Since Meckes’ attempt is to persuade the reader that wearing a hijab is merely a sign of weakness, an admission to defeat, she mainly targets her thesis towards women (or men, for that matter) who believe the opposite – that the hijab provides a sense of liberty. One point she mentions to support her thesis is that the hijab was originally designed to meet the needs of men, who thought of women as their property and hence wanted to “protect” their body. If a part of the woman’s body was exposed, her husband would have been more ashamed than she, herself.
Meckes explains that wearing a hijab is like surrendering to something that one hasn’t even done wrong. It’s like apologizing to men for their own uncontrolled sexual urges. As Meckes puts it, a woman who wears a hijab is like saying, “You win, it’s my fault you are staring, assaulting, raping. You guys can’t control your sexual urges, so it’s up to me to make sure there isn’t even a suggestion of a body under my clothes to tempt you. My fault. Sorry.”
The way Meckes expresses this idea is also worth noting. She creates an understatement such that the profundity becomes trivial, and yet the trivial becomes appealing. First, Meckes addresses the issue of “staring, assaulting, raping”, making it seem like nothing men should be ashamed of; only women are blameworthy. However, the fact that she states this so coolly uncovers a hint of sarcasm. Of course that is not what she believes. Meckes’ usage of an understatement gives an ironic effect, and this effect blends well with the overall tone of the essay.
This mood of stern criticism is further enhanced when Meckes uses an antithesis to point out the difference between a respectable tradition and a mask, which women seek comfort behind. “It’s one thing to see covered faces as the exotic and mysterious product of another culture you can leave behind when you return home. But finding them on my home turf, I have to confront my fears about what this kind of dress represents…” Meckes considers women out of her territory wearing a hijab as a respectable tradition, but once they interfere with her culture, she sees the piece of cloth in new light. The purpose of the author to emphasize on the slight difference in the situations is to let the reader infer whether women who wear hijabs are strictly following their culture, or are using this piece of cloth as an excuse to camouflage themselves. The way Meckes arouses the reader’s mind with a question, and discretely implants an answer is intelligent. The hijab has become so common in her atmosphere that one starts to question whether or not the fabric has become more than just a tradition. It implies that the hijab has evolved from a traditional garment, to piece of feminine armor.
The style of the essay is unified with the asyndeton Meckes uses in her conclusion. “…what this dress represents for me, and for all women: backwardness, submissiveness, degradation.” Instead of “backwardness, submissiveness, and degradation, Meckes chooses to omit the conjunction. One must wonder the about the purpose in her doing so. The use of asyndeton in this situation creates a stronger, more climatic effect. The feeling of speed and concision makes the whole idea much more emphatic, which is the author’s main purpose – to persuade powerfully that the hijab represents women’s inferiority.
