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

I agree it's invasive. I don't think that means it's the wrong thing to do.

It might not be the most effective way to stop the practice. But I do think the practice should be stopped.

Sorry to quote myself:

How do you get these men to see that a twelve year old girl on her way to school is not one of these stereotyped, hyper sexual, ‘dirty’ women, who are overjoyed having anything and everything a man could fantasise about done to her?

I am thinking more, that this really is a core question, because these stereotyped beliefs about western/westernised/non-Muslim women and girls, are being handed down to second/third generation men, who form these racist, pedophile, religious extremist rape gangs aka ‘grooming gangs’.

What are the wider implications though, in terms of normalizing that level of invasion?

Could we see it being used to ban other religious head coverings, for example?

EndlessTea good summary points a - d above.
I would not intervene in most cases unless laws are broken. I would leave people covering their heads as they choose whether fundamentalist Christians, jewish caps, Sikh turbans and full face veils (other than perhaps the latter in court and motor bike helmets etc to be removed in banks for CCTV purposes).

If that means girls are brought in sexist homes so be it. I think it is better that is so than we interfere in people's private family lives.
Then I would hope that most groups after 2 or 3 generations integrate to a greater extent and some of the more sexist and homophobic ideas disappear.

That does not mean I am pleased little girls near where I am have to cover up and only go out with men accompanying them etc

The issue of hard numbers of disruptive young men coming here alone and causing noise, costing a lot of money etc is another issue again and if they break the law and attack women etc or break other laws in how they treat women they should be prosecuted.

I think we already have that level of "invasion" in child care and safeguarding. We try to protect children from harm and that requires a certain amount of intervention in how people parent. I don't think it's okay for little girls growing up in Britain to be forced to wear hijab.

‘Modesty culture, of which the veil is central, sexualises girls from a young age, puts the onus on them to protect themselves. It removes male accountability for violence. It’s an extension of rape culture.’ – Maryam Namazie, 2018

www.ex-muslim.org.uk/2022/01/on-worldhijabday-we-are-free-from-hijab/

I was trying to find the interviews that someone posted on another thread from the three ex-Muslim women, who were talking about the way being forced to wear hijab affected them as kids.

I really don't think we have anything like that level of invasion of family life now. Far far from it.

Western culture sexualizes young girls just as effectively, and tbh I think maybe even more effectively, than a hijab, which doesn't cover girls any more than was perfectly normal in western countries a 100 years ago.

Modesty as a concept can be done negativly, but funamentally it's about respect for the body as something more than just a sexual object - the idea is that it is possible to reduce a body to that, and that a certain standardized level of conventional propriety gueards against that.

Every culture has that kind of standard, even if it differs from other cultures. But the total rejection of even the idea of modesty in the secular west makes it extremely difficult to even talk about how fashion and culture can sexualize women and girls and create an environment that feeds that. You can see how people struggle to talk about it every time there is a thread about clothing on here, there is no language for the concepts. While modesty culture can be twisted, a culture that rejects the idea altogether doesn't somehow become immune to sexualization.

I actually think the word ‘modesty’ itself is harmful. It plays in to the whore/Madonna dichotomy.

Immodest/modest.

Its this notion that if a someone exposes their body beyond what is deemed ‘modest’ by the prevalent culture, it is because they want to be alluring, tempting, hyper sexual, indiscriminate- they want to be used and abused like the dirty little slut they are by anyone who feels the urge to use and abuse them- they are immodest.

What if, the reason why the body is exposed is because it is summer, or to exercise, or because that just looks nice, or because it is more comfortable? What if the person is completely self-absorbed and hasn’t really considered for a mo ent what others think or judge?

On the other hand, what if someone is covered in such a way others presume they are chaste, virtuous, wanting to be closer to God, they respect themselves and their body, yadda, yadda, yadda, they are being ‘modest’, when in fact they are just self-conscious about a skin disorder, they want to stay out of the sun, or they are ashamed of their body?

What if they just don’t want to be sexually harassed by men or be the victim of some so-called ‘honour’ crime?

I think the very word ‘modesty’ does not belong it feminist discourse. It is part of the divide and conquer of women, for the benefit of men. Two camps - modest chaste and virtuous ones to be the subservient wives and the immodest cheap and dirty ones, to be sexually harassed, abused and exploited ‘whores’.

So I disagree, in the strongest possible terms about ‘modesty’ that “fundamentally it's about respect for the body as something more than just a sexual object”

It is everything about being a sexual object - but being a ‘modest’ sexual object.

I don't think hijab is about respect for the body. I think it teaches shame about the body and for girls to dissociate from their bodies. It is a sign to girls that their body is wrong and shameful and not their own.

I also am a bit dubious about the concept of modesty but can't articulate why exactly. Except what have little girls got to be modest about? Little boys are never expected to be modest, are they? It feels like modesty is just another aspect of shame.

In terms of how invasive it would be to ban hijab for children - it's surely equivalent to the ban on smacking children? That's pretty invasive I'd say. I think banning hijab would be the same level of intervention.

Someone much higher up the thread said we all had the same view and it is clear we do not, which is excellent for a healthy debate. For me it is about freedom, even freedom to bring up a child in one home where everyone walks around naked without a care in the world and in another no one is allowed to show their body to any family member etc etc as long as the law is followed. It is that ability to allow differences without state interference which is one of the strengths of our country.

It is when the conduct (i) breaks the law or (ii) there are so many people coming in, particularly young single men who then either break the law or cause a nuisance to others than I would step in as well as the more general issue that we just cannot afford the large numbers and I do also want more consideration to the host population who suffer negative impacts when they become a minority, even just a "well done you", we know how hard it is and we appreciate the fact you are not engaging in "white flight" out of your area and instead live in love and tolerance with others who are completely different.

Absolutely this. The whole concept of sexual modesty is highly geared towards shaming women, and making them feel self conscious about their bodies in a way that is never imposed on men.

Also it's amazing how many women can't see that overtly sexualising women and making them cover themselves up are two sides of the same misogynistic coin. It's perfectly possible to be against both, and to want a world where women can move through it as unselfconsciously as most men.

For me, it is more than about following the law of the land. It's about women's rights. It might be the law in Iran that women must be covered, but I would want to support the women there who argue that this is oppressive and misogynistic.

It's not that there are just different ways of doing things and they're all equally fine. Being under threat of rape and death for not covering your hair and face is not morally equivalent to being free to walk about dressed how you like. One way is clearly oppressive and dangerous for women and girls.

Obviously the British government can't make laws in other countries. But in our own country, we should be able to be clear that women are not required to be covered, that girls must not be covered, that there's to be no forced marriage, no FGM, no unequal treatment of girls. If people want to come here and live here, they should abide by the laws of the land.

I think it is one of those tipping point things. At what point does something need to be spelled out in law?

There’s an understanding that you don’t sexualise little girls. If parents started bleaching their daughter’s hair, dressing them in miniskirts, high heels and sheer tights, putting make up on them, etc, then there would be some sort of outcry I reckon.

it would be social services referrals, calls to create specific laws to stop it, schools would intervene.

However, sexualising little girls by making them cover their hair carries on unchecked. I think the reason why there are no social services referrals, calls to create specific laws or intervention in school is ‘because racism’ - the same reason the police say “there’s nothing we can do” about ‘grooming gangs’.

Think about the shit Posie got for mentioning it - from the right on lefties.

I personally don’t think we should create a new, specific law about it, but I think it should be openly frowned upon, schools and social services should intervene. It should be considered harmful and the families worked with to stop doing it.

I think the first step, is being able to voice your disapproval out loud, without being eternally condemned as racist.

Imagine if we were in a place where people could openly say “I think it’s a step too far”, there would be social reasons - of not wanting to come across like a weirdo, an extremist or a crap parent, which would probably circulate enough to get parents to stop, without any authority intervention.

At the moment there are too many people - including mumsnetters, who would be quick to jump on anyone voicing disapproval, so we are unable to reinforce our own cultural norms naturally. We are forced to put up and shut up.

I personally don’t think we should create a new, specific law about it, but I think it should be openly frowned upon, schools and social services should intervene. It should be considered harmful and the families worked with to stop doing it.

Yes, maybe this would be better. Although a law was brought in to stop parents smacking children - but in that case, I think the law was following the custom? Maybe that's often the case with laws. I suppose I'm thinking that proposing a law at least raises the profile of the issue and gets people talking. If that then leads to a more general 'frowning upon' then that would be effective.

I do also take the point that even proposing such a law might create a lefty backlash, cries of 'Islamophobia' etc. Actually, it might take a law to be able to override the left on this issue.

Smacking is child abuse, and so is dressing young girls in clothing so restrictive they can't enjoy a normal childhood. Both should be illegal.

I suppose I'm thinking that proposing a law at least raises the profile of the issue and gets people talking.

Absolutely.

Imagine if there were calls to ban the practice (as, to be fair beastlyslumber, you are already doing), discussion would no longer be suppressed and people could start voicing what they really think and feel about it, and the sort of society we want to live in. Even if there was no law change, the cat would be out of the bag.

Yes. That gets to the heart of it.

I understand that there are concerns in both cases about how "invasive" such a law would be. But for me it is a question of child protection and ultimately if we need to legislate on these things to protect children then that's what we should do. Many, many countries in Europe have made smacking illegal, including Scotland. I'm not aware of any negative consequences of these laws (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I'm not aware of them.) I do feel that restrictive dress for infants could be legislated on similarly.

I think it should be banned for u16s in the U.K. and teachers and front line public sector workers should not be wearing them when dealing with the public. But it will never happen as we are too scared of being labelled racist. Look at that poor teacher who is still afraid for his own life. That’s in the U.K. Yet when I visit non U.K. countries I’m expected to follow their customs. This will just build up and the extreme right wing will embrace it unless something is done.

I actually wanted to come back to the PP above you who wanted to remove the concept of modesty from feminist discourse, but yours raises the issue more directly.

If modesty (as a code of dress and behaviour in its simplest sense) was applied to males as well as females, would that change your view of it at all? Because both of you - understandably, as this is also the way it comes across from some of the cultures being discussed here - are looking at it as something that is only applied to female dress and behaviour.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but think it is an important point to unpick. Some PP have mentioned the Hasidic Jewish community - while they and the wider Orthodox Jewish community are by no means immune to the idea that 'modesty' is mostly a woman's issue or to problems with sexuality and sexual abuse, there is a modesty code which applies to the men as well. And while it isn't all about sex, some of it (in theory, at least) is supposed to act as a restraint against male sexual aggressiveness.

I don't know enough about Islam or other religions to know if the same applies, but wouldn't be surprised if there are similar concepts for men which are conveniently ignored by some...

I honestly don't know, mirah.

I'm very interested in Louise Perry's recent book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which in part addresses the idea that sexual freedom has been bad for women and bad for relationships in general. I think you could extend that critique to look at how religion shapes those ideas within some communities. Maybe they are trying to conserve something that is precious.

But in terms of forcing children to show "modesty" by wearing restrictive clothing that means they can't play and are isolated from others and indoctrinated into a sense of shame and dissociation - I think I would just want to separate that out from a larger discussion of sexual freedom and modesty.

Some parents do that though and whilst there might be eyebrows raised, it’s not illegal and I’d be surprised if social services got involved in those families. Child beauty pageants as far as I know are not illegal in the UK. If we’re going to ban the hijab for children then should beauty pageants be banned? I don’t want an asymmetric banning of sexualisation of children, not because of fear of accusations of Islamophobia but because I don’t want to promote ignorance of our own culture of sexualisation and how harmful the opposite side of the coin is.

Yes - agree with your last para.

Coming back to the core point of this thread - how much would this move help with the issues raised so far?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328

Other people are allowed to dress their little girls in "future heartbreaker" etc T-shirts. And I am allowed to tut. Still other people are allowed to put hijabs on their young girls and you (and many others) are allowed to talk about the implications of that, whether it is harmful etc etc. I would really really not want to start banning things like that. Yes, some harmful things are regulated against - beating ones child for instance, but I think the standard for intervention should be high and really clear. Emotional abuse, physical abuse for example - I don't think headscarves even on very young girls reach that on their own (if other stuff is going on then that's different). On top of everything else, I think legislation could lead to a lot of confusion/distress for the children themselves.

I saw that. I think its really promising IF its actually acted on/taken seriously by the police. But it adds another tool to deal with this sort of thing (rather than having to prove that the harassment was sexual when it clearly was for example).