Muslim Hijab Linked To Less Negative Body Image Among Women - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14461730
It would seem the moral and ethical aspects of modest attire are not the only benefits.

And it makes sense, if you aren't always comparing yourself to some unrealistic ideal, then it probably wouldn't cause you so much mental anguish.

Science 2.0 wrote:Though to Western women, Muslim women in the Mid-East and Asia seem oppressed because they have no choice in wearing a hijab, the Islamic head- and body-cover common in Muslim culture, studies have shown that Muslim women have a more positive body image.

Psychologists using a wider range of body image measures have found that British Muslim women who wear a hijab generally have more positive body image, are less reliant on media messages about beauty ideals, and place less importance on appearance than those who do not wear a hijab. These effects appear to be driven by use of a hijab specifically, rather than religiosity.


Source: Science 2.0
#14461748
Is that scientifically proven?

I think the important point here is not just about seeing, but it's about the emphasis placed on the exposure of female flesh and the objectification of the female form. The female form is objectified to such an extent that you cannot turn the TV on, look at a billboard or a front page of a magazine without seeing a perfectly fashioned (and probably airbrushed) image of a woman, most likely with certain bits of flesh exposed and positioned to evoke desire in men and envy in women.

The desire it evokes in men obviously causes a whole host of problems in society, but what it evokes in women is probably just as harmful.
#14461752
The definition of 'harm' differs depending on what your objective is. After all, all forms of subjectification require some level of self-objectification. What this means is that a world without mirrors, or a world in which everyone wears hijabs is not desirable because it would destroy the ability of the person to become aware of their own self as an agent.

99% of the people who complain about 'objectification' are just using a word that they stole from Michel Foucault without understanding the implications of it. People were never supposed to actually try to prevent themselves from becoming objects. There is supposed to be a constant tug between the person wanting to take actions, and the person also moulding themselves to fit the expectation of society and being acted upon. Those who know how to navigate within that 'tug of war' by understanding it, are those who are able to exercise power.

To address the female form and the evolutionary purpose of the objectification of the human body, it is a mechanism through which humans compete for greatest fitness and greatest health. This is why among ethnic groups, a beauty standard develops, and people strive to satisfy that standard so that they can gain the very-important approval of their peer group, and so that (if they are breeders) they can also be reproductively successful, and so that the best traits can be passed on. There is nothing bad about that.

When various losers feel that they have a 'negative body image', that is just the natural peer pressure that ought to be applied to them because they are not maintaining their body well enough. It may sound callous, but there are some ugly fucking unkempt bitches out there, who need to be shamed into taking better care of themselves. Left-liberals and Muslims need to stop disrupting this Darwinian process.

TLDR: If your hair looks awful, then I reserve the right to tell you that it looks awful. You can then choose whether you'd like to accept my criticism, or seek a second opinion if you think that my criticism is wrong.
#14461758
Rei Murasame wrote:What this means is that a world without mirrors, or a world in which everyone wears hijabs is not desirable because it would destroy the ability of the person to become aware of their own self as an agent.

No more than a world in which everyone wears any clothing destroys it. Hijab is just a different level of clothing, everyone (pretty much) wears clothing, it doesn't destroy anything that I'm aware of.

Rei Murasame wrote:so that they can gain the very-important approval of their peer group, and so that (if they are breeders) they can also be reproductively successful, and so that the best traits can be passed on. There is nothing bad about that.

Being a non-breeder, Darwinian 'dead-end', I guess this isn't of concern for you anyway. Thankfully your genes will (voluntarily) terminate with you and the next generation will have no concern with your type

Rei Murasame wrote:Left-liberals and Muslims need to stop disrupting this Darwinian process.

You've forfeited your piece of the 'Darwinian process', so not sure what you're upset about here.
#14461761
abu_rashid wrote:No more than a world in which everyone wears any clothing destroys it. Hijab is just a different level of clothing, everyone (pretty much) wears clothing, it doesn't destroy anything that I'm aware of.

Overly conservative clothing does the same thing.

abu_rashid wrote:Being a non-breeder, Darwinian 'dead-end', I guess this isn't of concern for you anyway. Thankfully your genes will (voluntarily) terminate with you and the next generation will have no concern with your type

You need to read up on kin selection.

J. Phillipe Rushton, 'Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory', Nations and Nationalism 11 (4), 2005, 489–507 wrote:In 1964, evolutionary biologist William Hamilton finally provided a generally accepted solution to the problem of altruism based on the concept of inclusive fitness, not just individual fitness. It is the genes that survive and are passed on. Some of the individual’s most distinctive genes will be found in siblings, nephews, cousins and grandchildren as well as in offspring. Siblings share fifty per cent, nephews and nieces twenty-five per cent, and cousins about twelve and a half per cent of their distinctive genes. So when an altruist sacrifices its life for its kin, it ensures the survival of these common genes. The vehicle has been sacrificed to preserve copies of its precious cargo.

Bear in mind that a history of consanguinity in a country, will actually have raised that '12.5% for cousins' to a number that is actually greater than 12.5%.

ibid wrote:‘Hamilton’s Rule’ states that across all species, altruism (or, conversely, reduced aggression) is favoured when rb - c > 0, where r is the genetic relatedness between two individuals, b is the (genetic) fitness benefit to the beneficiary, and c is the fitness cost to the altruist. Evolutionary biologists have used Hamilton’s ‘gene’s eye’ point of view to carry out research on a wide range of social interactions including altruism, aggression, selfishness and spite. The formulation was dubbed ‘kin selection theory’ by John Maynard Smith (1964) and became widely known through influential books such as The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (1976) and Sociobiology: the New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson (1975).

In 1971, Hamilton extended his formulation and hypothesised that altruism would result from any degree of genetic relatedness, not just that based on immediate kin.
ibid wrote:For humans, both spouses and best friends are most similar on socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity and educational level (r = 0.60), next most on opinions and attitudes (r = 0.50), then on cognitive ability (r = 0.40), and least, but still significantly, on personality (r = 0.20) and physical traits (r = 0.20).

Even marrying across ethnic lines ‘proves the rule’. In Hawaii, men and women who married cross-ethnically were more similar in personality than those marrying within their group, suggesting that couples ‘make up’ for ethnic dissimilarity by choosing spouses more similar to themselves in other respects (Ahern et al. 1981).

So you see that even if I don't personally have children myself, I am invested in the Darwinian process, because I have lots of cousins and I have a sister. This means that the wealth and the direction that my family takes, means that my genes - which is to say the copies of those genes which exist in my sister and my cousins - are passed on so long as someone reproduces.

Therefore, if I charge off into nowhere and get killed in some fight to defend the civilisation that they are in, and have no children, I have accomplished a Darwinian process in doing so. The same applies if I strive to accumulate lots of money and then I die and will it all to my cousins or nieces and nephews*. I would be nepotistically gifting money to other beings who carry copies of my genes.

This is why surnames exist. I am not just a single person, I am part of a large extended family which has records going back centuries. We aren't going anywhere, and you'll still be dealing with people who have my surname, in fucking 2300 CE.

abu_rashid wrote:You've forfeited your piece of the 'Darwinian process', so not sure what you're upset about here.

Are Muslims as totally unable to grasp the concept of family and clan as you, or is it just you? I would think that it's just you, since the Arabs certainly know what a clan is, don't they?

Try some honest debate for once.

* NB: And yes, if I die, my assets really would go to my family members in order of relatedness. We don't mess around on these issues.
#14461762
Image

The hijab is just a fashionable headscarf which does not cover up a woman's entire body and it has only a little effect on her body image. Perhaps it can hide a double chin but a protruded belly could only be hidden by the nijab typically worn by Afghan women. Dr Swami may have a personal agenda to glamorise the use of the hijab through the questionable methodology typically used in biased psychological studies but 40% of Muslim women in London who participated in the study answered that they had never worn the hijab, which is ideal for modern Muslim women in Britain. Muslim women were strongly discouraged from wearing the hijab after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and most young women in London do not usually abide by the strict Muslim dress code promoted by conservative Muslims.

A total of 587 Muslim women aged from 18 to 70 years from London participated in a number of tests. From this group 218 women stated they never used the hijab and 369 women said they used some form of the hijab at least now and then. Participants undertook a number of questionnaires that asked them to rate their own feelings of body dissatisfaction, how much pressure the media put on them to be attractive and how religious they were. They were also asked to match their own figure to a set of female silhouette images that ranged from emaciated to obese. The results showed that women who wore the hijab generally had a more positive body image, were less influenced by the media’s beauty ideals and placed less importance on appearance. Dr Swami said: “Although the results showed only a small difference between those who wear or don’t wear the hijab it does suggest the hijab offers Muslim women a small protective effect in terms of feeling positive about their body image. It appears that those who choose to wear it are better able to distance themselves from the Western thin ideal. “These results may have useful implications for intervention programmes aimed at promoting healthier body image among Muslim women in the West. For example, by identifying those aspects of hijab use that are associated with more positive body appreciation in future studies, it might be possible to isolate factors that can be targeted in intervention programmes.”
http://www.bps.org.uk/news/wearing-hijab-helps-body-confidence
#14461777
I also want to present this study from 1993, as an example against the patriarchal-modesty culture which seeks to make women be sedentary. It's a study from a long time ago, so the issue between Britain and Finland that existed then, no longer applies now, but it shows a demonstration of the truth of the fitness concept. See here:
Women, Paid Employment and Ill-Health in Britain and Finland, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1993), pp. 121, Sara Arber and Eero Lahelma wrote:The paper seeks to disentangle how similarities and differences between women's employment position in Britain and Finland are associated with inequalities in women's ill-health, using national surveys from 1986. In Finland, women participate fully in paid work, whereas British women are more likely to be full-time housewives or part-time employees. Unlike Finland, public provisions do not support the economic independence of British women. The degree of inequality in ill-health is greater among employed women in Finland than in Britain. Major differences between the two countries are the poor health of British housewives, and the impact of housing tenure and family roles on women's ill-health in Britain but not Finland. Previously married women who are not in paid employment in Britain have particularly poor health. Our findings suggest that in a society such as Britain where paid employment is not universal for women, women's family roles and housing quality affect their health, but this is not the case in Finland where women's participation in the labour market is near universal.

Women, Paid Employment and Ill-Health in Britain and Finland, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1993), pp. 125, Sara Arber and Eero Lahelma wrote:Britain has relatively poor statutory maternity leave and pay provision compared with other European countries. Most women have the right to return full time (not part time) to their former employment within 29 weeks after the birth and receive statutory maternity pay (which is less than their usual earnings), although many trade unions have negotiated improved maternity pay and leave, especially in the public sector. In Finland, paid leave around childbirth is 263 days, and part of this time can be shared between parents. Most jobs allow mothers to keep the right to their job and receive economic support until the child is three years old. Paid leave for three days can be taken by either parent to care for a sick child under 10 years of age at home but there is no such provision in Britain (Kvinnor och man i Norden 1988).

Women, Paid Employment and Ill-Health in Britain and Finland, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1993), pp. 125, Sara Arber and Eero Lahelma wrote:In Finland, the almost universal participation of women in paid work secures a degree of economic independence and integration in society for them, which is absent in Britain. This is of particular importance for lone mothers with dependent children.

Women, Paid Employment and Ill-Health in Britain and Finland, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1993), pp. 125, Sara Arber and Eero Lahelma wrote:In Britain, unmarried women with children are less likely to be in paid employment than comparable married women (Family Policy Studies Centre 1991). This reflects the lack of adequate and affordable childcare and also the structure of British benefit regulations, which discourage lone mothers from taking part-time jobs (Crow & Hardey 1992).

Women, Paid Employment and Ill-Health in Britain and Finland, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1993), pp. 135, Sara Arber and Eero Lahelma wrote:The level of state provision for non-employed lone mothers is very low in Britain. These findings suggest that paid employment is crucial for both financial and physical well-being, and that British employment and childcare policies which do not facilitate the economic independence of women may have adverse health consequences.

This is a principle that holds and has been acknowledged from since the 1920s, when women realised this.

Higher levels of independence result in higher levels of good health. Britain was lagging behind Finland at the time that study was done, and it was because Finnish women had more independence. In turn, British women have more independence than Middle Eastern women, and so on.

See here for the ideological link-up:

The concept called "New Woman", was fully intended to make women harder and leaner and so when someone captures that essence, that is what women are supposed to do in a post-1920 world.

Image
Pyle, Ellen Bernard Thompson (Feb 4, 1922), "Flapper", The Saturday Evening Post (cover)
Image
"Where there's smoke there's fire" by Russell Patterson, showing a fashionably dressed flapper in the 1920s.
Winnifred Harper Cooley, 'The New Womanhood', III. The Evolution of the New Woman, 1904 (emphasis added) wrote:The new woman, in the sense of the best woman, the flower of all the womanhood of past ages, has come to stay — if civilization is to endure. The sufferings of the past have but strengthened her, maternity has deepened her, education is broadening her — and she now knows that she must perfect herself if she would perfect the race, and leave her imprint upon immortality, through her offspring or her works.

First-wave feminism. It underpins all of feminism, because each wave simply built upon the previous ones.

That stage was then followed by the Flappers, who were essentially fashion-heroes. What they did never really went away.

wiki: Flapper wrote:Flappers' behavior was considered outlandish at the time and redefined women's roles. In the English media they were stereotyped as pleasure-loving, reckless and prone to defy convention by initiating sexual relationships.[29] Some[30] have suggested that the flapper concept as a stage of life particular to young women was imported to England from Germany, where it originated "as a sexual reaction against the over-fed, under-exercised monumental woman, and as a compromise between pederasty and normal sex".[30] In Germany teenage girls were called "backfisch", which meant a young fish not yet big enough to be sold in the market.[31][32][33] Although the concept of "backfisch" was known in England by the late 1880s, the term was understood to mean a very demure social type[34] unlike the flapper, who was typically rebellious and defiant of convention. The evolving image of flappers was of independent young women who went by night to jazz clubs where they danced provocatively, smoked cigarettes and dated freely, perhaps indiscriminately. They were active, sporting, rode bicycles, drove cars, and openly drank alcohol, a defiant act in the American period of Prohibition.[35] With time, came the development of dance styles then considered shocking, such as the Charleston, the Shimmy, the Bunny Hug, and the Black Bottom.

Significantly, the flappers removed the corset from female fashion, raised skirt and gown hemlines, and popularized short hair for women. Among actresses closely identified with the style were Olive Borden, Olive Thomas, Dorothy Mackaill, Alice White, Bebe Daniels, Billie Dove, Helen Kane, Joan Crawford, Leatrice Joy, Norma Shearer, Laura La Plante, Norma Talmadge, Clara Bow, Louise Brooks, and Colleen Moore. Beginning in the early 1920s, flappers also began appearing in newspaper comic strips, most notably in Blondie but also strips such as Fritzi Ritz (later best known as Nancy's Aunt Fritzi).[54]

[...]

The New Woman was pushing the boundaries of gender identity, representing sexual and economic freedom. She cut her hair short and took to loose-fitting clothing and low cut dresses. No longer restrained by a tight waist and long trailing skirts, the modern woman of the 1920s was an independent thinker, who no longer followed the conventions of those before her.[59] The flapper was an example of the prevailing conceptions of women and her role during the Roaring 1920s. The flappers' ideal was motion with characteristics of intensity, energy, and volatility.

All of this is clearly antithetical to the concept of the hijab. The hijab is 100% incompatible with this concept, and as such the hijab cannot be approved, it can only be condemned.

The semiotic content of girls in military-styled school uniforms, women confidently wearing the best clothes, women speaking with authority, women holding guns, women training, and women's fitness are all just extensions of the same power lattice. It's the nexus where action, feminist theory, political agitation, sexuality both hetero and homo, and basic level competition and violence all overlap.

If you keep an animal inside a cage and feed it food all the time, it will become fat and disgusting and unhealthy, and it will forget how to hunt. But if you open the cage and liberate it, and let it hunt as it pleases, it becomes toned and aggressive.

The same is true with humans.

There is an effect on the brain that you get when you exercise as well. The euphoric feeling that we get after particularly strenuous work, or sparring with someone, or driving aggressively, or shooting a gun, or having sex, that is not just a mental thing, it's a hormone rush.

Women should not be striving for a comfortable life. We should be striving to get that rush whenever feasible. We should be striving for perfect power and perfect beauty. This can only be accomplished through aggressive competition in those areas.
#14462541
Good thread Abu Rashid.

Recall though too that modest attire came along well before Islam, and is still practiced by the 'Old Believers' of Christian Orthodoxy, for example. You won't find much muttering against male and female modesty in Islam from me.
#14462546
Rei. That is an excellent series of posts. Very well thought out and informative. I read them twice.

Even if there were some body-image benefits from Muslim modesty laws, they come at a dreadful cost world wide. Female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, early marriage, beatings, sequestration at home, forbidding certain jobs to women....on and on.

I find any attempt to frame the traditional or modern Islamic view of the role of women in society as somehow fair, not to mention beneficial, as preposterous. Islam virtually enslaves women in a great many places. This is indefensible. Further. In those places where Islam displays a more liberal view of the role of women there is a faint voice (where there is any voice at all) of condemnation for the abuses detailed above.

Sorry Abu Rashid. Your study is far too little and far too late. It is a feather in a whirlwind.
#14462567
Latinas and Blacks also have a more positive body image in the West compared to white women. This is because in their communities, a more curvaceous body is ideal rather than the pin thin model look that a lot of Whites seem to favor. Same with Muslims. A plump woman is considered attractive. Besides, Muslims don't care about figures as much as they care about skin color. There is a huge obsession with white skin. You can see it everywhere. If you think that only Westerners have strict ideal beauty standards that women must strive for, just google hijab and see for yourself. It seems like all the stores selling hijabs are advertising female beauty. All you see are a bunch of attractive white women striking flirty poses and wearing tons of make-up. No love for the dark skinned sisters.

https://uniquehijabs.com/

ISLAMIC DUCK FACE

Image

Image


Image



Isn't hijab supposed to be about not attracting unwanted attention? Well, these women are all wearing colorful and attention grabbing clothes as well as a bunch of make-up. In the West, the hijab is a joke because a lot of girls are forced to wear it and they are undercover hoes as a result of their oppressed upbringing. Those that wear it out of choice are also hypocritical because they wear tight clothes and pounds of make-up. What is the point? Make-up is for enhancing beauty and hijab is about hiding beauty. Do they cancel each other out? So hypocritical. The only way that women can adhere to the modest clothing rule in Islam is by wearing the burkha aka garbage bags and that is truly oppressive. Even niqabs can showcase beauty because as any Muslim sister will tell you, a ton of eyeliner is a must when you are wearing a niqab.
#14462612
Drlee wrote:Rei. That is an excellent series of posts. Very well thought out and informative. I read them twice.

Even if there were some body-image benefits from Muslim modesty laws, they come at a dreadful cost world wide. Female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, early marriage, beatings, sequestration at home, forbidding certain jobs to women....on and on.

Pretty much. It's just a bad idea all around.
#14462691
annatar1914,
annatar1914 wrote:Recall though too that modest attire came along well before Islam, and is still practiced by the 'Old Believers' of Christian Orthodoxy, for example. You won't find much muttering against male and female modesty in Islam from me.

Yes Christians should be wearing modest clothing too, but most Christian groups do not mandate it, in fact most discourage it I think.

Drlee,
Drlee wrote:Even if there were some body-image benefits from Muslim modesty laws, they come at a dreadful cost world wide. Female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, early marriage, beatings, sequestration at home, forbidding certain jobs to women....on and on.

What on earth do these things have to do with hijab??? Other than the fact you are unable to separate anything Muslims supposedly do. It's all just one big blob of 'Muslimness' to you isn't it?
#14462732
No.

Hijab is simply part of the dress code under Islamic law, just as covering your private parts is in most Western countries. So that means every citizen, would need to cover their bodies to the extent Islam has mandated.

There is a common misconception that hijab is some kind of religious symbol or cultural tradition etc. this is just plainly false. Hijab is simply the level of public decency Islamic law prescribes for its society.
#14462734
abu_rashid wrote:No.

Hijab is simply part of the dress code under Islamic law, just as covering your private parts is in most Western countries. So that means every citizen, would need to cover their bodies to the extent Islam has mandated.

There is a common misconception that hijab is some kind of religious symbol or cultural tradition etc. this is just plainly false. Hijab is simply the level of public decency Islamic law prescribes for its society.


Yes, but it is up to them to convert to Islam.
#14462870
abu_rashid wrote:annatar1914,
Yes Christians should be wearing modest clothing too, but most Christian groups do not mandate it, in fact most discourage it I think.



As I said, there are traditional Orthodox Christian groups that take seriously the injunctions proscribing immodest garb, and were doing so at a time before Islam. Islam's proscriptions for wearing certain clothing in society and against other 'lack of clothing' shall we say, were nothing too unusual at a time when men and women in the Roman Empire of the time wore clothing from head to toe ankle to neck and to the wrist, with women wearing head coverings.

Doesn't @Drlee have VHA? If he works for the V[…]

A short while back, I posted an OP noting that Pr[…]

There's no universal 100% agreed upon definition […]

The News organisations are only doing their job. T[…]