New photos of American actress Anne Hathaway wearing a full-body wetsuit in the coastal town of Saint-Tropez on the French Riviera have sparked comment and debate over the double standards which Muslim women have to endure when they wear similar clothing in France.
The Oscar-winning actress, who announced her third pregnancy earlier this month, has been sporting many looks on her holiday with her husband.
However, it was her long-sleeved, full-length tie-dye patterned wet suit that caught the attention of many, who compared it to modest swimwear that many Muslim women choose to wear.
Many commentators took to social media to decry “double standards”, with Hathaway’s choice of dress at the beach accepted and praised while Muslim women who wear the hijab and full-coverage swimwear are often turned away from public pools and beaches.
She pointed out that often, Muslim women are forced to travel to another country in order to wear modest swimsuits freely, noting that many women in France don’t have that option.
“So here we are: Applauding a celebrity for covering her body in France, while Muslim women are still questioned, excluded, or restricted for doing the very same thing…Same fabric. Different headlines. One woman is called inspiring. The other is called oppressed,” she added.
France banned the hijab from public schools in March 2004, while prayers are prohibited in French educational spaces. Many Muslim women who wear the hijab in France also face challenges when it comes to finding employment.
Last year, Amnesty International said France’s hijab ban in all sports would violate human rights and unfairly target Muslim women.
I have to admit, I don’t understand why “burkinis” exist when a wetsuit and swimming cap would serve an equivalent purpose (other than being a marketing gimmick, since it’s apparently a trademark)
Burkinis include a small dress I think? And also a hijab. I found this image in an article comparing them
Frankly, I don’t see… checks notes… “banning compulsory gender-dichotomized clothing, whose wear is chiefly motivated by the dictates of a single monotheistic abrahamic faith where the intent of said wear is to enforce a culture of shame on women” is controversial.
Because at its core, that’s what strict enforcement of Islamic garb is: an inherently patriarchal and religiously-motivated visual symbol of control and submission by men over women. I don’t like that when non-Islamic people do that, and I don’t like it when Islamic people do that. The specific religion is incidental, and only gets called out specifically because it specifically includes those misogynistic and gendered clothing dictates. I would have the same reaction to any other religion trying to foist its dictates on me and the people I care about, clothing-oriented or otherwise. Making such overt and intrinsic displays of control and submission publicly unacceptable - and even illegal - is not a bad thing. Normalizing that prejudicial societal pattern is an awful fucking idea, and having laws against it - in, it should be added, a largely secular society where the societal norm does not exist - is sensible and good.
I do, however, agree that the selective enforcement on the prohibition being clearly presented here is complete bullshit. The French “work and public life* restrictions on traditional Islamic women’s garb is far more sensible than the swimwear-oriented bans.
Lot of unexamined premises here that you checks notes expect us to take for granted
I just don’t like it when religious dogma is used as an instrument of repression in any context. That includes, but is not limited to:
- mysoginistic, patriarchal practices that all abrahamic faiths have problems with, but that Islam is a particularly visible and well-known practitioner of
- intolerant, close-minded thinking when it comes to psychology and identity (see: how large swaths of ALL abrahamic faiths treat LGBTQ+ people)
- how Israeli “settlers” (read: arch conservative Jewish traditionalists), amongst many, many other things, generally treat Palestinians as non-humans while the Israeli government essentially encourages the practice
how Israeli “settlers” (read: arch conservative Jewish traditionalists), amongst many, many other things, generally treat Palestinians as non-humans while the Israeli government essentially encourages the practice
Is this your description on what’s happening in Gaza? Really?
includes, but is not limited to:
I am of course fully aware of the Gaza genocide. I was going for a bit of dramatic understatement.
My point is that Israeli “settlers” have been pulling this shit for decades, and that the practice has a lot of religious tie-ins. The active genocide of Palestinians is abhorrent, though if we are being technical, simply an escalation in scale and intensity, considering the apartheid Israel has functionally enforced for damn near their entire existence as a state.
Removed by mod
