MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1574282702

'Mad Woman in the Burqa': Muslim women as exemplar feminists.

2006· article· en· W1574282702 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueHecate · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender Politics and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDilemmaFeminismIslamSociologyLawMuslim worldGender studiesHuman rightsPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemologyTheology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

No letters please from British women who have taken the veil and claim it's liberating. It is their right in a tolerant society to wear anything, including rubber fetishes....1 Dilemma By way of introduction I would like to pose a (somewhat long-winded) dilemma.2 There is a constituency of Muslim women that, as Polly Toynbee notes, state that Islam and in particular the adoption of Islamic dress, is liberating for women. Whether expressed as adherence to an immutable scriptural code or dubbed 'Islamic feminism', these ideas, held by Muslim women, exist. This jars against conventional depictions of Muslim women as oppressed and as, in fact, the very constituency that can and needs to benefit from universalizing (hitherto read as Western) forms of feminism, be they empirical or standpoint. Put simply, how can Muslim women say such things? The dilemma then is this: in expressing their belief that the veil is liberating, can Muslim women be deemed enlightened? Perhaps we're just mediaeval and (not) happy? Or are we simply mad? As a human rights activist whose educational background covers English Literature, Law and International Relations, three feminist theoretical currents apply in my experience very distinctly to the idea of Muslim women. Feminist empiricism, standpoint theory and post-modern critique all set benchmarks for criteria that Muslim women in various incarnations fail. And when they fail they are often represented as failing on behalf of a generalised, immutable constituency. So, for example, the Afghan woman fails every empirical enquiry into equal rights. The revolutionary Iranian woman returns to scriptural values and loses with this the ability to think in any Cartesian sense. Finally the veiled Turkish woman in emulating her Iranian sister, fails the secular state's attempt to liberate her from her Islamic values by way of a post-modern coup.3 When Muslim women claim liberation through the veil, are they obdurately and stupidly replicating a masculine agenda, or is there scope to argue that Muslim women, by their praxis, are subverting patriarchy? If the latter is the case, then do they do so simply as a particularised response to differently cultured patriarchies or (more radically) are they reformulating the foundations for an all-inclusive form of feminist theory? In short - are Muslim women exemplary feminists? Who is the Muslim woman? Stereotype or prototype? The treatment of women under the Taliban regime of Afghanistan is often described as 'mediaeval', but I'm not sure if the adjective is apposite. Even in mediaeval times women in most cultures, though perhaps this depended on their class, had some power...4 In justifying my contention that Muslim women have not only positive agency but transformative agency, I will have to deal (in an inadequate and generalised manner) with the stereotypes that characterise popular as well as academic and political discourses. As a human rights practitioner it continually saddens me that Muslim women are always problematized. We come to attention because of our (perceived) negativity, and become the subjects of discussion only when our mistreatment brings us to the notice of critical circles. This, in itself, exposes and indicts the negative critical attention that Muslim women receive: we are subjects of study and those who study us do so within a hierarchical structure. Thus the abject failure of Afghan women to be represented in public life in any meaningful way under the Taliban (and despite some nominal appointments, post-Taliban) in Afghanistan, is used as a defining statistic that empirically inclined discourses use to typify Muslim women and indeed (other) women of colour. This sort of critique poses an anomaly, which highlights the one-way relationship between critical thinking and advocacy, and the idea(s) of Muslim women. For example, at the Beijing Conference on Women, in 1995, the UN gave the following figures for the number of female university lecturers in various countries: Iran 19% United Kingdom 19% Canada 18% Luxembourg 11% Japan 11% Belgium 10% Adding Muslim women and stirring seems to augur better than stereotypical thinking would normally lead us to believe. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,320
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle