to not send my girls on this school trip because of my beliefs

[JustGiveMeTwoMinutes]

The trip is to a mosque and the girls (year 3 and 4) have to cover their heads with a scarf, the boys don't have to.

Just to be clear about where I am coming from, this is about a specific practice which I believe is discriminatory and therefore disagree with. I would not choose myself to enter a building that I could only enter if I wore particular clothes but where that requirement was limited to one gender or one group defined by arbitrary characteristics. I would be happy to cover my head as a sign of respect/tradition if everyone entering the building was required to do so.

They can make their own decision on this when they are adults.

Am I being ridiculous and petty or is it reasonable to stand up for my view that just because a custom is part of a religion that does not excuse it being discriminatory?

'I don't approve of children going down the mines, or other Victorian child labour practices - but I am entirely happy for my children to dress up as Victorians and experience even a little of those things at museums as part of shaping their own values and views of the world.'

This isn't some fun trip to a historical site, it's a visit to place of worship that is currently functioning and that imposes these conditions on living women, today. It's not an option dress-up activity, it's a requirement based on the idea that women are different to men and should be treated differently. Surely you can see the difference?

As I think I said before, but I may have just thought it, it's amazing how feminist people get when it's about Islam. Any other topic and it's "Oh, but I "like" being objectified, you hairy legged humourless radfem". A girl has to wear a scarf to visit a mosque and it's "To the barricades!!!!!!"

Indeed Bertrand. But then it's easier to criticise a culture that you perceive to be 'other' and different than it is to look at your own family and your own colleagues and realise how wrong things are.

I was responding to the specific point about 'allowing means approval', which it doesn't.

In the world as it is today, I feel that every person should have the best understanding of Islam - the religion, the related cultures, and the extremists within it, and the differences between all of those - that is possible. And if possible, that understanding should be 'experiential', not just academic/theoretical. If a child has to wear a headscarf to achieve part of that understanding, by 'standing in the shoes of' a Muslim in a mosque, so be it.

Similarly, at a larger scale, when an undercover reporter, or even a BBC / ITV reporter working openly in an Islamic country, wears a headcovering in order to allow them to do their work and report on what we benefit from knowing, is that wrong? Would it be better for them not to wear a headcovering, and not be allowed to do their reporting, or be discovered rather than being able to work undercover? In my view, the benefit in terms of understanding is worth the temporary wearing of a headscarf.

Bertrand, I think it is the other way around. Anything to do with Islam and it is "we must respect their culture" (even if it is blatantly misogynistic) and "it's only a little scarf around a young girl's head" but as soon as the topic of bikini's or men wolf-whistling comes up it is "Western sexism" and "white men objectifying women" etc. Such hypocrisy.

I remember going to Greece or Ibiza into the cathedrals and having to cover my legs etc.

I think it is ok if you are visiting a place of worship to do this but I do not like seeing young girls in junior school wearing the Hijab.

I can see the point of view about men not having to cover up in the same way.

A visit to a mosque really isn't 'standing in the shoes of a Muslim' though - it's an hour(?) long visit.

Does a child learn more about 'taking a stand' and being independent-minded from being exposed to things and making their own minds up, or by being told what to think? I have done my best to ensure that my children think for themselves, and are given opportunities to test that skill, as the obvious first level of defence against all forms of bigotry and herd instinct.

I don't think telling a child to wear a headscarf so they can visit a mosque makes them more independent minded or able to make their own minds up.

leave, good job I didn't hold my breath either, no one has answered the question, which is a pity.

YANBU.

By all means the school can 'educate' them about religions, including making clear that these religions sanction sex discrimination.

But actually enacting that discrimination upon the girls is entirely inappropriate.

Requiring the girls to be treated differently from the boys is unacceptable.
Would the school deny a girl the opportunity to visit the mosque if she refused to cover her head? And allow the boys the same opportunity?

It is offensive to sanction a repellent idea in this way. "Now, girls, your uncovered heads are disrespectful, but boys, yours are fine."

In the world as it is today, I feel that every person should have the best understanding of Islam - the religion, the related cultures, and the extremists within it, and the differences between all of those - that is possible. And if possible, that understanding should be 'experiential', not just academic/theoretical. If a child has to wear a headscarf to achieve part of that understanding, by 'standing in the shoes of' a Muslim in a mosque, so be it.

I agree that people should have a better understanding of Islam but I strongly disagree that wearing a headscarf to visit a mosque will have any influence on that. It hardly equates to "standing in the shoes" of a Muslim. In my opinion children only really get a good understanding of other cultures by having friends of that culture.

Mary, but visiting a mosque, for a session led by members of that community, is still MUCH more likely to improve someone's understanding of Islam than sitting at home saying 'no, won't go there', where a friend of another culture isn't available.

I'm just thinking of all the things that the Muslim members of my class (in a non C of E school) have to put up with, that they COULD take offence at - Nativity plays, visits to churches and from priests, a Christian-focused RE syllabus, a daily act of school worship with a mainly Christian bias, a uniform and PE uniform that make them conspicuous as they need to adapt it (none wear headscarf or any other symbol of their religion, but the girls do keep arms and legs covered). We demand of them daily respect for the default Christian culture of the UK - the lead up to Christmas, Easter and Harvest, for example, our weekends, the timing of holidays - and accord them very little respect for theirs....

And as I keep saying, we have no evidence that the OP's children must wear headscarves. Evidence I can find online about school visits to mosques specify that it is not necessary for younger girls.

Just for fun, I googled Westminster Abbey. On the website I found the following:

Westminster Abbey is a Church and a place of daily worship. We ask our visitors to respect this, and to show sensitivity in the way they are dressed. We request that clothing are modest, and that gentlemen remove their hats while in Church.

Aside from the obvious question of who is responsible for that appalling writing (I was tempted to add "sic" in about three different places), I wonder whether anyone would object to this request. Here we clearly see a double standard (men must remove their hats, women need not) which I think most people would follow and not think twice about. Then there's the request for "modest" clothing. Would anyone find that objectionable, I wonder?

Teacher: "In the UK we have a long history of treating females worse than males (examples). We now understand that this is very unfair, and wrong, and we have made laws to make sure we treat everybody fairly. But many other countries and also some religions still treat females and males differently, and have different rules too.

We have decided that we want you all to experience this visit without the girls feeling like they have an unfair rule just for them, so everyone will cover their heads, boys and girls."

Or just find a mosque that doesn't tell little girls that their uncovered heads are wrong.

One mosque I googled helpfully suggests that hoodies are ideal wear for mosque visits - visitors of either sex can raise their hoods!

'I wonder whether anyone would object to this request. Here we clearly see a double standard (men must remove their hats, women need not) which I think most people would follow and not think twice about. Then there's the request for "modest" clothing. Would anyone find that objectionable, I wonder?'

My issue with the head coverings in mosques is that it is only a requirement for women. If both men and women had to cover their heads as a sign of respect I would have no problem with that. Equally I object to Westminster Abbey requiring only men to remove hats.

Anything that segregates people according to their genitals is wrong, IMO.

Cailindana, So the division of public toilets into 'for men/for women' is equally offensive to you?

No because there is a genuine safety reason for that teacher.

What a dreadfully sad thread, only when it comes to Muslims and travellers does one find such blatant prejudice.

I lot of intelligent people have pointed to different areas of life where men and women are not treated exactly the same. We should be equal but we are obviously not the same.

'I lot of intelligent people have pointed to different areas of life where men and women are not treated exactly the same. We should be equal but we are obviously not the same.'

So what it is about women that makes it necessary to cover their heads - what natural difference is at work here?

Hmmm ... really?? Genuinely dangerous to use a cubicle in one room rather than another? Or is it just a division based on difference of need and custom: for men, it is customary to be expected to pee in public, in a urinal, for women it is not?

'Hmmm ... really?? Genuinely dangerous to use a cubicle in one room rather than another? Or is it just a division based on difference of need and custom: for men, it is customary to be expected to pee in public, in a urinal, for women it is not?'

No because in schools and universities where unisex toilets have been introduced, harassment and sexual assault has increased.

Atenco, agree.

I have performed the same basic search (school visits [name of religious building] head covering) for 3 places of worship for non-Christian world faiths:

• Mosques
• Synagogues
• Gurdwaras

All have rules about head covering. For the first 2, these apply asymmetrically to the sexes, for the Gurwaras both sexes have to cover their heads.

Only for Islam does the search bring up a huge number of articles in which there have been visitors objecting to these requirements. If it was genuinely an 'unbiased' issue, based solely on considerations of sexism rather than on the basis of prejudice against a specific faith, the synagogue search should have brought up an equal number of examples of objections.

teacherwith2kids
There are very compelling reasons for certain safe spaces to allow women privacy and protection from men, and these usually involve particular vulnerability, communal changing rooms, prisons, women's wards, refuges and rape crisis centres. They do not come with a value judgement about women's worth or place in society.

This, however, is a situation where the lesson for the girls is "you are less, cover your head". And the lesson for the boys is "watch how your teachers sanction sex discrimination upon the girls. It's alright to make them do something different to the boys because they have a different value to you"

I don't need to enact sexism upon my child to teach her that it exists. She already knows it exists, and she looks to me and her school to not perpetrate it further.