religious tradition.

This is all somewhat baffling to me anyway. I don't remember where I read/heard it but supposedly the act of women covering themselves was started by rich women who didn't want those they believed to be beneath them to be able to see. Vanity is pretty much the opposite of modesty.

Simple question: Do they still fight for the right for women to not have to wear that style of clothing despite the fact that they choose to? Being a feminist means not fighting for your personal rights but for the rights of all women.

That can only be speculation, since the origins of veiling the face in Arabia go back to pre-Islamic times. No evidence exists about who first started the practice or why.

Unfortunately I can't remember the exact source but I do remember the info coming from a scholar of Islamic history. It is like the many pre-existing customs which were appropriated and repurposed by Christianity.

There seem to be a lot of explainations around.

One i have heard was, that in times when it was usual that neighbouring tribes did rob each others women, veiling made sure that any robbers could not be sure if they pick up a young woman or a granny.

Since the point of adhering to any religious stricture is that you can't just stop whenever you feel like it, then wouldn't that make the followers of any religious or ideological rules self-oppressed? I mean, observant Jewish people can't just decide to avoid bacon sometimes.


And this is where it gets extra thorny. Are they really getting something out of it, or do they just think they are because they've been very well indoctrinated? I feel that it's a bit insulting to tell people that they have a "false consciousness", but a lot of people believe that's the only possible explanation for adhering to practices that put yourself at a disadvantage. I mean, you hear the same argument from liberals who argue that's why low-income people vote for Republicans whose economic policies hurt low-income people.


From what I have read, Muslim women who think of themselves as feminists generally say that the decision to veil or not is a personal one, to be made between a woman and God.

On the other hand, other feminists reject this because they think "choice feminism" is just an excuse to not really change anything. They think that if the world were really fair, nobody would choose to wear a veil because there wouldn't be a double standard for men and women.

I then pose the question: How can someone who denies a woman the choice to dress as she desires possible call themselves a feminist? I know there are bigger issues behind this but it comes down to projecting your motives upon other people which is where most, if not all, ideology falls apart.

There's a lot of room between "false consciousness" (as distinct from distorted memories) and "haven't done the math"

I'm not sure how that applies here. It's sort of a cross between the two, with the 'math' being a whole lot less clear-cut, such that this sort of judgement ought to fall under the same 'don't do that' umbrella as false consciousness nonsense.

Also with other rules religious or other, you can follow them with more and with less dedication. Someone might never intentionally eat bacon. Or also avoid food, that he knows has touched bacon. Or refuse to eat any food, that possibly could have been transported in the same truck as bacon.

The first one i would not call oppessed. The last one i would. It denies the practitioner normal interaction with society.

There is also the matter how much weight you put on accidental transgressions. If you accidently get and eat pork due to a waiters error, is that annoying and possibly a reason to yell at the waiter, or are you going to hell and all your pious life before and after is for nought. If something that can happen due to a slip of mind, like a waiter mixing up tables, or someone getting the wrong door and seeing you insufficiently dressed, would be life shattering catastrophes, then you will be under constant preassure and measures you take to avoid thoose dangers will prevent you from normal interaction with society.

Basically i am taking the "pression" in oppression litterally here, if the rules you have to follow, be it voluntarily or not, put you under much preassue in your daily life, you are sort of oppressed.

And yes there is also a brand of feminism, that has a laundry list, how a proper feminist lifestyle looks like. And women, who don't follow that list, do so because the patriarchat forces them to, either by open oppression or propaganda.

Because they believe it isn't a real choice. If a woman feels uncomfortable revealing her legs in public, it is because society has taught her to be ashamed of her legs, and she has internalized these messages. Therefore her choice to cover her legs is merely a reflection of sexist social norms, even if she believes that is what she wants.

But if this is how you define oppression, then it's an inherent part of living in a society, and every single one of us is being oppressed in almost everything we do. What's the difference between an opinion or attitude you hold because of internalised social influence and your genuine opinion or attitude? The attitudes you've internalised are yours. There is not some seperate set of opinions that belong to you but are supressed by the opinions you hold due to societal pressure.

If she believes that it was she wants, then that is what she wants, by definition (though, of course, this is not necessarily the same as what will make her happy, or healthy or successful or whatever).

Oppression or not is IMO more a question of quantity then quality.

Society can not work with no norms at all, or no reprecussions at all for people who don't follow them. But norms can be excessivly strict or detailed, and reprecussions can be out of proportion in their severity.

Plus there is the effect of self oppression. It happens that people are afraid to do some things, fearing severe reprecussions and if they for some reason or an other do it anyway, practically nothing happens.

It happens that women follow modesty codes in groundless fear of what males would do, if they didn't. I remeber reading an interview with a woman, who had been some speaker for one muslim organisation or an other in Germany, and later in her life has decided to ditch the veil. She had said, that she had expected to be subjected to one pass after an other, and was quite suprised, that nothing had changed.

Possibly that is even true for most of them in the west, but i don't think it can be generalized to all of them.