Should girls wear headscarves?

There's a thought-provoking piece about the headscarf debate in Turkey in today's Times. Does the wearing of headscarves by devout Muslims change society overall, perpetuating hard-line ideals and sexism? A female journalist there says: "The harrassment of women who don't cover up is increasing. I get called a whore as I walk down the street. The confidence of the Islamic movement is shoring up lumpen sexism among Turkish men."

She goes on to say: "Women who wear headscarves have already been exposed to religious ideology. It affects the kind of things they want in life. They make more passive choices."

Can we say the same about the wearing of headscarves in the UK? Are girls who wear headscarves being molded into meek specimens of womanhood? I think requiring them to wear headscarves jars with our society's ideology of equality. But for some it is simply a case of parents passing on their ideals to their children, just as one might pass along the tenets of Protestant or Catholic beliefs.

I've always been interested in women who cover themselves for religious reasons, at the same time feeling a bit sorry for them. They seem to be colluding in their own disenfranchisement and oppression. They - together with those who champion the niqab and burka - seem to buy into the idea that a woman's hair or face or body are dangerous things that must be controlled. That they are naturally "bad" because they are too stimulating and provocative for men to see.

And when it comes to young girls, there is a moment where they pass over from the freedom of childhood - of being able to run and play as equals with boys - to having to be modest and decorous and not too visible. That's my personal opinion and there are many who disagree. But then who's to say what's "right" when it comes to the rules of the country we live in?

Comments

[Gipsy]

ROFLMAO! Good idea :)

[Jo]

Yay Supermother!

[J]

he he supermother why stop there? Any men who are not sure they can cope with females on show could stay indoors and not be allowed out ever. They could earn their living on the internet and be protected completely from the sight of inflammatory wimmin..

[supermother]

Turkey should not change its laws otherwise girls will be pressured into hiding their beautiful bodies.

Perhaps a better answer for the fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims is for their men to cover their heads completely and wear those types of clothes so they can hardly see out through grills leaving women to walk freely, nude if they choose.

[KM]

I don't think the French system would work here unless we also did away with govt faith schools (which might not be a bad thing, I don't think they are necessarily a good thing at all, as it happens my son will be going to a non-church school).

The issue with Malaysian judges is obviously outrageous sexism. But not really any different from idiotic judges and unscrupulous lawyers who suggest the victim was "asking for it" by being in a miniskirt, drunk etc.

[Jo]

The Luton girl girl won against her school. I was on the schools side to be honest - the uniform was created in consultation with local Imams and parents as the areas was predominantly Muslim. I think that a uniform is a uniform and the whole point of it is to create a group identity (everyone usually hates it so it is good for bonding too). She was 12, not an adult, and attending a school with a uniform. Most of her press conferences were done in the company of male family memebers and you do have to wonder how much of it is her choice.

FBToast - that is terrible, they do it in the UK. Everyone condems rape as terrible but there are always the people who say -'well she was drunk/out alone/ wearing a short skirt' - men are not all raving animals if my brother can get his drunk female friendss home without hurting them then any man who doesn't should be locked up, no excuses!!! Any way rape is not about sex it is about power over the victim.

[fbtoast]

they absolutely should not. Many Muslim women wear the "tudung" (literally, "lid") here in Malaysia, often due to peer pressure. Already we have idiot judges blaming rape victims for not wearing the tudung, or where the victim was wearing the tudung, then it is the fault of all the women who don't wear the tudung and inflame the helpless man.

[M]

Also, Islam is an actively evangelical religion, so interpretation of how far that should go can be abused. I'm sure that is the same for other religions, including consumerism, which others here have pointed out constitutes the newest faith.

[Kim]

J - I think that's exactly the right question: is it the state who has control or the parents?

I think the merit of the French system is that it makes the boundaries clear from the outset - schools are secular, they always have been, and the rules apply to everyone. I don't think we could adopt the French system here because we've already let the genie out - once you've said religious symbols are allowed you can't then say, No, they're not. But it gets very difficult to know where to draw the line. Remember the 12 year old Luton girl who wanted to wear the niqab? Her school apparently had a fairly generous, accommodating policy about the wearing of veils and so on, but they drew the line at the niqab. I actually think the more generous you are, the more the boundaries get pushed (we have all experienced this as parents, of course.)

I can't honestly pretend I have the answers, though.

[j]

Kim I think this raises the issue of who controls a child, the state or her parents.

If the state is saying to the girl that she may not wear the veil, then she feels an authority which I think is very serious. I have no objection at all to the state insisting on the things that matter- so the state can say to her, no, you may not throw stones at the gay man in the next house. If we waste our powder on veils then it is gone.

On the parents- well,as an atheist I am bound to agree with you that its wrong to enforce a faith on a child who doesnt follow it. I feel it equally strongly about Christian and Jewish faith, though- its not confined to Islam. But again I think the veil is not the problem so much as the views on education, marriage etc.

The problem is, I know its naive to say let every child choose freely. If a parent sincerely holds a faith then they are bound to want their child to benefit.

[Kim]

J, for me there are some questions that are still difficult to resolve. Let's take two examples. Which of these girls is most hard done by?

1. A devout Muslim girl, aged 14, who wishes to wear a veil in school but is banned from doing so because the school has strict rules about uniform and forbids the wearing of religious symbols.

2. A 14 year old girl whose parents are strict Muslims, but who herself has no desire to wear the veil (maybe she's lost her faith; maybe she just wants to be like her schoolfriends). Her school permits the wearing of religious symbols, and so she has to wear the veil because her parents say she must.

Which girl's freedom is curtailed the most? I think it's a hard one for the liberally-minded to answer. Personally my sympathies are with girl 2, but wherever your sympathies lie, you're going to find it difficult to come up with a solution that satisfies both girls (not to mention their parents).

[j]

I agree with KM that the scarf is a symbol of faith, rather than of compliance with a set of social norms that should disturb us. Shouldnt it be the flip side of the tolerance of the UK, that people can wear their faith symbols but they must then respect the social norms of the UK? Let's not allow the scarf- or any item of dress- to symbolise the worrying side of Islam, because it doesnt have to do that and you end up portraying all Muslims as the same when they are patently not. Let people celebrate their faith, why shouldnt they? and then they can join us in dealing with forced marriage, terrorism and honour killings.

I wish the same logic had applied to the registrar who refused to do civil partnerships, even though she herself was a single mother (so not exactly squeaky clean in a strict Christian sense)and must have married plenty of people in her own position in her time.

[MonacoMum]

Hi Melissaria- smart question. There are no uniforms in French state schools, so yes, kids can wear what they like, including Nikes. And judging by my step-kids and all their friends (of all backgrounds and nationalities)- EVERYONE seems to wear them. All the usual goth, indie, punky, trendy, square tribes seem to exist with one difference- the external markings of individual style are ever present at school- let's face it, even with a uniform, you do you best to mark it as your own. Kept for elsewhere though are the deeper symbols of personal faith.

[Kim]

Yes, indeed, Linda. Lots of people wear headgear when they attend formal occasions. Even I have been known to wear a hat at a wedding, and I'm one of those people who, in your words, mostly "slouches around like a slob."

I'm not sure what bearing this has on whether the teenage daughters of Muslim parents should be forced by their families to wear headscarves, veils or any other religious garment when they are in a secular environment such as a school

[Linda]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Plymouth Brethren wear headgear - as do many African communities and men and women in the UK attending formal occasions. This is just a formality - just because we all slouch around like slobs doesn't mean we should feel insulted that others are smart and restrained. And Islam says little girls don't have to wear headscarves (only once they reach puberty).

[Melissaria]

Question for MonacoMum - so, does the issue of 'tribes' in French schools extend as far as commercial branding (e.g. Nike shoes etc.), or is it just religious symbols that are restricted?

It seems like a very fair stance, but I would like to know if it is applied consistently across the secular/religious cultural divide?

[Jo]

I do want read Lolita in Iran. I agree with you KM about howyou should be able to show your faith through clothing, however, it should not be imposed on people and if it gets in the way of you interacting with others or doing your job effectively then I feel that those wearing the clothes have to take some ownership. It always seems to be about 'my rights' in the examples you cited rather than actually thinking about the effect of ones religious decisions on others.

[M]

Yes, brilliant book. I don't think we disagree at all. I certainly take your point about young men and war.
The issue about religious clothing is context really, I feel. That applies to any religion.

[KM]

Yes, and the counter-argument is those huge issues of ownership and compulsion around women's bodies, the way in which young women can be manipulated into taking a stand just like young men can be manipulated into going off to fight in other people's wars....
And then the whole issue of State-imposed morality. Has anyone read Reading Lolita in Iran, which has to be one of the best books I have ever read on religious oppression and how the veil requirements exploit women...terrifying. So I would want to say that I see it as a complex and politically charged issue, just that I don't necessarily see religious clothing as a bad thing.

[M]

Hmm, I see you point, KM and would like to agree. For me, I suppose I look at who is wearing it and that comes into the equation. I am well aware of the neo-con rush to judgement and Daily Mail propaganda potential here.
I also agree with those who have differentiated between different veils and their functions. The power of, say, the case of the hairdresser having to pay out of her savings to a person whose hair wasn't visible, when she didn't employ her is immeasurable, but then, I can see the business owner's point, as with the niqab-wearing nursery teacher who taught languages, but you couldn't see her mouth. When a young girl petitioned to be allowed to wear the veil, there were some very threatening looking men always in the background. 


Common sense should prevail, but increasingly, it doesn't.

Jo, I totally agree and would cite the example of Iran where the hard-line teachings have made a mockery of the academic traditions and universities there.

[KM]

I have been thinking a lot about the issues raised by this thread, and I think that one of the issues is visible/invisible, which is particularly important with relation to faith, because so much (perhaps all) of faith relates to an unseen, invisible and possibly non-existent spiritual world.

I instinctively see a religious symbol, of whatever religion, as a positive sign of devotion, something that is likely to deepen the life of the wearer, if it is worn with sincerity and not just to conform. In other words I see it as a sign of a commitment to the invisible spiritual life, and perhaps a statement that that life is equally if not more important than the mores of this world and society.

Someone who is not at all religious will predominantly see that symbol in terms of its social and tribal significance, not its spiritual role.

Hence perhaps I tend to be more open to different ways of people exploring and expressing their religion through clothing.

[THEA]

I'm not optimistic that Islam can coexisting peacefully with any other religion. There are examples of peaceful coexistence for a time - Malaysia, Croatia, Spain under the Moors, Egypt, Turkey - but always interspersed with cycles of violence against anything that isn't Islam. No form of Islam preaches toleration of other faiths - all infidels must be brought into the fold or killed. Islam condones violence if needed to spread the faith. Intermarriage is cursed by the clear Islamic teaching that all children of a mixed marriage are by definition Muslims - so any child that chooses not to be one is guilty of apostasy (punishable by death in Sharia law). Of course you have liberal Muslim families that wouldn't themselves take a sword to their Jewish or Christian neighbours, just like you have liberal Christian families that prefer to see their path to God as one of many (expressly against Christian teaching, btw) and a rather woolly idea of the Trinity, but they won't make much headway with the serious religious folk. Look at what's happening in Lambeth. There is an urgent need to find a formula to prevent this cycle recurring in Europe, as it will if we do not take steps.

If the answer is to ban religion completely, you might as well ban free speech (as Delilah says) or the freedom to have more than one child, or choose what your child is taught to believe at school. This is indeed how many countries - such as Indonesia - deal with militant Islam. However, for Europeans that would mean abandoning some fundamental Western freedoms which are actually based on the Enlightenment - culminating in liberty, equality, fraternity - rather than Christianity. Why is it that Islamic countries are returning to medieval Islam in response to the Enlightenment rather than embracing it? The Turkish argument for joining the EU is that if they are not allowed to, they will descend into Islamic fundamentalism. The argument for not allowing them to join is that if the Turks can't save themselves from fundamentalism, how on earth can Europe do it for them? If you don't accept the Enlightenment, Europe should be no place for you.

[MM]

Hi - sorry I just want to correct the little misocnception about the jews documentary. You were right about the legs from age 3 business but the hair one was a bit off. hair is covered from marriage, at whatever age that marriage takes place (and since all marriages are done both in a religious and civil ceremony that is never below age 16. the reference to the gae of 12 is when Judaism considers that a girl has become a woman and so that is when the children (both boys and girls - both sexes have standards of modesty to conform to) would have to cover up. the age 3 business is so that they get used to it and so that by age 12 it is not a huge responsibility to them, it has already become something easy to do and accomplish and does not make life difficult for each individual child. so, to clarify, age 3 is when modest dress is normally adopted (but not universally), age 12 (13 for boys) is the age at which modest dress becomes much more of a big issue, and hair is not covered until marriage. Hope that was useful!

[Jo]

I agree with the people who made the comments about women in barely there clothing being bad for women's rights and as bad as forcing women to cover everything including, in some cases, their eyes. The main problem is that women collude in their sexualisation and subjugation.

[Jo]

I was watching a program on channel 4 last week about Islam and the Qur’an. The impression I got from that program was that the Islam of the seventies in secular Islamic countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Iran was more like that 'Miss Marple Islam’. Very little wearing of the veil and highly educated women doing important jobs and that the change to a more prescriptive type of Islam was relatively recent. The suggestion of women covering everything comes from Saudi Islamic leaders, these types of dress are the kind of clothes worn by the pre-islamic peoples of the Arabian peninsula. The Saudi leaders have a lot of influence as they control Mecca and Medina; they have also put a lot of the oil revenue in to promoting Islam including publishing Qur’ans at a low cost or no cost to the consumer. (These Qur’ans have been added too - in brackets next too enemies of Islam they have put e.g. Jews and Christians). This is extreme Islam and I suppose if people want to follow it is their choice, however, everyone has to realise they live in a secular country though some accommodations are and should be made to allow the wonderful diversity we find here in the UK we can not pander to every whim of a religion. The Niquab is a dress choice not a religious necessity.