Sister Experiment

It began as a simple invite on Facebook, which I typically ignore, and has developed into a frustrated attempt at clarifying my point. The three sentence explanation of the event was enough to warrant frustration, but the mob mentality of those who joined elicited outright disgust. Woman across the internets rebelled against the man by exposing their flesh in what has been dubbed the Boobquake experiment. This event arose in response to the declaration by an Iranian cleric that recent quakes and threats of more in their region are due to women's immodesty (click here for original article). Feminists jumped to the frontlines to combat these apparent fear tactics to keep women in-line. Some participants are regarding it as harmless fun, others are avidly opposed to any comment which seems to teeter toward being against the movement, deeming it blasphemous to feminism and free society. I am of course referring to the responses I received against my critical analysis of the event. I assure you I maintain similar values regarding female pride and freedom from male oppression in all its forms, but my dispute is specifically aimed at the method of the movement as posted on facebook (must have account to view).
Never was my intention to defend those who stifle a woman's choice to dress in whatever manner she feels. However, responding to an outrage such as this with hatred and pointless insults does little to help the problem or promote the sort of empathetic consideration rights activists generally strive for. Rather than focusing merely on the words of this cleric, which we all agree are oppressive and potentially driven by misogynistic values, I dispute the need to demean him with insults for his religious beliefs. It is counter intuitive to defend equality of gender and sex with an attack on a set of religious ideals.

Others regard the event as a promotion of pride in one's body and freedom to express that pride. I commend any excuse to empower acceptance of oneself, but this event's explained purpose was to test the cleric's theory by encouraging free beings to dress in revealing clothing. My dispute lies with the writer's intentions. My impression was that the majority of those who clicked attend were reading the short explanation and deciding Yes it is stupid to think that, therefore I will participate by wearing my most provocative shirt, which is fun to do anyway. Quite a sacrifice that is indeed, and such an outrageous demonstration compared to what it's like any other day. The problem goes over-looked. The continuing threat of disaster either spurred the Iranian cleric to make absurd claims out of panic and a public's need for answers (not so bizarre), or was an easy opportunity to shame women back into submission. But we gloss past attempting to understand a different way of thinking/living/dressing, straight to proving wrong what we are already convinced to be an absurd claim. I participated by showing my tits, that shows I stand up for women's rights. Is pride in one's body expressed by simply revealing skin? Is this not conveying a different kind of disrespect for self?
Is it all just meant to be fun and games? Fine if it is, but don't pretend to be doing it for some great cause. Of course America was gung-ho to show off some cleavage. Does that imply real concern? While this is a surefire way to pass around information (however unprocessed and critically received it may have been), I feel other opportunities for real gain are sacrificed, like igniting actual debate. What about striving to learn about a culture, curiosity for why they believe what they do? They consider us just as wrong as we generalize them to be. This seems a basic lack of empathy. Instead, I see young adults quick to dehumanize someone viewed as a threat (sound familiar yet?), as evidenced by the responses to my post on the event page. Thus we become the very person we detest (the cycle, only a tangent if you don't get the connection). Get me a pair of shears.

An alternative approach: Consider the day of silence method. Participants vow to remove themselves from vocal communication for one day in peaceful rebellion in order to spread awareness for the unheard oppressed. It sets the conditions for participants to gain empathy for those they represent, forcing them to experience losing one's voice and ability or courage to protest. Typically participants carry around a slip of paper explaining the purpose of their silence and who they represent. Observers are drawn into the movement when participants force them to either devise other means of interacting with their silenced comrade or ignore their presence altogether. It creates odd challenges and often stirs emotional reactions, thus engaging all involved in the problem. While this may become just a welcome change from the grind for participants, it still encourages contemplation on the issue. Flaunting America's freedom to reveal skin only mocks those who are oppressed. This is juvenile rebellion against the men who enforce the rules. You might as well twist your thumbs at your ears and taunt Nya-ny-ny- nya-nya.

Compare walking around in America wearing a revealing outfit that only spreads an awareness of little relation to oppression, to walk around covered enough that friends must hear your voice in order to recognize you. Instead, consider designating a day when particpants wear covering clothing. Seeing a woman in full garb would be more shocking to the psychi (and not just the hormones). The associations we link to the idea of hiding one's physical identity, such as fear, burglars to murders, the daunting masked figure, middle easterns to terrorists, these all trigger thought for the observer. We are familiar with the image of an islamic women covered head-to-toe but how many of us have actually faced her? The mystery of the unknown is always the best tool for stirring imagination.
And because earthquakes happen regularly, if we all dress conservatively and the average remains the same, Boobquake's point will be proven still.

Here is my counter proposal: I will conduct my own personal experiment, since I get the feeling not many would dare try this. I will cover my body according to the dress code of Islamic women (it apparently varies between city, region, individual, and religion). Originally, May Day seemed a suitable date to conduct this experiment, since I don't necessarily need to coordinate with other participants (unless it received enough interest), but May 1st lands on a Saturday. A week day would assure the presence of more observers on-campus and at work (still deciding when). I will track passing reactions of others and in-depth reactions from those in closer proximity to my daily activities (friends, co-workers, teachers, classmates). I will also record any challenges or issues encountered throughout the experiment. To diffuse any assumptions right away, I am not prude, not affiliated to any religious organization that believes in conservative dress, nor am I attached to any bipolarity of right and wrong. My goal here is to exemplify a method of activism, to educate myself on the oppression of Islamic women by trying to understand how it feels to be void of one's identity (yet still be on display), and to encourage observers to ponder this very issue.

If you feel I am completely off-base, I invite you to share your view. Comment below.
I uphold utmost respect for Jen for her own analytical conclusions and her careful conduct toward the issues the article stirs in her follow-up article.

The following are a few related links I found while exploring this issue:
Here - One Islamic man's outline of dress expectations and musings about immodesty.
Here - Geologic assessment of earthquake hazard in Iran