Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Article raising some interesting but flawed points on why some Muslim women wear niqab (full face veil with gap for eyes)

84 replies

Carla786 · 11/11/2025 01:36

As a result, cousin marriage is
So we begin to see the argument that cousin marriage is a patriarchal imposition on the autonomy of individual women of Pakistani heritage, forcing them into marrying cousins with the risk of giving birth to unhealthy babies. Surely, they reason, no woman could possibly want that for herself, or for her potential children. It is a coercive practice, designed to shore up the power of the male elders of clans, by marrying their own offspring together.
While the paradigm of patriarchy vs. autonomy might be effective dialectically in the context of British politics, in the case of both cousin marriage and the niqab, it is completely misapplied. It is not so much based on a misunderstanding of how human culture works, rather than a comprehensive disregarding of culture entirely. What began as a necessary and salutary backlash against cultural relativism on the Left a couple of decades ago, has become a lazy habit of simply neglecting the importance of culture.
To put it as crudely as possible, people who grew up in cultures where cousin marriage is normal, find cousin marriage normal. There does appear to be some instinctive, genetic trait hardwired into humans universally that we are (generally) not sexually attracted to the people we grew up with in the immediate family unit. But beyond that, all practices around pairing, courtship, marriage and procreation of children are subject to cultural custom, which are shaped according to the structures, needs and philosophy of that society. These customs vary massively across the world, from culture to culture. Unless they have extensive exposure to some alternative culture, almost nobody finds the customs of their own native culture creepy or weird. That is the nature of culture; it establishes norms that are, well, normal — at least to the people who live in it.

Something like the niqab is an even more clear cut example of classical in-group social signalling. Most obviously, wearing the niqab is a signal of piety, which is its own reward, and is an enhancement to female status within religious communities in the eyes of other women, especially older women. Signals of piety by a daughter or a granddaughter are a particular enhancement to the status of a matriarch. But within the context of an immigrant community, the niqab serves as a far more powerful signifier of place within the broader society — most specifically as a rejection of it.
Many Pakistani communities in England live in towns that have experienced economic decline and depopulation. What remains of the English communities around them are often those who lacked the wherewithal to leave, and who are afflicted by varying degrees of social and economic dysfunctionality. Unlike Pakistani communities, the local English lacked access to informal credit via extended family structures, and could not set up their own independent businesses. Chronic problems of family breakdown, addiction and low educational attainment, ended up with the Pakistanis regarding the English as dissolute and amoral. Much of this can be seen in the rape gangs scandal. But it also means that a clear signal rejecting mainstream English society is itself an ingroup status signifier among the Pakistani community. The associations of that signal in terms of personal virtue are especially important for women.

As with many female-specific cultural signifiers, the veil doubles as a status signifier in that it is an impediment to physical labour, thus suggesting the family can afford for its womenfolk not to toil in the fields or in a factory. In our own culture, long painted fingernails serve the same purpose. Although unlike long nails, the niqab can be easily removed indoors, and so does not preclude a life of drudgery inside the home. Yet as physical signifiers of leisure go, it is a relatively unobtrusive one for the wearer, compared with some of the more extreme measures some cultures have gone to such as Chinese foot binding.

Men have always gained status through demonstrations of their wealth; large houses, extensive lands and fine clothes; thoroughbred horses or fast cars. But it is women, throughout the ages and all over the world, who have cultivated the art form of more subtle signals not only about the wealth their family might have, but also how they might have acquired it. This is why most cultures have discrete concepts of class and wealth.

There are many theories about why humans have almost uniquely evolved the phenomenon of the menopause, and with it a population of women living beyond their years of fertility — the other species to do so being the killer whale. One theory is that the grandmother exists as a form of social technology to enforce norms. Thin

Yet other than the West and the former Communist bloc (especially China), most other societies have not experienced that degree of social change, and older familial hierarchies endure. This is particularly the case in traditional Muslim societies that restrict the role of women outside the home. There is a temptation among Westerners who are unfamiliar with the reality of family life in Islamic societies to take their pieties at face value, and to assume that men retain the whip hand over women in all aspects of life. But the reality is more nuanced.
If economic and political life outside the home is the arena of men into which traditional Muslim women seldom stray, then life within the home is their domain. Bottled up, and with far fewer distractions than a modern western woman, a Pakistani wife may devote herself to the stewardship of her household. The surprising result of this is that Pakistani and Middle Eastern husbands are some of the most hen-pecked men on God’s green earth.
Any analysis which suggests that cultural practices can be enforced by patriarchy alone without considering the role of matriarchy is probably not particularly helpful.'

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Carla786 · 18/12/2025 16:30

WarriorN · 01/12/2025 20:57

This debate was brilliant - Khadija Khan and Aisha Ali-Khan, in that Aisha felt a ban wouldn’t be supportive enough for Muslim women whereas Khadija was clear how the burka is used as a cultural tool of oppression and abuse: (I believe her father beat her mother when her mother and her and her sister resisted the burka)

8.24 onwards

the key point they both make is that due to identified harms to women, it should be discussed, freely and openly.

From https://x.com/khadijakhan__/status/1995532540476624966?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Thank you, this is great. I've again been busy, but I'm glad it's being discussed here. I do think a ban would be the right idea, personally : so few women wear it anyway, and I don't think face covering is appropriate in society here, unless there is some specific reason like Covid masks.

But maybe more important in a sense is that people discuss it openly like this, and there's wider work to help women escape abusive environments.

OP posts:
7563l · 02/12/2025 11:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the user's request.

oldtiredcyclist · 02/12/2025 07:13

CForCake · 01/12/2025 21:26

@Carla786 Just look at how religious lobbies are panicking in Northern Ireland, after the Supreme Court ruling that religious education in NI is indoctrination - because, unlike in England, it teaches only Christianity, and it teaches it as truth, rather than as one of many views.

What are they so afraid of? That schools teaching children that other religions exist and are legitimate choices would cause the number of Christians to drop? So it was always about early indoctrination?

I went to a Roman Catholic secondary school. During one RE lesson, I questioned why we don't recognise other religion's Gods on an equal basis to our own. That resulted in me being put in detention. My own mother threatened to throw me out of the house if I didn't go to church (she was born in Ireland), so yes, it is indoctrination, but it is the same for all religions. I think schools should be religion free and that children should be free to choose religion (or not) as they reach eighteen.

WarriorN · 02/12/2025 05:06

It’s very suddenly noticeably more common around me too.

Arran2024 · 01/12/2025 21:41

I have noticed more people wearing niqab and other forms of cover up round here - girls my daughters went to school with have started doing it when they didn't before. When I go to the town centre, there are many women covered up - it used to be quite rare here. Something is going on.

CForCake · 01/12/2025 21:26

@Carla786 Just look at how religious lobbies are panicking in Northern Ireland, after the Supreme Court ruling that religious education in NI is indoctrination - because, unlike in England, it teaches only Christianity, and it teaches it as truth, rather than as one of many views.

What are they so afraid of? That schools teaching children that other religions exist and are legitimate choices would cause the number of Christians to drop? So it was always about early indoctrination?

WarriorN · 01/12/2025 20:57

This debate was brilliant - Khadija Khan and Aisha Ali-Khan, in that Aisha felt a ban wouldn’t be supportive enough for Muslim women whereas Khadija was clear how the burka is used as a cultural tool of oppression and abuse: (I believe her father beat her mother when her mother and her and her sister resisted the burka)

8.24 onwards

the key point they both make is that due to identified harms to women, it should be discussed, freely and openly.

From https://x.com/khadijakhan__/status/1995532540476624966?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Uscl_NWas

Carla786 · 01/12/2025 20:01

CForCake · 18/11/2025 20:05

@Carla786 That isn't politically incorrect: or it certainly shouldn't be! It is (or should be) basic decency.

My other politically incorrect thought is that talking about a Catholic or an atheist or a Muslim child makes as much sense as talking about a left-wing or a right-wing child: they are things they should decide for themselves when mature enough to do so. But religions know all too well that, if children were introduced to religion only as teens, too many of them would reject it. So indoctrinating from the very beginning is key

I don't think it's wrong to raise children with an awareness of the parents' faith tradition but I share your unease.

Apparently fundamentalist Protestant and strict Catholics in the US are considering homeschooling more because the numbers are falling a lot. Apart from being wrong, I thunk that will backfire. If a religion has to sequester its members young to survive, it makes it look weak.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 01/12/2025 19:58

Thanks for the videos, I've been very busy the last few days bit I think this thread has raised some very important questions and I'd like to keep it going if people still want to post

OP posts:
Screamingabdabz · 20/11/2025 13:44

ForCraftyWriter · 11/11/2025 07:57

Nothing shrieks white saviour more than forming judgements about cultural practices of people we have no deep personal connection with.
The ‘many/most women are forced’ argument is a right wing cloak which effectively removes women’s right to self determination under the false guise of saving them
Long live the true British value of allowing women to choose for themselves and protecting their right to do so

I don’t have much experience with FGM but I know it’s wrong and should be eliminated. It’s usually women who perpetrate it but we all know it’s a deeply damaging and misogynistic practice.

Parallels can be drawn here so don’t use white saviour complex to distract away from the core male agenda at the heart of it.

WarriorN · 20/11/2025 13:30

This is from a previous festival by Taj Hargey, a Muslim scholar who is very progressive and critical of dress codes.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/ZcAjxMFgSCE?si=o9mDgMnjekb5PZtN

WarriorN · 20/11/2025 13:28

These three videos are now online from the battle of ideas and all raise interesting and important points. Theres another panel member who is like to hear but can’t seem to see a film of.

Article raising some interesting but flawed points on why some Muslim women wear niqab (full face veil with gap for eyes)
Carla786 · 19/11/2025 14:23

CForCake · 19/11/2025 08:01

There is a problem every time children feel that they cannot disagree with their parents. This applies not just to religious environments but also to non religious groups and ideologies. Even to feminism. The children of some very radical feminists might be terrified to tell mum that, actually, they disagree with her on a few things.

Yes, this. I'm somewhat radfem myself but like all movements it had people who took it way too far. For example, the 70s radical feminists who were raising kids (including boys) in female communes and going to female bookshops where even small boys weren't allowed in. I don't think that's a good idea at all for childraising, apparently some boys even went extreme after & became MRAs.

Alice Walker's daughter Rebecca has spoken about her mother being very forceful about her views : she's a feminist still now but feels some was a bit much.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart, by the daughter of The Color Purple author

As a revered feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women through her iconic book The Color Purple. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

OP posts:
CForCake · 19/11/2025 08:01

There is a problem every time children feel that they cannot disagree with their parents. This applies not just to religious environments but also to non religious groups and ideologies. Even to feminism. The children of some very radical feminists might be terrified to tell mum that, actually, they disagree with her on a few things.

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 19/11/2025 07:07

Anything that ponders when a child is old enough to say ‘no’, is suspect.
Anything where boys are allowed to say no and girls are not is suspect.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 20:05

@Carla786 That isn't politically incorrect: or it certainly shouldn't be! It is (or should be) basic decency.

My other politically incorrect thought is that talking about a Catholic or an atheist or a Muslim child makes as much sense as talking about a left-wing or a right-wing child: they are things they should decide for themselves when mature enough to do so. But religions know all too well that, if children were introduced to religion only as teens, too many of them would reject it. So indoctrinating from the very beginning is key

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 18:52

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:44

Yeah I see it equally as enforcing communal values rather than just patriarchal values (lines here are blurry, men still won’t be punished in the same way women will for the same misdemeanour). I think wherever social control lies those who possess it have the power to punish, being a woman may mean you quietly arrange an abortion rather than murder your DD for example but the communal value of no sex before marriage is to be maintained. It’s just more risky for girls who do it than boys but men have also been honour killed, the vast majority of victims are ofcourse women. It is rooted in patriarchy but as I said theres a shocking number of women who drive honour killings and I get that these women are working within a system of patriarchy but many families just hush stuff up, to kill, you are a perpetrator not just a hapless victim of your circumstances. I hold those women just as culpable.

I think when I talk about financial control in jatt families you have to remember these are predominantly farming families, the women are making decisions over the family business, pricing of crops etc not just over household shopping. Ofcourse this is not every family. Yes jatt culture is more about a Punjab specific context rather than india vs Pakistan.

On another note I grew up at a time when people were just starting to adopt hijabs. Muslim women from the subcontinent were not wearing hijabs in the 70’s and 80’s. It’s an arabisation of south asian culture. A lot of Somalis moved to my area and a lot of the young girls were wearing hijabs, slowly it was adopted by south asians.

Even language has changed from using Punjabi/urdu to pepering language with random arabic words. It used to be “kasme bro” (I swear in urdu) to “wallhi bro”. I think it’s a search for identity for a lot of third generation rather than even second generation. I see it in the overidentifying with Palestinians but not Uyghurs and Sudanese (having said that no-one gave much of a shit about Syrians being barrel bombed either). So it’s not just rooted in religion I think it’s political for a lot of young people who perhaps for whatever reason feel alienated from their actual culture and have adopted aspects of what they think of as arab culture. I think when the Hijab was banned in French schools some girls actually started wearing them as a political act.

I remember the UAE hair dance that caused such a fuss, some british Pakistanis were moaning about it being haram on twitter and lots of Emiratis were bewildered and annoyed about being lectured on religion by non arabs who didn’t seem to understand that they had a distinct culture of their own and that they were quite fond of it. For some people following Islam means the eradication of a lot of their own actual culture.

So I think you have the religious people who genuinely think there will be hellfire and damnation if they don’t cover. Those who do so for social reasons (you definitely get treated nicer and get more automatic respect for being covered) and those for whom it’s political.

This is really interesting, thank you. I definitely agree about patriarchal explanations being often too simplistic. Understanding this kind of system as communal (though also patriarchal) seems a much better framework.

I agree re it being wrong to deny women's agency within this kind of system. Yes, clearly it restricts all women. But it feels deeply wrong to say, eg. A woman who drives on an honour killing, is just an innocent victim of a patriarchal system. I don't see why it's feminist at all to say that women can still make choices and have influence even within very oppressive systems (at least legally, in theory) It doesn't negate that the systems are misogynist, it just complicates the picture.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 18:44

CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:59

I may be politically incorrect, but I consider abusive any family or social environment that does not let children or other members make a different choice.
Parents who cut contact with their children if they vote for a different party.
Families which cut contact with members who leave the religion or decide not to follow certain specific religious rules.
Jehovah Witnesses teaching children they cannot be friends with children who are not JW.

It's all the same abusive s#@# to me

That isn't politically incorrect: or it certainly shouldn't be! It is (or should be) basic decency.

OP posts:
CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:59

I may be politically incorrect, but I consider abusive any family or social environment that does not let children or other members make a different choice.
Parents who cut contact with their children if they vote for a different party.
Families which cut contact with members who leave the religion or decide not to follow certain specific religious rules.
Jehovah Witnesses teaching children they cannot be friends with children who are not JW.

It's all the same abusive s#@# to me

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:50

There are a lot of ex-muslims who talk about their experiences on podcasts etc. I would say though that many of them came from quite hyper religious families so have a very specific and very negative experience. I’m not defending anyone it’s just that I know families where mum and some sisters don’t wear a hijab but one or two of their sisters do. So not every family is enforcing it. Some of the women I know who wear a hijab have no intention of mentioning it to their daughters because they felt they didn’t have much of a choice themselves. Religion can be as oppressive or as gentle as you want it to be.

I think it’s very difficult for those of us who don’t have this religious background to understand the strength of feeling from women who feel like this is authentically their choice. I’m inclined to think it’s not a genuine “choice” as such.

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:44

Carla786 · 13/11/2025 19:07

Thank you, this is very interesting. It's making me reconsider some ideas...I can definitely understand the idea of an older woman being dominant behind the scenes. However, I guess I'm trying to get my head around how this can coexist with widespread DV, forced marriage, honour killings, street sexual harassment, regimes like Saudi Arabia where women are very legally restricted, abbetted by sharia?

Is it in some ways a system then where older women have a kind of matriarchal power in the domestic sphere, but use this power to dominate younger women, not help & protect them? And younger women are at the bottom of the heap, rather than specifically women?

Also, of I can check : I thought Jat Punjabi families were usually Sikh? But of course there's long been Muslims in the Punjab, too.

Edited

Yeah I see it equally as enforcing communal values rather than just patriarchal values (lines here are blurry, men still won’t be punished in the same way women will for the same misdemeanour). I think wherever social control lies those who possess it have the power to punish, being a woman may mean you quietly arrange an abortion rather than murder your DD for example but the communal value of no sex before marriage is to be maintained. It’s just more risky for girls who do it than boys but men have also been honour killed, the vast majority of victims are ofcourse women. It is rooted in patriarchy but as I said theres a shocking number of women who drive honour killings and I get that these women are working within a system of patriarchy but many families just hush stuff up, to kill, you are a perpetrator not just a hapless victim of your circumstances. I hold those women just as culpable.

I think when I talk about financial control in jatt families you have to remember these are predominantly farming families, the women are making decisions over the family business, pricing of crops etc not just over household shopping. Ofcourse this is not every family. Yes jatt culture is more about a Punjab specific context rather than india vs Pakistan.

On another note I grew up at a time when people were just starting to adopt hijabs. Muslim women from the subcontinent were not wearing hijabs in the 70’s and 80’s. It’s an arabisation of south asian culture. A lot of Somalis moved to my area and a lot of the young girls were wearing hijabs, slowly it was adopted by south asians.

Even language has changed from using Punjabi/urdu to pepering language with random arabic words. It used to be “kasme bro” (I swear in urdu) to “wallhi bro”. I think it’s a search for identity for a lot of third generation rather than even second generation. I see it in the overidentifying with Palestinians but not Uyghurs and Sudanese (having said that no-one gave much of a shit about Syrians being barrel bombed either). So it’s not just rooted in religion I think it’s political for a lot of young people who perhaps for whatever reason feel alienated from their actual culture and have adopted aspects of what they think of as arab culture. I think when the Hijab was banned in French schools some girls actually started wearing them as a political act.

I remember the UAE hair dance that caused such a fuss, some british Pakistanis were moaning about it being haram on twitter and lots of Emiratis were bewildered and annoyed about being lectured on religion by non arabs who didn’t seem to understand that they had a distinct culture of their own and that they were quite fond of it. For some people following Islam means the eradication of a lot of their own actual culture.

So I think you have the religious people who genuinely think there will be hellfire and damnation if they don’t cover. Those who do so for social reasons (you definitely get treated nicer and get more automatic respect for being covered) and those for whom it’s political.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:05

You are right. I mean, I still think that terrorising young children with these stories can amount to psychological abuse in some cases, but that's a tougher and less straightforward conversation, because how do you reconcile that with the parents' right to educate their children in their religion etc.

But the fact that many will cut off contact with you, or the fact that a woman who is not financially independent does not even have the freedom to make a different choice, are easier arguments

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:40

CForCake · 18/11/2025 16:07

@oldtiredcyclist I agree with you. But many will tell you that they condemn Iran, but that the UK is not Iran.

Which is why I think it is useful to ask these people if they agree that choice is crucial, and what they would do about all those British Muslim girls brought up indoctrinated that they will suffer unspeakable torment in hell if they show a little bit of hair. Is that not the opposite of free choice? Is it not a problem when young British Muslims do NOT have a free choice?

I find it easier to have a clear-cut view on abuse when people know that things like not wearing hijab will mean permanent loss of family and friends.

Otoh, I find it harder to view teachings about hell that way. I was friends with some strict homeschooled Baptist children as a younger child. They led pretty normal lives, but they were definitely taught strict views from a young age, including that non-believers in Jesus are condemned to eternal hell because acceptance of Christ is the only way to be saved.

Was this abusive and preventing free choice? I'm torn. It didn't require them to do anything like wear a headscarf, it was more about inner belief.

OP posts: