Are any of the media reports on the Middle East visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi going to tell us why America’s highest-ranking woman political leader is wearing a scarf and a black abaya robe? The scarf and abaya are of course mandatory in some Muslim countries, and Pelosi was photographed wearing the abaya while entering the Ommayad Mosque during her tour of downtown Damascus on Tuesday.
AFP has reported that Pelosi has not been allowed to shake hands with certain men:
Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque, shaking hands with Syrian women inside and watching men in a religion class sitting cross-legged on the floor.
She stopped at an elaborate tomb, said to contain the head of John the Baptist, and made the sign of the cross. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.
At the nearby outdoor Bazouriyeh market, Syrians crowded around, offering her dried figs and nuts and chatting with her. She strolled past shops selling olive oil soaps, spices and herbs, and at one point bought some coconut sweets and eyed jewelry and carpets.
The religion ghost in all of this is that the abaya robe and head scarf are mandatory garments for women in some Islamic cultures and some governments mandate the tradition as law. Are they mandatory in Pelosi’s situation? I’m not sure, but I’d like to know. I’d also like to know why Pelosi agreed to wear them and how this reflects on American liberalism in areas of Syria that are struggling to get out from under strict Islamic law that puts special restraints on women, whether they like it or not. Is she doing it out of simple cultural respect or is it because she has to?
Then there is the deeper issue of the difference between moderates and radicals within Islam. As Tawfik Hamid, a former member of the Islamic terrorist group Jemaah Islamiya, writes in The Wall Street Journal, Western appeasement of radical Muslims has made the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult:
When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Do mandatory scarves and abaya robes represent radical Islamic society? Yes, it is part of Islamic tradition, but as pointed out at The Corner, does anyone know the last time Pelosi, a Catholic, last wore a veil to Mass?
Editor’s note: This post previously, mistakenly and ironically had an image of First Lady Laura Bush wearing a headscarf. The image has been replaced with one of Pelosi.
 | Posted at 10:58 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
April 6, 2007, at 11:36 am
I’m not sure why so much emphasis is placed on clothing. To many Muslims, certain clothing for women is the equivalent in this country of being very revealing if not topless. There are deep cultural and religious roots for such fashion statements. In a few trips to India, the women in our trip were told that certain fashions that are perfectly innocent in the west would make them look like prostitutes in the eyes of Indian (Hindu) men.
To me, Islamism is not defined by the clothing mores of a society but in many, many other areas. So I wish reporters, those here included, would not be so obsessed by a head scarf, but instead focus on deeper, more meaningful questions.
April 6, 2007, at 12:03 pm
I’m sure Mollie saw this, but here’s the WP’s Pulizer Prize winning fashion writer talking about Pelosi’s scarves.
When world leaders visit other countries, they respect culure and religion of those countries. So while Pelosi may not wear a veil to mass in San Francisco or DC (where almost no one wears a veil), so most certainly would wear on in Rome or when visiting the Holy See, where wearing a veil would be considered expected, Laura Bush, Madeline Albright, and Condaleeza Rice have all worn scarves in Islamic countries, out of respect to those cultures.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600029.html?hpid=features1
April 6, 2007, at 12:11 pm
Hey thanks for the link Michael. The one thing that Robin Givhan didn’t address was the religious issue of wearing a headscarf. There are still a few outstanding questions that could use some answers.
April 6, 2007, at 12:38 pm
Dpullim……the wearing of the hijab is not enforced in Syria. Nancy would need to covered in Saudi or Iran but not in Syria and certainly not on the streets of Damascus. Donning this symbol of oppression, suppression and humiliation of women was not only unnecessary, it set a tone and a message that shouldn’t be sent as well as illustrating her basic ignorance of the Middle East.
Had she been going into a Mosque like Laura Bush was in the picture then it would have been different.
Commentary below by the RPS has it right. See article below. It has it right.
Has Pelosi Gone Bonkers?
Farid Ghadry | Reform Party of Syria
Apr 04, 2007 at 07:23 AM
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66
April 6, 2007, at 1:06 pm
I wonder why you are picking on Nancy Pelosi? When I have been in some Roman Catholic countries (e.g. Italy), it was expected that a woman entering a church would not be wearing shorts or a sleeveless blouse. What is the difference between that and respecting the dress tradition of a Muslim society?
April 6, 2007, at 2:32 pm
I wonder why you are picking on Nancy Pelosi?
Simple.
Nancy Pelosi has a reputation as an outspoken Feminist. As the most powerful woman in the Democratic Party (which is strongly tied to NOW, NARAL, Emily’s List, and what little remains of the “Women’s Movement” in this Post-Lewinski era), and as the most powerful woman in America (a country where both right and left agree that women have equal rights) she is certianly a prominent public figure, if not a symbol.
Symbols are important, especially in diplomacy. For example, when a member of the British Royal Family visits the U.S. Americans are not supposed to curtsey or bow. We are free CITIZENS of a free REPUBLIC, not SUBJECTS of the Crown. There is a difference, and two wars were fought over that particular point.
Similarly, when we appointed a black man to be our ambassador to South Africa back during the days of aparthited, we showed that we, as a Republic, had a commitment to the equal rights of all people, regardless of race, and that we do not support racial discrimination. It was an “in your face” to South Africa, and it was a sign to the ant-aparthide activists that we supported them, but it also (and most importantly) said “You might discriminate, but WE don’t.”
I can tell you that the presence of female U.S. Military Officers has had a major effect in the Islamic world. I have met male officers who were quietly taken aside and asked “I would very much like to buy the blonde Lieutenant that works for you. How much money do you want for her?” For the men in this sort of culture to see women that give orders to armed and trained men, and to see the our men say “Yes Ma’am” and carry out those orders… it was a little mind melting. (Even for the ones that had been to the West, and personally I think this is a GOOD thing.) For the WOMEN to see American Women doing this… well we aren’t allowed to speak to their women, but one can imagine.
If Pelosi were to go to a Mosque, then she should by all means wear a scarf. That is simple respect for a religious custom. Outside of the Mosque though, she should dress like who she is, a free female citizen of a free Republic; with the same rights as any male citizen of said Republic. She is not a second class citizen and she is not a dihimi. It is not a question of “In America Women are free and equal.” it is a question of “American Women are free and equal. Regardless of where they go or what they do. Period. End of story.”
Not wearing the garmets of opression is an important symbol, and it sends an important message. This is a woman who went on TV and (in almost so many words) told the President of the United States to take a chill pill. She should not conform her hairstyle for the comfort of some mideval third world mysoginists. She is a free woman of the 21st Century, and that fact is NOT subject to negotiation or compromise. If anyone has a problem with that, it is THEIR problem, NOT ours, and NOT hers.
As an outspoken leader of the Feminist movement, and the most powerful woman in our Republic, one would have assumed Pelosi “got” this. That she apparenlty did not is enlightening, and sends a powerful (and frankly not helpful) one to everyone in the Middle East.
April 6, 2007, at 2:49 pm
Larry,
Are they garments of oppression to the people the Speaker is visiting? Do people in the Middle East regard them in that way?
April 6, 2007, at 3:00 pm
Women wearing scarves is not just an Islamic thing. It is also customary for middle eastern Christian women.
April 6, 2007, at 3:12 pm
It seems that politicians just do not Get Religion nor religionists Get Politics…. or do they?
April 6, 2007, at 3:48 pm
Look, the reason that people are upset about Pelosi wearing a head scarf whereas they weren’t upset about Laura Bush and Condoleeza Rice doing the same thing can be summed up in a single word: politics.
Parsing the propaganda speeches of the Iranian dictator, puzzling over the headwear choices of the Speaker of the House… we’re approaching sheep entrails territory here.
April 6, 2007, at 4:21 pm
Is the veil in a Catholic church considered a garment of oppression? Many Muslim women actually don’t consider the veil as a garment of oppression, but instead find it liberating to not be ogled and sexualized. It’s a tradition, just like the sari is a tradition for traditional Indians or the simple dress is a tradition of Mennonite and Amish women.
April 6, 2007, at 5:22 pm
Michael is making “politically-correct excuses for Islamism”.
April 6, 2007, at 7:03 pm
Really, I thought I was just adding perspective.
I think there is time for a new Godwin’s Law involving the term “politically-correct.” The moment it’s used, you can pretty much guarantee that sharp discourse has ended and now people are just reading off talking points.
April 6, 2007, at 7:45 pm
Larry Rasczak writes:
If Pelosi were to go to a Mosque, then she should by all means wear a scarf. That is simple respect for a religious custom.
Uh, Larry, I totally agree with you that it is oppressive to expect women to be any more swathed than the men are, especially in hot climates. But the fact remains that Pelosi *was* visiting a Mosque when the photo was taken. So, now what is your gripe?
April 6, 2007, at 8:48 pm
“Is the veil in a Catholic church considered a garment of oppression?”
Well does the Catholic Church say that women can’t drive cars, go to school, read, have careers, or live where they are not under the supervision of a male. Neither does it blow up schools simply because said schools teach girls to read. The Catholics also recognize that women have the right to pick their own husband, that they are Children of God and therefore should not be sold or traded for property or goats, and it does not require that they be stoned to death if get pregnant due to a rape and there are not three MALE witnesses who will testify to the fact they were raped. Neither does it describe women who do not wear a veil as “uncovered meat” as one prominent Australian Islamic Cleric did. Neither does it knife to death people who make anti-Catholic films while they are riding their bike to workl; and no prominent anti-Catholic authors have to live in fear and secrecy because they wrote books that the Pope does not approve of. Catholic women are not killed by their male realatives for dishonoring their families by not wearing veils or dating; and no German Court has ever ruled that a Catholic woman can not divorce her husband because the Gospel says it is perfectly allowable for her husband to beat her as long as he only uses a stick that is thinner than his thumb.
So to answer your question, no. I don’t think the veil in a Catholic church considered a garment of oppression.
I expected you to pick up on that line, and thought of cutting it, but then I remembered that women in the Islamic world ARE oppressed. Their distinctive clothing is closer to a gold star of David that a Catholic Veil. I honestly did not think that you would sink to the point that you would try to take issue with me over that.
Don’t you find it the least bit ironic that I, someone who is barely to the left of Alaric the Goth, is arguing in support of womens rights against you on this?
April 6, 2007, at 9:03 pm
Michael (and Robin Givhan)— No one in Rome would expect that Mrs Pelosi wear a veil to visit churches in the city anywhere or at St Peter’s. It does remain customary for women who are heads of state (or their spouses) received in audience by the Holy Father to wear a head-covering of some sort but even this is custom and some do and some haven’t.
April 6, 2007, at 9:10 pm
Many, but not all, women in the Islamic world are oppressed. I don’t disagree with that. But the headscarf is not always a sign of oppression, just as the veil is not always a sign of oppression for Catholic women Many feminists and Liberal Muslims have made this argument and see it as part of tradition—like wearing a veil to church—and actually describe it as liberating.
So it is no inconguous for feminists like Pelois or Albright, or even Rice and Hughes and Bush, to wear a headscarf while still being opposed to the oppression of women in Muslim countries. When Benazir Bhutto was prime minsiter of Paskistan, she wore a headscarf. Was she oppressed? We she subject to the parade of horribles you outlined?
Not really. I don’t doubt you are concerned about the oppression of women, but you seem more interested in scoring points against Islam than scoring points for women.
April 6, 2007, at 9:18 pm
Nobody has responded to Bruce, and he is right. I’ve been in the Middle East and Central Asia a few times, and my wife always puts on a head scarf in public, and in certain countries, a balta, or abaya, or chador. It is indeed usually a symbol of dignity for a woman there, whether Christian or Muslim.
Can we not differentiate between something that is culturally acceptable and something that is identifying oneself has a Muslim? A woman wearing the niqab, or face veil, would normally be an example of the latter.
Well I remember a tourist in New Delhi, walking through the Red Fort in halter top and shorts. All the men were smiling intensely, and all the women were laughing at their men observing what to them would be an obvious prostitute.
Leave Nancy alone on this one. At least she isn’t being the Ugly American, which we are more famous for.
April 6, 2007, at 9:30 pm
Uh, Larry, I totally agree with you that it is oppressive to expect women to be any more swathed than the men are, especially in hot climates. But the fact remains that Pelosi *was* visiting a Mosque when the photo was taken. So, now what is your gripe?
Excellent question, and that’s why I said that. IIRC she was looking at a box that was supposed to contain the head of St. John the Baptist.
What’s my gripe? Well two.
The first is that, since she is not an employee of the State Department or the Executive Branch she is not legally allowed to engage in diplomatic visits without White House approval or coordination, and to the best of my knowledge she has none… That is WAY off topic, but you asked.
As I said, the symbolisim of having the most powerful woman on the planet take on the garments of mysoginistic Islamic opression sends a message to EVERYONE in the Middle East, and I don’t think it is a good one.
To be honest I have stunningly low expectations of Pelosi. (Frankly I’ll consider it a victory if we still have 42 states, 100,000,000 citizens, and an unemployment rate of less than 19% when she leaves office.) That being said I am honestly disappointed in her. I did expect that given her background as a Femminist she would “get” the symbolisim of her wearing what she did. That she did not makes me, frankly, sad.
I only agree with Femminists about 15% of the time, but when they are right I strongly suppot them. My wife has a bachelors in Biology, a Masters in Chemestry, and a doctorate in Law. I like smart strong women. While I think the phrase “Femminist thought” is a contradiction in terms, I do support their battle against mysogyny.
So when it comes to Pelosi I did think that if she was honestly concerned with the REAL oppression of women (and by that I mean women who are the subject of honor killings, not women who can’t join the Golf Club that hosts the Masters) she would understand the symbolisim of her being photographed as she was, wearing what she was.
Someone on her staff should have said…”This may not be a very good idea Madam Speaker. Could we tour the Museum instead?” I am amazed that they did not. Even if they did not say that I would have expected HER to say “Well if I can’t go there dressed as the free American Woman I am, I am going to go somewhere else!!! ”
For all her faults, (and they are legion) she is a citizen of our Free and Sovereign Republic, (heck, with the possible exception of Mrs. Woodrow Wilson she is the most powerful female in the history of our Free and Sovereign Republic!). As such the wire services should not be sending around the world photos of her dressed as if she were so much chattel.
I think it offends the dignity of the nation when the 3rd most powerful person in the United States of America gets photographed dressed as if she could easily be traded for three camels and twelve goats.
(And yes, I thought it nauseating when Bush had those ridiculious photos taken with the Prince of Saudi Arabia a few years ago too.)
April 6, 2007, at 10:08 pm
“Not really. I don’t doubt you are concerned about the oppression of women, but you seem more interested in scoring points against Islam than scoring points for women.”
To be honest Michael, you are probably right there; but for all intents and purposes I think they are pretty much the same thing. This fact seems to have gone past most of the Left makes me sad. One would have thought that honor killings and female circumcision in the Islamic world, sati/suttee in the Hindu realms, sex selective abortion in India and China would be almost as important to the Left as the membership policies of Agusta National Golf Club. Heck, that NOW and the NYT isn’t screaming about the very idea of polyigamy stuns me. They chatter endlessly about “female self esteem”, and how women should not be seen as sex objects… but they don’t seem to have a lot to say about the fact that in much of the planet when wife #1 starts to sag a little the man is pefectly within his rights to go get wife #2, 3, 4 and 5 and wife #1 has to just shut up and deal with it goes right past them. This makes me, frankly, sad.
I don’t really respect the Left, but I think it has its place and that place is an important one. We are not just a poorer society without an intelligent and functioning Left Wing, but the continued functioning of our Republic demands that we have one. (That we don’t have an intelligent or functioning Left in this country scares me almost as much as the fact we don’t have an intelligent or functional Right Wing these days either.)
So yeah, I’ll admit your point. However, given the way Islam treats women, I really can’t see there being a lot of difference there.
“But the headscarf is not always a sign of oppression, just as the veil is not always a sign of oppression for Catholic women Many feminists and Liberal Muslims have made this argument and see it as part of tradition—like wearing a veil to church—and actually describe it as liberating.”
Well I think the essential difference here is that the women who do NOT find the tradtion of wearing the veil to church liberating or empowering aren’t beaten to death on the street if they choose not to participate in the custom.
That’s the rub.
I don’t think anyone can honestly say that a tradition you disobey at the risk of your life is “liberating”.
April 7, 2007, at 2:06 am
The first is that, since she is not an employee of the State Department or the Executive Branch she is not legally allowed to engage in diplomatic visits without White House approval or coordination, and to the best of my knowledge she has none.
I assume therefore you’re equally upset with the Republicans that went before her visit and the Republican that went with her on the trip?
For what it’s worth, the headline in my local paper made an important point “Pelosi goes where Saudi women can’t” and said the following:
Pelosi was welcomed at the Shura council by its head, Sheik Saleh bin Humaid, who is also the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. He placed his right hand on his chest in a traditional Arab greeting, since conservative Islamic clerics don’t shake hands with women, and she returned the greeting in a similar manner.
During her meetings, Pelosi did not wear the long black robe, or abaya, and headscarf that Saudi and non-Saudi women have to wear in the kingdom. Visiting female dignitaries are not expected to wear it.
I think Rep. Pelosi’s trip was an unqualified success and brought home the message about the role of women in society in a tactful and subtle manner. She acted in a way that put the lie to the stereotypes that sexists have about what a woman is capable of, much to the chagrin of those on the right. But then again, “I don’t really respect the” right.
April 7, 2007, at 7:59 pm
Jerry, you left out “Christian” and “Muslim”. Fact of the matter is, this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural norms.
Wearing shorts are also unacceptable for grown men (and grown women, of course), as I’ve been politely informed of before. It doen’t mean anything about being a prostitute though, it’s just something that only little kids wear (or so I’ve been told).