The 'Other' Veil

The most interesting idea that came out of the talk given at the Diverse Student's Leadership Conference on muslim women covering for religious reasons is how it changed my idea of the oppression of women. I will admit that I had considered the fact that muslim women cover themselves a shame. I have been taught, in western culture, that women should be proud of themselves and have confidence, and that beauty should be shown to the world. Because I was brought up that way, I wrongly assumed it was the best way. I assumed it was the preferred way, and that only women who were oppressed and didn't have a choice wore veils to cover their heads and sometimes faces. An interesting point that the speaker brought up is that it is a silly question to ask if muslim women are oppressed. The better question to ask is, are WOMEN oppressed. Because we can't only think of oppression as a symbol such as a veil, visible to the outside world. Women are oppressed all over the world, even here in the United States, whether they wear a certain dress or not. The speaker emphasized that the majority of muslim women wear the veil out of choice so that they can feel more religious. She then showed us pictures that served to contrast the western view of the muslim woman, to stop generalizations. I know it is true that some muslim women are oppressed, but so are many Christian women. Do these women look oppressed? 

let me just add one more input. . . I still have a hard time believing that the veil is USUALLY not a sign of oppression. Ok, I know that the speaker has more authority on the subject than I do and she did influence me to change my stereotypes. However, one of her arguments is that the women wear it so that they can feel comfortable, and like they belong in their society. They would feel discriminated against if they did not cover (by bad looks if nothing else). To me, this is a clear sign of society oppressing them, because how much of it can we surely say is really their choice, and how much is what they think they should do so therefore it is their choice? 

LUCY

Lucy was an interesting story to me. First of all, it was nice that it was such a quick read. Secondly, Lucy's character isn't boring. I thought Sanjeev's character was dry, and Lucy's is a nice contrast to his. I just keep wondering what her background is. It seems like her mother loves her because she keeps sending her letters. I wonder what could have happened to make Lucy not open any of them. I hope the book ends by telling us a little about her background. Or I at least hope that we keep getting glimpses into her past thorough the story to explain some of her mannerisms. Isn't it interesting that in our culture we need an explanation of why someone is the way that they are? I remember we had this discussion about Othello and Iago. We were wondering why Iago does what he does. What is his motivation? Is there something more that jealousy? But Shakespeare didn't give us a background on Iago, nor on why Othello was so prone to jealousy as well. I think the author has given us a few hints as to why Lucy is cynical so far, but I know I want more information. Overall, it was an interesting story so far and I enjoyed it.

This Blessed House

The short story "This Blessed House" confused me a little bit. I had trouble figuring out the character of Sanjeev. Obviously he and his wife are both very intelligent because he went to MIT and she went to Stanford. It seems like he is already getting sick of her. Maybe that means he should have waited more than a few months to get married... anyway, the point is why did he marry her if he isn't sure if he even loves her? Maybe he was pulled into his mom's view, that he needs a wife for functional purposes, one that cooks and sews like the suitors from India. Maybe he figured that since he already had a grreat career and money in the bank, it made sense to have a wife as well. I can't tell, though, if he adores her (because it seems like that in some parts) or he regrets marying her (which seems to be the case more often than not). We'll see what we discuss in class I guess. . .

O

After watching the movie "O" I was thinking about how easily Shakespeare translates into different times and places. He's always thought to be such a universal playwright, and in most ways I agree that he is. I mean, he would have to be because after all, he took most of his ideas from ancient myths and stories and adapted them, so why can't we adapt those stories further to fit our life. Its just how history works. But some things just do work better in the time they were written. 

In the "olden days" honor was one of the most important things in a person's life. Thats why there were so many duels! Because it was just accepted that if someone offended your honor, you had to fight to get it back. Death was considered better in many cases that being dishonored. That is why I didn't think twice when I read "Othello" and found out that Othello had to kill Cassio and Desdemona for 'dishonoring' him. I still don't think its right, but it was easy to see how in the time of Shakespeare is was not surprising. 

In "O" im not sure if I feel the same way about how well this part translates. The overall theme of jealousy that Iago/Hugo feels is very easily to translate. But the fact that O feels he has to kill Mike and Dese is almost too far fetched for what we believe as an american society now. I know there is violence and crime in america, but this story line is less practical translated into the twenty first century than it was in the time of Shakespeare. 

Then I thought, "who would just jump to the conclusion that they need to kill the people that betrayed them?" I've known a lot of people that have been cheated on and they've never thought to commit murder over it. This is why I also think the character of O has inherent temper problems or some sort of complex to merit the drastic measures that he takes. He is for some reason more susceptible to the prodding of Hugo than "normal" people would be, because not just anyone in the world could be manipulated in the same way. 

This could also be true in part for Othello's character, but it is much harder for us to tell because we did not live in the place and the time. We can't be sure how much his surroundings influenced his actions and how much of it stemmed from insecurities. We can only make assumptions!