Salute to Scarves

Since this is scarf week on Mahablog — WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan praises Nancy Pelosi’s scarf wardrobe.

I see people on the Right are still blasting Pelosi for wearing a scarf in a mosque, calling it a sign of subservience to men. I think Muslims think of it as subservience to God, but never mind. There are several religious traditions that require headcoverings, either during worship or all the time. Many orders of Catholic nuns still require wearing a veil. Amish men and women seem always to be wearing hats or bonnets. Orthodox Jewish men and women also keep something on their heads all day long. Here in the New York City area Jewish women often wear chic berets or retro-chic snoods.

Sikh men are supposed to wear turbans. Apparently there is something of a turban crisis going on, as young Sikh men have decided that keeping 20 feet of cloth wrapped around their heads disrupts their flow.

Religions have all kinds of dress codes; Buddhist temples usually require the removal of shoes. I know of one Buddhist monastery that won’t allow people into the meditation hall wearing jewelry (beyond very modest ear studs) or T-shirts with messages on them, in which case the visitor is asked to wear the shirt inside out.

One point that seems to be lost on some Pelosi critics is that I doubt she would have been allowed into a mosque with her head bare. I suppose she could have not gone into the mosque, but maybe she really wanted to. It’s what we call a “choice.”

Update: Speaking of religion — see E.J. Dionne, “Answers To the Atheists.”

8 thoughts on “Salute to Scarves

  1. It isn’t just “the Right” blasting Pelosi. The corporate press/media is (again? still?) pushing the Republican propaganda.

    Why aren’t the leading lights of the Democratic Party pushing back? Why don’t the presidential candidates defend their Speaker?

    I expect this bullshit from the Republicans. It is only going to get worse. What bends my brain is that the Democratic Party has still not learned how to respond to these attacks.

    Every Democrat who holds or seeks elected office ought to be out there calling the White House and Republicans liars and hypocrites, in those terms.

  2. Sweet, the photo I found of Condi in a headscarf that maha posted a few days ago was shown on C-SPAN by Brian Lamb. He showed a printout of that posting.

  3. Well, I can understand why the Democrats (and by that I mean the ones on TV) don’t fight back on this one. It’s over a frigging scarf, it’s not WMD. Of course, it is an attack on the Speaker of the House, but she is a strong woman who can defend herself and whose actions speak plainly of her integrity.

    If Democrats went yelling and pointing fingers at every childish jibe the Republicans (again, just the ones on TV) make, they’d be leaving themselves open to more assaults. If one is on the constant attack, there is no room to defend -effectively-. The way I was taught to consider people is this little rhyme: “Soft of eye an’ light of touch; Speak ye little, listen much.” (essentially it means wise men say little, while the fool speaks for vanity of his voice.)

    Let the Administration keep up at the insults and jibes while Democrats refute the dangerous lies in unison and provoke more open attacks on Democrats. People are already watching for the lies — soon the Administration will become too bold for even their perceived power and say/do something no one can defend or take back… enough rope to hang themselves… or impeach.

  4. I suppose the righties also think that real men should not remove their baseball caps when entering a mosque (or church).

  5. It seems apparent that whenever a Democrat does something laudable, as Pelosi did, that the vast right wing echo machine gets out the long claws/swift boats.
    The louder the right wing screams we can tell how exemplary the Democrat has been.

  6. Not to be outdone, a few days ago the NY Post bleated “W Kicks Nancy’s Assad”, which seemed to completely bely the entire right wing attack on Nancy Pelosi. Call it madness, call it brilliant. It’s out there and we are talking about it.

    It’s never about the truth. It’s always simply about keeping people diverted. How many people have been really talking about a peace process in the Middle East?

    I rest my case.

  7. This administration isn’t interested in a “peace process,” David. It’s only interested in a war process.

Comments are closed.