Martha Nussbaum's Essay 'Veiled Threats'

The Burqa Ban

For some women wearing a veil is not something that is forced on them but rather a choice of their own. Martha Nussbaum and Maysan Haydar are both authors that try to explain their reasoning that veiling isn't an oppressive tool used against women. Martha Nussbaum's article “Veiled Threats”, is a political and philosophical take on why banning the burqa is a violation of human rights. On the other hand Maysan Haydar’s article “Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”, is a more humorous and personal take on why veiling shouldn't be as judged or stereotyped. Though Nussbaum and Haydar have equal goals this essay is being used to understand the main argument, claims and whether or not each article has any weaknesses.

Maysan Haydar

article “Veiled Intentions”, is written with the main argument that banning the shouldn’t be done because Muslims like her aren't forced to, but see it as a choice that women have a right to make. Maysan Haydar tries to convince her audience that her argument is valid by using ethos. Haydar tries this showing her own experiences living in America writing about experiences like being cat called by construction workers. Haydar claims that by wearing the veil she is able to be seen differently because of the veil. Haydar writes “...I embrace the veils modesty, which allows me to be seen as a whole person instead of a twenty-piece chicken dinner…”(Haydar 414). Maysan Haydar writes this as a way to show that the practice of veiling isn’t just oppression but can also be about safety and even lessen the oppression. Haydar also writes that wearing the veil she is able to have more authentic relationships with men. “...what made me attractive was my ability to relate to everyone one in a natural way,without all the confusing sexual pressures. Maysan Haydar puts this out to make others realize that veiling can be a chance to be more welcoming.
Martha Nussbaum’s article “Veiled Threats”, is about defending the right to wear the veil.

Martha Nussbaum main argument tries to convince her audience on The Stone, a philosophical blog that includes mostly educated and philosophical people like herself, by presenting evidence that introduces topics about religion and the first amendment. Nussbaum opposition says that by being covered there is a risk that people might see it as threat. Nussbaum disapproves this by talking about how “...many beloved and trusted professionals cover their faces all year round: surgeon, football players, dentists,skiers, and skaters…”(Nussbaum). Nussbaum uses this to make people understand that others discover their face and don’t face the same discrimination as other people do just because they are Muslim. Nussbaum also tries to defend the burqa from the criticism that it is oppressive, harmful, and used to try to put down women. Nussbaum explains in her article “...society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects. Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans- all of these products arguably, treat women as objects…”(Nussbaum). Nussbaum explores the hypocrisy of the argument made against her by showing that women are still oppressed with or without the

burqa.
Though both Martha Nussbaum and Maysan Haydar both express their reasons as to why banning the burqa is a violation on human rights and dignity. Martha Nussbaum presents a more logical and thought out argument than Haydar. Martha Nussbaum writes with more logos than Haydar because there is more to her presenting other people’s argument then crushing by then showing the hypocrisy. Maysan has weaker claims when she also points out that because she wears the veil it protects but this gives out a feeling that perhaps she is too optimistic. Maysan still gets cat called but to a lesser to degree. Maysan might also be alienating her audience, which is almost entirely feminist, by almost shaming the women not wearing the burqa getting catcalled instead of targeting the men how are cat calling..