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 am the PP and I agree that if both men and women adhere to a similar notion of ‘modesty’ within a religious framework, it is less problematic, but that is within a religious context. I don’t think this word can or should be secularised. You can believe in modesty and immodesty, believe in God and the devil, believe in heaven and hell, but these concepts are completely irrelevant to feminist discourse.

There is definitely something to be said about one’s self worth not being reliant on outside validation and not being sexualised, but how much you show or don’t show generally depends on context. What you wear on the beach or in the pool would be out of place in the high street. Obviously it can be pretty jarring if people are more exposed or sexualised than the others surrounding them.

But the word ‘modesty’ suggests a ‘virtue’ - a philosophy of intrinsic ethical conduct - a religious pursuit. Belonging to a field of casting judgements, not, like feminism, pragmatically working to reduce harms and oppression.

Words to discuss the same issues from a feminist position are extrinsic things like, sexualisation and objectification.

I had left the house before hitting send on the above post, so the convo may have moved on.

Freedom for me (and indeed English law as it now stands) is allowing individual families to make choices which are lawful even if others hate what they do. That is where I differ from some on this thread.

However as soon as the law is broken then we can step in.
We can also encourage what we regard as better practices of equality for women (and men) in all communities.

I certainly remember giving a talk (as a woman in Iran briefly, on business ) for work and looking out at the beach and seeing men in speedos and women in the full black burkha and thing this is hardly what the koran says - should be both covered up, not men enjoying all that sun with women covered up although I did no protests, just did my work and came home.

I just came in from the cinema and saw a trailer for the film What’s Love Got To Do With It?

Its a romcom with themes about cultural integration and arranged marriage, and one of the lines, by I think the mother of the potential groom, was words to the effect of:

”London is like one big brothel”.

And I know it’s a comedy, but that pissed me off, in the light of this thread.

I personally don’t think that a ban is the right way forward, but I believe discussions of a ban are. But even if there’s a ban, why wouldn’t it be symmetrical- something about the sexualisation of girls - which covering the ‘sexually enticing’ hair is as much a part of, as putting a girl in high heels and make up.

I know there may be raised eyebrows already, but I think the families doing it aren’t necessarily going to know what that coolness in others is about. They might think “maybe they’ve got something against Bulgarians” - completely missing it.

Just wanted to bump this response as I agree so strongly.

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense re using different language in religious or secular/feminist settings.

I do wonder what that means for situations where people coming from a primarily religious (or a culture strongly based on a religious) background have to engage with secular or feminist ideas without realising this difference in language or concepts. My gut instinct is that it could create a communication barrier. But I'm not yet sure what the solution to that problem would be. If I come up with anything coherent on further thought I'll come back to this...

Honestly, I don't know if a ban is the way forward, but I think it ought to be raised and properly debated. If it's debated from the public arena, with experts weighing in, maybe I'll change my mind or others will.

I feel that it could make a huge impact in terms of expressing the norms and expectations of British culture. I think it could be seen as a form of child protection on a par with banning smacking. On the other hand, there's a risk of huge backlash and possible unintended consequences such as girls being kept out of school.

Without a proper, open debate, I don't think it's possible to weigh up these elements accurately. I think it needs to be put on the table for discussion.

You’re welcome Mirah2.

it is an issue that keeps coming up over and over again, because feminists and people of faith often have the same concerns, but are coming at it from different angles. I’ve always found it quietly amusing - the surface hostility but general agreement underneath.

I agree with you I don't think a ban is right - I agree with pp @namitynamechange about the threshold for intervention to be clear cut and relatively high. I meant that in the context of this discussion, harmful cultural practices in other cultures are criticised (absolutely fairly) but where these practices have a comparative opposite in Western culture, similarly rooted in the desire to control women, they should be examined too.

I am the PP and I agree that if both men and women adhere to a similar notion of ‘modesty’ within a religious framework, it is less problematic, but that is within a religious context. I don’t think this word can or should be secularised.

For me, the concept of modesty has either solely religious connotations or patriarchal. It takes away the very practical reasons people wear clothing, and typically women.

Pre-Victorian (and I'm skipping over the Protestant dress codes with collars here) women wore top-down shifts which made breastfeeding efficient. In some climates and cultures , limited clothing is much more practical due to resources, heat, and living conditions.

Scandinavian countries are much more relaxed about nudity and limited beachwear. This is weather influenced as they need to be completely bundled up in the winter so covered up clothing isn't seen as modest - it's critical in cold climates and applies equally to men and women.

It's the Abrahamic religious cultures that have given us the veils, the obsession with virginity and control of women and influence the sexual obsession with the facts of our bodies.

For us more practical minded, agnostic women, sometimes shorts and a thin top are worn for our sole comfort. I don't want to worry about the modesty needs of people who should mind their own business. It's the male gaze that pushes women and men to obsess over policing women's bodies with discussions over modesty and I'm not interested in catering to this.

Exactly. The male gaze is entirely extrinsic and that is the focus. ‘Modesty’ as a concept is a way of making women responsible and accountable for the male gaze.

*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.*

Other cultures may have sex-distinguished clothing but I don't see how you can argue all cultures have modesty rules vs dress norms.

I completely disagree that modesty fundamentally respects the body. Modesty entrenches the idea that women and girls are sexual bodies that need rules to police them. These rules are almost always based on standards that often disrupt women and girls ability to fully engage in society on equal standing with men.

I think it's a false equivalence.

Girls are being forced to wear clothing that restricts them both physically and mentally from engaging in normal childhood. That's definitely a harmful cultural practice.

I don't believe that girls wearing a slogan t-shirt is the same thing. Young girls in western cultures don't tend to wear sexualised clothing and if a seven year old turned up to school in high heels and lipstick, it would rightly be a safeguarding issue.

Yes , I think people will often do the false equivalence thing in a kind of sporting, fair play way, because they don’t want to admit that our culture is actually better for women. It goes back to that whole ‘superior’ taboo upthread. It just isn’t cricket to come out and say it out loud.

Also, a mate of mine is a teacher and she does send girls home to change if they come in wearing high heels (it’s a primary school- I know right?), but I don’t think there is a similar school policy to make girls take of hair awkward hair coverings. There are always lots of rules around no jewellery, for safety reasons isn’t there?

The reason it is so important to tease notions of ‘modesty’ out, is because they underpin squarely what this thread is about.

If you concede that ‘modesty’ is a virtue, which our hypersexualised, Botox-and-filler western world could use a little more of, then you are supporting the notion that ‘immodesty’ is rife in the western world.

And what does the idea of ‘rife immodesty’ make men feel entitled to do?

Harass us, abuse us, rape us and sexually exploit us.

So no, we don’t need society, or women’s lives to be improved by patriarchal ideas of modesty.

We need to challenge the whole sexist misogynist underpinnings of these cultures where women who are deemed ‘immodest’ are presumed to be ‘asking for it’.

And not just the men. Everyone who believes it.

Agree!!! Feminists can critique the sexual objectification of women and girls w/out any reliance on modesty. Modesty, gender, and the male gaze all force women and girls into stereotypes - they are equally dangerous to women.

I'm not suggesting it's always safe to buck modesty standards - women who do risk getting harassed, arrested or killed (hello Iran!). Modesty may be a survival strategy in specific situations, but it should never be considered a tool to liberate women.

It's interesting what the pp was saying about clothing for practical rather than 'modesty' purposes in colder climes. It just sparked a though about religions where modesty features, in warmer countries. I'm past the age of going out on a weekend in revealing clothing, but when it's hot, I want to wear shorts and vest tops. In Northern Europe, the sun coming out is a rare event, and so you want to soak up as much vitamin D as possible whilst it's available, something those coming from the Middle East or North Africa don't have to think about. I'm not sure if I'm able to articulate well what I'm thinking here, but I remember reading a book about evolutionary psychology and there was a chapter on religious practices, many of which - the washing, the kinds of foods you're allowed to eat - had a basis in practicality and preserving health. I suppose I'm wondering about the practical reasons for 'modest dress' being a part of religions that originate in the hotter countries of the world, whereas not so much in Northern Europe. Can you imagine trying to get women to cover up in Cardiff, during the one week of sun per year!

But yeah, I remember getting gawped at a lot by immigrant men a few summers ago for walking around in shorts and a vest when it was in the late 30s and it annoyed the hell out of me. It's the knowing looks, dehumanising, you know nothing about me, mate! It's like it's beyond their comprehension that I'm not dressing like that FOR men, I'm dressing like that because it's roasting, I'm white as a ghost and this is my one chance in the year to get some vitamin D FFS.

There's widespread and often severe vitamin D deficiency among women who are covered. Lack of vitamin D is implicated in many health conditions.

Is that in Europe or also in the Middle East/Africa/Asia, beastlyslumber ? Just thinking out loud, really.

I mean, obviously the main 'practical' reason for women covering is to show that they belong to the community and are a 'good girl', the property of their father or husband, so no groping or raping. Like 'do not trespass' sign. I was just wondering about other practicalities. I'd like to find out, if anyone knows, how dress changed in Europe so that it became less 'modest'. Women wearing a wimple in the Middle Ages I find fascinating, women and men wearing hats as the norm until - 40s? It would be interesting to trace the changes in an attempt to understand how these things come about.

Sorry to post again! I was just thinking about how different Islamic countries dress differently. When I was working with Kurdish women, they seldom covered their heads. I've also seen the pictures of Iranian and Afghani women in the 60s, wearing Western dress and with uncovered heads. If the practice of making women cover their hair is a backlash against foreign policy/colonialism, can we ever hope, as Westerners, to have any influence on these practices, or will that only ever be met with further backlash?

Definitely in Europe, it's an issue for all women and girls who are covered.

I know it's prominent in Bangladesh (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35766552/) and across South Asia (about 80% of the population are deficient, and 40% are severely deficient). I don't know of any studies elsewhere and I don't know if the South Asian studies separated men and women (I'm looking at that 40%) but the Bangladesh one showed vit D deficiency to be more prevalent in females.

You could probably extrapolate this to other countries where it's hot but women are covered - seems logical, but I don't have any links to back that up.