Booth told, that this traditional (and also deeply decent) dress part can be understood as womens contribution to womans fight for just-woman (emancipated as I understand) spirit. Of course it has minimal impact on global womans emancipation, liberation - womens consciousness. But on the other hand if there is two "kind of women", they can easily differ in directions, where their emancipation from mans dictate lies, and in ways they achieve steps towards it too.In other words, there is no problem, generally, if one specie of woman feels way of another species woman to emancipation as being just "deemancipation". But that is just generally, so many misunderstandings and fake global moods may occur, when different emancipations are to be equalled.
But going back to basic subject, no way different minded/grown women should feel problem in goals of "alien culture" emancipation. I use alien culture, because it is just how can westerner woman percieve Islamic women. Before all, "alien culture" is term which current culture is widely stuck on, but which is latent to global discussion machine. So there is no reason to overestimate importance of cultural non-alignments, because what always was and will be colateral goal, or most prior condition to emancipation of any kind of class, is its self-perception. It means, that if currently Islamic women find it provocative, radical or just-woman-subject, so if anyway such woman percieves somehow clearly, that keeping decent tradition (too decent for break-all-tabu goaled west) is in align with fighting for important piece of womens world, against management of global society, or man, then already this conclusion made possible in that woman is great step forward, regarding any ongoing fights for womens freedom. Shortly woman fighting for something percieved as fighting against marginalisation of some womans decisions is already goal given, because selfesteem has new autonomous country to shield.
However, we should also take in account, that western woman already lost its emancipation fights tragically. Its because first part of it was men driven fiction, and second part was lost on crossroads, where feminists met homosexuals, and where emancipation drive continued without notice under flag of sexual revolution (what can be easily subscribed under long bill of just-Christian demonisation of womens body, mixed with despotic stupid owners of women excusing their dominance/ignorance with just Christian concept of subordinance of women, abusing her body in the same way as usual man, for genetic excuses). Todays western fights for womens spirit aren't much consciouss, when it comes to tabu-breaking or decision territory-reallocating. Simply there are two extremes of "feminism", and one "empty middle": first kind considers almost everything usual wrong, starting with returning sexual freedoms and expression just at point where ancient western man supposed women to be brainwashed from sexuality, while he just needed to provide himself mechanism of sexual privilege and intercourse controll; second extreme is less thinking, but more feeling, what is "gender freedom" - this type of fighter just impulsively uses any provocation and any eccentricity, what in such all-but-moral based society ends in higher sexual activity, with, if not prevailing perversions then horrible mistakes and dissatisfactions - this emancipation fighter is maybe more recognized by such term, and has higher "natural status", but results for society can be assumed as zero, or less; third kind is definitely mother-based roots fighter, but in such unrooted culture this club only achieves to deliver some quotations when it comes to Day of Mothers, or so. That's because this "median" between somewhere-lost extremes of emancipation is only able to bring those fighter women only idea of unity on mind. And must be reminded, that even such off-discussion idea, as women-unity, must be underscored by "motherhood"... It seems like if you are trying to convince blind rabbit by using mirror, that he is really rabbit, and if you do not see that he is blind and you failed to make convince him, you are trying to pull his hairs and ears to see them in that mirror. Then actually you are blind to see, that he is really blind too.
But whatever, mismatching sexual revolution with emancipation and conflict of culture of decency and culture of tabu-breaking are great gaps between emancipations on west and others.
From another, general perspective, it is both understandable: that decent tradition-keeping woman recognizes first in western womans dress kind of valuing myself only as another ones sexual object; and that western woman doesn't have an option to go behind term "oppression", when it seems that Islamic woman "thrown away all gifts and self-bound-values" by hiding her body and even face from unrelated public. Its because Muslim woman does not share values with western one, she doesn't go to street to attract. And its because western woman forgot, that you body is not destroyed forever, nor it appears black with husband, and finally that still Muslim woman and her parents have the voice in vote, who will be husband, and whatever, who will enjoy uncovered physical scene, or who will have opportunity to make correct compliments. Definitely western woman seems to be satisfied, if she recieve equally compliments from anonymous crowd and from her partner, while this wrong proportion is returned, when she recieves someone anonymous, as long term partner, or how it feels. Definitely this proportion of two cultures to "women with requirements" and "women accepting" branches makes it impossible to put both women-women-guardians under common flag.
What also deserves notice is, that western woman "considers" Islamic woman to be "forced into limitation", but when it comes to "legislative", it starts as "international decence" means adopting hosting countrys rules (even those in sexual intercourse mabe?), but when "legislative" starts to be discussed by lawyers, it finish in terms like "police must be able to identify any person" - which is definitely lie, and proof of no arguments behind all matter, at all.
What we see on other side, is that Muslim woman correctly recognize, that western "dress code" is derivation of mens will, but what she recognize mabe falsely, is that part of her own culture, even if publicly attacked, can be identified by western woman as emancipatory goal. But for Booth it stays, that she offered correct viewpoint to Muslim woman, when she is maltreated by western lawmakers, and at least final arguments, when maybe some Muslim and western women would have a discussion over this. I cannot really imagine, what Booth could offer further ... there is not really much options than 1) stupid lawmakers die out once 2) both women starts discussion and finish in stupid trying to give the second one "classes" - of whatever. And even if those classes would be both-sidely accepted, it would ended with two western women... because I don't know what provision has attractivity-based woman from understanding decence and marriage.
But to correct again whole article: both of them are somehow possibly on way to free themself from mens "bad habits". But it really doesn't mean western woman can gain from forcing piety over body, or that Islamic woman could gain from defecting piety for men to see. That would be both just stupid acts, and well known scenario - finishing with creation of stupid lawmakers...
For women every new step taken by themselves is a goal in self-determination fight. Relative values, as nakedness or covertness are not tools of such fight, but rather just its circumstances. Nothing worse than forcing culture to be cultural... because that is concretely - nazzi.
We must also mean beauty, when speaking of wide western womens misunderstood of hijab culture and spiritual inner world results. You, as western woman, would mabe argued, that Muslim woman is loosing "chance" to enjoy reflections of her beauty when hijab. If we just omit long discussion logically necessary when argument of general beauty impossible is layed, which would ended somewhere in "spiders are beautiful for spiders, not ants", we come just to big lie and hypocrisis, or rather cradle of lies. That because there should be minimal value for beauty, when woman thinks on herself. Only real value in life of woman, which is such additional, as self-estimations on beauty, would be, that, and if she is prized by her man: if he takes care, regards and is narrow with her, if they are equal in front of her - because both types of inequality in mans perception usually makes nothing good. Neither there is some genetical value reflected in beauty, as western people, and maybe not only these men believe, or what worse justly suppose. Simply body construction, face character are only expressions, making better relation candidates closer. Idea of man searching best fit woman by his "super efficient eye" between best fit beautiful-like, and succeeding is almost funny. Just almost, nothing more or less. And finally not really every girl "enjoys" to be shown to WIDE public. Thats why I recalled hypocrisy. You cannot enlarge your view of "exposing beauty and recieving nice reactions" to all of girls, and even normal girls are horribly humiliated by what you forgot "public" really means. Those are usual, unhappy, strange, small, high, assymetric, ethnical, religious, glassed, old-fashined, border-styled, improperly sized, improperly cared, not regarding todays obsessions "haired", strong, fat, intelligent, malnutrished, old style shaped, old style faced, extrovert, handicaped, ill, temporarily but visibly wounded, less intelligent: all of those girls are exposed to horrible reactions, and their psychic and intellectual base is actually slowly or faster destroyed by public, including men and women, who currently consider themselves "pretty enough to judge". And remember even girls considered in previous seansons most beautiful can suffer extensively in society by laugh, workplace or schoolplace terror, talks, histories and even physically, in the same manner of marginalisating them. So finally at least this could be absolute provision of hijab: that only few who like the person actually know her visage. You really rather select your partner yourself as Muslim woman, then should being western woman implicated that your "gift of beauty CAN be FINALLY exposed and ENJOYED". The most real is, that crowds are anonymous, and have no right to impose even "recognition chance" over you. I would never let crowds write laws on anything I wear, speak or watch - and so Muslim women are feeling actually VIOLENTLY and DISRESPECTLY TO SPIRIT AND WILL forced to do SHAMEFUL ADAPTATION. And if you feel both VIOLENCE and DISRESPECT above yourself, would you, western girl, be able to discuss a matters of "adaptation"? Or defensively argue on "legality" or "logicality" of "shaming"? I actually would even hailed my murderer, if someone would recommended me chirurgical removal of my eyes to save me, although he has another options.
