No hijabs need apply.

Candie wrote: »

A hijab is a harmless item of clothing that doesn't affect a womans life in any way. I have much greater reservations regarding the niquab, which keeps her hidden from view, affecting how she interacts with others and they with her, I see that as an oppressive garment, as is the bur'qa. Personally, I see no point at all in banning a headscarf. There is nothing oppressive about covering one's hair.

The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable in the same way anyone who objects to a person wearing a cross around their neck is being unreasonable. Unless they're carrying it on their back, it's not exactly obtrusive.

I'm not sure the State should be given a say in how people dress.

As long as you think so that must be ok then. It's not you who is expected to wear one, is it? Nor are any of your freedoms being curtailed.

It's not the state in which the ruling was passed, it's the communities or families of the women who dictate that modesty garb should be worn in public, which is why women theoretically might not be free to go out if they are banned in a workplace. This was a theory raised in this thread. The piece of cloth isn't allowing or stopping them from having freedom, it's the controlling culture that does so. It's not the piece of fabric that is offensive, it's the fact that women are wearing what is a tool of oppression and some women here, are foolish enough to think those women choose it, as if they weren't brought up to believe in it, and had simply decided one day that a hijab might be nice.

I'm stunned at the ignorance. ''' The hijab affects nobody but the wearer and anyone that says it does is being unreasonable''. I again refer you to Iranian women campaigning to be free of the hijab. Not the niqab, not the abaya, the hijab. But they're being unreasonable?. Time to unfollow this farce of a thread.

Candie wrote: »

I've worked in countries where the hijab is routinely worn, and I can assure you that all the women I met wearing the hijab were anything but cowed and oppressed. I didn't interact with anyone wearing a full-face covering, so I imagine that might be rather different, but that's my personal, lived experience. The hijab has no effect on how a woman works, lives, interacts with others, and generally goes about her business. I am not ignorant.

If you read my post very carefully, you'll note that I stressed this is my opinion. I'm more than happy to read yours and interact politely, but I won't be called ignorant because I don't share your view as it is contrary to my experiences.

Again, I don't think it's particularly helpful to ban a woman from wearing a headscarf because it's a sign of an oppressive culture, but support a government telling people what they may and may not wear, and claim that this is not in fact oppressive itself.

What happens to some women when they don't wear modesty garb in regions where they are strict about it? It certainly does have an effect on their lives. It's wonderful that those women appeared to be free to you, in their hijab.

I take exception to being called unreasonable. I think it was ignorant to say objections to modesty garments are unreasonable. It is obviously either ignoring, dismissing or showing a lack of awareness of the many women who don't like or want modesty garments, and those who were indoctrinated into feeling they must wear them, and most importantly those who are at risk in any way if they reject them.

IF the state bans modesty garments I might not agree with that ban. But the government has not banned any of it. So how the government is oppressing anyone is a mystery.

Candie wrote: »

There is a reasonable argument that if you ban hijabs, that you're just condemning some women to never leaving the house again. If a woman is under such strict control that she has no choice in what she wears due to pressure by community or family, does anyone really believe that banning a hijab means she'll be free? No, she'll just be kept indoors.

It's just going to restrict the most restricted more, and unfairly dictate to people what they may or may not wear.

Since I don't believe a hijab to be oppressive, and I've no reason to believe that women who say they choose to wear them are lying and are adults making their own decisions, and that banning them will force those women who are forced to wear them to withdraw from wider society, I believe any move to ban them is counterproductive and unwarranted.

That is not an ignorant position to take. I will not be responding to you again.

Ok. I will concede that those women who haven't consciously been coerced into wearing one say it is their choice. Although I don't personally believe it can be a choice under the circumstances. It wasn't invented by a woman or for women's benefit, either. Not wearing it is to their detriment in some places. So it seems a strange choice to me, but then much of what religious people do and what they consider to be pious is a mystery to me.
When women only wear hijab because their society expects it of them and would not have worn one prior to their region coming under islamic state control, do you consider that oppressive?
Workplace rules restrict us in ways we aren't restricted in public, we all have to accept that in some way or another in some of our professional roles.Again, the government banning hijab would be quite different to this ruling.

Ah, have just seen your last word. That's ok, I'll continue to be unreasonable in the hope that women will wake up and stop defending the subjugation of other women.

pilly wrote: »

You see this is why your posts could be considered unreasonable because you point blank refuse to even consider that it may be a choice for some women. It's actually quite arrogant to ignore others telling you that they've spoken to Muslim women who have a choice and choose to wear it.

I understand you don't get why religious people do it.

Doesn't mean you can keep telling others they're ignorant.

Do you understand what coercive control is?

And what was said was not that my posts are unreasonable, but thanks for that. This is what was said:

''The hijab affects nobody apart from the wearer and anybody who objects to that is being unreasonable''

I understand why some women think they do it. And why some religious people believe strange things. It does defy logic, though.

pilly wrote: »

I understand quite well thank you. You're trying a bit yourself by insisting on trying to convince people that your view is correct.

Sorry, not gonna work. I and many others disagree.

And yes it is unreasonable to object to wearing of a headscarf in my opinion and nothing will change that.

You asked another poster to not call you unreasonable. I'm asking you to not call others ignorant because they don't agree with your view.

And you're not insisting your view is correct, and by calling objectors unreasonable, Candy wasn't either. No, the coercive control exerted over women from birth is somewhat different to disagreeing on Boards.

I'm sure Candie is not an ignorant person. I thought the comment was ignorant of peoples' reasons for objecting. As Candie has said she has finished responding, I will do the same. I'm sorry to have caused offense.

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but if you freely allow the use of the Hijab, then how do you justify refusal of the Burka, or the Niqab?

Quite. Since they are worn for the very same reasons, how is one ok and the others not, since the others are more extreme expressions of the same piety and modesty.

Either you're ok with women (only women) having to cover up areas not usually associated with immodesty (I can't think of the word I want), or you think it's an imposition and a dangerous front line.

bubblypop wrote: »

I lived in England in the 70s & 80s, and i went to primary school with girls who wore trousers under their school uniforms, and long sleeves under their short sleeved shirts and hijabs on their heads. I go over regularly the past 30 years and i haven't noticed any difference.
There are still girls i went to school with wearing those clothes, there are some of them still wearing the hijab, there are also others who have stopped wearing those garments altogether.

Our experiences are different. It happens. Maybe from different areas. There are many anecdotal reports of an increase in piety and pressure to conform to it in England. I've just shared one from back when it really kicked off, which was in the 1990s, did you see it? It describes how the Muslims of the 70s and 80s were less fanatical than their children later became, and how the boys bullied the girls in Tower Hamlets, to dress modestly. Denying that the hijab is more common a sight now seems a bit strange, though. Again, different experiences, fair enough.

Good grief, klaz, of course I'm aware, I have been paying attention the last few years.

But the answer when there's a vicious undercurrent, from a policy perspective, is not to punish the victims. Violent extremists out there? Let's encourage them by showing that when they are violent and cause fear, it rebounds on innocent people instead, particularly the innocent people that the extremists doesn't like. It's the equivelent in school terms of punishing the victim of the bully because the bully is too difficult to tackle. It is craven and it will not work, because instead of punishing victimisation and cruelty, one punishes the victims and then looks hopefully at the bully as if to say "see, if I do it, you don't need to...so you'll stop now? Right? Right?"

From a personal perspective, people may indeed prefer not to call attention to themselves, especially if the popular opinion is "who cares, they're only Muslims", and that's fine. People should be allowed to take their own precautions to protect themselves. But public and social policy should not be "well, maybe if we disguise them a little, the xenophobes won't notice them."

And banning a religion or infringing on its freedom, (especially in rather spiteful-appearing ways like this) is the single best way to get people involved in it. Because then it becomes a fight for survival, not just a celebration of one's own private culture. Ban Irish in Ireland and you bet in ten years we'd all be speaking it!

Edit: Also, there is a difference between allowing something and encouraging it. I'm talking about not banning a freaking article of clothing that is important to many women. Doesn't mean that -I- feel it to be any more or less than a piece of clothing. But it is to them - and it obviously is to many of the people who are so terrified at the sight of it that they demand it to be hidden from society. And there is a lurking -fear- behind all this. No-one's scared of a Sikh turban (except the people that attack them because it "looks Muslim").

And yet, counter-productively, your answer is to make religion be a problematic factor in your workplace by essentially refusing to let anyone devout, despite it not affecting you in any way whatsoever, rent you their skills. You lose out on a huge sector of society in terms of skills and abilities. A less autocratic employer's gain. Just a bit ironic that the only one actually causing religion to interfere in your business is you.


Also, as a side-note, it strikes me that asking someone in an interview in classically "Catholic Ireland" if they believe in God is probably going to get fibbers saying yes under the impression that you're an interfering Catholic imposing your beliefs on them!

So, you don't get what skills a devout person could possibly have that a non-devout person wouldn't, but you were okay having life-saving surgery from this devout guy because he was the best man for it. Because religious belief and skill are nothing to do with each other but when it comes to your company, you choose to believe that their faith makes them less able for the job (but not when your life is at stake!).

Many people are devout in some way or another. Many people will answer yes. Therefore, you will immediately dismiss them from proving their ability to you based on their belief, i.e. prejudging their worth to your company. That's the bit where your loss, a more open-minded employer's gain.

However, you probably would never have known if they believed in a god or not except that you nose into it. So you make the problem for yourself. The only person that makes the existence of religion a problem for your company is you. Your choice. Just a daft thing to do and thus it entertains me.

As a side-thing, if you asked me that question at all, I would choose a job that where I was employed somewhere less nosey and judgmental, despite being far closer to an atheist than not. The biting off of one's nose to spite one's face as a company culture, coupled with the spiteful disdain of a large group of people would make me very dubious about the company overall. Afraid it works both ways.