Thursday, November 03, 2005

The burka and the bikini

Not coincidentally, the theme of this post explains why I've chosen not to display images of those notorious female garments. I had thought about doing so until I realized that, by depicting the sins involved, I'd be encouraging them. And what are those sins?

As Old Oligarch points out (hat tip to Jeff Miller for citing it on his own better-known blog):
The burqa and the bikini are polar extremes of the same fundamental error. Both styles of clothing deny the human dignity of the wearer. Virtue is a mean between the extremes. The modest woman, the woman with self-respect, wears neither the ostentatious bikini nor the humiliating burqa. Both the bikini and the burqa deny our Christian belief in the equal spiritual dignity of man and woman. Both manners of dress encourage onlookers to view the woman as subordinate to men in one way or another.

The burqa denies the Christian belief in the equal spiritual dignity of a woman because it obscures her face, which is the gateway to the heart and to the mind. A woman in a burqa is not permitted to publicly manifest the visible features most proper to her nature as a rational and emotive being -- features which are the most proper to her as a human being. (Aristotle, for example, says that no animal has a prosopon, lit., a countenance, but only a man or a woman.) The bikini likewise denies her equal spiritual dignity because it places primary emphasis on her body, and in such a way that it encourages others to objectify her body as a sexual plaything, not as a temple of Holy Spirit or as a magnificent creature of goodly design.

Yes, I really mean a plaything. How so? Everyone who wants to, gets to enjoy it, regardless of their number, often in public, with no more personal involvement than the private satisfaction of one's own frivolous desire. That's a plaything. Indeed, some playthings are more jealously guarded.

That is not merely a measured moral insight well worth spreading. The fashion facts so sagely lamented symbolize, and reinforce by symbolizing, the two poles in the current war of the West with violent, Wahhabist Islam.

The latter's soldiers despise the loose sexual mores of the secular West, rightly sensing that the libertinism flows inevitably—if not logically—from the secularism. We in the West despise the puritanical intolerance of the Wahhabists, whose worldview motivates most of the "terrorism" against which America claims to be fighting a war. (The war is not so much against terrorism, of course, as against Muslim extremists who are simply using terror as a weapon.) They hate the bikini and enforce the burka when and where they can; we hate the burka and, while not exactly legislating the bikini, thrust it everybody's faces through advertising and the media. (The Western Europeans now seem to regard even that figleaf as purely optional: topless bathing is now the norm at many beaches, and nude bathing is rarely prosecuted even if not actively encouraged.) As indicated above, both sides are precisely wrong about the true nature and dignity of woman. To me, though, what's interesting about that is how it illustrates by contrast the fundamental truth of mere Christianity, which the Wahhabists reject as polytheistic and the secularists reject as fundamentalist.

No sensible account of the true nature and dignity of woman is available except that of Christianity as developed down to our day in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and those branches of Protestantism that manage to retain most of what the former two traditions retain. If women are the equals of men in worth and dignity—which we in the West rightly take for granted—that is not because they are the same as men. Androgyny, like all spiritual errors, distorts the truth—in this case, the truth that the personhood of women and men is more fundamental any of their differences. But despite the fantasies of the seventies feminists and those nurtured on that ideology, the differences are ineradicable: the sexes together constitute the image of God, inasmuch as the division of the human race into them is a call to life-giving personal intercommunion. That is why the majority of people marry and the majority of the married bear children. The nuptial meaning of the human body, male and female, can be ignored or suppressed only at the cost of doing the same to what our personhood is ultimately for: union with the triune God, who is a communion of persons.

The bikini, and the attitudes it betrays, obscure that by arousing lust, i.e., the desire for sexual union with somebody one is not committed to love and has no intention of marrying. The burka, and the attitudes it betrays, obscure it by treating women as property to be protected, not as persons to interact with. Both objectify women and thus reinforce male domination. That is why women should not wear either one. Of course, in many sectors of Dar al-Islam, a woman may be raped, beaten, disowned, or killed for refusing to wear the burka; whereas no woman is similarly treated in the West for refusing to wear the bikini. We have the freedom to be right.

In this vale of tears, that also entails the freedom to be wrong. The wrongness of Islamic extremism we know about. But not enough of us realize what our problem is: as a society, we are no longer sure there's any objective good to be wrong about. Secular Westerners think the challenge of freedom is to invent rather than discover the values we are to live by. The Wahhabists are a lot nastier than that, to be sure; but they are not quite as wrong as that.

5 comments:

  1. Hi Mike
    I am finding your blog to be a refuge from the world, even my bishop! I am currently hashing it out with him in front of 308 people about my 'sacramentally invalid marriage' He doesn't buy that.

    At any rate I appreciate this post. You know as a Western woman, I have always desired to look like a cover model, and even if I attract all the straight men's desire in the world, it doesn't satisfy me. Interesting. What is the point of wearing a bikini? None.

    On the other hand I do desire to wear a burkha. Why? Because I do desire to hide my face. My friend told me my face is like a movie screen. Well what do you expect going through divorce in front of the church?! I WISH I could wear a burkha. I greatly admire my Muslim neighbors and wish I could be like them. They seem so much more whole than me.

    I notice you often blog about Islam. Do you have a personal beef with Islam? I personally would like to join an Orthodox-Islam interfaith discussion group. Know of one?

    In Christ's love
    Olympiada

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oly:

    I often blog about Islam for two reasons. One, the radical "Islamists" are at war with us, and it's a war we cannot escape. Two, so long as traditional interpretations of Islam predominate—as they continue to—Muslims as a whole will always adopt a stance of jihad toward everybody who isn't Muslim. In many cases jihad is non-violent; but in the distant past it was often violent, and it is becoming so again. We had better wake up. If they become powerful enough to destroy Israel, they won't let up after Israel. I should think 9/11 made that crystal clear. This is very serious.

    Your taking the burka as a sign of "wholeness" is perhaps a sign of your longing for stability and virtue in a very tumultous time of your life resulting from your decision to end a mistaken marriage. But I stand by what I said about the burka.

    I am not surprised you are in conflict with your bishop about your claim that your marriage was "sacramentally invalid." That is a Catholic concept that has no clear place in Orthodox tradition.

    As I've said before, if you were Catholic you could get your marriage annulled fairly easily. In Catholic doctrine, the ministers of the sacrament are the couple themselves; the priest or deacon is only a witness. So, if one or both party's intentions or capacities are proved to have been radically defective, the sacrament is judged never to have been validly conferred. But in Orthodoxy, the minister of the sacrament is the priest; when remarriage is allowed after divorce, that is only on the application of oikonoumia. Annulment in the Catholic Church is a form of oikonoumia too; but the traditional Orthodox application of it to marriage and divorce is more elastic than that of the Catholic concept of validity and thus more liable to abuse.

    Best,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike
    My auxiliary bishop said no body has to stay in an abusive marriage and I could even remarry if that came up. No, it's my bishop that does not like divorce. That is ok. He is going to retire anyways. And we love each other so it is ok.

    You know what Mike? I am really mad about Catholic men who fall away from the church, fall into carnal sin, and refuse to practice natural family planning. What's up with that? And putting all on the woman as if it is all HER responsibility to practice nfp. And not just men do this, mother-in-laws and godmothers too. It is simply AWFUL. Hello? The man has to abstain too. Yuck. Dude there are feasts and fasts in the Orthodox church just like there is nfp in the Catholic church. Oh I am so steamed about this tonight. Everybody is jumping on me because I DARE to bring up the topic of sexual abuse, heaven forbid.
    Lord have mercy!

    Regards
    Oly

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike,

    Your reflections are very good regarding the burkha and bikini. I do question though the thought though about topless bathing in Europe.

    I am more interested in the discussion that we Americans shaped greatly, whether Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, or even protestant, by Puritan notions. How does the breast become so sexualized? Why do you not go after indigenous cultures where breasts are just part of the body. The problem with us is that we seem to have reduced breasts to playthings (a lie) and forgotten their life-giving and nuturing purpose.

    If you would want to move further and say that because of that lie, the breast has become irredeemably lost, that's different... and I think wrong.

    Peace,
    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian:

    I don't think I'm competent to discuss the question whether the exposed female breast ought not to arouse lust. No doubt lust of any kind—i.e., any form of inordinate sexual desire, which tends to objectify the desired person—ought not to be; but since the Fall it's been a fact, and the question what tends to arouse it this or that culture is a secondary question of more scientific than theological interest.

    Best,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete