>And so fucking what if it's a "Western preference"? Does that mean
>it's some sort of contaminant against which the pure Iranian and/or
>Indian society has to be protected?
>
>Doug
Veiling was originally adopted from outside. Here's a passage from Nikki Keddie's intro to Women in Middle Eastern History (Nikki Keddie/Beth Baron eds.)
"As many "Islamic" customs go back to the pre-Islamic Near East, something should be said about that before discussing Islam. the first known reference to veiling [is] an Assyrian legal text of the 13th century B.C.... veiling and seclusion are ancient Near East customs, long adopted by all major language groups in the Middle East."
Keddie has something very blunt to say about what purpose seclusion/segregation serves, regardless of changing customs about whether to veil or not to veil:
"Some writers, reacting to Western hostility to veiling, deny its significance. Although veiling and seclusion do not prevent women from living varied and significant lives, they are parts of a system where males are dominant and females are to be controlled. The system affects even non-secluded women, who are expected to be modest and circumspect and are subject to sanctions if they transgress the rules. It is true that the overall system is more important than veiling as such."
And here's a note on fashion:
"... current reporters who are surprised that Arabian and Iranian women may wear jeans or miniskirts below their veils are really reporting nothing new, as Muslim women at home have long followed fashions, often ones from far away.'