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:
Bringemout · 11/11/2025 08:22

This is a bit of a tangent but I thoughg the veil may have been favoured because a) it prevents women from bargaining for themselves in the sexual marketplace. I.e. if you are very beautiful you can probably max out your choices in a traditional society whereas if you are veiled your dad can basically give you to whoever he wants (i.e. for his own benefit). B) reduces intrasexual competition between men because they don’t know what other men have and no-one can see what he has.

I know families where there are a mix of sisters where some choose a hijab and some don’t. Increasingly in the middle east you will see mums with hijabs who’s own daughters don’t wear them (possibly mum wasn’t really given a choice and wanted to make sure their daughters decided for themselves). I have a friend who’s a hijabi who wants to take it off but has been wearing it for so long it’s a bit terrifying for her,

I do think matriarchy comes into play here as well. For a lot of mothers in traditional societies their daughters being seen as “good” is important for their own reputation and to be able to obtain a boy from a “good” family for her. What I always found interesting is how often women are drivers behind the honour killings of their own daughters.

I will come back and read that properly, but I do think there are women who choose it “freely”. But I also think the choosing is the result of religious conditioning which is fundamentally anti-women and anti womens agency, primarily preoccupied with preserving modesty for fathers and husbands sake rather than the women themselves.

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

Lengokengo · 11/11/2025 07:38

I find it an interesting point about the clothing choice signaling piety and this increasing status. I remember hearing a sermon at mass once about the importance of priesthood and how a family having a priest was the most holy/ highest status signifier ( it wasn’t quite put like that, but along those lines.) Nuns, whilst misogynisticly not as important as priests, still gave a higher status for their wider family.

As a child I thought that being a nun would be a good option, not quite sure what I was thinking, though the nuns that I knew had lovely lives: lived in beautiful places and didn’t have much domestic responsibility ( teachers).

Howseitgoin · 11/11/2025 07:31

This reply has been deleted

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

What's actually hen pecking here is the insufferable obsession with trivialities rather than substance……………………………………………………………….

friedchip · 11/11/2025 07:20

This reply has been deleted

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

WarriorN · 11/11/2025 05:39

Place marking to read more clearly later

Howseitgoin · 11/11/2025 02:08

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.'

"Any analysis which suggests that cultural practices can be enforced by patriarchy alone without considering the role of matriarchy is probably not particularly helpful.'"

While I agree with this point its important to note that sacrificing principles of societal equality in favour of other personal incentives like power or money isn't exactly exclusive to women from these communities. Western middle class Conservative women aren't exactly reluctant to sell out their less fortunate sisters regardless of the free ride feminism & class gave them.

Whilst Western women have more autonomy now in pushing back on patriarchal structures, non Western women don't & are left to 'make the best' of a shit sandwich/be complicit to enforcing them just like their Western sisters did prior to the 1960's. And yeah, they did their fair share of hen pecking then too…

Carla786 · 11/11/2025 01:53

I do think the argument that feminists often use about actions that harm women as a class : that the women aren't choosing it freely and are under pressure by men, has serious flaws.

Definitely a lot of women ARE forced, coerced or pressured to wear the niqab. But it seems likely that, as Bayliss says, some do want to wear it, for various reasons. For the same reason, I don't like the argument that all prostitution is paid rape because a woman cannot consent to sell sex, or similar arguments about surrogacy, among other things. It's enough to argue that selling sex, surrogacy and wearing the niqab are harmful to women as a group and should be prohibited for the good of the majority.

Saying that no woman could choose to do these things is unnecessary in order to argue against them. And ultimately it's infantilising. Yes, society and its forces do often influence people, often women, but also men, to do things which harm them and/or others. But does this negate choice completely? I'm not sure. Surely by that logic, we could call lots of choices, maybe nearly all choices, unfree ones, since most of us feel some kind of societal pressure.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 11/11/2025 01:37

Sorry, I'm just dropping this here now. I'll analyse it properly tomorrow. It's from Chris Bayliss of The Critic.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread