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?

In the year before I had ds and went in maternity leave there were 4 little girls in my year 1 class with head coverings. In addition to this they had to get changed on their own and for both pe and swimming wore full body leotards, neck right down to their feet.They were 5. It made me a bit sad tbh. They also weren't allowed to sing or dance because it was "licentious". That meant no music lessons, no dance lessons, no wake up shake up.

Why the hell have we allowed this ? It should have got clamped down on from the outset. How long before the leotards are deemed too form revealing and the girls get pulled out of the lessons altogether.

Muslim parents have pushed the boundaries and will continue to do so because they get acquiesced to. No such considerations to cultural or religious sensibilities of others in Islamic countries. We really are letting down those who are the most vulnerable and have no choice.

Minorities rights and desires should not be put above those of equal treatment of the sexes.

I'd never heard of cycling shorts under dresses and girls not doing cartwheels in case someone sees knickers

The thread on that got almost universal condemnation.

Some on here has said she wears it because of "modesty"

Modesty is an interesting word. We often describe very succesful people as "modest";or people who have endured extreme danger modestly say "they were just doing their job". This sort of modesty is admirable, it just means not arrogant or boastful.

But that's not was meant here. It's sexual modesty. What is the opposite ? slut? slag? promiscuous?

Why does a woman have to dress "modestly" what is so good about that? Is it to avoid provoking lust?Why cannot men be responsible for their own actions?

There is little correlation between this type of modesty and the more admirable sense since, inevitably the modest woman does get on criticising scantily clad women in a boastful and superior way.

And no more worrying about neck crepeage again

This is a problem for primary school children?

And no more worrying about neck crepeage again

This is a problem for primary school children?

phaedra i thought the schools that JL were supplying to were secondary schools ?

Sorry i know my remarks were flippant , although i still think there might be an inkling of truth in them .

I actually think mistressmia hit the nail on the head with her comment

Minorities rights and desires should not be put above those of equal treatment of the sexes.

"They were opposed to Sunday opening on religious grounds."

Two things: one, Sunday is not a holy day for Jews.

I know that.

Two, John Lewis does now open on Sundays, so they clearly managed to overcome their scruples.

Yes but they originally opposed the change in the law to allow Sunday openings.

I go past a Muslim primary and a Muslim secondary school on my way to work. Loads of the primary girls are wearing a veil. A little 5 year old girl is not a woman, and it is not representing choice or freedom having her covering her head.

No sashh I can't, my post was clearly in the context of someone claiming that wearing the hijab made her more chaste and morally upstanding, I was merely illustrating that to be completely false.

But what is true for one person may be totally different for another.

Many people with faith wear symbols to remind them of their faith whether it is a cross or a covering or another symbol.

Others where the same things as fashion or just because they want to. I doubt anyone wearing an Ankh follows any ancient Egyptian god.

But it's interesting that the hijab is specifically for women and girls, and that this symbol is specifically linked to modesty....how come the boys and men don't need to be reminded in quite the same way, or demonstrate their modesty in a similar fashion?

Or is it a case that girls and women do not only have to be modest but they also have to wear a covering to remind themselves (and others) that they are Muslim, in case they momentarily forget?

GlaikitFizzog
Sorry I should have made it clear I was being a bit sarky.

And if the community I lived in was a muslim country I would respect their traditions and cover upif it was necessary.There is no necessity for Muslim women in the UK to not wear the hijab.

Yes but why is there no necessity in the UK? Is wearing a niqab or full face veil respecting the traditions of the UK?

D you not get fed up of respecting the 'traditions' of different countries. Like Bogqueen feeling she had to be uncomfortable in egypt but not in Turkey. Maybe all countries should be welcoming of your traditions when you visit them. Maybe they should respect your traditions that you can drive and wear short sleeves. If I went to Egypt or Saudi I might cover up and not drive, because it would probably be a necessity but I would not respect this.mWhy should I?
However when I visit these countries there is no necessity for me to cover up like there might be for you. And there is only one reason for this difference.
I can dress coolly and drive, with no problems. My wife and daughter cannot.

No sorry, I can't respect that shit.
And drive

I think you've hit the nail on the head - the aim for both sexes to be treated equally. We're certainly not there yet, but the covering of young girls takes this aim backwards many, many years. How we challenge/stop it though I'm not sure.

Yes Redshifter, this is why I am concerned, if it was simply about a group of people wearing certain items then being tolerant it wouldn't bother me. It isn't about the material it is about the rationale for wearing them which is oppressive to women not necessarily the women that are wearing it!

redshifter, the attitudes you mention are very evident IMO and a further reason why British institutions should not promote restrictive clothing aimed at girls.

It took centuries for European women to enjoy the same levels of physical freedom as men, and other battles for equality are still not won.

JL should put British norms before religious edicts and take a stand for girls. Don't see it happening, though.

"Yes but they originally opposed the change in the law to allow Sunday openings."

So - not really germane to the debate, is it? They opposed Sunday opening, supposedly on principle (though not, by the looks of it, religious principle), and then they changed their mind for entirely pragmatic reasons (ie they make a lot of money on a Sunday).

If you're trying to argue that we should look to John Lewis as upholders of either ethical or religious standards, you're not making a very good fist of it.

Sleepswithbutterflies: "They also weren't allowed to sing or dance because it was "licentious". That meant no music lessons, no dance lessons, no wake up shake up."

I'm surprised at this. Surely parents don't get to withdraw their children from the bits of the National Curriculum they don't like? I can't see why a school would agree to that.

sashh As I have said, I think wearing the hajib is fine. I have done myself in a Muslim country. I have no problem with people wearing what they want, or with them doing it to make them feel better...I have just objected to the notion that wearing a hijab (or any religious garb, but it is the hijab being discussed here) should mean that person should be raised on a pedestal as being more morally upright, more worthy, or in any way better than others.

Thank you SirChenjin for a voice of reason. I work in a profession where communication, touch is essential (I care for the dying). We respect all faiths and philosophies but I do object to all my years of palliative care training being questioned simply because your faith differs from mine. I wear a crucifix all the time, if this makes you not want me to care for your relative - fine, take them elsewhere

Indoors where? I don't know any Muslim boys who cover themselves indoors confused - though unfortunately that freedom doesn't extend to their mothers or sisters
Indoors in mosque, indoors at home, indoors at school if allowed. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Well they did.
I wasn't part of the decision. I was just told they couldn't take part in those lessons. Even if we were singing a song in Spanish or something those children had to leave the classroom.

Furthermore two of the girls were not allowed on school trips because actually the parents were against them having an education in the first place. They refused to sign consent forms. Attendance was a bit hit and miss too. Very very bright children as well.

(Changed name for this because it will out me.)

Really?? IS forces are going to invade here and demand we all cover up. Is that not a bit hysterical?

GlaikitFizzog, I dunno about IS, but the demands to cover up are already happening. A number of my relatives - young women - have stopped going shopping on their own locally, in the places they were born and grew up, because when they are by themselves they get harrassed by young Muslim men telling them to "cover their shame before God". When they point out they are Hindu, not Muslim, so are not obliged to cover their heads, they then get threatened and abused. It doesn't happen if they are with much older women, or with their husbands, so they just don't go out alone, or if they do, they drive miles to predominently Hindu areas, where they are less likely to be harrassed. This is happening to young women in big cities in England in 2014.

HumblePieMonster What a load of crap you spout. The ruling is that male muslims must be covered from the navel to below the knee. Therefore long shorts and bare chests are fine. In practice above the knee shorts are regularly worn too.

In the house & mosques they only cover their heads when praying with a skull cap type covering.

Not in the least bit comparable to the modesty requirements imposed on women.

Of course it's totally up to muslim women what they do with their bodies and the hijab for many is a comfortable custom but let's not be disingenuous about the official logic behind it. I've known a fair few muslim men who unashamedly draw a direct link between "white" women's lack of clothing and them being fair game. It's insulting that a woman's sexual virtue can be discerned from her clothing much less that it has any bearing on her worth as a human being.

I also remember a muslim cleric who basically said, as a justification for hijab "if two women are walking side by side, one covered the other not, then it's obvious which one the man going to harass." What kind of screwed up victim blaming is that?

Adult women can buy into that if they want just as they can buy into the whole load of western self objectification practices which many find as oppressive. But let's not impose it on kids.

YANBU. Who is arguing?

Sounds to me like you are disingenuously trying to start a row over nothing OP.