Many critics of the hijab dislike its existence for many reasons; one being that it oppresses Muslim women. It’s odd how these very people can hold such firm conclusions yet without even belonging to Islam or wearing a hijab themselves. Wearing the hijab has more pros than cons, and sure no one can see your hair, but its time people move on from that and look at the bigger picture. Even today secretaries and assistants are sometimes employed not by their credentials but their beauty. Have we really become that materialistic?
As a hijabi myself I know that the hijab does not oppress nor limit my opportunities. If people say “you won’t get a job because you wear a hijab”, well shouldn’t that be the employers fault rather than the employees? Since when did becoming a part of a work team turn into a beauty pageant? If you really believe the hijab limits a woman from becoming s policewomen, athlete or doctor you should think twice.
This fear and enhancement of Islamophobia is nothing but run on a fuel of ignorance and lack of education. Just how nuns cover their heads, Muslim women do the same, it just so happens that there are more Muslim women on this earth that are photographed. I will not deny some women are forced to wear it, especially those who are dictated by the Taliban. But whenever making a conclusion it’s important to remember these are just a minority.
If anything, I think the Hijab is quite revolutionary, as many of these women are the first of their kind. If you still think the Hijab stops you from getting a job, then you aren’t looking deep enough.
“Are you gonna cover your hair?!”
As if covering my hair is the most awful thing I could do. As if covering my hair defines me as an extremist and as long as I don’t cover my hair I’m “normal.” As if covering my hair means I’ll no longer be pretty or desirable to men, and everyone knows that’s way more important than my relationship with God, right?
Why is veiling so important to non-Muslims and Muslims alike? What does it matter to you if I cover (or uncover) my hair? That decision is between Allah (SWT) and I, and yes, it is an important decision that most Muslim women face during their life time but I just don’t see why it’s such a huge issue.
Is hair really that important? Would my opinion be any less valid because my hair is wrapped up? Call me foolish but I’d like to believe that people are intrinsically valuable and desirable regardless of their outward appearance.
I read an article once by Mona Eltahawy where she wrote, “The conversation about Muslim women too often revolves around what’s on our heads and what’s between our legs.” I don’t think there have been truer words spoken about the depiction of Muslim women across the globe. Why are we so surprised to see burqa-clad women playing rock and roll music? Why do we clap so loud for hijabis playing sports? Are we appreciating their talent, or are we merely feeding into this stereotype that head-coverings = submission and anyone who breaks this mold is inherently worthy of praise? I know plenty of Muslimas (personally and through Tumblr, as well), hijabis and non-hijabis alike, who speak their mind on daily basis, who face ignorance head-on and aren’t afraid to let the world know how they feel. Isn’t that behavior admirable in and of itself? If so, then why bring hijab into it?
Alright, I’ve got to stop spending the evening on the internet because it makes it really difficult for me to sleep.
So tomorrow, I’m going to get up and go for a short cycle ride after breakfast. Come back and have a bath. Do all of my writing during the day, and then go and meet my housemate to buy pants in town. In the evening I shall do things which are not on the internet, such as my Spanish podcasts and worksheets, and some drawing.
I’ve been sat here on this thing for hooouuuuurrrrssss
although I did go and see my Grandma for most of the afternoon, and finally bought a bike lock, although tomorrow it’s going to be a really short cycle ride. Down Brynland Avenue and back up Gloucester Road. I don’t really know that many routes in Bristol. And I’ve got the bike in the garden, and I have to take it through the house. It would be nice if I could keep it in the front garden, but it’s been raining a lot so it’s better to keep it in the shed. Hopefully it won’t be damp when I take it through the house. HMM. We have a big green box in the front garden though, I wonder if there’s a key? It would be perfect for the bike…
Just tried to text Pie a story, but apparently my phone won’t send messages over eight texts long? So all he received was
If singing sounded a bit having severe gas. Pie decided to find out who was making such a noise. Maybe they would be his friend!
Which I think is pretty much the perfect thing to wake up to.
These days, the work of zines tends to be done using the Internet instead of glue and scissors, but Marcus says that’s okay. “Zines played an important function in the Riot Grrrl movement, but online communications can fulfill similar roles as long as we’re intentional about it. When I mailed somebody a zine in the ’90s, I would frequently include a long letter about what I’d been thinking about lately or what I’d thought of the other person’s last zine. It was much more involved than just hitting “like” or “reblog” on somebody else’s Tumblr post, and it meant we were having substantive conversations about ideas, discussing one another’s work and trying to carry the conversation forward.
i hear this sentiment, i totally do. but my question is, why do we always have to have these conversations of zines vs. blogs/the internet? which is better, why? i don’t think they have to be diametrically opposed.
personally, i’ve been using the internet for just about as long as i’ve been reading zines. i mean just the other day i reblogged something that firesandswords had posted, and borninflames reblogged it and now it’s got like 1,400 notes. i mean, holy fuck! to think about that, that a radical zine that talks about privilege and race and heavy complicated but incredibly important shit, gets posted by a pretty cool person who mostly posts anarchist/political content ends up being shared by a fashion-centered tumblr and gets tons of exposure. in the course of a few days, tons of people, including many who might never come across this zine for any number of reasons, are exposed to this one zine. even if they just read that one page from one amazing zine, even if only a small percentage of the people who clicked “heart” took the time to click on the photo and read the original zine, i feel like that’s really awesome. that it is a step in the right direction. that someone might have just discovered zines for the first time, and might spend hours on zinelibrary.info. might go to the next zine fest in their town. i mean, they might just click “like” and leave it at that, but there is a chance it could instigate awesome, radical change in their lives. that it is a reminder of why i write on the internet.
i guess i’m just frustrated that lately i feel like i’ve been hearing a lot of internet/blog negative stuff and i think it’S more complicated that just falling into categories of “good” vs “bad” or even better vs. worse. i just feel like it’s too easy to romanticize the past (often simply because it is the past) and to write off the new (often simply because it is new). i’d like to get to a place where we can appreciate the significance and importance of both zines and blogs. that’s what i love about people like lookuplookup, patchthatsweater, hello-amber, they’ve all helped me realize a middle ground does exist and it’s a pretty awesome place to be.
Dear Summer’s Eve: This statement is wrong. There are men with vaginas. There are women without them. Erasing trans people is not a great marketing tactic, FYI.
But hey, you’re also the ones referring to a vagina as “a vertical smile.” So. Yeah.
It says ‘female’ not ‘woman’. I would agree that a biologically female person has a vagina. That doesn’t make them any less of a man. And it doesn’t make anyone any less ‘woman’ by not having one.
Actually, I was referring to the second part of the definition, the “100% pure womanly awesomeness.” I have no bones with the scientific definition, it’s the OMG, GURLS ARE AWESOME BECAUSE ONLY WE HAVE VAGINAS! stuff.
Isn’t it backwards to say that a biologically female person has a vagina? because, the reason that you’ve decided they’re biologically female is because of that vagina. So they’re seen as female owing to that very vagina, whereas they may have a vagina and not be female. So, basically, the only thing you know about a person with a vagina, is that they have a vagina.
At her death in 1954, Kahlo was hardly known outside Mexico; it was Rivera who was given a one-man show in 1931 at New York’s Museum of Modern Art. This, in his spouse’s view, was only as it should be. Despite her many infidelities and a short-lived divorce from Rivera – they un-wed in 1939 and re-wed in 1940 – Kahlo was, in one regard, a good Mexican wife: unexpectedly self-effacing about her own genius, she was in no doubt at all about her husband’s. One of the ironies of posterity is that her fame is based on a feminist misunderstanding of what she was. Her frank stare (and facial hair) give her an air of masculine authority that largely wasn’t there. The other irony is that she would have been mortified at being more famous than Rivera.
Frida Kahlo & Diego Rivera - The Independant
"Her fame is based on a feminist misunderstanding of what she was" - a female artist who laid herself bare in her art? OH NOES, SHE HAD MASCULINITY, GO FEMINISIM YAY.
Page 1 of 82