By Mary Grabar on 4.24.07 @ 12:08AM
Who do progressives tolerate the abuse of children not allowed to assimilate into American life?
For my reprieves from the academic, and for inspiration for my
creative writing, I like to walk a trail around a lake in a
community about a mile from where I live. This former summer
community is an island of artsy-ness and progressivism, and higher
real estate prices than the brick ranch houses like the one I live
in. A locally famous folk-singing lesbian couple reportedly lives
there, and that gives the community extra cachet.
Many of the cars in the neighborhood sport bumper stickers with
the word "coexist" amidst symbols of various religions, and no one
seems to enforce the residents-only rule for fishermen or
picnickers.
Since no signs are posted against taking walks around the lake I
feel no guilt in taking my constitutionals there; I return the
greetings of dog-walkers and fishermen.
One afternoon, deep in the poetic reverie the lake and trees and
birds inspire, I came across a sight spooky against this natural
sunny backdrop: a woman completely swathed in black with only slits
for her eyes. The incongruous sight of women, peering out of slits
of cloth, in full Islamic regalia, behind the wheels of minivans or
paying for goat meat at the Publix is no longer that unusual in my
neighborhood, though it still takes me aback. But here on a sunny
afternoon, amidst ducks and geese, and gazebos and picnic tables,
came this creature who looked like the Ghost of Christmas Past with
two small children: the boy around four years old dressed in
typical Western clothing of pants and a shirt. The girl, about age
seven, wore the traditional headscarf and long dress.
And there I saw myself.
I will never understand the feminist defense of this
obliteration of a woman's identity. This defense is put forth even
by 18-year-olds, who repeat the regnant doctrine of relativism. I
posed the question to my college freshmen, "Don't you think it's
better for women to wear clothes that allow them free movement and
the ability to communicate?"
"Well," goes the answer, "to them ["them" being the key
word] their dress represents freedom because no one views them as
sex objects. And what do they think of our way of dressing in
shorts and stuff?" This from a girl dressed in a
shoulder-and-cleavage-revealing tank top.
I have had debates about this with liberals. But particularly
for those who do not speak the language, facial expressions convey
meaning and indicate good will and friendship. I was so used to
greeting everyone I passed around the lake with a smile and a hello
that in this context the isolation of this woman glared. For all
their Simone de Beauvoir-inspired academic talk and analysis about
the "gaze," feminists cannot see this blatant disregard for the
connection of the woman, particularly the woman who cannot speak
the language, with the outside world. Not even able to feel the sun
on her skin, the woman was cut off from the human community,
encased in a shroud. I had visions of old footage of women from the
Soviet Union in headscarves, shoveling the streets, pushing
wheelbarrows.
I looked at her children: the boy who wore the clothes that gave
him freedom of movement and allowed him to blend in with other
children. But there was the girl, already being trained by the
scarf for a reclusive life of subservience. I saw myself in the
little girl, saw myself, the immigrant daughter of Slovenian
parents who felt that the value of a daughter was in her service
and that an education beyond eighth grade was a waste.
But I grew up in a culture that in the 1960s and 1970s did not
adopt my parents' ways. Rather, I and my Eastern European friends
adapted to American ways. We adapted the fashions, the
manners, and the attitudes.
A field trip to a public library, in Rochester, New York, opened
a new world for me. With my precious yellow library card I took
home books from a mote-filled library (now long closed after the
riots). Once the books were in my room I could steal moments from
my chores and before bedtime. I was drawn to a series of books
bound in pink about a family of Victorian girls.
And that was my introduction to the culture of the West,
specifically its wonderful patriarchal and chivalrous culture,
borne of Christianity.
I don't remember the titles or the author of the pink-bound
books, but I do remember reading about a family of girls who were
treasured by their father. These books exposed me to a culture that
cherished, protected, and respected women--and that contrasted to
the ways of my peasant parents. After reading the books I began to
see that daughters of Americans were not treated like servants and
sequestered in their homes. I began to think about putting myself
through college and started a fund from cleaning houses and
babysitting for neighbors. Books became my refuge and I began to
reject some of the ways of my parents.
This process is called assimilation and at one time it was the
expected course of events. For me, it represented freedom.
But as I remember the little girl in her headscarf in 2007 I see
no such future for her. Indeed it is becoming more common to see
college women wearing the traditional scarves, sometimes with blue
jeans. Those who call themselves "progressive" would keep her in
her headscarf, veil, and long gown. They defend her "choice" of
wearing the garb of her mother. In fact, fashion shows and magazine
spreads assimilate this fashion. A recent one in Marie
Claire promoted such attire as adapted by designers. The hijab
is chic.
And the women who escape from this culture and dare to speak up
about it like the Somali refugee, and former member of the Dutch
parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are attacked by those like
Newsweek's Arab-American writer, Lorraine Ali. Conversely,
one need only pick up any feminist tract to see de rigueur
attributions of patriarchal oppression to Christianity. Even
literary criticism, as I learned in graduate school, propounds
anti-Western vitriol.
Given the messages of "coexistence," and the dogma of
multiculturalism that pervades our educational system, the little
girl in the scarf will have nowhere to turn for an alternative to
her seventh-century culture. She will not be exposed in a favorable
way to the ideals of the West in the literature she reads, whether
it be in her textbooks or library books. Her teachers will be so
timid about defending the West that they will not be able to
explicitly state that some practices of her culture, such as
genital mutilation, are wrong. College freshmen are already
indoctrinated.
Little do the multiculturalists care about the little girl who
will become like her mother, walking in a prison of black cloth,
isolated, without identity, not even able to feel the sun. But they
are the same ones, the ones who so detest their own culture, that
they are blind to the barbarism in our midst. It may be too late
for the woman swathed in black, but we need to reach her
daughter.
topics:
Education, Religion, Islam, Books, Constitution