TURKISH WOMEN

Hokitika Guardian, 30 October 1920, Page 4

TURKISH WOMEN

(By Ferdinand Tupliy), CONSTANTINOPLE. Every now and then one conies across an article in a section of the British or United States Press hailing the emancipation of the Turkish woman as an accomplished fact. Zeyneb and Melek,* we read, are really now more or less free, go about unveil--ed, take part in politics, marry whom they wish*to wed, frequent places of amusement—in fact, comport themselves quite in the Western style. It would all be very pretty —if it were trug. But, unfortunately, if you put op a fez and ramble round Stanfbqul in the morning or evening of fin August day in 1920 you come away with quite a different impression. Far from the Turkish woman gaining more freedom, the tendency is all the other way, towards conservatism (as in Turkish life generally at the moment), and the reason is not far to seek. You cap see through a veil, even of half a dozen thicknesses, and Zeyneb and Melek have seen some rather disturbing things in latter times. They have seen a six-years panorama of the naval and military manhood of Europe unfurl itself before their gaze, anil “the inclination of woman being to display her beapty to man,” the black phantoms have quite evidently been toying with the Koran, for this is the proclamation which greets them to-day whenever they circulate abroad: i ‘Thp preservation of modesty and seclusion is ag essential Islamic duty. Covering (or seclusion) constitutes for women a positive safeguard and a free assurance of their rights; the contrary is a sign of depravity and immorality—that is to say, it is vulgar and improper For the objective of mankind is the loveliness of womankind and the glory of a woman is in her virtue. And there is no more certain manner of assuring this- than by covering.”

*.*#** Not ten Turkish women in a hundred are to-day defaulters in this matter of the veil—and such are usually the' Christian wives of Turks, affecting the downcast eyes of the convent, or else , Indies with no more loveliness or glory , to hide. i From the age of thirteen, when she takes the tcharchat, the Turkish girl is forbidden all places of amusement or of public resort;; must be indoors by sun- j down (imagine London peopled by men 1

after the day’s work!); can' only converse with three men—her husband, father, and brother; and spends most Of her time in gossip with others of her BC£ or. in intensive secluded beautifica-tion-—-later, in household duties aiitt in the care of her children. “They are remarkably stunted mentally, still quite like children even when grown up,” a Frenchwoman tells me. “That is to say, the majority. There is an intellectual, Europeanised minority here which has dispensed with covering, but these find themselves almost in as had a plight as formerly; |’or no 'Jkijk will talk tp .thorn, am] they dare qo consort openly >vith Chrikiaqs. They spend ail their time at the arts—litornturp, music, and painting—tyit the more they learn of the outside' world ! the greater becomes their torture. They t knew all about life and its joys—but only by proxy. It is like putting water pear a bound man.”' So muej) for “'the emancipation of the Turkish woman.” In one respect only—and it is of importance—does sonic sort of freedom appeqr to have come. It is said that a Turkish bride is now allowed to sec her betrothed before the bridal morn, and that she may reject him.