How religions and culture are hijacking feminism in the name of freedom of choice

Feminism is being hijacked to further religious and cultural ends whereby impositions are guised as choices so that impositions are allowed to exist under the aegis of feminism. It's exactly how science is being hijacked by religions currently - to lend them worth and relevance and not go defunct like Thor and Neptune. On the surface this may seem as anti choice but there is no way impositions can transmogrify into choice. A fine line exists here that can only be seen when analytical skills are used - something people often don't use. Even I supported this notion. I changed now. This phenomenon is a malady like racism and slavery, not the women who subscribe to this 'recent notion' because humans are capable of changing themselves - renounce establishments and adopt new ones. Liberty is realising that oppression can't be termed as choice. It's like saying being a slave is a choice.

So, many women are saying that if being naked is women's freedom, the same rule applies if women want to wear hijab. Freedom of choice. Freedom of dressing. Women emancipation. Feminism.

We beg to differ that impositions can't be termed as 'choice' no matter how you put it.

Being naked isn't an imposition that any religion or culture endorsed. Hijab is an imposition enforced by religion. Comparing the two is a goner.

To make you all understand, centuries ago, Nadar women in Kerala were imposed to expose their breasts by the upper castes. If they wanted to cover, they needed to pay tax, the tax amount depended on their breast size. Now, this is an imposition to expose - it can't be called choice. The women were forced to expose their breasts to denote their low caste status and the women didn't go, "I choose to expose my breasts. I choose to uphold my lower status. Freedom of choice, freedom of dressing." Nangeli cut her breasts in protest of this breast expose imposition - the women resisted the imposition that ordered.them to expose their breasts. They didn't term going topless as right and choice - it was imposition plainly. So, the issue is not exposing or covering up. The issue is imposition. No way imposition can be said to be choice. It's like saying, "I choose not to enter temples because of my untouchability." It's flawed in itself. It's the acceptance of discrimination of every type.

Calling impositions as freedom of choice isn't mature. Qandeel Baloch chose to expose and what befell her? Felixia Yeap going from bikini to burqa is freedom of choice, all Muslims hail her. Qandeel going from burqa to bikini, disgrace to Islam, dishonorable, should be killed. WHERE DID THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE GO IN QANDEEL'S CASE? The only admiration here goes to Qandeel's father. When the choice favors religion and culture all are very happy. When the choice favors civil liberty, religious and culture gatekeepers have a problem. Bikini is fashion and not religiously imposed so it's choice from the inception. Burqa is the other way around so it can't be called choice.

The defence that is put forth is that hijab as a symbol of freedom because they no longer have to comply with the expected standards of the society showcased by magazines, tv or celebrity lifestyles. 

A Muslim woman who sets her own standard to live up to without worrying about what the world has to say, which is extremely liberating, the apologists say.

 Will these apologists look at wearing bikini as freedom of choice? Will they accept it as 'own willingness, not as western culture, freedom to follow popular trend, freedom to set her own standards and not worry of what the world has to say?'

If they see wearing bikini as empowering as wearing the burqa and not launch tirades on how the former is dishonorable, encourage rape, that body should only be shown to husband, that exposing skin doesn't make you empowered in a nutshell, then I have no problem with anyone wearing anything as now it has purely become choice and respect for choice. The religious significance should be taken away and the symbols should become an accessory.

Those subscribing to this notion of choice is a confused lot - they talk about the call on Muslim women to wear hijab. There were calls to not allow women to vote, to go to school, to go out in public and just because a number of women think adhering to all that makes them empowered, it does not because other women want to vote, go to school and go out and they won't be allowed to - they'll be shamed and be told, "See those women who think not voting is an empowered choice? You should be like them because women voting will disrupt the fabric of society." This is bigger than hijab and Islam and that's why other examples are incorporated. 

I just want an equal world for everyone. But, wearing bikini or a dress isn't seen as freedom of choice but an insult to the female body in many religions and cultures that are resulting in honour killings. But, burqa is freedom of choice and empowering it seems. Come to the notion that women are empowered whatever they wear and not judge them based on ingrained religious beliefs and that's when it truly becomes a choice. For now, it remains an imposition guised as choice.

I find it funny when they say it's a religious obligation yet a choice to wear it. It does oppress women who choose not to wear it, so, calling it choice is illogical.