to think that JL are perfectly within their rights to sell a hijab as part of 'school uniform' ranges?

[MaybeIAmJustNotReasonable]

John Lewis signed contracts to start a sale of hijabs within their school uniform range, having signed contracts with two schools in London and Liverpool. AIBU to think is actually okay, and we should accept the fact people can dress how they like, in terms with their religion?

If you have been brought up to think that women who don't cover up aren't chaste and don't therefore deserve to have their chastity respected then you are not likely to treat non Muslim / non hijab wearing women with respect.

Yes, I imagine that this is a very tricky balancing act as a parent. On one hand, you teach that 'good' women cover up and are therefore to be respected. On the other hand, you also have to teach children to respect and treat as equals the women in society who don't cover up.

I think the Victorian reference is relevant Montegomongoose. Victorian values are deeply rooted in British society but they were values of extremes and also oppression, and very much of their time.

Yes, women died for my freedom to wear a pair of shorts when it is hot!

Where the hijab is a part of school uniform for some girls, isn't it their choice if they wear them? At both DDs' schools girls have a choice about this, and whether to wear trousers or a skirt. Some do, some don't. Currently it is more popular to wear a hijab and long skurt. A decade or so ago it was more popular to have no head covering and wear trousers. Is it a fashion trend (and a choice) or is it a move towards a stronger identity with ones own religion? I think both are happening in various places.

In France, anything like that would be forbidden. No obvious sign of religion in public schools or Universities, especially those that apply only to one sex.
I don't like that girls and little children under 16 need to hide a huge part of their physical identity, as if they are sexually mature and have the onus of protecting both their "family honor" and their chastity.
The fact that a child must hide her "feminine attraction" makes me heave.

In France, they also vote for the National Front in sizeable numbers.

Funny how people never mention that when claiming we should emulate France.

IPityThePontipines I'm French, so I speak of what I like in France, nothing more.
let's talk about the nice results from Ukip, if we want to go this way... Front National is in the same detestable vein.

I don't think religious wear should be banned.

For one thing, I think it's an infringement of human rights to be told what to wear or not wear (incidentally I'd include compulsory skirt and tights wearing for female office workers in that). For another thing, it's probably counterproductive.

I do think we should have honest and open discussions as to why some people are uncomfortable with it, and why some people feel the need/desire to wear it though.

I think that a discreet religious symbol is one thing, and should not be banned - but the hijab and face coverings are worn for cultural, as opposed to religious reasons, and it's not within Western culture - whether that's in France or the UK - to cover faces or to treat girls (and women, but this is specifically about young girls covering their heads/necks/chests) any differently than boys, or to require them to protect their modesty - esp. not part of a school uniform.

Ultimately, when in Rome (or France, or Saudi, or the UK or wherever) do as the Romans.

I think that culturally girls and boys are treated very differently in the UK. Lots of examples on the feminist boards and in the pink stinks campaign.

I wear a hijab as does my daughter although 'part time' for her. There is a religious basis not a cultural one for us. But I agree with other posters it is our norm. If it was banned in school we would choose another school just like we don't send our children to the Catholic school at the end of our road.

Oh and my husband has to have a beard among our religious dress code. I always think I got the easy end of the deal. You can take a scarf off at least!

I'd also note here, on the subject of children and the hijab, that an Iranian friend of mine chose not to send her daughters to the primary school we used, even though it was the closest (and getting any school place around here isn't easy), as there is a very high proportion of hijab-wearing mums and little girls there, and she didn't want her girls being put under peer-pressure to wear a hijab. She's a devout Muslim, but does not wear a hijab herself, and, as she said to me, she "left Iran to get away from all that".

Cultures change Sir Chejin. Do you object to other forms of "non-Western" dress too?

Do you object to food changing too, or is that an acceptable change?

You can't ring fence culture.

but this is specifically about young girls covering their heads/necks/chests) any differently than boys, or to require them to protect their modesty - esp. not part of a school uniform

IPity - your answer was given in my previous post. If you can point to a discrimatory food which school girls only are required to eat by their culture in public, then we can continue with that line of debate.

Girls and boys are not treated so differently in the UK that the school uniform requires girls to protect their modesty by covering up. In fact - state school rules which forbid girls wearing the same as boys have been successfully challenged as discrimatory. And long may it continue.

Well said, SirC

Cultures evolving is entirely different to equality rights eroding.

One is to be embraced with positivity, the other to be resisted in as loud and unladylike a fashion as possible.

Agree Monte - and obviously I meant discriminatory, not discrimatory

The covering of young girls is not a cultural evolvement in any way, shape or form.

Monte and what form would that resistance take? Would you be physically removing hijabs from those who wore them? Would you deny an education or employment to anyone who wore hijab?

Let's oppress Muslim girls and women for their own good!

Monte my body is not your property, you do not have a greater right over it then me. If, at any age, my daughters decide to wear hijab, you don't have a greater right over their bodies either.

Sir - as has been explained upthread, hijab means far more to Muslim girls and women then the interpretation you put on it.

The points I've made to Monte apply to you too and I find your invocation of "British culture" to support your stance to be extremely suspect.

It means what you've been told it means. Whether it's something we want to see on children as part of the cultural evolvement of the UK is debateable.

Agree with SirC

IPity good question. What form would it take? Not physical, certainly. That would be ridiculous.

Would you deny an education or employment to anyone who wore hijab?

Absolutely not, but I have lived in cultures that would deny those and many other rights to women who do and do not cover, based purely on their gender.

That is what I would resist, the erosion of the equal rights that have, thankfully, become part of 'British culture.'

I am not British, but I am delighted to live here knowing that nobody has a legal right to dictate my clothing, movements, travel, finances, political opinion or indeed any opinion because I am a woman.

Nothing suspect about that culture. I applaud it.

I think that culturally girls and boys are treated very differently in the UK. Lots of examples on the feminist boards and in the pink stinks campaign.

Littleducks - do you think that this is a good or bad thing? I would agree that a lot of people do treat little girls and boys differently, though probably much less now than 100 or even 50 years ago - the fact that it is decreasing is GOOD, imo.

Even in my day at school the girls did cookery and the boys did woodwork, but as far as I know no subjects are gender divided now.

I think YABU. However, a Musilm friend of mine at school (many years ago now!) just wore black trousers and a black hijab. ITIU that John Lewis should be exploiting Muslims as I don't see a need for them to sell a 'school uniform hijab'?

It is a uniform though. I guess uniforms are there for many reasons, one reason is social equality, so children who come from poorer backgrounds are differentiated from more affluent backgrounds. If some children are wearing hijabs that does mark them as different. Therefore wearing the hijab may influence the way that they are taught or the opportunities open to them in lots of ways.

Another point is that hijab wearers may be put off applying to uniformed occupations. This is important because Muslims should work in all walks of life to be a part of the multicultural society that I think everyone enjoys on the UK.

not differentiated