Last week I posted an essay on Burqa-wearing women and feminism. Among the thoughtful responses I received was one from a friend in Jerusalem, who called my attention to this discussion from the (actually) feminist Lilith Magazine blog. (For those who linked here from The Matzav, see me after class and I'll explain.)The friend writes:
The author likens Burqa fashion choices among Haredi women to anorexia in that the women internalize a cultural/societal ideal (ie. thinness or modesty) that they take to an extreme. Both anorexia and burqa donning serve to make a person's self and sexuality disappear in some way.
Also, as a proud feminist, I know that many women who make moves in the name of control over their own bodies and lives, may resist and even loathe the title feminist.
I don't think it's fair to label these Haredi women with a term which they would not choose for themselves.
Furthermore, I believe that feminism involves a conscious effort to dismantle gender hierarchy. Though these women may be behaving in a subversive manner, disobeying the wishes of the men dictating how much clothing they may put on and take off, their action does not serve to question or change the underlying power structure.
I agree with many of my friend's points, especially not to impose a loaded label upon the religious actions of a particular individual. The anorexia perspective is very compelling, and likely has a lot of truth to it, as well. Yet, I think there is still merit to post, even if it's observations are more relevant as a statement about the role of "frumkeit" in maintaining the hegemonic power balance than about the specific intentions of the individuals wearing the burkas. (It's kind of like the wife of the man who waves a shulchan aruch to justify all of his mistreatment of her getting her own s'micha and leaving him to sulk.
When I was in yeshiva, there was a guy there with darkish skin and a really big beard who used to always get stopped at the airport. Apparently, he bore a striking, but (as far as I know) purely incidental, resemblance to another guy halfway around the world who is even frummer than he is, but in a more... evil sort of way. This story is kind of the same, just a littler weirder. The nod to Islam was a bit more overt, and instead of an innocent yeshiva guy, it involved a follower of a convicted, violent child abuser, dubbed "Taliban mom" by the Israeli media.
This past Tuesday, outside of Kfar Saba, Israel, police officers spotted a suspicious-looking woman wearing what they called a "Taliban-like outfit" and carrying two suitcases. When officers called for her to stop, she ignored them and attempted to flee. At that point, the officers fired into the air, overpowered the woman, and took her into custody. (Kind of ironic that being too tznuah, modest, to talk to the male officers scored her a full tackle.) She's now awaiting a psychiatric evaluation. (Presumably it has something to do with the burqa, but it might also have something to do with the toy airport they found in her other suitcase. Just a guess...)
I've been following the veil tale for a while now (there's even been a spotting in Brooklyn! Tip of the abaya to Y-Love), but I still can't get my head completely around it. Especially in the current world context. Iran has its sights set squarely on Israel, women there and in the U.S. are fighting for more freedom, and Israeli women chose to restrict themselves even more with Persia's finest?!
Elana Sztokman on Forward's "Sisterhood" blog sees this phenomenon as an extension of the existing rabbinically-imposed stringencies on women's dress, adding that it is difficult for one to "easily distinguish between extreme body cover that is 'normal' and that which is somehow extreme." She continues:
As if women – bombarded with radical messages of body cover supposedly in the name of God that claim the purity of the entire Jewish nation dependent on women’s invisibility – are somehow supposed to be able to know the difference between body cover that is “womanly” and that which is “crazy”. Given the predominance of this rhetoric in the Orthodox community, it was only a matter of time before women internalized the messages to the extreme. What is really infuriating is that none of the male “leaders” in Orthodoxy who rant and rave about women’s body cover now claim responsibility for the current extremism. It’s not their fault. Women have merely taken it “too far.” Right.
The problem with Sztokman's argument is that in defending the rights of the oppressively appareled Orthodox, she also sacrifices their intelligence. Besides, the leader of this veiled rebellion, Bruria Keren, does not seem the model of hegemonic submission (just ask her kids!). Nor do her followers who endure well-placed disdain and outcry in the name of their twisted notion of tznius.
No, I think that the burqa bonanza represents a more sophisticated phenomenon that R/M Horowitz and the Women of the Wall know well, but would likely not recognize underneath all those layers: feminism.
In both of those cases, the women and their supporters are interested in the same, fundamentally reasonable thing (even if one's hashkafos don't agree with their specific arguments): finding a meaningful place for women in contemporary Jewish life. I believe the Burqa Brigade is motivated by the same drive. The only difference between the maharats and the muftis, between the rabbas and the burqas is the culture from which they emerged.
In the relatively open Modern Orthodox society, dissent is tolerated, and even civilly engaged. The goals of the dissenting women reflect both the religious and social ideals of their community: scholarship, personal achievement, and spiritual self-actualization. The flexibility of Modern Orthodoxy’s religious boundaries also means that dissenters can envision their goals at just the borders of the movement, stretching just enough while remaining, they hope, within the fold.
The female dissenters that Haredi Israel produces reflect equally upon that society's socio-religious makeup. There, where overt challenges to religious-political norms are not tolerated, dissent must be more subtle (even if the behavior is not). Where women have no voice, their protest must be without words. There, frumkeit is king (now queen), and individuality a nobody. In the monolith that is Haredi-brand Judaism, boundaries are binary, and there is no stretching; fighting at the margins only guarantees marginalization. Women who grasp at power in that world cannot stage their battle at the periphery, they must fight at its core.
The Haredi women who wear the burqa are not looking to be more eidel than your maidel; they're fighting the power. They keenly recognize that purloining power in their communities means reclaiming the reins of religiosity. So they’re really stickin’ it to the man by being frum in the only way he says they can’t. These women are reclaiming sexual repression and hegemony, holding halacha over their own heads as if to say "I'm the boss of me!" as much as "Grab it if you can!"
Think of it this way... if Lipa is the Haredi Kanye West, and Yidden is the Haredi Stayin' Alive, then donning the Burqa is the Haredi bra burning!
