Persepolis and Butler

When discussing feminist theory as it relates to a universal understanding of patriarchal oppression, Butler writes "That form of feminist theorizing has come under criticism for its efforts to colonize and appropriate non-Western cultures to support highly Western notions of oppression"(5). After reading this, I couldn't help but think of Satrapi and her depiction of the veil in Persepolis. It would seem that Satrapi's depiction of the veil is informed by her initial impressions of it as a child. She feels wary of it and all of her friends hate it. In the way she depicts it graphically, it has the effect of homogenizing all the women who wear it. While a mandate for the veil is certainly oppressive, is the veil itself fairly depicted as a symbol of oppression? Butler writes "The urgency of feminism to establish a universal status for patriarchy in order to strengthen the appearance of feminism's own claims to be representative has occasionally motivated the shortcut to a categorical or fictive universality of the structure of domination"(5). The contemplation of this statement has a sizable effect on the way we understand not only Satrapi but also feminism is general. While it's fair to say that most Western women would object to wearing the veil or a burqa, are these necessarily oppressive objects in and of themselves? I guess what I'm trying to say is that reducing complex issues such as a patriarchal domination in Iran to a symbol such as the veil is a reductive and harmful way of thinking about feminism and patriarchal domination. This is what Butler is arguing for: a nuanced understanding of women and patriarchy that does not try to impose a Westernized notion of femininity and feminism to all women. Butler wants there to be a multiplicity of notions about women and a multiple "feminisms" in order to avoid essentializing these ideas when they vary from culture to culture.