The Stigmatization of Unveiled women in Morocco. The Case of Female Students in the University

Tesis de Máster , 2020 , 90 Páginas , Calificación: 11

Estudios de género

The infamous controversy of the veil in Western Europe, started by the Foulard Affair since 1989 in France, where Muslim veiled women were facing a stigmatization exerted by the state, and the Western community in general, raised the debate of whether the veil is a civil liberty, or a religious, patriarchal symbol which is not compatible within a secular state. This research is dealing with both concepts of veil and stigmatization; however, it is to some extent a contrast to this controversy. Stigmatization of veiled women in the West, and of unveiled women in Muslim societies are in a way or another close to each other, a double-sided coin.

Even though, stigmatization of the veiled and of the unveiled, the Western environment and the Islamic environment, makes both controversies switch sides. In the West, it is the veiled who is stigmatized, which means that the Muslim community here is the victim; however, in Muslim societies, Muslims may be the offenders, as far as veiling the woman is concerned. Obviously, Muslims living in MENA region are supportive of the civil freedom to wear a veil in the West. However, in Muslim societies, the same concept of civil freedom to not wear a veil is violated. Without forgetting to mention that in a society characterized by
patriarchy and male dominance, even veiled women are likely to be facing stigmatization and oppression, such as in sexual harassment, sexual abuse, discrimination and physical violence.

Table of Content:

Acknowledgments:

Chapter One: Introduction
Purpose of the study:
Thesis Statement:
Discipline and Sub-Disciplines:
Thesis Statement as Questions:
Significance of the study:
Definitions:
Delimitations, Limitations and Assumptions:

Chapter Two: Literature Review
An Androcentric, patriarchal Foundation
The Infamous Dichotomy: Sex/Gender
An Androcentric Foundation
Patriarchy
The Imposition of Veil
Symbolic violence and the economy of symbolic goods in Masculine Domination
The veil
The veil and leftist feminism in Morocco

Chapter Three: Methodology
Subjects
Instrumentation
Procedures
Statistical Analysis

Chapter Four: Results
Order of presentation
Descriptive data
Results of Statistical testing
Interpretations of Statistical Results

Chapter Five: Conclusions/Discussion
Summary of findings
Conclusions Drawn by results
Recommendations for Further Research

References:

Appendix:

Acknowledgments:

This monograph became a reality with the kind support and help of many individuals, to whom I would like to express my sincere appreciation.

Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr.Mokhtari, and Dr.Karkaba for the useful, and insightful discussions concerning the topic. I also want to thank all the professors who contributed to our training in Master Gender Studies, at the English Department, in the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, Beni-Mellal.

I want to thank all my friends, who were supportive during the procedure of writing this monograph.

And finally, I want to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my parents, for the continuous encouragement and support to achieve this. I also want to thank my brother and sister, and all the members who were supportive in my family.

Abstract:

The infamous controversy of the veil in Western Europe, started by the Foulard Affair since 1989 in France, where Muslim veiled women were facing a stigmatization exerted by the state, and the Western community in general, raised the debate of whether the veil is a civil liberty, or a religious, patriarchal symbol which is not compatible within a secular state. This research is dealing with both concepts of veil and stigmatization; however, it is to some extent a contrast to this controversy. Stigmatization of veiled women in the West, and of unveiled women in Muslim societies are in a way or another close to each other, a double-sided coin. Even though, stigmatization of the veiled and of the unveiled, the Western environment and the Islamic environment, makes both controversies switch sides. In the West, it is the veiled who is stigmatized, which means that the Muslim community here is the victim; however, in Muslim societies, Muslims may be the offenders, as far as veiling the woman is concerned.

Obviously, Muslims living in MENA region are supportive of the civil freedom to wear a veil in the West. However, in Muslim societies, the same concept of civil freedom to not wear a veil is violated. Without forgetting to mention that in a society characterized by patriarchy and male dominance, even veiled women are likely to be facing stigmatization and oppression, such as in sexual harassment, sexual abuse, discrimination and physical violence.

The Stigmatization of Unveiled women in Morocco: The Case of Female Students in the University.

Chapter One: Introduction

Purpose of the study:

In his book “Masculine domination” (2001), Pierre Bourdieu selected the “Berbers of Kabilya” as an instrument of socioanalysis of the “unconscious androcentrism”, which could influence the “unconscious schemes of perception and appreciation”.

“the cultural tradition that has been maintained there constitutes a paradigmatic realization of the Mediterranean tradition (this is readily confirmed by consulting the ethnological research devoted to the question of honour and shame in various Mediterranean societies - Greece, Italy, Spain, Egypt, Turkey, Kabylia, etc); and on the other hand, that the whole European cultural domain undeniably shares in that tradition, as is shown by comparison of the rituals observed in Kabylia with those collected by Arnold Van Gennep in early twentieth-century France” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 6)

Bourideu here mentioned two points, which elaborates the idea of what is strange and familiar about the shared perception of Androcentrism and Phalonarcissistic vision, in a way or another, in both Kabylia and Mediterranean area and Europe.

Bourdieu's “Masculine Dominance” is an important reference in the theoretical part (Literature Review) of this research; this book could empower the theoretical background of this study, as it is one of the important approaches dealing with male dominance, in a Mediterranean environement, which includes Morocco, where the study will take place. In the theoretical part, alongside with “Masculine Dominance”, there is “The Man-made World: Or, Our Androcentric Culture” (1911), by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who was the first scholar to introduce the term “androcentrism” as an analytic concept, and “Sexual Politics” (2000), by Kate Millet, which introduced the key concept of patriarchy to feminist thought; moreover, there are other important references that were fruitfull to the theoretical part and the methodology of the research, which will be introduced in numerous sections of this research.

Basing itself on such a theoretical background, this research is concerned with a topic which is a double sided coin. The first side of this coin is stigmatization of women, and the other side is stigmatiazation of the unveiled; the full view of this coin is how far there is stigmatization of women in general, and of unveiled Women in specific, in Morocco. Indeed, it is impossible to see both sides of a coin at once, without a mirror reflecting it. In other words, each topic should be discussed individually; however, the coin here is not stable: it is a rolling coin that rolls infinitly, like in an “inception”, which shows both faces, one after the other in a quick manner. This causes an overlapping of frames, which requires the total attention of the researcher.

To sum up, the main purpose of this research is to investigate how far women in general, and unveiled women in specific are stigmatized, in the public sphere in general, and the university in specific.

Thesis Statement:

It is hypothesized that stigmatization of women would be more intense if the female is unveiled, in an environment where she must be veiled.

Discipline and Sub-Disciplines:

Gender Studies, sociology (Sociology of Gender), Statistics.

Thesis Statement as Questions:

The questions below represent the different sides of the thesis statement: (the discussion of these questions will be more elaborated further in this study).

1- To what extent is Moroccan society fundamentalist, patriarchal and characterized by its male dominance?
2- How does patriarchy influence and manipulate its dominated subjects?
3- if a female is not wearing a veil, will this cause her more stigmatization?
4- Does the veil protect the female from stigmatization?
5- How do unveiled females experience dominance and oppression in the university?

Significance of the study:

Studying such a problematic will lead to important conclusions that would reflect to what extent Moroccan society is fundamentalist, patriarchal and male dominant. As well as understanding the way patriarchy influences and manipulates its dominated subjects (women), to be more and more submissive to its agenda. Moreover, to understand how unveiled females undergo dominance and oppression that would be potentially exerted by males, who are granted superiority from patriarchal institutions (family, society, religion etc.); and finally, to investigate if this could affect gender relations inside the campus. These are the objectives of this study, as well as the stimuli which trigger research curiosity to conduct the study.

Definitions:

- Stigmatization: “ The action of describing or regarding someone or something as worthy of disgrace or great disapproaval.” (Oxford Languages, as cited in google dictionary).
- The Veil: “A piece of very thin material , worn especially by women to protect or hide the face, or as part of a hat, etc.” (Oxford Learner's Dictionaries). (In an Islamic context, the veil is not protecting or hiding only the face; the veil in Islam is covering the femal's whole body, except for hands, and face. A further discussion of this will take place in The Veil section).
- Fundamentalism (religious): “ A movement or belief calling for a return to the basic texts or ‘fundamentals' of revealed religion - usually contrasted, therefore, with modernism and liberalism in religion. The term has been applied to Protestant trends within *Christianity, since the 1920s, and recently to trends within *Islam. Despite its theological character it is usually linked to projects of social reform and the acquisition of political power.” ( Marshall, 1994, p.192).
- Androcentrism: this involves a view of the world from a male perspective. Women are percieved not as subjects in history but as passive objects, acted upon rather than acting. (Lupton et al., 1992, p.60)
- Patriarchy: “Literally ‘rule of father'; the term was originally used to describe social systems based on the authority of male heads of the household. It has now acquired a more general usage, especially in some feminist theories, where it has come to mean male domination in general. (Marshall, 1994, p:383)

Delimitations, Limitations and Assumptions:

This section will list the delimitations, limitations and assumptions of the researcher. First, the delimitations are: the clarity and straightforwardness of the questionnaire in order to avoid misunderstandings, confusions and misinterpretations, as well as skipped answers; moreover, the sample size should include respected numbers of participants, from both veiled and unveiled women. Second, the limitation in this study is the impossibility of delivering the questionnaire hand to hand in 2020, due to the Corona virus pandemic, which would minimize the contact between the researcher and the respondents. Third, concerning assumptions, this study was considering the possibility that the sample size would not be large enough; however, the fair distribution between veiled and unveiled women, where we might have females who experienced both being veiled and unveiled, would come up with important results.

Chapter Two: Literature Review.

An Androcentric, patriarchal Foundation.

The Infamous Dichotomy: Sex/Gender.

Giving the facts that numerous works dealt with the debate of distinguishing between what is sexual (sex) and what is cultural (gender), and listed different gender stereotypes, and that the problematic of this work is more of a depth, the necessity to discuss this dichotomy is not major. The problematic of this work is overcoming the basic debate of sex and gender to discuss concepts that are solid examples of how essentialist societies perceive this dichotomy, and act upon their perception, whether consciously or unconsciously, when a process of producing and reproducing the “eternalized” androcentric view continuously takes place. However, we cannot begin this discussion without, even if in brief, stopping at this debate. “taken separately and physically, we are animals, genus homo; taken socially and psychically, we are, in varying degree, human; and our real history lies in the development of this humanness.” (Gilman, 1911, p.8). To understand how Homo Sapiens' nature influenced their human culture, we can bring the example of “the sheep” into the discussion. In the first chapter of her book “The Man-Made World: Our Androcentric Culture”, Perkins gave, “inoffensively”, the “metaphor” or example of the sheep in order to approach the biological nature of species. Sheep -rams and ewes- have evolved differently. Because of having the instinct of what Perkins described as the “belligerent spirit of the male”, and the fact that “function comes before organ”, rams' developed large and solid horns; rams' “quarrelsome disposition”, where the ram “passionately” butt his rivals was a stimulus that urged the need to develop such texture of horns. Ewes on the other hand “exhibits love and care for the other ones”. Perkins stated that “Mr. goat”, “Mr. Buffalo”, “Mr. Antelope”, and “Mrs. goat”, “Mrs. Buffalo”, and “Mrs. Antelope” are respectively the same as rams and ewes. Thus, biology defined and developed different and separate instincts, a male belligerent instinct, and a female mother instinct.

“We may now generalize and clearly state: That is masculine which belongs to the male—to any or all males, irrespective of species. That is feminine which belongs to the female, to any or all females, irrespective of species. That is ovine, bovine, feline, canine, equine or asinine which belongs to that species, irrespective of sex.” (Perkins 1911 p.6).

Humans' history is of a very short period of time when compared to homo sapiens' existence. Taking the ‘archaic' homo sapien for example, whose fossils dated between 300.000 and 150.000 years of age, and compare this dating to human culture; the latter could be traced back to 100.000 years with simple symbolic behavior and artistic expression; however, complex cultures similar to ours - modern humans - did not appear until about 40.000 years. But real written history appeared only few thousand years from now, and this history was constructed under an androcentric supervision, dominance and censor.

“Our historic period is not very long. Real written history only goes back a few thousand years, beginning with the stone records of ancient Egypt. During this period, we have had almost universally what is here called an Androcentric Culture. The history, such as it was, was made and written by men.” (Perkins 1911 p.9)

In order to understand how hegemonic societies perceives the “nature” of gender, we can bring into discussion the ‘social division' discussed by Bourdieu (2001). There is a 'system of homologous oppositions' responsible for the division between what is a male and what is a female, what is masculine and what is feminine; as this division is inserted both objectively and subjectively into this system. The system of homologous oppositions makes a clear cut between oppositions and agents assigned to them: "up/down, above/below, in front/behind, right/left, straight/curved (and twisted), dry/wet, spicy/bland, light/dark, outside(public)/inside(private), etc." (Bourdieu, 1998, p:7). According to Millet (1970), the temperament formulates human personality under “stereotyped lines of sex category”.

“based on the needs and values of the dominant group and dictated by what its members cherish in themselves and find convenient in subordinates: aggression, intelligence, force and efficacy in the male; passivity, ignorance, docility, “virtue”, and ineffectuality in the female.” (Millet, 1975, p.26)

This system blends both the objective and subjective, which creates what is defined in the quotation below as the ‘natural attitude' or the ‘doxic experience'. this attitude that seems natural, or doxa that seems absolute is a crucial feature in ‘naturalizing' and ‘eternalizing' the essentialist androcentric social construction. by eternalizing and naturalizing this construction, the ‘doxic experience' justifies and legitimizes sexual division, and as a result creates a hierarchical relation between the male (dominant) and the female (dominated).

“It is the concordance between the objective structures and the cognitive structures, between the shape of being and the forms of knowledge, between the course of the world and expectations about it, that makes possible what Husserl described under the name of the 'natural attitude' or 'doxic experience' -but without pointing to its social conditions of possibility. This experience apprehends the social world and its arbitrary divisions, starting with the socially constructed division between the sexes, as natural, self-evident, and as such contains a full recognition of legitimacy.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.9). A conventional norm in traditional/essentialist societies is that anything that seems to be natural, self-evident and legitimate is also, by nature, unquestionable, ethical and even sacred. Most, if not all essentialist societies are characterized by their androcentric vision.

An Androcentric Foundation.

“The mental, the mechanical, the social development, was almost wholly theirs. We have, so far, lived and suffered and died in a man-made world. So general, so unbroken, has been this condition, that to mention it arouses no more remark than the statement of a natural law. We have taken it for granted, since the dawn of civilization, that "mankind" meant men- kind, and the world was theirs.” (Gilman, 1911, p.9)

we can have a general understanding of androcentrism through the quote listed above, alongside with the following definition: “Androcentrism refers to the propensity to center society around men and men's needs, priorities, and values and to relegate women to periphery.” (H.Bailey et al., 2018). The term androcentrism came to prominence with the publishing of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's book The Man-made World: Or, Our Androcentric Culture; where she described the culture to be androcentric or Man-made.

Whereas Gilman approached androcentrism sociologically, Sandra Bem (1993) came up with a psychological approach to it; in her book The Lenses of Gender, “according to Bem (1993), androcentrism places men at the center of society making men's bodies, thoughts, and experiences the focus.” (H.Bailey et al., 2018 p:2). “to use Bem's (1993) language, women are “sex-specific” compared with men who are regarded as gender neutral.” Bem (1993, as cited in H.Bailey et al., 2018). Thus, the male who is considered to be “gender-neutral” is at the forefront of society, while the female who is “sex-specific” is in the spotlight of restrictions and limitations arranged by the male himself.

The androcentric vision influences society, and vice versa. One of the major components of a traditional “social contract” is religion. Thus, religion can influence the androcentric vision, and the androcentric vision by its turn, can interpret the religious speech according to its androcentric perception. Taking the following verse from the bible for example: “man shall not live on bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8:3, New King James Version). In New Living Translation man in this verse can refer to people; otherwise, what shall a woman live on, it is not mentioned; thus, the verse is addressing people as “man”. Another example where the male is people, while women are their possession can be found in Quran, verse 14 Surah Al Imran, and here is an official translation of the verse into English: “Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with him the best return.” (3:14). In this verse, there is a description of what people desire; in the mention of the latter we have women in the same listing as gold, silver and fine branded horses. Even if the meaning of the verse and the position of the woman in it is crystal clear, we must mention the certified interpretations in Islamic religious law Shariaa; there is a serious debate on how to interpret Quran; however, in Shariaa one cannot interpret it with opinion. Quran's interpretation is restricted, it could be processed in two ways only: first, to interpret it with the inherited Maathur, meaning interpretations coming directly from the prophet and what was delivered by his companions Sahaba. Second, to interpret it with opinion Raii; however, to interpret with opinion, the interpretation must not be contradictory to the inherited; otherwise, the interpretation is not accepted. Interpretations contradictory to the inherited are forbidden. Thus, the interpretation with mere opinion is not allowed in Islam.

In the interpretation of this verse in Tabari's interpretation, one of the certified interpretations in Islamic religious law, Tabari states that beautified for people is loving what they desire of women and sons and the rest of what was listed. (Tabari, 883). Tabari's interpretation does not clarify whether people here mean men and women or only men; instead, it emphasizes that women are a desire beautified to people (men) as the rest of the listed desires. Just for the sake of conformation, the interpretation of Ibn Kathir marks androcentrism even more. Ibn Kathir did not declare neither the year he started his book, nor the year he finished it; however, it is inferred from historical events that he approximately finished his book in (1357-1358). In the interpretation of this verse in his book, Ibn Kathir states that Allah is informing about kinds of resort beautified to people in this worldly life Dunia of women and sons, and Allah started with women “because strife with women is more severe” (Ibn Kathir, p:352). In both interpretations, it is precized that people are men, while women are a desire. Moving back to the debate about whether the interpretations are accurate or misled, whether Islam is androcentric or not, we can conclude that even if the interpretation was misled, it is a reflection to society's perception, which is characterized by an androcentric vision until nowadays.

“Ancestor worship”, as being defined in chapter two of The Man-made World, is what creates resistance, to maintain ancestors' traditions, which are considered as sacred and supreme. This resistance or ancestor worship does not accept embracing new rules, ethics, perceptions at the expanse of ancestors' heritage, which is in this case entirely androcentric. “Ancestor worship, that gross reversal of all natural law, is of wholly androcentric origin, it is strongest among old patriarchal races; lingers on in feudal Europe; is to be traced even in America today in a few sporadic efforts to magnify the deeds of our ancestors.” (Gilman 1911, p.16)

Patriarchy.

From the late 1960s, patriarchy was a key term when the radical movement, represented by the Women's Liberation Movement (WLM), came up with ideas that were extreme and shocking. The approach of the Women's Liberation Movement was distinct from other approaches- and mainly equal rights feminism- in terms of its starting point. First, radical feminism dipped down in the roots of women oppression, and presented its theory as a theory “of, by and for women”. Second, WLM perceived women's oppression as the “most fundamental and universal form of dominance, and as mentioned earlier, patriarchy was a key term to define that form of dominance. Third, the WLM proclaimed that “women represent a group that has interests opposed to those of men. Fourth, male power trespassed the borders and went from the public world to the private life. (Bryson, 2003)

“By the early 1970s, these new ideas were reflected in a substantial body of literature that included Kate Millett's Sexual Politics, Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of sex, Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, and Eva Figes' Patriarchal Attitudes (all first published in 1970); anthologies of some of the new manifestos, speeches and articles were also published in Betty and Theodore Roszak's Masculine/Feminine (1969), Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful (1970), Leslie Tanner's Voices From Women's Liberation (1970) and Michelle Wandor's The Body Politic (1972). While all of those were important manifestations of the new movement, it is the second chapter of Millett's Sexual Politics that was of the most theoretical importance, as it introduced into feminist thought the key concept of patriarchy” (Bryson, 2003, p.165).

The term patriarchy was “derived from the Greek patriarches”, which stands for “head of the tribe. Patriarchy was a key term in political theory in the seventeenth century's debates “over the extent of monarchical power”, where supporters of absolute rule were claiming that the power of a king over his people was similar to that of a father over his family; in Millet's theory, the familial power of the father was the starting-point.

“the principles of patriarchy appear to be twofold: male shall dominate female, elder male shall dominate younger.” (Millet, 2000, p.25).

In the second chapter of her book sexual politics- intitled Theory of Sexual Politics-, millet defines what is meant here by politics. Kate Millet does not discuss politics in its “narrow and exclusive world of meetings”, as being defined in the American Heritage Dictionary (1969); rather, politics in Millet's approach refer to the “power-structured relationships, arrangements”, by which “one group of persons is controlled by another” (Millet, 2000). Millet described this chapter as “notes toward a theory of patriarchy, where “sex is a status category with political implications”. Millet defined politics “on grounds of personal contact and interaction between members of well-defined and coherent groups” (Millet, 2000, p.24), instead of conventional political grounds. As the former groups are not represented in several “recognized political structures”. Thus, their status is stable, and oppression examined on them is “so continuous”.

According to Kate Millet (2000), there is an “ancient and universal scheme for domination”, which is defined by one birth group dominating another birth group, the masculine domination over the female.

“Quite in the same manner, a disinterested examination of our system of sexual relationship must point out that the situation between the sexes now, and throughout history, is a case of that phenomenon Max Weber defined as herrschaft, a relationship of dominance and subordinance.” (Millet, 2000, p.24)

Males have a birthright to rule females, a birthright that is “largely unexamined, unacknowledged even though it is institutionalized”. “This is so because our society, like all other historical civilizations, is a patriarchy” (Millet, 2000, p.25). And Millet (2000) justifies this by the fact that all societal institutions such as military, industry, technology, universities, science, political office and finance are in male hands.

However, the patriarchal system is not ideal, as it submits to exceptions and social circumstances. As Millet (2000) illustrated: “While patriarchy as an institution is a social constant so deeply entrenched as to run through all other political, social, or economic forms, whether of caste or class, feudality and bureaucracy, just as it pervades all major religions, it also exhibits great variety in history and locale.” (Millet, 2000, p.25). Millet here distinguished between democracy, where women are less represented, and rarely take leading positions, and aristocracy, where women can possess power by the “the magic and dynastic properties of blood”. Kate Millet (2000) approached sexual politics through a number of aspects that enforce and establish patriarchy.

The first aspect brought into discussion is ideology. Kate Millet (2000) initiated the discussion by Hannah Arendt's observation, in her book “on violence” published in 1970, that “government is upheld by power supported either through consent or imposed through violence.” (Millet, 2000, p:26). And according to Millet (2000), an ideology performs its conditioning through consent.

“Sexual politics obtains consent through the “socialization” of both sexes to basic patriarchal polities with regard to temperament, role and status. As to status, a pervasive assent to the prejudice of male superiority guarantees superior status in the male, inferior in the female.” (Millet, 2000, p.26). Thus, a specific socialization under patriarchal ideology's supervision makes male superiority at the expanse of the female's social status naturalized.

As mentioned in the quote above, patriarchal ideology is based on three components: temperament, role and status. Temperament contributes into the formation of human personality along stereotyped lines of sex category, masculine and feminine, “based on the needs and values of the dominant group and dictated by what its members cherish in themselves and find convenient in subordinates: aggression, intelligence, force and efficacy in the male; passivity, ignorance, docility, “virtue” and ineffectuality in the female.” (Millet, 2000, p.26). Role, which is the second element in this ideology accompanies temperament in fulfilling needs and values of the dominant group. “Sex role decrees a consonant and highly elaborate code of conduct, gesture and attitude for each sex.” (Millet, 2000, p.26). Domestic service and attendance upon infants to the female, the rest of human achievements, interests and ambition to the male. “the limited role allotted to the female tends to arrest her at the level of biological experience. Thus, humanness is reserved to the male.” (Millet, 2000, p.26).

Whereas temperament is the psychological component and role is the sociological component, status is the political component of the ideology. The distribution of status in the patriarchal society provides a higher status to the male; this higher status assists in adopting “roles of mastery”, and developing “temperaments of dominance”. (Millet, 2000).

The second aspect is biology. Patriarchy, including its religious, “popular attitude” and traditional medical science, relates psycho-social distinctions to sexual biological science.

“The heavier musculature of the male, a secondary sexual characteristic and common among mammals, is biological in origin but also culturally encouraged through breeding, diet and exercise. Yet it is hardly an adequate category on which to base political relations within civilization.” (Millet, 2000, p.27)

According to Millet (2000), male supremacy as any other “political creeds” is not maintained through physical strength; rather, it is the “acceptance of a value system which is not biological” that empowers the creed. Furthermore, “superior physical strength” is not considered a factor in political relations; and since ever, civilization was continuously coming up with alternatives for physical strength, in technical, knowledge and weaponry methods. Civilization flourish was dependent on how these methods are advancing; thus, physical strength is considered a primitive method, as fare as civilization is concerned.

“At present, as in the past, physical exertion is very generally a class factor, those at the bottom performing the most strenuous tasks, whether they be strong or not.” (Millet, 2000, p.27)

“It is often assumed that patriarchy is endemic in human social life, explicable or even inevitable on the grounds of human physiology. Such a theory grants patriarchy logical as well as historical origin.” (Millet, 2000, p.27)

Some anthropologists assumed that patriarchy as a construct was not of “primeval origin”; rather, it was a change of orientation from “pre-patriarchal” social forms. Thus, according to Millet (2000), “the argument of physical strength as a theory of patriarchal origins would hardly constitute a sufficient explanation - unless the male's superior physical strength was released in accompaniment with some change in orientation through new values or new knowledge.” (Millet, 2000, p.27) However, prehistory is reached only through speculations. “speculation about prehistory, which of necessity is what this must be, remains nothing but speculation.” (Millet, 2000, p.27) According to Millet (2000), the assumption that “fertility cults in ancient society at some point took a turn toward patriarchy displacing and downgrading female function in procreation and attributing the power of life to the phallus alone” is enriched with evidence. (Millet, 2000) alongside with this, patriarchal theologies, with almighty male God or gods blessings, demoted, discredited or even eliminated goddesses. Thus, male supremacy became originated from God “himself”.

“Whatever the “real” differences between the sexes may be, we are not likely to know them until the sexes are treated differently, that is alike.” (Millet, 2000, p.29)

Early childhood conditioning is decisive in shaping “temperamental” differences between sexes. This conditioning is marked by “self-perpetuation” and “self-fulfilling prophecy”; meaning, social expectations about masculinity and femininity trigger aggressiveness in males, while balancing or reducing it for females, by triggering passivity.

“Thereupon the culture consents to believe the possession of the male indicator, the testes, penis, and scrotum, in itself characterizes the aggressive impulse, and even vulgarly celebrates it in such encomiums as “that guy has balls.” The same process of reinforcement is evident in producing the chief “feminine” virtue of passivity.” (Millet, 2000, p.31)

Hence, since aggressiveness reflects an image of the “master class”, docility is the subject group characteristic. This creates the dichotomy of the master male and the subject female.

The third aspect in this theory is sociological. According to Millet (2000), family is the fundamental instrument and foundation unit of the patriarchal foundation. Family here acts as a government agent.

“the fate of three patriarchal institutions, the family, society, and the state are interrelated. In most forms of patriarchy this has generally led to the granting of religious support” (Millet, 2000, p.33)

Thus, the status of the ruler in the state is similar to the higher social status and both are close in nature to the role of the father in the patriarchal family.

“Traditionally, patriarchy granted the father nearly total ownership over wife or wives and children, including the powers of physical abuse and often even those of murder and sale. Classically, as head of the family the father is both begetter and owner in a system in which kinship is property.” (Millet, 2000, p.33)

This status in the family grants the father, alongside with males social status and authority over females in a wider range, in a patriarchal society.

“Basing his definition of the family upon the patria potestes of Rome, Maine defined it as follows: “The eldest male parent is absolutely supreme in his household. His dominion extends to life and death and is as unqualified over is children and their houses as over his slaves.” (Millet, 2000, p.34)

And since family and society are interrelated, the hierarchy of eldest males, males, females is broadly maintained.

The fourth aspect is class; according to Millet (2000), sexual status operates in superficially confusing way within the variable of class.

“In a society where status is dependent upon the economic, social, and educational circumstances of class, it is possible for certain females to appear to stand higher than some males. Yet not when one looks more closely to the subject.” (Millet, 1970, p.36)

In order to illustrate this, Millet gave the example of a black doctor or lawyer and a poor white sharecropper. The black doctor or lawyer has a higher social status than the white sharecropper; however, the caste system of race gives the sharecropper a feeling that he belongs to a “higher order of life”, while it gives the black doctor or lawyer a feeling of oppression in spirit.

“In much the same manner, a truck driver or butcher has always his “manhood” to fall back upon. Should this final vanity be offended, he may contemplate more violent methods. The literature of the past thirty years provides a staggering number of incidents in which the caste of virility triumphs over the social status of wealthy or even educated women.” (Millet, 2000, p.36)

In the same way, the caste system of virility functions as the caste of race. “manhood” gives a male the feeling of superiority over females, no matter their social status is.

“Both convey more hope than reality, for class divisions are generally quite impervious to the hostility of individuals. And yet while the existence of class division is not seriously threatened by such expressions of enmity, the existence of sexual hierarchy has been re-affirmed and mobilized to “punish” the female quite effectively.” (Millet, 2000, p.36)

In a lower social status situation, the male is expected to be dependent on his sex rank alone; however, this male is sharing his power with women from his social class, the assertion of a “blunt patriarchal dominance” is unlikely to happen, knowing that men from higher classes have more power in any case; and this appears to be a paradox according to Millet (2000).

“One of the chief effects of class within patriarchy is to set one woman against another, in the past creating a lively antagonism between whore and matron, and in the present between career woman and housewife. One envies the other her “security” and prestige, while the envied yearns beyond the confines of respectability for what she takes to be the other's freedom, adventure, and contact with the great worlds.” (Millet, 2000, p.38)

The male who is empowered by the social status and financial independency invests in play “estranged” women against each other. A rival who gets an advantage by making women rivals of women.

“Thrown upon their own resources, few women rise above working class in personal prestige and economic power, and women as a group do not enjoy many of the interests and benefits any class may offer its male members. Women have therefore less of an investment in the class system.” (Millet, 2000, p.38).

Women's marginal life, because of their “parasitic” existence within a world ruled by males, and dependency on them results in conservativity. Females identify their survival with the prosperity of their male “protectors”.

The fifth aspect is the economic and educational. Patriarchy puts women in a position where financial dependency on the male is guaranteed.

“One of the most efficient branches of patriarchal government lies in the agency of its economic hold over its female subjects. In traditional patriarchy, women, as non-persons without legal standing, were permitted no actual economic existence as they could neither own nor earn their own right. Since women have always worked in patriarchal societies, often at the most routine or strenuous tasks, what is at issue here is not labor but economic reward .

. . the kinds of employment open to women in modern patriarchies are, with few exceptions, menial, ill paid and without status.” (Millet, 2000, p.39)

Concerning education, colleges dedicated to women were not funded as those for males. Thus, universities for women were not likely to train scholars, professionals or technocrats.

“Universities, once places of scholarship and the training of a few professionals, now also produce the personnel of a technocracy. This is not the case with regard to women. Their own colleges typically produce neither scholars nor professionals nor technocrats. Nor are they funded by government and corporations as are male colleges and those co-educational colleges and universities whose primary function is the education of males.” (Millet, 2000, p.42)

The sixth aspect is force implemented by patriarchy, whether implicitly or explicitly.

“We are not accustomed to associate patriarchy with force. So perfect is its system of socialization, so complete the general assent to its values, so long and so universally has it prevailed in human society, that is scarcely seems to require violent implementation.” (Millet, 2000, p.43)

When regarding patriarchy's violence, brutalities in the past are generally considered as “primitive custom”, while patriarchal brutalities nowadays are seen as “individual deviance”, and not of a “general import”; patriarchy, as any other total ideology, relies upon violence and force in emergencies in order to maintain its order and operability. According to Millet (2000), patriarchy institutionalizes force through its legal systems. Millet illustrated this with the stoning of adulteresses to death, while males who commit adultery are sentenced only because of offending another male's property interests.

“Save in recent times or exceptional cases, adultery was not generally recognized in males except as an offence one male might commit against another's property interest.” (Millet, 2000, p.43)

Thus, force in patriarchy is applied to both dominate the female, and to protect the male's possession. Or property interests. Force in patriarchy was always viewed as an offense by a male on another's female or females, and not on the female herself.

“significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical violence.” (Millet, 2000, p.44)

The emotional and physical training conducted through socialization makes the female defenseless against male violence, which is enhanced by the equipment provided to favor the male's force.

The second form of patriarchal force is sexual; this kind of violence emerges in rape incidents and masculine sexual dominance and females' sexual submission.

“Patriarchal societies typically link feelings of cruelty with sexuality, the latter often equated both with evil and with power. This is apparent both in the sexual fantasy reported by psychoanalysis and that reported by pornography. The rule here associates sadism with the male (“the masculine role”) and victimization with the female (“the feminine role”).” (Millet 2000, p.44)

Millet has listed numerous historical examples of patriarchy's cruelties against the female.

“The history of patriarchy presents a variety of cruelties and barbarities: the suttee execution in India, the crippling deformity of footbinding in China, the lifelong ignominy of the veil in Islam, or the widespread persecution of sequestration, the gynacium, and purdah.

Phenomenon such as clitoroidectomy, clitoral incision, the sale and enslavement of women under one guise or another, involuntary and child marriages, concubinage and prostitution, still take place-the first in Africa, the latter in the Near and Far East, the last generally. The rationale which accompanies that imposition of the male authority euphemistically referred to as “the battle of sexes” bears a certain resemblance to the formulas of nations at war, where any heinousness is justified on the grounds that the enemy is either an inferior species or really not human at all.” (Millet, 2000, p.46)

Hence, this “battle of sexes” is as similar as “formulas of nations at war”, where every act committed by the superior side is justified, legitimized, and supported by patriarchal institutions.

The seventh aspect is anthropological, including myth and religion. Women did not have symbols to describe them; thus, descriptions of the female were expressed by male basic tensions, which derive from “deep and primal anxieties” as well as “irrational psychological mechanisms”; and this was a result of the male monopoly of both primitive and civilized worlds. (Millet, 2000)

“One anthropologist refers to a consistent patriarchal strain of assumption that “woman's biological differences set her apart . . . she is essentially inferior,” and since “human institutions grow from deep and primal anxieties and are shaped by irrational psychological mechanisms . . . socially organized attitudes toward women arise from basic tensions expressed by the male.” (Millet, 2000, p.46)

The patriarchal construction of society created a dichotomy, where the male is the human norm and the female is the other.

“The image of women as we know it is an image created by men and fashioned to suit their needs. These needs spring from a fear of the “otherness” of woman. Yet this notion itself presupposes that patriarchy has already been established and the male has already set himself as the human norm, the subject and referent to which the female is “other” or alien. Whatever its origin, the function of the male's sexual antipathy is to provide a means of control over subordinate group and a rationale which justifies the inferior station of those in a lower order, “explaining” the oppression of their lives.” (Millet, 2000, p.46)

The male's sexual antipathy undermines the female; taking menstruation for instance, Millet stated that there is evidence that the menstrual taboo originated from patriarchy could be responsible for women's discomfort during periods, as such a discomfort could be psychosomatically influenced.

In primitive patriarchal societies, people believed that females' genitals are wounds, a kind of a mutilation that leads to the final condition of the vagina. As Freud describes the female's genitals in terms of a “castrated” condition.

“The uneasiness and disgust female genitals arouse in patriarchal societies is attested to through religious, cultural, and literary proscription. In preliterate groups fear is also a factor, as in the belief in a castrating vagina dentata. The penis badge of the male's superior status in both preliterate and civilized patriarchies, is given the most crucial significance, the subject both of endless boasting and endless anxiety.” (Millet, 2000, p.47)

Patriarchal customs appear to be full of taboos, which raise antipathy towards women. One of the most taboos is when females eat with males at the same table; such customs reflect the fear of contamination, “probably sexual in origin”. Another phenomenon is the social perceptions about female biological nature.

“Among preliterates virginity presents an interesting problem in ambivalence. On the one hand, it is, as in every patriarchy, a mysterious good because a sign of property received intact. On the other hand, it represents an unknown evil associated with the mana of blood and terrifyingly “other” ... Although any physical suffering endured in defloration must be on the part of the female (and most societies cause her-bodily and mentally-to suffer anguish), the social interest, institutionalized in patriarchal ritual and custom, is exclusively on the side of the male's property interest, prestige, or (among preliterates) hazard.” (Millet, 2000, p.48)

The patriarchal community is marked by infinite segregation of the female. Men's groups are exclusive to men, while women's groups are set as auxiliary groups, which takes men's efforts and methods as an optimal model to imitate.

“In sexually segregated situations the distinctive quality of culturally enforced temperament becomes very vivid. This is particularly true of those exclusively masculine organizations which anthropology generally refers to as men's house institutions. The men's house is a fortress of patriarchal association and emotion. Men's houses in preliterate society strengthen masculine communal experience through dances, gossip, hospitality, recreation, and religious ceremony. They are also the arsenals of male weaponry.” (Millet, 2000, p.48)

The organization of men's house is characterized by the consideration of communal and religious practices as a “group of men united in the cult of an object that is a materialized penis”, excluding women from society; this is according to the conclusions that Géza Roheim came up with when he studied preliterate tribes.

“The tone and ethos of men's house culture is sadistic, power-oriented, and latently homosexual, frequently narcissistic in its energy and motives.” (Millet, 2000, p.50)

The inference that lists penis as weaponry appears in practices like castration of prisoners in wars.

“Much of the glamorization of masculine comradery in warfare originates in what one might designate as “the men's house sensibility.” Its sadistic and brutalizing aspects are disguised in military glory and particularly cloying species of masculine sentimentality.” (Millet, 2000, p.50)

Millet (2000) described misogyny practiced by primitive societies in terms of taboo and mana developed into explanatory myth, which in its turn evolves to shape social ethics, then literature and finally scientific rationalization. Myth is an important element in reinforcing the patriarchal propaganda, as it gives justifications for any patriarchal act, and makes it ethical. Associating the female with sex, the latter which is obnoxious, creates the negative reputation associated with the female, who is perceived in terms of sexual identity, rather than human identity; in patriarchal societies the latter is exclusive to the male.

The last aspect is psychological. All the patriarchal aspects discussed in Millet's theory of sexual politics highly influence the psychology of both sexes, and finally interiorize patriarchal ideology. All the aspects combined together, contribute to objectifying the female, making her a sexual being rather than a human one.

“The female is continually obliged to seek survival od advancement through the approval of males as those who hold power. She may do this either through appeasement or through the exchange of her sexuality for support and status” (Millet, 2000, p.54)

In a patriarchal society, women exist as a minority in terms of status. Social beliefs, ideology, tradition, personal contact, media, employment and education in patriarchal societies emphasize group characteristics similar to those oppressing, discriminating and stigmatizing minorities.

“As women in patriarchy are for the most part marginal citizens when they are citizens at all, their situation is like that of other minorities, here defined not as dependent upon numerical size of the group, but on its status. “A minority group is any group of people who because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment.” (Millet, 2000, p.55)

This affects the psychology of both sexes in different ways; while the male has a psychological potential to possess the supreme status in the patriarchal society, the female has the potential to be satisfied with her lower status in society. This influences the male to be more oppressive, violent and dominant, and the female to become submissive and dominated, either through violence or consent.

The Imposition of Veil.

Symbolic violence and the economy of symbolic goods in Masculine Domination.

Over feminizing a female by putting a veil on, androcentrism is expecting more stripping of the male of everything female. wearing or not wearing a veil on is a social division; the latter is enabling patriarchy to virilize its male subjects even more.

“woman is constituted as a negative entity, defined only by default, even her virtues can only be affirmed by a double negation, as vice denied or overcome, or as lesser evils. All the work of socialization therefore tends to impose limits on her, which all concern the body, thus defined as sacred, h'aram, and which have to be inscribed in the dispositions of the body.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.27)

This is how women internalize “the fundamental principles of the female ‘art of living', as Bourdieu described it. A conditioning that starts functioning since the first years of socialization. These principles were already set and defined by the patriarchal construction, restricting and supervising every movement of a female.

“learning how to put on and wear the different clothing corresponding to her successive stages of life - little girl, nubile maiden, wife, mother - and insensibly acquiring, as much by unconscious mimicry as by express obedience, the right way to tie her belt or her hair, to move or keep still this or that part of her body when walking, to present her face and turn her eyes.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.27)

One of the forms of male domination is the “symbolic confinement”, which is assured “practically” by women's clothing. According to Bourdieu (2001), this confinement is not only covering the female's body, it also continuously calling it to order, and this could be done implicitly, without the need to be explicitly proscribed.

“As if femininity were measured by the art of ‘shrinking' (in Berber the feminine is marked by the diminutive form), women are held in a kind of invisible enclosure (of which the veil is only the visible manifestation) circumstancing the space allowed for the movements and postures of their bodies (whereas men occupy more space, especially in public places).” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.28)

Conditions are combined all together to enable patriarchal society to fully exercise masculine dominance; the objectivity of social structures, productive or reproductive activities shaped by sexual division of the “labour of biological social production and reproduction”, and schemes “immanent in everyone's habitus” all contribute in affirming male dominance. (Bourdieu, 2001)

“As a consequence, the androcentric representation of biological reproduction and social reproduction is invested with the objectivity of a common sense, a practical, doxic consensus on the sense of practices. And women themselves apprehend all reality, and in particular the power relations in which they are held, through schemes of thought that are the product of embodiment of those power relations and which are expressed in the founding oppositions of the symbolic order. It follows that their acts of cognition are acts of practical recognition, doxic acceptance, a belief that does not need to be thought and affirmed as such, and which in a sense ‘makes' the symbolic violence which it undergoes” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.34)

In Bourdieu's article, sur le pouvoir symbolique, published two decades before publishing masculine dominance, Bourdieu (1977) introduced the theoretical basis of the adjective symbolic. According to Bourdieu (1977), in a common-sense definition, there is the assumption that symbolic violence is emphasized by minimizing the implication of physical violence, this garbles people, and conceals incidents where women are “battered, raped, and exploited women, or worse”, as an attempt to exculpate men from such a form of violence. This perception of ‘symbolic' as a contrast of ‘real', defines symbolic violence in terms of ‘spiritual' violence, which has no real effects. Bourdieu built the theory of “the economy of symbolic goods” in order to destroy this “naive distinction, characteristic of a crude materialism” as Bourdieu defines it.

“It is this naive distinction, characteristic of a crude materialism, that the materialist theory of the economy of symbolic goods, which I have been trying to build up over many years, seeks to destroy, by giving its proper place in theory to the objectivity of the subjective experience of relations of domination. Another misunderstanding: the reference to ethnology, of which I have tried to show the heuristic functions here, is suspected of being a way of restoring the myth of the ‘eternal feminine' (or masculine) or, worse, of eternalizing the structure of masculine domination by describing it as unvarying and eternal.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.34)

Structures of domination are the product of an incessant labour of reproduction, to which singular agents, “(including men, with weapons such as physical violence and symbolic violence) and institutions - families, the church, the educational system, the state - contribute.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.34)

The construction of categories from the dominant's point of view, and the dominated commitment to apply them results in their naturalization. This naturalization of the relation of domination institutes symbolic violence.

“Symbolic violence is instituted through the adherence that the dominated cannot fail to grant to the dominant (and therefore to the domination) when, to shape her thought of him, and herself, or, rather, her thought of her relation with him, she has only cognitive instruments that she shares with him and which, being no more than the embodied form of the relation of domination, cause that relation to appear as natural; or, in other words, when the schemes she applies in order to perceive and appreciate herself, or to perceive and appreciate the dominant (high/low, male/female, white/black, etc.), are the product of the embodiment of the - thereby naturalized - classifications of which her social being is the product.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.35)

Symbolic domination, “(whether ethnic, gender, cultural or linguistic, etc.)”, does not depend on pure logic of knowing consciousness; it is exerted through “the schemes of perception, appreciation and action that are constitutive of habitus and which, below the level of the decisions of consciousness and the controls of the will”, which construct the cognitive relationship that Bourdieu defines as being “profoundly obscure to itself”. (Bourdieu, 2001)

Symbolic force is directly exerted on bodies, without the need of physical constraint. This is based on “dispositions deposited” taking place as releases of springs “with a very weak expenditure of energy”; this is because symbolic force is simply triggering dispositions that “the work of inculcation and embodiment” has internalized in the habitus.

“The practical acts of knowledge and recognition of the magical frontier between the dominant and the dominated that are triggered by the magic of symbolic power and through which the dominated, often unwittingly, sometimes unwillingly, contribute to their own domination by tacitly accepting the limits imposed, often take the form of bodily emotions - shame, humiliation, timidity, anxiety, guilt - or passions and sentiments - love, admiration, respect.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.38)

These emotions are powered by their visible manifestations, such as blushing, stuttering, clumsiness, trembling, anger or impotent rage; these manifestations are ways of submission to the dominant's judgement, “even despite oneself and ‘against the grain' [ a son corps defendant ]”, “sometimes in internal conflict and division of self, of experiencing the insidious complicity that a body slipping from the control of consciousness and will maintains with the censures inherent in the social structure”. (Bourdieu, 2001, p.39)

In social structures where the male is dominant, symbolic violence is constructed and maintained through an unconscious process of representing constraints as consents. Symbolic violence relies on the dispositions attuned to the structure of domination, the latter which is the source of these dispositions. Thus, in order to expose and destroy these dispositions, as well as symbolic violence, a radical transformation is required.

“the foundation of symbolic violence lies not in mystified consciousness that only need to be enlightened but in dispositions attuned to the structure of domination of which they are the product, the relation of complicity that the victims of symbolic domination grant to the dominant can only be broken through a radical transformation of the social conditions of production of the dispositions that lead the dominated to take the point of view of the dominant on the dominant and on themselves.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.42)

The structure of the “market in symbolic goods” is characterized by a main “structure of technical and ritual activities”; where dispositions (habitus) are attached to structures (habitudines), in both males and females. In the relations of production and reproduction of “symbolic capital”, women are considered as objects, or to be more precise symbols.

“women can only appear there as objects, or, more precisely, as symbols whose meaning is constituted outside of them and whose function is to contribute to the perpetuation or expansion of the symbolic capital held by men.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.43)

In the economy of symbolic exchanges, as in “kinship and marriage alliance”, women are demoted to be objects of these exchanges - even if this symbolic exchange concerns women as well - and serves male interests; thus, women are considered as “symbolic instruments” of “male politics”. In these symbolic exchanges, we can figure out how masculinity acquire its primacy. As Anne-Marie Dardigna defined it, “the female body, literally, an assessable interchangeable object circulating among men like currency”. (Bourdieu, 2001).

“Being condemned to circulate as tokens and thus to institute relations between men, they are reduced to the status of instruments of production or reproduction of symbolic and social capital.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.43)

Symbolic capital, which is honour, is what males gain in this economy. The latter is functioning as an interface which transform “raw materials” - meaning all objects to be exchanged “with formality”, including women - into “gifts”; this is performed through communicative signs, defined as “instruments of domination. This is how the exchange is structured. On the other hand, there is the social labour which produce and reproduce its social agents, active men and passive women. Thus, the assumption that symbolic capital reproduces itself, “outside of the action of situated and dated agents.

When men are producing and exchanging signs, their essential relationship of equality in honour does not remain stable. Thus, inequality in honour is simultaneously produced; since we have a play of symbolic power to gain the maximum of symbolic capital (honour) at the expense of other subjects (men), and as a result, dominating other men who possess less symbolic capital. Women in this exchange are objects, or in other words symbolic instruments that enables subjects to gain more symbolic capital.

“The men produce signs and actively exchange them, as partner-adversaries united by an essential relationship of equality in honour, the very condition of an exchange that can produce inequality in honour, or domination ... There is therefore a radical dissymmetry between man, the subject, and woman, the object of the exchange; between man, who is responsible for and controls production and reproduction, and woman, the transformed product of this labour.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.45)

The obsession of gaining more symbolic and social capital makes the notion of honour very important in the economy of symbolic goods. Since women are regarded as symbolic instruments, or objects, male domination protects its “objects” (females) from “offense” and “suspicion”; active male agents seek to protect passive female agents, in order to invest in symbolic exchanges, which will lead to create alliances (social capital) with prestigious allies (symbolic capital).

“the symbolic profit they can yield, partly depends on the symbolic value of the women available for exchange, that is to say, on their reputation and especially their chastity - constituted as a fetishized measure of masculine reputation, and therefore of the symbolic capital of the whole lineage - the honour of the brothers or fathers, which induces a vigilance as attentive, and even paranoid, as that of the husbands, is a form of enlightened self-interest.” (Bourdieu, 2001, p.45).

The veil.

In Fathi Yakan's book, Islam and sex, the very last part of the last chapter, entitled Covering the Woman (Veil), expresses the extremist patriarchal vision of Islam towards the female's body. Yakan (1975) initiated the discussion by mentioning the following Quranic verse: “O prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women to draw a part of their outer coverings around them. It is likelier that they will be recognized and not molested. Allah is most forgiving, most merciful.” (33:59); he mentioned as well a saying (hadith) of the prophet, where Asma, the sister in law of the prophet, entered at him wearing "thin clothes" revealing her body. The prophet expressed his objection to this; “Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allah wearing thin clothes. The messenger of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.” (Sunan Abi Dawud:4104, English translation: Book 33, Hadith 4092).

Then Yakan raised a question which is paraphrased below:

Where is this - meaning the prophet's instructions in this hadith - in what women are wearing nowadays, exposed clothing and fallen outfits, which believer women feel ashamed to wear even in their chambers? (Yakan, 1975).

In Yakan's question, we can notice the explicit stigmatization of unveiled women; moreover, this question reveals the Islamic patriarchal position, a position which rejects uncovering the female's body, by assuming that Muslim women would feel ashamed to wear clothes that reveals their bodies, even privately. This assumption is full of symbolic violence, where the male is assuming that women must feel ashamed of wearing such clothes, and the female is committing to serve the symbolic capital of the dominant. This agreement between the dominant and dominated, will lead to stigmatize women who are not committed to preserve honour. As a result, these women are likely to be stigmatized, by both the dominant and the dominated, in the patriarchal society.

“the most pertinent sign of male superiority is the headscarf itself. The famous headscarf verse of the Koran prescribes: ‘Enjoin believing women to turn their eyes away from temptation and to preserve their chastity; not to display their adornments [. . .] to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to display their finery except to their husbands (and other male kin). This entails the reduction of women to their sexuality, which represents a ‘danger [. . .] to the sanctity of the Muslim community'” Mahmood (2005, as cited in Joppke, 2009).

In the Muslim community, men are clearly superior to women, responsible for their protection, and obviously dominant. In Quran, chapter 4, verse 34 states: “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (4:34).

As mentioned earlier in the first chapter, the understanding of Quran is strictly linked to the interpretations agreed on. In order to have a full understanding of the verse above, below there is a quote from the website Islamicstudies.info/tafheem, which is a website dedicated to understanding Koran.

“56. A qawwam or qayyim is a person responsible for administering and supervising the affairs of either an individual or an organization, for protecting and safeguarding them and taking care of their needs.

57. The verb used here - a derivative of the root fdl - is not used to mean that some people have been invested with superior honour and dignity. Rather it means that God has endowed one of the sexes (i.e. the male sex) with certain qualities which He has not endowed the other sex with, at least not to an equal extent. Thus it is the male who is qualified to function as head of the family. The female has been so constituted that she should live under his care and protection.

58. It is reported in a tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) that he said: 'The best wife is she who, if you look at her, will please you; who, if you bid her to do something, will obey; and who will safeguard herself and your property in your absence.' (Cited by Ibn Kathir, and reported by Tabari and Ibn Abi Hatim. See Mukhtasar Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3 vols., ed. Muhammad 'All al-Sabuni, 7th edition, Beirut, 1402 A.H./1981 C.E.; vol. 1, p. 385 and n. 1 - Ed.) This tradition contains the best explanation of the above verse. It should be borne in mind, however, that obedience to God has priority over a woman's duty to obey her husband. If a woman's husband either asks her to disobey God or prevents her from performing a duty imposed upon her by God, she should refuse to carry out his command. Obedience to her husband in this case would be a sin. However, were the husband to prevent is wife from performing either supererogatory Prayer or Fasting - as distinct from the obligatory ones - she should obey him, for such acts would not be accepted by God if performed by a woman in defiance of her husband's wish. (See Abu Da'ud, 'Sawm', 73; Ibn Majah, 'Siyam', 53 - Ed.)

59. This does not mean that a man should resort to these three measures all at once, but that they may be employed if a wife adopts an attitude of obstinate defiance. So far as the actual application of these measures is concerned, there should, naturally, be some correspondence between the fault and the punishment that is administered. Moreover, it is obvious that wherever a light touch can prove effective.one should not resort to sterner measures. Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body. (See Ibn Majah, 'Nikah', 3 - Ed.) ”

Thus, this verse is explicitly stating that the male must supervise the female, by God's order; and on the other hand, the female must obey the male. The male in Islam is naturally qualified to be the “head of the family”, in other words, the patriarch, while the female must remain under his care and protection. In cases of disobedience, the male is allowed to exert three measures of interference. First, admonition. Second, remaining apart from them in bed - remaining apart from them in bed does not mean not having sex; men in this case can have sex, as it is a legitimate right in Islam that a woman must obey even without consent -. Third, striking, by means of hits that are neither addressing the face, nor severe, nor leaving marks on the body. The third measure is allowing exerting violence against women; of course, men are not allowed to beat severely, or to leave marks; however, they are allowed to exert violence.

“To the degree that women ‘choose' a pious life, which is one obedient to the Koranic God, they enter a condition which even a sympathetic observer like Saba Mahmood finds structurally akin to that of a ‘voluntary slave' (2005: 149): they choose subordination.” (Joppke, 2009, p.6)

“the very idioms that women use to assert their presence in previously male-defined spheres are also those that secure their subordination” Mahmood (2001, as cited in Joppke, 2009)

Thus, the Islamic division between the sexes is giving the male a fully superior position, while leaving the female with nothing but subordination. Islam is an egalitarian religion; however, it excludes some subjects who cannot be granted equality, those are “unbelievers, slaves, and women”.

“Comparing Christianity and Islam, Bernard Lewis similarly finds that the ‘status of women' is ‘probably the most profound single difference between the two civilizations' (Lewis 2002: 67). Although conceding that Islam is inherently ‘an egalitarian religion' in which ‘the actions and utterances of the Prophet [. . .] are overwhelmingly against privilege by descent, by birth, by status, or even by race' (p. 82), Lewis identifies three groups who are excluded from Islam's penchant for equality: unbelievers, slaves, and women. And women are the ‘worst- placed of the three' (p. 67), because neither conversion nor abolition is on offer for them.” (Joppke, 2009, p.7)

Islam is known to be resistant to secularism; the conceptual completeness and finality in Islam does not allow the separation between religion and state. Thus, such segregation is contradictory to Islamic law.

“Islam, while being the most universalistic and egalitarian of monotheisms - and in this sense, paradoxically, the ‘closest to modernity' (Gellner 1981:7) - does not allow for a separation of spheres within society, one of it closer to God than the others. ‘[S]uch a segregation', writes Gellner (p. 1), ‘would contradict both the symmetry or equality of access, and the requirement of pervasive implementation of the rules.' [. . .] Being resistant to secularization in these two ways, through extreme scripturalism and monism, Islam forces its believers to bow to the mores of the eighth-century society which is perpetually frozen in it and one of whose features happens to be the subordinate status of women. Certainly, according to the Koran men and women are equal before God because both are created by God; but it does not follow from this that men and women are equal among themselves. Hans Kung summarizes the conventional wisdom (2004: 204): ‘it is unwarranted to speak about equality between man and woman in the Koran. The privileges of the man in a patriarchic, extended family that consists of the father, his sons, and their families, remain untouched.' ” (Joppke, 2009, p.10)

As stated in Joppke (2009), according to Barlas (2002), there are two concepts of the veil in Quran. The first concept is specific, “sociologically contingent concept, which functions as an instrument to protect “free Muslim” women from “non-Muslim” men in the slave owning (non-Muslim) society. While the second one is general, “more genuinely religious”, which refers to the virtual veil, meaning controlling the gaze “more than of not being seen”. (Joppke, 2009).

“Accordingly, if contemporary Muslim women insist on the veil as a matter of religious obligation, it is an obligation which cannot be found as such in Islam's central script and is entirely constructed by the conservative mainstream in terms of a ‘proof of female immorality and inferiority' (p. 57). From Barlas' analysis there follows that, however freely chosen, the veil is ultimately a captive to patriarchy.” (Joppke, 2009, p.12).

Thus, as mentioned in the first aspect of patriarchy (ideology) in Millet's theory of sexual politics, “an ideology performs its conditioning through consent”. The female's free will of choosing to be veiled is likely an ideological manipulation by creating that illusion of “consent”. Furthermore, the veil obligation came from the assumption that women are both immoral and inferior, and it is confirming this assumption, which is considered a fact taken for granted. The “fact” that will require veil in order to confirm a woman's virtue.

“Jytte Klausen (2005), who is otherwise hopeful about the rise of a liberal-minded ‘European Islam' (p. 205), concedes: ‘The frequently made argument that women must cover up to prove themselves “chaste” and “pure” illustrates that it is intended as a restriction on women's sexual freedom. If women's bodies must be hidden because they are distracting to men or offensive, it does connote female inferiority'” Klausen (2005, as cited in Joppke, 2009).

Fadela Amara, the leader of the banlieu Muslim women's movement lNi putes ni soumises”, did acknowledge that the veil could protect “young Muslim females” from aggression. Accordingly, this movement exposed the subordinating signs transmitted by the veil.

“Let us not forget that (the veil) is above all a tool of oppression, of alientation, of discrimination, an instrument of the power of men over women” Amara (2003, as cited in Joppke, 2009).

The veil and leftist feminism in Morocco.

In her research in the PhD dissertation, Nadia Guessous (2001) had contact with leftist feminists in Morocco. According to them, Islamists are using a propaganda, which covers how Moroccan politics are really taking place.

“They argue that most American and foreign representatives are too naive to understand the complexity of Moroccan politics. As one leftist feminist put it, “they are prone to being seduced and manipulated by two-faced Islamists who speak in moderate language when talking to foreigners but then go on to spew out hate speech among themselves.” (Guessous, 2011, p.147)

According to Fatema Mernissi (1975), fundamentalist men impose the veil on women; and this creates a clash between Muslim fundamentalist men and non-fundamentalist women who are unveiled. Thus, this clash is likely to result in stigmatization, alongside with other forms of symbolic violence. Furthermore, Mernissi (1975) defines this as a “conspiracy” which aims to imprison women in the secluded house (harem).

“Are we all going back to the veil, back to the secluded house, back to the walled city, back to national, proudly sealed, imaginary boundaries? Of course, that would be the dream of many Muslim men.” Mernissi (1975, as cited in Guessous, 2011).

Thus, according to Mernissi (1975), the veil is not only a symbol of oppression, it is also a “forced turning back of the clock” (p.179), bringing back oppression and unfreedom of the Muslim patriarchal traditions.

“This is a conception of the veil that is not unique to Mernissi but is shared by many of the leftist feminists that I worked with who associate the hijab with the Islamist desire to “go back in time” (Guessous, 2011, p.179)

The fact that it is impossible for a woman to wear hijab for genuine personal reasons reflects her vulnerability towards social pressures.

“seen in this light, women who veil do so only because they have been either coerced or manipulated into doing so, If freed from this pressure and provided with more knowledge about their rights as women, it is assumed that they will refuse to wear hijab'’” (Guessous, 2011, p.180)

Leftist feminists perceive hijab in terms of a “masquerade” or “subterfuge”, which is used as an instrument that satisfies patriarchal authority, or to achieve certain purposes.

“Stories about female students wearing the hijab in order to cheat on exams by hiding headphones under their headscarves, prostitutes hiding under their hijab, or women covering up in order to meet their lovers without being recognized by their husbands or family members proliferate in leftist feminist discourse”. (Guessous, 2011, p.182)

“Youth and the Veil in Morocco”, a study that concerns hijab, was conducted by a youth group made up of middle class and lower middle-class students (all women in this group are unveiled) attending public schools and universities, and funded by the United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM). The study was conducted by a sociologist, targeting girls and women aged 15 to 25. It included veiled, unveiled, and former veiled women, as well as boys and men of the same age group, to understand the way they perceive hijab.

“The purpose of the study was to better understand why an increasing number of urban girls and women are veiling, how the hijab affects their professional choices and involvement in civil society, and how the hijab is perceived and experienced by girls and women who do not veil as well as boys and men.” (Guessous, 2011, p.184)

The conclusions of this study are the following. The definition of hijab had changed over time. “While in the 1970s and 1980s, the hijab tended to connote affiliation with Islamic politics, today that is no longer the case. Instead, muhtajibat today share many of the concerns, desires and aspirations of girls and women who do not wear hijab” (Guessous, 2011, p.185). Despite the sarcastic attitude of unveiled women towards veiled ones, friendships between veiled and unveiled women are not affected. Concerning male participants in this study, the results showed that they were more conservative when interpreting hijab, sexism as well was expressed by males towards both veiled and unveiled women.

“In his recommendations, the sociologist suggested that feminist organizations rethink their perception of the hijab, which is too often reduced it to an Islamist uniform connoting a political identity despite the emergence of multiple types hijab. He also suggested that they reach out to young muhtajibat so that they too have the option of getting involved in the type of activities and opportunities that are made available to girls and women who do not wear the hijab.” (Guessous, 2011, p.186)

However, the feedback on the sociologist's recommendations were dismissive of the hijab.

“In the words of one young woman who attended the meeting: “Why do the recommendations focus on urging NGOs to open themselves to muhtajibat? Why not make recommendations about how to combat the hijab?” Another young woman said: “Islamist organizations refuse women who are not muhtajibat. Why do we need to be more democratic than them?” Overall, most of the comments were dismissive of the hijab and reflected none of the nuances offered by the researcher. The hijab was described as a “sign of regression,” as a “refuge from modernity,” a “way of avoiding problems,” as a quick and easy way of “claiming respectability and morality,” as a way to “cheat on exams” or to “hide that one is a prostitute.” One young woman stated that at the university where she studies, “none of the girls who are interested in human rights wear the veil. But in the Islamic Studies department, all the women are veiled.” Another young woman stated that “if it comes under the guise of progressivism, the hijab can take over among the youth.” She mentioned the example of a muhtajiba who wears ultra-wide camouflage pants, Che Guevara t-shirts and a scarf. Other examples were provided of what was referred to as “Barbies in a hijab." i.e. women who dress fashionably, wear lots of make-up and matching hijabs. One senior member of the organization stated that “we have to be wary of the argument that we should include muhtajibat. The hijab is not neutral. It reflects political and ideological choices, even when other excuses are given for it (like I don't have time to go to the hairdresser).” Another senior member stated that “as a women's organization, we have trouble accepting veiled women because they believe that women's bodies need to be covered. Even eight-year old girls are expected to cover and this is a real problem.” (Guessous, 2011, p.186).

This negative feedback towards the recommendations of the sociologist, expresses a defensive action against veil and veiled women. It reflects as well to what extent these women are feeling stigmatized because of being unveiled. rejecting the inclusion of veiled women could be a reaction to the way unveiled women perceive patriarchy, and their experience with patriarchal stigmatization exerted on them. Furthermore, these reactions may not necessarily mean that veiled and unveiled women are rivals. In case these women, both veiled and unveiled, are considering each other rivals, it is the patriarchal propaganda that turns them against each other.

Chapter Three: Methodology.

Subjects.

This research was conducted in 2020. Due to Covid 19 pandemic, the process of delivering the survey hand to hand was hard, if not impossible to be conducted. Thus, in order to deliver the survey to the selected sample of subjects- who were selected randomly-, the only possibility to hand the survey was to share it online; Google Forms was the tool used to serve this purpose.

Since this research's concern is the stigmatization of unveiled women, the selection was of females, both veiled and unveiled, some of them experienced both being veiled and unveiled. women in this sample were or still studying in Sultane Moulay Slimane University, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences. The process of recruitment was conducted by sending the Google Forms link to the participants. The sample selected for this survey are 84 women.

Table1

The Sample of the study

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Among these 84 female students, there are 37 (44%) veiled and 47 (56%) unveiled women. On one hand, 32 (38.1%) veiled women out of 37 were unveiled before, and 5 (6%) of them stated that they were never unveiled in public, probably since their childhood. On the other hand, amongst 47 unveiled women, 25 (29.8%) of them were veiled during a period of their life, and 22 (26.2%) have never been veiled.

Table 2

Veiled and unveiled women among the sample.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1

Veiled and unveiled women among the sample.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 3

Veiled women who were unveiled before

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2

Veiled women who were unveiled before.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 4

Unveiled women who were veiled before.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3

Unveiled women who were veiled before.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Instrumentation.

The tool used to collect data for this research is the self-administered questionnaire, which is considered a social survey, alongside with the interview, according to Denzin (1970).

“the social survey” is ‘a methodological technique that requires the systematic collection of data from populations or samples through the use of the interview or self­administered questionnaire.'” Denzin (1970, as cited in Lupton et al.,1992).

The use of self-administered questionnaire derives from the macro perception of society. Macro-analysis will help to deconstruct “the broad spectrum of society”. (Lupton et al., 1992)

The social survey is highly structured by the researcher; however, the involvement of the latter is limited, or most of the time unnecessary. The self-administered questionnaire is a quantitative method, which would accurately turn data into “a set of numbers, described in terms of statistical expressions, and interpreted in terms of statistical probability”; thus, the self-administered questionnaire is both valid and reliable for this research.

Procedures.

The self-administered questionnaire was structured based on the main questions of this research. First, to what extent is Moroccan society fundamentalist, patriarchal and characterized by its male dominance? Second, how does patriarchy influence and manipulate its dominated subjects? third, if a female is not wearing a veil, will this cause her more stigmatization? Fourth, does the veil protect the female from stigmatization? And fifth, how do unveiled females experience dominance and oppression in the university. The questionnaire is divided into three parts.

The first part of the questionnaire is the first three questions, which focuses on the status of the participants, as far as their experience with the veil is concerned. The first three questions of the questionnaire are the following:

1- Do you wear a veil?
2- If you do, have you been unveiled during a period of your life?
3- If you don't, have you been veiled during a period of your life?

The second part of the questionnaire is question 4, the respondents are required to circle the appropriate number from 5 to 1 strongly agree,agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree), according to their judgments about 9 statements; these statements concern how far wearing, or not wearing a veil is affecting the amount of stigmatization practiced against women. Thus, the main objective in this second part of the questionnaire is to deal with the first four questions of the research. This part was addressing females who experienced both being veiled and unveiled; however, the rest of the participants were not excluded for two reasons. The first one is that stigmatization experiences of both veiled and unveiled women are shared and witnessed by both parts (veiled and unveiled women), the second reason is to see how both veiled and unveiled women perceive this patriarchal action of either veiling or stigmatizing the female. The statements in this part are illustrated below, in Figure 4 which demonstrates question 4 of the questionnaire.

Figure 4

question 4.

If you experienced both being veiled and unveiled, circle the appropriate number (from strongly agree, to strongly disagree):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The third and last part of the questionnaire is question 5. As in the second part, the participants are required to mark checking boxes extremely, a lot, neutral, rarely, never, according to their judgments about 6 statements. This part is dealing with the matter of stigmatization of unveiled women more specifically, as it is concerned with the stigmatization of unveiled women in Universities. The statements of this question are listed below in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Question 5.

The following section deals with the issue in academical contexts (University). Please react to the following statements (you can answer by marking the boxes from extremely to never):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Closed questions were important in the conduction of this questionnaire. For the reason that the delivery of the questionnaires was online, the risk of participation increased. Thus, to make sure that the participants will be completely willing to answer the questionnaire and to avoid skipped answers, the questionnaire includes only closed questions; and the outcome was that all the participants answered all the questions of the survey.

Concerning Questions 4 and 5, the scale for the measurement of how far does the respondent agree or disagree in question 4, and perceive the intensity of stigmatization in the university in question 5 was a score between 10 and 50, which indicates how far the respondent agrees or disagrees that veiled women are more stigmatized, and how intense is stigmatization of the unveiled in the university.

Statistical Analysis.

The statistical analysis for this research was conducted through IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). This software highly used by researchers to conduct complex statistical data analysis. SPSS is a statistical tool that comes up with important quantitative data analysis, which could satisfy research curiosity. In other words, it can inform us about the direction of the relationship, the effect size and statistical significance. Thus, statistical analysis section will deal with the direction, the effect size and statistical significance of the study. This is done through the testing of our hypothesis.

The thesis statement of the research is the following: It is hypothesized that stigmatization of women would be more intense if the female is unveiled, in an environment where she must be veiled; in order to perform hypothesis testing, we first have to convert the problematic into two hypotheses, null hypotheses and alternative hypothesis. On the one hand, the null hypothesis (H0) is that both veiled and unveiled women are facing the same intensity of stigmatization. While on the other hand, the alternative hypothesis (H1) is that unveiled women are more stigmatized than veiled ones.

Table 5

Hypotheses

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Statistical hypothesis testing could be conducted in statistical software; in this study, hypothesis testing was performed using SPSS through the T-test (Student's test), which is a categorized as an inferential statistic, which determines if there is a significant difference between the means of two groups, which might be interrelated at the level of some features.

The T-test comes up with the probability value (p-value), which is a value that helps the researcher to decide whether the null hypothesis (H0) should be rejected or not. In order to make this decision, the p-value needs to have a significance level first; simply put, the significance level is where the p-value is acceptable to make such a decision. If the p-value is below the significance level, we can reject the null hypothesis (H0) in the favor of the alternative one (H1), and if the p-value is above the level, we cannot reject (H0). The significance level for the p-value is related to the confidence interval of the study.

In statistics, confidence intervals (CI) are related to hypothesis testing as well. They are informative about both the power of the study and the compatibility of its data. Furthermore, confidence intervals give insights about the likelihood of H0 being true, and how far could the research be credible. It is not necessary to include both p-values and confidence intervals; however, it is recommended, for the reason that confidence intervals are more informative as they combine both deciding whether to reject the null hypothesis or not, and providing the range of plausible values. Moreover, combining both p-values and confidence intervals helps to frame different aspects of information.

A confidence interval has confidence limits. The former has confidence levels as well; these levels determine the certainty of how far the interval is including the “true population parameter”. Typically, confidence intervals are stated at the 5% level. The higher the confidence level is, the wider is the confidence interval, which means less precision; and vice versa, the lower the confidence level is, the slimmer is the confidence interval, which gives more precision. The sample size affects the confidence interval; large sample sizes produce slimmer intervals and better precision, and vice versa.

The sample size of this research is not large enough to set a low confidence level; thus, the confidence level for this research is 90%, which means that if this analysis is repeated over 100 samples, 90% of the intervals would have the “true population parameter”.

There are common levels of significance used in statistical research: p<0.10: statistically significant at the 10% level. p<0.05: Statistically significant at the 5% level, p<0.01: statistically significant at the 1% level, p<0.001: statistically significant at the 0.1% level.

The significance level, also denoted as “Alpha” is calculated through the following formula:

Alpha = 1 - confidence interval.

The formula for the significance level of this study is 1 - 90%, which equals 0.10. thus, the significance level of the study is set at the 10% level; which means that if the p-value is below 0.10, the null hypothesis is rejected at the 10% significance level.

Moving back to hypothesis testing, the latter was conducted through questions 4 and 5. In both questions, we have 5 values strongly agree - strongly disagree, extremely - rarely. Thus, the central value for both tests is 3. Variables with a mean above 3 reject (H0) in the favor of (H1), while variables with a mean below 3 do not reject the null hypothesis. Note that statements (5) and (9) from Question 4 were excluded from the T-test. Statement (5) was excluded for the reason that it was included just as a contrast to statement (1), in order to assure that the respondent is answering when checking her answers (i.e. if the respondent marked strongly agree in statement (1), statement (5) should be on strongly disagree); that was a way to guarantee accuracy when delivering the survey online. Concerning statement (9), it was included only to see how far do both veiled and unveiled women agree that women in Muslim societies are stigmatized, whether veiled or not; the t-test of statement (9) will be illustrated individually.

Thus, the T-test of question 4 included all the statements except for statements (5) and (9). Concerning question 5, all the statements were included in the T-test.

The outputs and statistic analysis results of the T-test for question 4 and 5 are illustrated in the next pages:

Table 6

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 4.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 7

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 5.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Tables 6 and 7 sum up the statistics for the variables in the T-test, the mean and standard deviation for each statement are listed in the columns Mean and Std. deviation. This is the first step in the process of T-test. Table 6 and Table 7, illustrate the results of geometric mean and standard deviation of both question 4 and question 5, respectively.

Before having a look at the mean for each statement, we must check the standard deviation first. To elaborate, if the standard deviation is equal to 0, the T-test is unnecessary; on the other hand, if the standard deviation is positive (Std. deviation>0), it is necessary to run the T-test for the variable, in order to know whether the mean has statistical significance, or was scored randomly. As showed in the tables, no standard deviation equals 0. Thus, it is necessary to run the T-test for all the variables. Before illustrating the results of the T-test for questions 4 and 5, the next paragraph will sum up the statistic results of Geometric mean for question 4 and 5.

Concerning question 4, the mean of statements (1),(2),(3),(4) and (8) was above the central value, the mean of statements (6) and (7) was below the central value; the mean in the output of geometric value for question (5) was above the central value except for statement (3).

After discussing the mean and standard deviation of the T-test, the next paragraphs are concerned with the second step in the T-test. The outputs below are “Independent Samples Tests”, or in other words, the T-tests for a unique sample.

Table 8

T-test (Student's test) for unique sample for Question 4.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 9

T-test (Student's test) for unique sample for Question 5.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As mentioned earlier in this section, the confidence interval for this research is 90%; and the significance level is 0.10 (10%). In order to reject the null hypothesis (H0) in the favor of the alternative hypothesis (H1), the variable must have a p-value inferior than 0.10. In the other extreme, a p-value superior than 0.10 do not reject H0. In the tables above, p- values are displayed in the column “Sig. (2-tailed). Concerning the column “mean difference”, the mean difference describes how far the values surpass or are behind the mean value, the formula for calculating the mean difference is the mean minus the central value (Mean difference = mean- central value); the tables in the next page illustrates H0 verified and H1 verified variables in questions 4 and 5:

H0 verified = do not reject H0.

H1 verified = reject H0 in the favor of H1.

Table 10

Question 4 H0'/H1' verified variables.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As illustrated in the table above, statements 1,2,3,4,6 and 7 are H1 verified, statement 8 is H0 verified.

Table 11

Question 5 H0'/H1' verified variables.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As illustrated in the table above, statements (1),(2),(5) and (6) are H1 verified, statements (3) and (4) are H0 verified.

To sum up, as a whole, only three statements out of thirteen were H0 verified, and the rest ten statements are all H1 verified.

In the next part, Results, the T-test outputs will be brought again into the discussion of the results. Before taking the discussion further into the results part, there is one last point to mention. Going back to tables 8 and 9, the column entitled df refers to the degree of freedom. The degree of freedom states that the degree of freedom equals the sample size (N) minus 1:

Df = N-1

Df = 84-1

Df = 83

SPSS calculates the degree of freedom automatically in the T-test. The degree of freedom indicates how much freedom of variance do the numbers have, without distorting the mean. The degree of freedom will enable the construction of tables with natural numbers rather than decimal ones, in order to adapt/(accommodate) the results of the T-test with the scales of the questionnaire; These tables will be illustrated in the Order of Presentation section in Results.

Chapter Four: Results

Order of presentation.

In this section, the results of the study will be listed, respectively to the research questions. The results of variables will be re-ordered in relation to the question they are seeking to answer in the research. In descriptive data, the tables of results are listed in the same order stated in this section. Notice that some variables may be repeated in different questions, as far as they are useful for the discussion of the questions. The order of presentation is the following:

- Question 1: To what extent is Moroccan society fundamentalist, patriarchal and characterized by its male dominance? The variables that will seek to answer this question are statements (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8) and statement (9). The results of statement (9) will be illustrated in the descriptive data section.
- Question 2: How does patriarchy influence and manipulate its dominated subjects? The variables selected for this question are statements (4), (6), (7).
- Question 3: If a female is not wearing a veil, will this cause her more stigmatization? The variables selected to answer this question are statements (1), (2), (3), (4), (8).
- Question 4: Does the veil protect the female from stigmatization? The variables selected to answer this question are statements (6) and (9).
- Question 5: How do unveiled females experience dominance and oppression in the university? The variables that are seeking to answer this question are all the statements in Question 5 of the questionnaire.

In the next section, the tables are respecting the order of presentation. Thus, each table will contain the variables that concern each research question. As mentioned earlier, in order to adapt the mean to the likert scale of the research, the mean in the tables below is in natural numbers.

The process to extract natural numbers is the following. Variables with a p-value above 10% are not significant; whether the score for these variables is above or below the central value, it will not be significative, as it is statistically considered as random bias. As a result, the scores of variables with a p-value above the 10% level will be set on 3, which is the average. Concerning the variables with a p-value under the 10%, the scores will be brought to the closest neighbor in the likert scale.

Scores above the average will move to the upper value, whereas scores under the average will be moved to the lower value. (e.g.: 3.20 >=> 4/ 2.90 >=> 2).

The values that will be set on the average are those of H0 verified variables, while H1 verified variables will be moved into the closest neighbor in the scale. Check tables 10 and 11 for the illustration.

Descriptive data.

This section illustrates the tables before and after the process of editing discussed in the last paragraphs of the previous section. The descriptive data in this section represent the results of the study.

Table 12

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 4 before editing (table 6).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 13

T-test (Student's test) for unique sample for Question 4. (Table 8)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As displayed in the tables above, only statement (8) has a p-value above the 10% level (H0 verified), all the other statements are below the 10% level (H1 verified). Thus, the mean for statements (1) ,(2), (3), (4), (6) and ()7 (3.47,3.58,3.76,3.75,2.43,2.39) are moved to the neighbor in the likert scale. The mean for statements (1), (2), (3), (4) will become 4, while the mean for statements (6a and (7a will be 2; the mean for statement (8) will be brought into the central value 3.

Table 14

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 4 after editing.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 15

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 5 before editing (table 7).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 16

T-test (Student's test) for unique sample for Question 5 (Table 9).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

As illustrated in the tables in the previous page, the p-value for statements (1), (2), (5) and (6) is below the 10% level (H1 verified), and the p-value for statements (3) and (4) is above the 10% level (H0 verified). The mean for statements (1), (2), (5) and (6) will be moved to the neighbor in the likert scale, while the mean for statements (3) and (4) will be brought into the central value 3.

Table 17

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Question 5 after editing.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Concerning statement (9) (question 4), the tables in the next page illustrates the results of the T-test and the editing of the geometric mean. Note that in statement (9), the p-value is under the 10% level, and the mean is 4.40. thus, the mean in natural numbers for statement 9 is 5.

Table 18

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Statement 9 (Question 4).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 19

T-test (Student's test) for unique sample for Statement 9 (Question 4).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 20

Geometric mean and standard deviation for Statement 9 after editing (Question 4).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Results of Statistical testing.

The results of statistical testing will be offered with tables including the statements which are selected for each research question, and the mean in tables 14 and 17 and 20, in Descriptive data section, which is the final score of statistical testing. In this manner, as mentioned in the Order of presentation section, the first research question includes the statements in question 4 ((1), (2,) (3), (4), (6), (7) , (8) and (9)); thus, all the statements in the T-test of Question 4 are included in Table 21, with statistical results of the former under the table. As mentioned earlier, statements in question 5 of the questionnaire are dealing with the fifth research question only, while different statements of question 4 will deal with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th research questions. The mean in natural numbers*10 is the score of the statement on a scale of 10 to 50; the tables below illustrate the scores of the statements; since the central value is 3, the average score is 30.

Table 21

Statistical results for the 1st research question.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Concerning table 21, which includes all the statistical results of the T-test of Question 4, the results are the following:

- Including the answers of all the respondents, the scores are the following:
- Statements (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) had a score above the average. Statements (1), (2), (3) and (4) scored 40 each, while statement (9) scored 50.
- Statements (6) and (7) had a score below the average. Statements (6) and (7) scored 20.
- Statements (8) scored 30.
- Statement (4) had a score above the average; it scored 40.
- Statements (6) and (7) had a score below the average; statements (6) and (7) scored 20.

Table 22

Statistical results for the 2nd research question.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 23

Statistical results for the 3rd research question.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

- Statements (1), (2), (3) and (4) had a score above the average, these statements scored 40 each.
- Statement (8) scored 30.

Table 24

Statistical results for the 4th research question.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

- Statement (9) had a score above the average; it scored 50.
- Statement (6) had a score below the average; it scored 20.

Table 25

Statistical results for the 5th research question.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

- Statements (1), (2), (5) and (6) had a score above the average; statement (1) scored 50, while statements (2), (5) and (6) scored 40.
- Statements (3) and (4) scored the average 30.

Interpretations of Statistical Results.

As mentioned earlier, all the statements in question 4 are included in the discussion of the results, except for statement 5, which is a contrast to the first statement. A quick recapitulation of the results is the following:

The results of question 4 include scores above, below and at the average. First, The first four statements scored 40, with the 9th statement scoring 50; thus, the majority of the respondents had scores moving towards agree and strongly agree in the scale, this is emphasized with the statistical significance of the result, since the p-value of these statements is below the 10% level; note that since the scale is on 50, each mark in the scale represents to what extent did the majority of the respondents agree or disagree (e.g.: 50 means that the majority strongly agrees, while 10 means that the majority strongly disagrees). Second, statements (6) and (7) had scores below the average, 20 each; the score of statements (6) and (7) has statistical significance as well. And third, statement (8) scored 30 because the result of the variable is not statistically significant.

Concerning question 5, there are only scores above and at the average; these scores reflect how far unveiled women are feeling stigmatized in the university, 50 means extremely while 10 means never; statements (1), (2), (5) and (6) scored above the average, 50 for statement (1), and 40 each for statements (2), (5) and (6); on the other hand, statements (3) and (4) scored the average due to statistical unsignificance.

Below, the interpretation of results will be divided into 5 sections, each section will individually deal with a research question; the sections are entitled Research question 1,2,3,4 and 5.

Research question 1: To what extent is Moroccan society fundamentalist, patriarchal and characterized by its male dominance?

The first four statements are dealing with the manner in which society reacts to unveiling the woman; the stigmatization of unveiled women in specific, and of women in general is a form of “symbolic violence” - in Bourdieu's words, practiced through patriarchy. In the following quote, which was cited in chapter 2 , there is more elaboration:

“the symbolic profit they can yield, partly depends on the symbolic value of the women available for exchange, that is to say, on their reputation and especially their chastity - constituted as a fetishized measure of masculine reputation, and therefore of the symbolic capital of the whole lineage - the honour of the brothers or fathers, which induces a vigilance as attentive, and even paranoid, as that of the husbands, is a form of enlightened self-interest.” (Bourdieu, 1998, p.45).

The matter of honour in patriarchy, makes males paranoid with regard to “their” women, in other words “familial women”, while stigmatizing “strangers”. apparently, this is the balance of the “market of symbolic goods”; women must have total virtue, while men “measure” the value of the “symbolic good (women)” of each other; “fetishized measure”, as Bourdieu defined it, is the way men test how far other male's women are securing their reputation. When stigmatizing a female, the male devalues other males' position in “the market of symbolic goods”, which affords him a higher rank in it; however, there are males who will, in their return, stigmatize this man's females, for the same “unconscious” purpose. This circulation of exchanges of the “symbolic capital” is the founder of patriarchy and male dominance. The latter puts the female in trouble, and as a result, puts the male's reputation at risk; the risk of losing his honour, could be a motive to stigmatize other females; and here patriarchy, with all its complex constructions, manipulates its subjects, both males and females; patriarchy grants males this “magnified image”, while making women submissive to it.

“The men produce signs and actively exchange them, as partner-adversaries united by an essential relationship of equality in honour, the very condition of an exchange that can produce inequality in honour, or domination ... There is therefore a radical dissymmetry between man, the subject, and woman, the object of the exchange; between man, who is responsible for and controls production and reproduction, and woman, the transformed product of this labour.” (Bourdieu, 1998, p.45).

We have to note that in the questionnaire, the first four statements state that the unveiled female is more stigmatized; however, this statement implicitly states that veiled women are also stigmatized. Indeed, the scores of the first four statements indicate that unveiled women are more stigmatized, but stigmatization is already practiced within society, on both veiled and unveiled women. this is confirmed by statement (9), where the majority of the respondents agreed that both veiled and unveiled women are stigmatized; and as mentioned, statement (9) scored 50. In a patriarchal society, the male rules the public sphere, while the female must be confined in the private, or the “harem” -in Mernissi's words.

Concerning the statements that scored below the average, statements (6) and (7) scored 20 each. We have to note that in the questionnaire the statements state that the unveiled is more stigmatized, and the veil protects her from this stigmatization; however, after the results are shown, the majority of the respondents, both veiled and unveiled, agreed that the veil does not protect the female, and not wearing a veil does not limit the female's social freedom as well.

In the sample selected for this study, half of the unveiled women were veiled before, and only 5 veiled women were never unveiled. thus, the majority in this sample experienced both being veiled and unveiled; when the majority states that the veil does not protect the female, the majority of this majority are women who experienced both being veiled and unveiled, which would make the finding more relevant, besides its statistical significance.

To sum up, according to the scores, unveiled women could be more stigmatized; however, both veiled and unveiled women would be victims of this stigmatization. The sample represents the Moroccan population; it includes experiences of 84 different women, amongst whom the majority stated that stigmatization of both veiled and unveiled women exists in Morocco. By stigmatizing the unveiled more, and stigmatizing the veiled anyway, this reflects how far Moroccan society is fundamentalist, patriarchal, and male dominated.

Research question 2: how does patriarchy influence and manipulate its dominated sujects?

The second research question is discussed through statements (4), (6) and (7). Note that statement (4) represents statements (1), (2) and (3), as we can consider the former a sum up to the latter ones.

From the results of statements (4), (6) and (7), we can infer that stigmatization is more intense when the female is unveiled; this is an implicit reaction to veil the female. However, the veil does not protect the female from stigmatization. To veil a female, and convince her that the veil will protect her from stigmatization, when the female is still stigmatized even if veiled, is an act of manipulation. Even if patriarchy influences its subjects to wear a veil, the veil does not protect them. Moreover, not wearing a veil does not limit the female's social freedom; however, there is stigmatization within the latter, which distorts this social freedom. Thus, society manipulates females by giving them the veil as an instrument to protect themselves in public, where they have total social freedom; however, as soon as the female is outside, there is a potential of being stigmatized regardless of whether she is veiled or not; this is a manifestation of the “illusion of consent”. The question here is: if the veil does not protect the female from stigmatization, what is its actual function? This subquestion will be discussed in the Question 4 section.

Question 3: if a female is not wearing a veil, will this cause her more stigmatization?

This question will be discussed through the first four statements and statement (8). The eighth statement does not have statistical significance, but in the individual sheets, many respondents agreed that there is a pressure to veil the female. This might be elaborated with the result of statement 4; the intensity of stigmatization could increase when the female is unveiled, and this is the pressure practiced against females to be veiled.

Question 4: does the veil protect the female from stigmatization?

In this study, the discussion of the relation between stigmatizing the unveiled and not protecting the veiled depends on the results of statements (6) and (9); statements (6) and (9) reflect both faces of this coin. Statement (6) scored 20, while statement (9) scored 50. According to the majority of respondents, the veil does not protect the female from violating her privacy and social existence, as both veiled and unveiled women are stigmatized. Before questioning to what extent the veil protects the female, the function of the veil must be questioned first. If the function of the veil is to protect the female from foreigners, this condition is not met when the veiled is still stigmatized anyways. Thus, what is the real function of the veil?

The veil is a “symbolic instrument”, which could be implied to assert dominance on subjects, in a patriarchal society. Mainly on females, and on males as well; males are also under a patriarchal pressure in order to dominate the female. This could be the explicit function of the veil in a patriarchal society.

Research question 5: How do unveiled females experience dominance and oppression in the university?

In the structure of question 5, the statements are interrelated; therefore, each statement paves the way for the next one. To clarify, when you feel stigmatized because of not wearing a veil in the university, this means that not wearing a veil would cause incidents of stigmatization, the latter generates this feeling of social judgements against the female's individual freedom; as a result, the female would feel more comfortable when wearing a veil,which leads to the conclusion that the female is more accepted when veiled; and finally, unveiling is less acceptable than veiling in the university. The result of the question is how far the scores are congruent as a sum. The results in brief are the following: first, statement (1) scored 50, which reflects that the majority of the respondents feel “extremely” stigmatized when not wearing a veil in the university. Second, statement (2) scored 40, which indicates that a lot of incidents of stigmatization happen because of not wearing a veil. Third, statement (3) scored 30 because of statistical unsignificance; however, note that regardless of statistical significance, this statement scored 2.81 in the T-test, which is indeed close to the central value; the result of this statement demonstrates that judgements on women's clothes are neither extreme, nor absent; however, these judgements regularly take place, with a frequency somewhere in between. Fourth, the same thing for statement (3) goes for statement (4); the latter is at the average due to statistical unsignificance; however, in the T-test, it scored 3.08, which is barely above the average; this indicates that the female regularly feels uncomfortable when being unveiled, and vice versa. Fifth, statement (5) scored 40, which demonstrates that the majority feels more accepted when being veiled in the university. And finally, statement (6) scored 40, which indicates that the majority feels that unveiling is less acceptable than veiling in the university. Thus, the sum of statements came up with scores that demonstrates that stigmatization of the unveiled is practiced in the university. In many cases of interaction between the male and the female, stigmatization of the unveiled could frequently take place; many students in the university frequently witness a lot of cases, where stigmatization is practiced against unveiled women.

In the previous sections, all the listed interpretations could be implied in the discussion of question 5; in the comparaison of the results of questions 4 and 5, the latter demonstrates how this social attitude, characterized by patriarchy and male dominance, is practiced and expressed in the campus. In such a way, the patriarchal construction of society could negatively influence the atmosphere inside the campus, where individual freedom should be recognized, maintained, guaranteed and defended.

Chapter Five: Conclusions/Discussion.

Summary of findings.

The results of the study came up with five inferences concerning the stigmatization of unveiled women in Morocco. First, stigmatization could be more intense if the female is unveiled; paradoxically, women could be under the practice of stigmatization regardless of whether they are veiled or not. This reflects how Moroccan society is characterized by fundamentalism, patriarchy and male dominance. Second, in an environment influenced by the patriarchal construction, society grants females social freedom in the public sphere; as a result, since the latter is male dominated, the female will be in a submissive position in public, this is a stimulus to stigmatize the female. Here, patriarchal manipulation hands women the veil as a symbolic instrument meant to protect her in public; however, male dominance, which inserted this symbolic instrument in the first place is more powerful than this “Shield of Troy”. Thus, the female could be stigmatized outside, with or without her veil, under the illusion of consent; the unveiled is more stigmatized because of both being a female and her lack of commitment to the patriarchal standards, whereas the veiled could stigmatized in public only for being a female outside her household. Third, the intensity of stigmatization towards an unveiled woman could be a sign or a form of pressure implied in order to veil the female. Fourth, the veil would not completely protect the female outside; thus, its main purpose is unaccomplished; however, the veil is still imposing itself as an important “tool”, through which patriarchal society protects its women; in this case, the persistent existence of the veil is suspicious! Throughout the previous inferences, it could be concluded that the real, or main function of the veil is to broadly dominate the female; this would identify this tool as a “patriarchal veil” instead of the image promoted by the patriarchal society, the portrait of a protector, which is not the case at all. And finally, such a social attitude towards women in specific, and unveiled women in general could influence the campus to the extent of making it “patriarchal” as well; which would lead to construct an important patriarchal tool, which is the “patriarchal campus”, where the value of subjects could be measured with gender, and commitement to patriarchy, and this will serve patriarchy. According to the results of question 5, stigmatization of unveiled women could be more intense in the university; this is supported by evidence from daily incidents of stigmatization in the university. As far as society is profoundly patriarchal, this would influence subjects from different institutions, which contaminates the latter in order to serve male dominance, and to maintain patriarchal order.

Conclusions Drawn by results.

To sum up, the conclusions drawn by results of this study are the following:

- In Morocco, there is stigmatization of unveiled women for the reason that they are not wearing a veil; however and ironically, the veiled female is stigmatized as well.
- In Moroccan society, females are no longer imprisoned in the “harem”. However, the public sphere is still under male domination, which devalues the social status of the female in public. Furthermore, even if the private sphere is dedicated to women, representatives of male domination in the family rules it and take the position of the protector. Outside the private, the responsibility of protecting the female goes to her veil. The issue here is that patriarchal manipulation triggers men in order to resist and maintain patriarchal authority over the public sphere- in the private, the male dominates the female. While in public, men dominate the whole sphere (including women) -, since patriarchy in the first place designates males as the dominants. Thus, the female is challenging patriarchal principles when leaving the household; as a reaction, male domination gets more serious and severe, the veiled female as a result is stigmatized in public nonetheless; however, because the unveiled woman is not commiting to the patriarchal order, stigmatization against her will get more intense.
- The severe social reaction towards unveiled women is symbolic violence practiced to make a pressure on unveiled women; or in other words, to veil women by the illusion of consent (force).
- The veil does not protect the female outside. Rather, it is imposed on the female, whether with “consent” or by force, in order to perform another function, which is total male dominace over society, as far as gender hierarchy is concerned.
- This hegemonic masculine attitude towards women in general, and unveiled women in specific is spread to the campus, since the latter is an institution belonging to the patriarchal society, which is responsible for producing and reproducing this attitude. As a result, male dominance exposes the university to a kind of metamorphosis, where the university becomes a small patriarchy.

Recommendations for Further Research.

As a clinture to this study, this section states the recommendations for further research in relation to the topic of stigmatization of unveiled women.

First of all, this paragraph is concerned with suggestions for future research that could deal with the anticipated findings of this research more precisely; in this research, it was not anticipated that stigmatization against veiled women is not that mild; moreover, the veil seems to be more of a symbolic instrument against women's self-interest, than a protector on their side. Thus, the veil as a concept, as well as the stigmatization of veiled women - in a patriarchal context - need to be discussed under different specific contexts, including case studies in universities.

Second, this paragraph states suggestions addressing the limitations in this research. as mentioned earlier in the introduction, the major limitation that faced this research was Corona pandemic. The topic is so complex that it requires more details, in case the purpose is to deconstruct its elements; in further research about this topic, larger sample sizes would guarantee more precision; moreover, the questionnaire would bring more insightful findings if it is structured with a part where the question is how the female percieves the veil: is she with or against it? how far is the veil useful/disadventageous in her opinion? When covering her body, is it done by force or with consent? And how far this consent is reasonable in her opinion?

The third point to mention in this section is that in future research, the topic of stigmatization of unveiled women could be discussed in different contexts and locations; this will give the advantage of comparaison between different contexts. Moreover, future research in the same topic in different contexts might confirm the conclusions and bring more insightful findings, which would elaborate those in this research.

Stigmatization of unveiled women in a patriarchal society is an interesting topic. Curiosity will not definitely close the discussion of this topic here, as there are many different aspects, levels, contexts, as well as the potential of having changed social factors and norms in the future. Thus, the high possibility of taking this research further could make it a future responsibility.

References:

Bibliograpy:

Almquist, Y. B., Kvart, S., Brännström L. (2019). A practical guide to quantitative methods with SPSS. Research Reports in Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University, no:2019:2.

Mernissi, F., (1975). Beyond the veil : Male-Female Dynamicsin Muslim society. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Company, inc.

Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford : Stanford University Press. Dorey, F. -updated- (2020). Homo Sapiens - Modern Humans. Sydney : Australian Museum. Guessous, N., (2011). Genealogies of Feminism: Leftist Feminist Subjectivity in the Wake of the Islamic Revival in Contemporary Morocco. New York: Columbia University.

Gilman, C. P. (1970). The man-made world: Or, Our androcentric culture. New York : Source Book Press.

Joppke, C., (2009). Veil: Mirror of Identity. Malden: Polity Press.

Lupton, G., Short, P.M., & Whip, R. (1992). Society and gender: An Introduction to Sociology. London: Macmillan Education.

Marshall, J., (1994). The Consise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Millett, K. (2000). Sexual politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Arabic references:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Webography:

www.alchemer.com/resources/blog /what-is-spss/

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-sapiens-modern-humans/

www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t-test.asp

www.languages.oup.com (Oxford Languages)

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com (Oxford Learner's Dictionaries)

Appendix

The questionnaire of this research

QUESTIONNAIRE: Stigmatization of unveiled women

IN ORDER TO HAVE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE TOPIC, PLEASE HELP US BY ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

1- Do you wear a veil?

Yes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

No

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2- If you do, have you been unveiled during a period of your life?

Yes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

No

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3- If you don't, have you been veiled during a period of your life?

Yes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

No

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4- If you experienced both being veiled and unveiled, circle the appropriate number (from strongly agree, to strongly disagree):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5- The following section deals with the issue in academical contexts (University). Please react to the following statements (you can answer by marking the boxes from extremely to never):

1- You feel stigmatized because of not wearing a veil in your university.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2- Not wearing a veil in the university causes incidents of stigmatization.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3- You feel judged because of clothes you are wearing, or your appearance in the university.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4- You feel more comfortable when wearing a veil in the university.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5- You feel more accepted in the university when wearing a veil.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

6- In your university, unveiling is less acceptable than veiling.

extremely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a lot

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

neutral

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

rarely

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Never

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]

• Universidad: Sultan Moulay Sliman University
• Calificación: 11
• Autor: Anas Belhassan (Autor)
• Año de publicación: 2020
• Páginas: 90
• No. de catálogo: V1142282
• ISBN (Ebook): 9783346518613
• ISBN (Libro): 9783346518620
• Idioma: Inglés
• Etiqueta: gender, sociology, sociology of gender, stigmatization, veil, gender studies, male dominance, sexual politics, androcentrism