24 Responses to “The end of Miss Cherry of Sefrou?”

1. Sam Says:
   July 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

   I totally agree with you. We need to start doing repression on criminal action, not on the expression of beauty and positive attitude.

   I’m a recent reading of your blog. I really enjoy it. Congratulations! I’m a canadian married to a moroccan women and I lived two years in Morocco.

2. Hisham in France Says:
   July 25th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

   Hi!
   That’s appaling isn’t it? this creeping radicalization of the moroccan society. It seems to me that there is a culture of Ugliness: everything that is valuable, beautiful or innocent is associated with sin in those people’s twisted minds. It’s a real shame. Muslims used to worship beauty; Arab poets were known for their passion for feminity. now look whe re we are. Thank you anyway!

3. Ibn Kafka Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 1:17 am

   It would indeed seem to be a case of blame-the-victim to shut down the contest on account on some mentally deranged harassers…

4. 5Estrellas Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 1:57 am

   Safrou is quite a nice town. It lays peacefully nearby fez. It empresses you especially by its old houses peculiarly designed. Everybody will tell you proudly that Moroccan Jews were living there once upon a time. Safrou appears to be sad and abandoned. But tell me, isn’t beauty competition a main means of reifying women
   - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
   - Beauty is only skin-deep.

5. taamarbuuta Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 2:15 am

   @ Sam - Welcome!

   @ 5 Estrellas - I don’t like beauty contests either, to be honest, but I’m also a proponent of choice, and if these women want to subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny, then that’s their decision. Men should still - always - be held responsible for their abusive actions.

6. Myrtus Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 4:24 am

   “Men should still - always - be held responsible for their abusive actions.”

   Exactly!

   This is also one of the many reasons I’m against the hijab.

7. Rachel Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 5:06 am

   Well, hijab to the commenter above is not about men for all women who wear it. And Jill, I agree with your post.

8. taamarbuuta Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

   Rachel, she knows that (she’s Moroccan by nature) but I tend to agree that in many societies, particularly Morocco, not wearing hijab means it’s open season and that’s just messed up. It’s not so much about the women who do wear it, but those who choose not to.

   And thanks Hijab aside, no woman should be treated that way by a man, even if she wants to wear a miniskirt and high heels (which you know I’d never wear!)

9. Rachel Says:
   July 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

   I have met women who are from Muslim societies who still have no clue what certain practices mean, so this unfortunately doesn’t exclude them from certain ignorance. There are still many things I don’t know or fully understand in my own former faith. Fortunately for me, I don’t hold any grudges against my former faith nor it’s adherents and as an American and a Humanist I believe in their rights to dress as they wish, without holding prejudice against them.

10. monsieur mike Says:
    July 27th, 2007 at 2:36 am

    I must admit I’m still baffled how and why many men in Morocco get away with harassment. Not only are they meant to avert their gaze, but I am sure they would be mortally offended if someone harassed their mother, sister or daughter. Where does the disconnect come in their minds? Then again I am still baffled by men in North America who seem to think it appropriate to whistle or cat call women as they pass.

11. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 2:26 am

    @Myrtus
    “ons I’m against the hijab”
    Does it mean you are against personal liberties and privet choices? what about piercing and tattoo? Are you against, too? No sense! You can refuse to do something but you have no right to be against since it doesn’t harm you any way!

12. Myrtus Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 3:55 am

    Hi 5Estrellas!
    Actually I’m not a big fan of tattoos and piercing either, but for totally different reasons than the hijab.

    The Koran recommends hijab, but does NOT insist upon wearing it, yet certain people in powerful positions insist that the Koran makes hijab mandatory, making it a demand because it conveniently serves their own nonreligious, powermongering agenda (i.e Iran’s fashion police and Saudi Arabia’s religious police enforcing the so-called Islamic dress code on women). Today, women who live in the west and are adopting and wearing the hijab seem to be doing so because their intention is ultimately to represent themselves as political, rather than spiritual Muslims, and to show off their “religious” identity which to me is similar to wearing the flag of the ummah and I just find the whole process to be corrupt, because it has nothing to do with piety. Today, the hijab has become like a T-shirt with an unwritten but powerful message on it, whereas it should be more like a garment worn during one’s spiritual activities like prayer and religious ceremonies. I’m also against the hijab because it oppresses women’s natural born attributes, as if they are a threat tomen’s animal instincts even without provocation, whereas men should be able to behave in a civilized manner towards women regardless of their dress.

    To me, modern day hijab in its various forms has become sort of like a national symbol for those who perpetuate fitna, those who illicitly have usurped spiritual Islam and planted political Islam on its throne.

    Do I think women reserve the right to wear it as they wish? Of course I do, I just wish they did it for all the right reasons.

13. Rachel Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 8:31 am

    Wow, who are you to assume that women in the east are wearing hijab for political ‘whatever’? To me, this is extremely anti-feminist to say that women who make the choice to cover are doing it for some kind of political gain(how I don’t know). Also, I would like to add that the people who are enforcing hijab in Iran or governering women to cover are usually MEN. Why not focus the attention on the men harrassing women, rather than punishing women and telling them what they can or cannot wear and for whatever reason?

    “Do I think women reserve the right to wear it as they wish? Of course I do, I just wish they did it for all the right reasons.”
    Again, how is this kind of thinking pro-woman in any way. It sounds to me that you are trying to say that you are in some what an elitist or more intelligent than the average Hijabi.
    “whereas men should be able to behave in a civilized manner towards women regardless of their dress.”
    EXACTLY! Men should be punished!! Not women who wear or choose not to wear hijab. Another thing I find ironic is that I have been told by many women in Morocco that it doesn’t matter if a woman wears hijab or not, they are all subjected to being harrassed by men there. So, this is further proof of a cultural practice rather than a religious practice.
    It’s like not hiring a woman who wears hijab for a job based on her scarf. People have the notion that women who wear a scarf are oppressed, yet they FURTHER the oppression more when they choose NOT to hire a woman based on her dress!

14. taamarbuuta Says:
    July 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Without inserting myself into this particular argument, I do agree that women in Morocco are harassed by men, regardless of age, looks, size, or hijab. 90% of men in Morocco are simply uncivilized by my count.

15. Rachel Says:
    July 29th, 2007 at 6:40 am

    I can relate. In Germany the majority of students at my foreign school were Moroccan(Probably 80%) and I never thought I would marry one!

16. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    to Rachel
    Sorry! my last massage was an enormous mistake! I really regret it! I wrote it before breakfast! Surly I were awaken with a bad state of mind. Don’t wonder, I already begged taamabuuta to delete it.
    To taamabuuta: please delete my previous com. I renew here one more time this request.

17. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 1:44 am

    Thanks taamabuuta.. I agree with you when you say that 90% of man in morocco and I add woman as well, are uncivilized though it s almost unbearable to hear it from a non Moroccan! This is surly suitable to a high rate of analphabetism and to the Bedouin origin of a great part among the population. The solution would be to strengthen the educative system. The government had done enormous efforts but in vain. The cause of this failure is mainly cultural. The majority shows a lack of labor ethics.

18. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 1:55 am

    I mean The majority of the teaching stuff shows a lack of labor ethics

19. Rachel Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 6:17 am

    5Estrellas,
    My comment wasn’t in regards to yours. I just wanted to add that in English we don’t use the word analphabetism(or at least in the States). We say Illiteracy.

20. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    It is true; yes that was not addressed to me. I have seen it; but a little late. Whatever the thing did not deserve a so abrupt reaction from me. In any case I reformulate my excuses. All this, gave me desire for writing on the hijab and the sexual harassment. Thing I shall do pretty soon. With regard to illiteracy I announce you that the corrective measure of Microsoft word had not announced anything about so I wrote it analphabetism, in any case I thank you for the clarification.

21. Rachel Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 1:26 am

    In German the word for an illiterate is also Analphabet. I hope you will translate your article in English Bslama.

22. 5Estrellas Says:
    July 31st, 2007 at 4:17 am

    to Rachel:
    Do Hijab and harassing have a relation? Was the hijab recommended by the coran so that women are not victims of harassing? Do the hijab prevent the sexual harassment? Let us note that when coran recommended to women to dissimulate their body behind clothes, it evokes in the same context the sexual harassment. At that time a new community, pious and concerned about certain values, hardly came to emerge, on a background of a society, broken up and declining. This new community needed to preserve part of its members, which was represented in fact by women.
    The prostitution at that time was largely propagated, and the prostitutes were not different from those of today. For the prostitute, the body is not more than goods, that it is necessary to run out. The best means of arriving to this purpose is a good exhibition.
    The others, those which did not have any carnal mercantile intention, were consequently to put in withdrawal their body, in order to dissociate themselves from others, and by consequence, to avoid undergoing the advances coming from potential customers. At that time, came the need for precise clothing criteria. The issue was probably perceived in that manner.
    I acknowledge that the subject, in spite of its apparent simplicity, is in fact, very complicated, compared to two points: On the one hand, when the woman proposes her natural gifts, it is exposed so that its person is reduced to a simple body, and thereafter reified. Many cultivated women feel that a vision similar, held to them, is devaluing, in addition to conflicting seriously with their dignity, as a human being. One more, these same natural assets, in another case of figure, when they are located at a high esthetic level, give women notoriety, and ensure her preponderance within the group. Therefore, when putting the body in retreat, woman will feel, to a certain extent, preserved from reifying, and by the means of the same legislation, practically out of reach of the marketing machine, which makes use of its body for commercial purposes. The dignity of the woman will only be preserved by it. But what will be the capacity which its natural charm gets to her? She will be inevitably devoid of. But is this really a considerable loss? Let us note that women do not all own, the beauty, at the same level.so, retracting the female natural charm, will bring certain equity of the chances between women, in the public life.
    In fact the practical application of this concept did not always proceed in the best of the ways. Several ideas in relation with male chauvinism were seen comforted by the tradition of the hijab. Furthermore the idea of hijab was led to the extreme, especially after the collapse of civilization Arab-Moslem. Indeed the hijab had become a tool for submission owned by men, and a brake to the emancipation of women. Nevertheless, in our era, the hijab was revisited by woman, and redesigned by her, so that it fulfills the requirement of the current time. The hijab should neither be prohibited nor be imposed, because in both cases it would be an attack to personal freedom. It is necessary to be satisfied with the laws in force, which prohibit any clothing that would undermine decency. Men must let down fixations, and cease considering woman as a simple object of their desires

23. Rachel Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Thanks for posting this. I think for myself it’s a lot of how i feel about the hijab, but hopefully can make others understand that women who wear hijab are not in any suggesting that women who do not should be treated as lesser of a human being. It never will be the woman’s fault for how a MAN treats another woman and it is unfair to suggest so.

24. 5Estrellas Says:
    August 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    @Rachel
    No I would never suggest a similar idea, though the appearances! I consider that in no case a person must be taken as responsible for the behavior of another. The responsibility on the actions is individual. But it is so sad to notice that you are quite true. The reason is that a large part of our behavior is managed by our instinct, it can be not true for a small civilized and well educated minority, but for the majority, it remains true. Indeed I remain rather contemplative concerning this same minority when I see that a female presence can convulse a man’s manners even in the highest spheres of the state! We all heard about “presidential” sexual harassment. For sur women had not be taken as responsible of that.
    Perhaps, things may change, someday

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.