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:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:35

Christians are generally much less dogmatic about dress etc here. I think US Amish offer a good comparison: rules vary based on order, but it appears that a segment do decree shunning for baptised Amish who leave, thus meaning an end to contact with friends and family left behind. This is hard to see as non-coercive. Any community which threatens shunning by family & friends if you disobey has crossed the line imo.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna49050710

Amish tradition of shunning is key to Ohio hair-cutting trial

In the stern, self-regulating world of the Amish, those who act out time and again by wearing the wrong clothing, going to movies or otherwise flouting the church's doctrine can find themselves utterly alone.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna49050710

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:23

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 think it's crucial to distinguish between levels of pressure.

I agree with oldtiredcyclist's post largely. But I don't think Islam being run, as a religion, by men, with laws set by men, automatically means that women can't choose to do certain things it requires, even extreme things like burkas.

All religions were founded and had rules set by men. Catholicism and many major Protestant denominations have all-male priesthood who set rules, including rules for women, same with Orthodox Judaism. This doesn't mean that no woman can follow the rules of those religions by free choice.

The key issue here is the level of pressure. If a woman knows that if she doesn't wear a hijab, her parents & wider circle will be disapproving but will ignore & treat her the same as before, then I'd say that's a level of pressure that's compatible with free choice.

On the other hand, if she knows that if she doesn't wear it she'll suffer abuse and shunning, then how is that a free choice?

I think selling sex is a comparison. It's something that most women would hate the thought of doing. If someone's getting their UC taken away wrongly & can't get another job or any other source of support, so sells sex to keep body & soul together, that's clearly not a free choice.
On the other hand, if someone wants to be able to afford more for their kids and have more time to spend with them, and will get that more easily by selling sex than working in a shop, then that is a choice. I'd argue that it's still less of a free choice than the first hijab scenario I outlined, because being able to spend time with your kids and give them a better life are very strong motivators. But imo it's still a choice, even though it's driven by external factors.

OP posts:
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?

miraxxx · 18/11/2025 15:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:48

Musa al-Gharbi has some interesting & disturbing research on the kids of moderate first-generation Muslim immigrants becoming radicalised, wearing burqas that their mothers don't, then progressing to getting involved in Isis-type stuff online. He cited some people who've researched this in more depth, I'll look up the names.

Al-Gharbi is a moderate Muslim himself & a sensible liberal (his book We Have Never Been Woke is good on excesses like TWAW & Critical race theory). He argues that most of these radicalised types are second-generation teens who feel caught between two cultures, are maybe also antisocial, and then after not being very religious, get into dangerous ideologies online. I do think the picture is more complex than this : there's BBC & other investigations of extremist mosque preachers, Salafi & Wahhabi fundamentalism being funded by overseas countries like Qatar & Saudi Arabia, & moderate Muslims being too scared to report extremists in-community. But he does have a point.

It's also relevant that al-Gharbi is a US Muslim- US Muslim immigrants tend to be moderate.

OP posts:
MsWilmottsGhost · 18/11/2025 15:47

FiatLuxAdAstra · 11/11/2025 08:37

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.

I really don’t think this is true at all. We just kill farm animals once they aren’t fertile anymore. A chicken stops laying eggs today? It’s chicken pot pie tomorrow.

Looking at mammals a study found
“Here, we performed the first large-scale analysis of female reproductive senescence across 101 mammalian species that encompassed a wide range of Orders. We found evidence of reproductive senescence in 68.31 % of the species, which demonstrates that reproductive senescence is pervasive in mammals.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047637420301731

(menopause is the human reproductive senescence)

Edited

Menopause is a relatively sudden end to fertility well before the end of lifespan, whereas reproductive senescence is a gradual decline.

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:40

CForCake · 18/11/2025 12:58

Rebelling against your parents, including the children of relaxed parents becoming strict, is nothing new.
In the Simpson, Ned Flanders is the son of very artsy liberals, and rebels by becoming an uptight religious zealot!

Ha, I've never yet seen the Simpsons but I want to. Isn't Saffy in Absolutely Fabulous a bit similar in that she's the struct one with the outrageous parents?

I'm Gen Z and this is a bit of a Gen Z thing I think. Sometimes I feel like quite a few people in my generation would make good straight-edge punks (which is basically what Amina is). Clean-living, worried about the environment and politics, staying away from drink etc

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:36

CForCake · 18/11/2025 10:32

Shouldn't the focus be free choice?

Some atheists and / or feminists end up saying or implying that every woman who covers herself is a victim. Yet there do exist women who choose to do so freely.
What should we tell them? That they don't realise how oppressed they are? That would be very condescending.

I think the point is free choice. Women have the right to cover themselves in ways other women disapprove of.

The problem is how often these environments do not allow free choice, with a combination of psychological pressure, physical abuse, lack of financial independence etc.

It gets even trickier when we think about minors : at what age should a girl be allowed to say no, you cover yourself but I don't want to? The answer isn't straightforward.

There has to be a limit. I don't think extreme coverings that only leave eyes visible (or in the case of burqas, not even eyes) need to be permitted. I have no issue with a woman wearing a headscarf. Covering your whole face is quite different.

Aside from implications about gender, it's intimidating to quite a lot of people (in the UK at least) to only be able to see someone's eyes. It doesn't help that the most traditional women who wear niqab/burka tend to choose black, which increases the ominous feeling.

A burka & niqab ban would probably affect about 2% of UK Muslim women, given most don't wear them.

OP posts:
oldtiredcyclist · 18/11/2025 15:28

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 feel that I have to respond to this, because although I am a white male in his sixties (you would probably call me "privileged", despite the fact that I was born into a relatively poor, working class family), I have lived experience of the reality of what Muslim women go through, in the country of their birth, their communities and their family. My experience, is having been with a lovely Iranian born woman for the past thirty five years, so I am well aware of what it feels like for a woman living in a Muslim country, being forced to wear the hijab whenever you go outside the house, when the penalty for not complying can result in prison or worse. The rules are always made up by men, they get to decide what the Islamic dress code is, not the women. When my female relatives journey to Europe or the US, they don't wear the hijab, so what does that tell you? In neighbouring Afghanistan, conditions for women are ten times worse for women, who cannot get an education and have to wear the burkha if they leave the house. In the UK, there are Islamic communities, where the women wear the hijab and very often, it is not through choice. There are many instances of the women in these communities not speaking English, not socialising with anyone outside their community. They do not have a choice, because the rules are always made by the men.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 12:58

Rebelling against your parents, including the children of relaxed parents becoming strict, is nothing new.
In the Simpson, Ned Flanders is the son of very artsy liberals, and rebels by becoming an uptight religious zealot!

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 12:39

Howseitgoin · 13/11/2025 07:59

"Fundamentally it’s all the same shit regardless of where whorish falls on the spectrum for different cultures and religions. Women internalise that because your value will drop like a stone if you are perceived that way. I watched “love is blind habibi” and speaking to other men enthusiastically was whorish while wearing a crop top wasn’t - bewildered doesn’t begin to cover it for me."

A friend told me about her Muslim cousin who had a 'colourful' sex history until she was 27 & then decided it 'was time' to go 'legit' by veiling up & marrying an 'import' from Lebanon by her own volition who was none the wiser of her past. What struck my friend as particularly peculiar is this woman's mother wasn't veiled nor did her parents expect her to be. Whilst its true there are social pressures in maintaining patriarchal standards, certainly there's also circumstances where power incentives are freely chosen.

This is a wider phenomenon I've been thinking about.
For anyone who watched We Are Lady Parts (Channel 4 comedy about 4 London Muslim girls who form a punk band, based on writer Nida Manzoor's adolescence), the MC Amina is in a way an example of it. Her parents are pretty relaxed about their faith. She's stricter, including wearing hijab (which her mum doesn't wear). I think we're meant to see it as conscientious Amina's way of rebelling (which ironically doesn't require her to do anything outside her comfort zone, until she meets the band). It's notable also that Amina's friends are seen as pushy about the need to get married, while again her parents are more relaxed about such things.

Obviously this is a fairly light-hearted example, but I suspect Manzoor was observing from real life. Have further thoughts on the 'more trad than the parents' phenomenon that I'll hopefully have time to post this evening.

OP posts:
Brefugee · 18/11/2025 11:04

Well yes. Free choice for all women would be great.

The reality is very far from that. It's a personal flaw, i agree, but i judge. Silently and to myself, but i am judging.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 10:33

PS to be clear, I think the idea of covering women is disgusting. But other women have the right to disagree with me, I don't have the right to force my view on all women

CForCake · 18/11/2025 10:32

Shouldn't the focus be free choice?

Some atheists and / or feminists end up saying or implying that every woman who covers herself is a victim. Yet there do exist women who choose to do so freely.
What should we tell them? That they don't realise how oppressed they are? That would be very condescending.

I think the point is free choice. Women have the right to cover themselves in ways other women disapprove of.

The problem is how often these environments do not allow free choice, with a combination of psychological pressure, physical abuse, lack of financial independence etc.

It gets even trickier when we think about minors : at what age should a girl be allowed to say no, you cover yourself but I don't want to? The answer isn't straightforward.

Brefugee · 18/11/2025 10:01

FiatLuxAdAstra · 11/11/2025 08:41

The funny thing is that the practice of veiling spread East from the Ancient Greeks to the Middle East and also west to the Ancient Romans.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that veils work as protection from sun and dust in hot, sunny and dusty climates.

in which case i would expect to see men similarly covered. And i am not just talking of the "lawrence of arabia whilst riding a camel" look in places where that would be eminently sensible.

Brefugee · 18/11/2025 09:59

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

if i could be sure that all the women are making their own choice of their own complete and utter free will i would have less of an issue with it.

As it is? nah. And i will continue to silently judge any and all women i see dressed in a niquab wherever i am.

Christinapple · 17/11/2025 16:07

Short answer- because it's their choice?

FiatLuxAdAstra · 17/11/2025 14:53

TempestTost · 13/11/2025 00:33

A chicken can live past peak reproductive years, but in "the wild" they almost always would be killed before too long. Many animals in the wild have much shorter lives than they potentially could, even if we don't count those who die before reaching maturity.

So I think what we could say is that it's a kind of accident that they don't just drop dead then, there isn't a purpose for that extra time.

On the other hand even in societies without a lot of medical interventions and such, it's quite common to have grandmothers and grandfathers who are very much part of the life of the community. So three active generations.

Animals live long after their fertility wanes or is gone. Most mammals do. I posted one of dozens of scientific studies.

The idea that there is no purpose to a female’s life when they can’t get pregnant is manosphere misogyny claptrap.

As is the idea that human females are only “spared” because we act as surrogate mothers to our grandchildren.

There is no biological, evolutionary case for a delusion like this that has no basis in fact.

Carla786 · 13/11/2025 19:07

Bringemout · 13/11/2025 04:25

I think this is complicated, I know families where the women are very much in charge, theres a tradition in some Jatt families from Punjab where women make the financial decisions as well. In public though you wouldn’t undermine your DH. But also know families where the husband has complete authority and women seek permission ( I think this is rarer).

Also on the domestic violence, I’ve known of women of the older generation who I later found have suffered from domestic violence but that didn’t really stop them from cussing out their husbands. It’s complicated, the lines of control are not always clear and a lot of relationships are combative.

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.

OP posts:
OrangeeS · 13/11/2025 16:37

I find this thread interesting and insightful. Insightful in that it goes some way to explain that all is not as it seems (perhaps) and that western judgments may not always be the correct judgments - in that the assumption is that wearing it is indicative of women being suppressed and they don’t have a choice etc… When at home they have far more authority etc…

Interesting because of the alternative views and reasons. I can understand in general terms it’s deemed more appropriate to some than wearing next to nothing which has its own set of judgments and prejudices, which is the argument I’ve seen before.

Having said that, there are parts of the world where the women aren’t allowed to leave the house unless chaperoned by a made relative or even a child! Who would be killed for committing adultery, yet men can have several wives, they aren’t allowed to go to school past a certain age, not allowed to go to Uni, drive and so on….

No one will convince me that this isn’t oppression. I feel so sorry for these woman because there is nothing they can do. I was fascinated when I leaned that in the 60’s Afghan women enjoyed many of the freedoms we have here and it only changed due to the uprising in extreme religious groups gaining political control. I watched a documentary a year or two back about Afghan women scholars trying to help other women get out of the country. They were so brave. It was harrowing.

For balance, it wasn’t that long ago here in Britain where women unmarried mothers or divorced women were shamed in society, particularly by the Catholic Church (I know this because my mam was both and my Nanna disowned her, as she felt she brought shame on the family!) I find it hard to understand how a mother could treat her daughter in such a way due to a belief system. It’s like the religion is more important than her daughter and I can’t relate to that. Same in the way some Jehovahs Witnesses would let their child if they needed a blood transfusion. That’s seems so extreme a belief system that it would be better to lose your child than go against your beliefs. It blows my mind.

Carla786 · 13/11/2025 12:09

Very interesting points here. I'd love to post more now but will rejoin this evening...

OP posts:
Howseitgoin · 13/11/2025 07:59

Bringemout · 13/11/2025 06:11

Yeah, I think it’s difficult to explain the dynamic to people from outside the culture but there is actually a small, specific culture of matriarchy in some sub cultures in some areas. For obvious reasons western diaspora often behave differently. In theory her husband is head of the household, in practice she makes all the financial decision and will probably decide on marriages, who’s accepted who’s rejected etc as well. Those women will often opt in and out of patriarchy for their own reasons. this doesn’t mean women’s behaviour is not a response to patriarchy but I’m not convinced it’s entirely straightforward. Would they, free of patriarchy not want social control? I’m not convinced.

I also think it has more to do with communalism than patriarchy/matriarchy, a matriarchy in a communal society will also involve strictures and rules individuals are supposed to abide by and norms will be enforced. Religon functions the same way as cultural communalism, you are member of a group and the group will police you.

Also religion is important here. Sikhism for example has no concept of the husband as head of the household, husbands don’t have a religious basis for authority over their wives, it’s very difficult to justify control from a religious perspective. Culture is different ofcourse.

Sorry we are getting away from he point of the thread. When it comes to dress I do think in a lot of cultures/religions including the west a woman being a “whore” is the worst thing you can be. Fundamentally it’s all the same shit regardless of where whorish falls on the spectrum for different cultures and religions. Women internalise that because your value will drop like a stone if you are perceived that way. I watched “love is blind habibi” and speaking to other men enthusiastically was whorish while wearing a crop top wasn’t - bewildered doesn’t begin to cover it for me.

"Fundamentally it’s all the same shit regardless of where whorish falls on the spectrum for different cultures and religions. Women internalise that because your value will drop like a stone if you are perceived that way. I watched “love is blind habibi” and speaking to other men enthusiastically was whorish while wearing a crop top wasn’t - bewildered doesn’t begin to cover it for me."

A friend told me about her Muslim cousin who had a 'colourful' sex history until she was 27 & then decided it 'was time' to go 'legit' by veiling up & marrying an 'import' from Lebanon by her own volition who was none the wiser of her past. What struck my friend as particularly peculiar is this woman's mother wasn't veiled nor did her parents expect her to be. Whilst its true there are social pressures in maintaining patriarchal standards, certainly there's also circumstances where power incentives are freely chosen.

friedchip · 13/11/2025 07:38

Howseitgoin · 13/11/2025 00:09

My experience is that very trad muslim mothers dominate in the home & its not just their husbands but also son's are afraid of them in terms of acceptable behaviour & obligations but the final major decisions on finances etc are left to the husband . These women don't 'flex' publicly as this would 'disgrace' the family. This makes total sense to me being from a trad Italian catholic family where my mother, my aunties & their peers were subservient publicly but ruled the roost on the home 'sphere'. I myself do this. I would never tell the ball & chain what to do publicly even if he offended me….but as soon as the doors close, god help him…. 😂

😂😂😂😂😂

Bringemout · 13/11/2025 06:11

Yeah, I think it’s difficult to explain the dynamic to people from outside the culture but there is actually a small, specific culture of matriarchy in some sub cultures in some areas. For obvious reasons western diaspora often behave differently. In theory her husband is head of the household, in practice she makes all the financial decision and will probably decide on marriages, who’s accepted who’s rejected etc as well. Those women will often opt in and out of patriarchy for their own reasons. this doesn’t mean women’s behaviour is not a response to patriarchy but I’m not convinced it’s entirely straightforward. Would they, free of patriarchy not want social control? I’m not convinced.

I also think it has more to do with communalism than patriarchy/matriarchy, a matriarchy in a communal society will also involve strictures and rules individuals are supposed to abide by and norms will be enforced. Religon functions the same way as cultural communalism, you are member of a group and the group will police you.

Also religion is important here. Sikhism for example has no concept of the husband as head of the household, husbands don’t have a religious basis for authority over their wives, it’s very difficult to justify control from a religious perspective. Culture is different ofcourse.

Sorry we are getting away from he point of the thread. When it comes to dress I do think in a lot of cultures/religions including the west a woman being a “whore” is the worst thing you can be. Fundamentally it’s all the same shit regardless of where whorish falls on the spectrum for different cultures and religions. Women internalise that because your value will drop like a stone if you are perceived that way. I watched “love is blind habibi” and speaking to other men enthusiastically was whorish while wearing a crop top wasn’t - bewildered doesn’t begin to cover it for me.

Howseitgoin · 13/11/2025 04:46

Bringemout · 13/11/2025 04:25

I think this is complicated, I know families where the women are very much in charge, theres a tradition in some Jatt families from Punjab where women make the financial decisions as well. In public though you wouldn’t undermine your DH. But also know families where the husband has complete authority and women seek permission ( I think this is rarer).

Also on the domestic violence, I’ve known of women of the older generation who I later found have suffered from domestic violence but that didn’t really stop them from cussing out their husbands. It’s complicated, the lines of control are not always clear and a lot of relationships are combative.

Yes, totally agree. But I think the broader point is these kind of traditional power dynamics aren't exclusive to Muslim/SE asian relationships. Of course they might be more common to Muslims & SE Asians but that's because the culture hasn't had the opportunity to be more 'diluted' via assimilation as has with traditional European ones. My daughter & her peers from trad European heritage certainly wouldn't entertain any such relationships.

Swipe left for the next trending thread