Thread to discuss the reality of parts of the UK absorbing large numbers of men from other cultures

[BernardBlacksMolluscs]

This thread is to replace the one that got deleted earlier today, and the TAATs that came after it.

As per MNHQ in site stuff, we're OK to have this conversatrion

www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4687254-how-do-we-discuss-the-reality-of-parts-of-the-uk-absorbing-large-numbers-of-men-from-other-cultures?reply=121883255

For the benefit of those who wonder what awful thing I must have said to get my post deleted, I was explaining why bringing up what a significant number of women are wearing in a particular area (full covering, all- black, all body and face, disguises that renders them unrecognisable, dehumanised and interchangeable), how it prevents their forming of relationships outside the home, limiting their social status and social participation and creates a certain atmosphere of female oppression and male dominance, is relevant to the discussion of male behaviour.

Also I was adding to the secondary relevant discussion of integration, the impact of new influxes of immigrants to an existing immigrant population, and how this can reverse integration and even lead to radicalisation.

I also added illustrations from my own personal experience, of the behaviour of men in areas where it is normal for women to be fully and dehumanisingly covered.

I also added illustration of my experience of the hostility and confrontational attitude from second generation young local women who choose to wear this full covering.

I also expressed extreme scepticism about the notion that being fully covered to the point of being unrecognisable and dehumanised by others, brings women ‘closer to God’.

I think my ‘sins’ were swearing, mentioning the locality and mentioning women becoming radicalised.

I would back off trying to strike up a friendship with a covered woman. As lovely as she might be - I would expect there to be horrible sexist men in her background telling her she must. And as I tend to avoid abusive men on the whole - I wouldn’t put myself in the position of deliberately encountering more.

Sorry you got deleted @EndlessTea Censorship is rife when it comes to the subject of defending women's rights.

Thank you for explaining the gist of what was deleted.
I don't think the UK will go the way of soe other countries and ban covering up (unless perhaps where someone is in the witness box in court where facial expressions are part of the process for a jury of having to decide if someone is telling the truth or not) but I do want to ensure women are not obliged to be covered up in certain streets or areas of the UK.

As someone said above however we are more concerned about the man young unattached single men and their treatment of women and separately the impact on the host country of importing even whole families where the attitudes reflect values that are different from those mostly held now in the UK

When I was born homosexuality was a crime in England and suicide was a criminal offence and we had not even yet enacted the Equal Pay Act 1970, when I married it was not an offence to rape your wife. So that alone illustrates how things have changed in the UK.

However I don't want a one right path, you must believe XYZ UK. I don't haev a problem with fundamentalist Christians in the community ando thers mentioned above with women in long skirts etc and Muslims in their clothes. It is when it has an impact on rights and freedoms in the UK that it becomes an issue or women become subject to harassment from men simply because they show their legs.

Anyway I remain convinced the UK is one of the best and most tolerant places on the planet so long may that continue. There is much for which to be hopeful.

Thank you BeastlySlumber

Xenia I agree this is a very tolerant country and I am happy about that.

I don’t want restrictions generally, but I do take exception to face-covering. I think it has crossed over into being culturally insensitive and it isn’t harmless or something I believe should be tolerated in a free and open society. When I was visiting open days at schools, I found it really disturbing to be greeted by a teacher wearing a full covering. She had and English accent, so she wasn’t first generation. What are they normalising there? What impact is it going to have on the pupils? What is going to be waiting for us down the line as a society?

I don’t want you to get the impression that the covered teacher was behaving in a way that suggested she was downtrodden or something. She was treating me with disdain. Like something she’d trodden in. It was a strange experience.

For me, I don't believe we should ban face covering and other religious clothing as the French have done in schools etc, as I think it only gives cause to more rebellion and builds resentment. However, this is with the caveat that robust discussions of the wider impact on women's rights of such practices need to be allowed to take place with no squeamishness. This is why it was wrong that your post was deleted, EndlessTea. You were talking about your experience of encountering these women, and whilst yes, I felt a bit squeamish about what you were saying and wanted to temper it a bit, you didn't say anything wrong. Covering the face is an extreme statement, if only because most people don't do it. Militant Jihadi women exist and do wear the full covering as a symbol of that, and we should be allowed to discuss this. This does have a wider impact on women's rights as you have correctly pointed out, in that men harass women when walking through majority Muslim neighbourhoods because they don't conform to Islamic dress codes. I have experienced this myself, and also pointed out earlier that my Indian origin work colleague was also criticised whilst working by the Muslim male clients. I have also experienced, in my job, Muslim women not wanting to be seen with me in public as a white woman. Should I not be offended by this? The implication that I am morally corrupt? We need to be able to discuss these issues, as if it doesn't happen on Mumsnet where women's best interests are at heart, then it sure as hell will be taking place on far right websites where they are not.

I differ a bit with you there. Symbols of different religions, fill your boots, face covering, a step too far.

Tbh I'm not sure whether face covering should be banned or not, I'd want to see some sort of assessment on the effects of it. Which of course, we're never going to get because such studies would never be funded and nobody wants to allow discussion of these issues.

Right. I think it should be banned in schools, (most) public sector and service provider environments, but out and about it should be viewed as ‘behaving suspiciously’ like walking around wearing a crash helmet, meaning that you might get stopped by the police and asked to see your face and your ID.

The exceptions for me would be for women accessing services.

We have all these newly imported cultural practices that we're having to deal with in the UK, and there are no codes of conduct, nobody knows where they stand, and out of squeamishness nobody wants to discuss the issues frankly. We need policies putting in place in schools etc to set out what is and isn't acceptable, how problems should be dealt with. New forms of discrimination are creeping in, new types of harassment, and nobody wants to talk about it when it happens to white working class girls (because they're just 'slags' or 'racist') or ethnic minority women within these communities (because 'culture', best not get involved). Poor women as collateral damage for feel-good, fuzzy ideas about multiculturalism which play into middle-class egos.

In general I oppose banning things. You end up with ludicrous situations like that woman being arrested on a French beach for being too covered up

but I’d be pretty pissed off if any of my children’s teachers routinely covered their faces. Doubly so if I had daughters. I do think that if you make the choice to cover your face, it will render you unsuitable for certain jobs

My discomfort against legislating against clothing is because either:

1. The woman is wearing the clothing of hr own freewill - in which case preventing her from wearing said clothing is limiting her own freedom
2. The woman is pressured into it, either explicitly or through social control. In which case, there is a risk that limiting where she can wear those clothes will limit where she is "allowed" to go resulting in less freedom not more.

You saw this after the French police were filmed making a Muslim woman remove her cardigan on a beach (note not a hijab or burkini, a cardigan). There was outrage online - but not from hardline muslim men. Their attitude was she deserved it for being on the beach in the first place. I think the whole thing was a sort of revenge backlash for the Nice attacks (again women being punished for men's actions) but actually - it is a gift for controlling men in those communities since now they have the French police assisting in controlling where "their" women can go and what they can do.

I agree - there might be a line where we say e.g. full face coverings are a problem in some situations. But I would want to be very very careful in being very specific about where that line is and why to prevent mission creep.

But I strongly agree that face covering must NEVER be used as a reason to deny women access to services, and girls access to an education

Yes. I just thought about how one of the 5 ‘K’s for Sikhs is that they must carry a sword and because in our country we are not allowed to carry offensive weapons, Sikhs carry these small, blunt representations of cutlasses. That to me seems a fair enough.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs cross post!

great minds think alike re the beach cardigan @namitynamechange !

This is it, isn't it? Women's safety is never a concern. Not when it comes to men's feelings.

I agree.

It's why any time there is a discussion of any nature about immigration, different religions etc etc, you immediately get the shrug off as being institutionally racist because you have doubts.

It's like you cannot voice an opinion because elsewise someone, somewhere, is going to judge you.

However, all that does is back up the belief that women are a commodity. It does nothing to support and nurture women from communities where women have very limited rights within their family and society.

No women should have to bend to a man's whim. I don't care where you are born or what religion you subscribe to, women's rights should be sacrosanct across the board.

And as we know, they are not. There have been 'honour" killings. Of young western born women and girls.

Just the fact we refer to that act as "honour". It's not honourable. It's vile. So why use that term? It normalises it or we can shrug it off that no one intervened as it's done due to honour in a community.

The knock on effect is to not teach males or females from that community that it's wrong, so when it then filters to male treatment of women outside of the community, it's not a surprise as what exactly has been put in place to show that no, it's not right.

And it's not just older men who have come here from abroad. It's being continued by young boys and men. And schools are ill equipped to know how to deal with that.

We could and should secure females rights and safety whoever they are but our government, our police, our schools and our social care system is clueless, under prepared, and under funded. In some cases they don't care really either. And when huge forces like the Met themselves are being exposed as having very backward views on women themselves, they cannot exactly then step in when others are engaging in similar activities.

This is it, isn't it? Women's safety is never a concern. Not when it comes to men's feelings
Because men have mostly been able to dominate they have various ways of making sure they and their interests take priority, that's just how they operate. We have to uncover all the strategies and work against them, generally speaking I expect that men will always try and prioritise themselves, I do what I can to nip it in the bud and prioritise my interests. Basically just never let them get the upper hand.

@ReformedWaywardTeen
I think it's call honour killing because the woman is killed to protect the man's honour. In the man's mind the woman is not equivalent to a man she is more like livestock or perhaps a possession ...a piece of furniture, she is valuable because she is a virgin and that means she can be sold to another man, if she is raped this is embarrassing for the man who owns her because it's like someone has stolen her value from him so she has to be killed to make him feel better and to restore his honour.
Or to put it another way killing the woman is a way of getting revenge on the man who raped her. Like if she was someone's BMW and someone else damage the paintwork he's so upset he has to destroy the car to make himself feel better ...yes that's what it isn't it.🤷

I do appreciate that we are having this conversation here though.

Posters have stopped throwing around accusations and those who feel too uncomfortable or aren’t ready to have a pragmatic discussion have ducked out and left us to it. I know I got a post deleted and that pissed me off, I think we have managed to tease out a lot of forbidden thoughts, feelings and reflections on our experiences though, and its an important step in the right direction.