Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Article raising some interesting but flawed points on why some Muslim women wear niqab (full face veil with gap for eyes)

84 replies

Carla786 · 11/11/2025 01:36

As a result, cousin marriage is
So we begin to see the argument that cousin marriage is a patriarchal imposition on the autonomy of individual women of Pakistani heritage, forcing them into marrying cousins with the risk of giving birth to unhealthy babies. Surely, they reason, no woman could possibly want that for herself, or for her potential children. It is a coercive practice, designed to shore up the power of the male elders of clans, by marrying their own offspring together.
While the paradigm of patriarchy vs. autonomy might be effective dialectically in the context of British politics, in the case of both cousin marriage and the niqab, it is completely misapplied. It is not so much based on a misunderstanding of how human culture works, rather than a comprehensive disregarding of culture entirely. What began as a necessary and salutary backlash against cultural relativism on the Left a couple of decades ago, has become a lazy habit of simply neglecting the importance of culture.
To put it as crudely as possible, people who grew up in cultures where cousin marriage is normal, find cousin marriage normal. There does appear to be some instinctive, genetic trait hardwired into humans universally that we are (generally) not sexually attracted to the people we grew up with in the immediate family unit. But beyond that, all practices around pairing, courtship, marriage and procreation of children are subject to cultural custom, which are shaped according to the structures, needs and philosophy of that society. These customs vary massively across the world, from culture to culture. Unless they have extensive exposure to some alternative culture, almost nobody finds the customs of their own native culture creepy or weird. That is the nature of culture; it establishes norms that are, well, normal — at least to the people who live in it.

Something like the niqab is an even more clear cut example of classical in-group social signalling. Most obviously, wearing the niqab is a signal of piety, which is its own reward, and is an enhancement to female status within religious communities in the eyes of other women, especially older women. Signals of piety by a daughter or a granddaughter are a particular enhancement to the status of a matriarch. But within the context of an immigrant community, the niqab serves as a far more powerful signifier of place within the broader society — most specifically as a rejection of it.
Many Pakistani communities in England live in towns that have experienced economic decline and depopulation. What remains of the English communities around them are often those who lacked the wherewithal to leave, and who are afflicted by varying degrees of social and economic dysfunctionality. Unlike Pakistani communities, the local English lacked access to informal credit via extended family structures, and could not set up their own independent businesses. Chronic problems of family breakdown, addiction and low educational attainment, ended up with the Pakistanis regarding the English as dissolute and amoral. Much of this can be seen in the rape gangs scandal. But it also means that a clear signal rejecting mainstream English society is itself an ingroup status signifier among the Pakistani community. The associations of that signal in terms of personal virtue are especially important for women.

As with many female-specific cultural signifiers, the veil doubles as a status signifier in that it is an impediment to physical labour, thus suggesting the family can afford for its womenfolk not to toil in the fields or in a factory. In our own culture, long painted fingernails serve the same purpose. Although unlike long nails, the niqab can be easily removed indoors, and so does not preclude a life of drudgery inside the home. Yet as physical signifiers of leisure go, it is a relatively unobtrusive one for the wearer, compared with some of the more extreme measures some cultures have gone to such as Chinese foot binding.

Men have always gained status through demonstrations of their wealth; large houses, extensive lands and fine clothes; thoroughbred horses or fast cars. But it is women, throughout the ages and all over the world, who have cultivated the art form of more subtle signals not only about the wealth their family might have, but also how they might have acquired it. This is why most cultures have discrete concepts of class and wealth.

There are many theories about why humans have almost uniquely evolved the phenomenon of the menopause, and with it a population of women living beyond their years of fertility — the other species to do so being the killer whale. One theory is that the grandmother exists as a form of social technology to enforce norms. Thin

Yet other than the West and the former Communist bloc (especially China), most other societies have not experienced that degree of social change, and older familial hierarchies endure. This is particularly the case in traditional Muslim societies that restrict the role of women outside the home. There is a temptation among Westerners who are unfamiliar with the reality of family life in Islamic societies to take their pieties at face value, and to assume that men retain the whip hand over women in all aspects of life. But the reality is more nuanced.
If economic and political life outside the home is the arena of men into which traditional Muslim women seldom stray, then life within the home is their domain. Bottled up, and with far fewer distractions than a modern western woman, a Pakistani wife may devote herself to the stewardship of her household. The surprising result of this is that Pakistani and Middle Eastern husbands are some of the most hen-pecked men on God’s green earth.
Any analysis which suggests that cultural practices can be enforced by patriarchy alone without considering the role of matriarchy is probably not particularly helpful.'

OP posts:
oldtiredcyclist · 18/11/2025 15:28

ForCraftyWriter · 11/11/2025 07:57

Nothing shrieks white saviour more than forming judgements about cultural practices of people we have no deep personal connection with.
The ‘many/most women are forced’ argument is a right wing cloak which effectively removes women’s right to self determination under the false guise of saving them
Long live the true British value of allowing women to choose for themselves and protecting their right to do so

I feel that I have to respond to this, because although I am a white male in his sixties (you would probably call me "privileged", despite the fact that I was born into a relatively poor, working class family), I have lived experience of the reality of what Muslim women go through, in the country of their birth, their communities and their family. My experience, is having been with a lovely Iranian born woman for the past thirty five years, so I am well aware of what it feels like for a woman living in a Muslim country, being forced to wear the hijab whenever you go outside the house, when the penalty for not complying can result in prison or worse. The rules are always made up by men, they get to decide what the Islamic dress code is, not the women. When my female relatives journey to Europe or the US, they don't wear the hijab, so what does that tell you? In neighbouring Afghanistan, conditions for women are ten times worse for women, who cannot get an education and have to wear the burkha if they leave the house. In the UK, there are Islamic communities, where the women wear the hijab and very often, it is not through choice. There are many instances of the women in these communities not speaking English, not socialising with anyone outside their community. They do not have a choice, because the rules are always made by the men.

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:36

CForCake · 18/11/2025 10:32

Shouldn't the focus be free choice?

Some atheists and / or feminists end up saying or implying that every woman who covers herself is a victim. Yet there do exist women who choose to do so freely.
What should we tell them? That they don't realise how oppressed they are? That would be very condescending.

I think the point is free choice. Women have the right to cover themselves in ways other women disapprove of.

The problem is how often these environments do not allow free choice, with a combination of psychological pressure, physical abuse, lack of financial independence etc.

It gets even trickier when we think about minors : at what age should a girl be allowed to say no, you cover yourself but I don't want to? The answer isn't straightforward.

There has to be a limit. I don't think extreme coverings that only leave eyes visible (or in the case of burqas, not even eyes) need to be permitted. I have no issue with a woman wearing a headscarf. Covering your whole face is quite different.

Aside from implications about gender, it's intimidating to quite a lot of people (in the UK at least) to only be able to see someone's eyes. It doesn't help that the most traditional women who wear niqab/burka tend to choose black, which increases the ominous feeling.

A burka & niqab ban would probably affect about 2% of UK Muslim women, given most don't wear them.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:40

CForCake · 18/11/2025 12:58

Rebelling against your parents, including the children of relaxed parents becoming strict, is nothing new.
In the Simpson, Ned Flanders is the son of very artsy liberals, and rebels by becoming an uptight religious zealot!

Ha, I've never yet seen the Simpsons but I want to. Isn't Saffy in Absolutely Fabulous a bit similar in that she's the struct one with the outrageous parents?

I'm Gen Z and this is a bit of a Gen Z thing I think. Sometimes I feel like quite a few people in my generation would make good straight-edge punks (which is basically what Amina is). Clean-living, worried about the environment and politics, staying away from drink etc

OP posts:
MsWilmottsGhost · 18/11/2025 15:47

FiatLuxAdAstra · 11/11/2025 08:37

There are many theories about why humans have almost uniquely evolved the phenomenon of the menopause, and with it a population of women living beyond their years of fertility — the other species to do so being the killer whale.

I really don’t think this is true at all. We just kill farm animals once they aren’t fertile anymore. A chicken stops laying eggs today? It’s chicken pot pie tomorrow.

Looking at mammals a study found
“Here, we performed the first large-scale analysis of female reproductive senescence across 101 mammalian species that encompassed a wide range of Orders. We found evidence of reproductive senescence in 68.31 % of the species, which demonstrates that reproductive senescence is pervasive in mammals.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047637420301731

(menopause is the human reproductive senescence)

Edited

Menopause is a relatively sudden end to fertility well before the end of lifespan, whereas reproductive senescence is a gradual decline.

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 15:48

Musa al-Gharbi has some interesting & disturbing research on the kids of moderate first-generation Muslim immigrants becoming radicalised, wearing burqas that their mothers don't, then progressing to getting involved in Isis-type stuff online. He cited some people who've researched this in more depth, I'll look up the names.

Al-Gharbi is a moderate Muslim himself & a sensible liberal (his book We Have Never Been Woke is good on excesses like TWAW & Critical race theory). He argues that most of these radicalised types are second-generation teens who feel caught between two cultures, are maybe also antisocial, and then after not being very religious, get into dangerous ideologies online. I do think the picture is more complex than this : there's BBC & other investigations of extremist mosque preachers, Salafi & Wahhabi fundamentalism being funded by overseas countries like Qatar & Saudi Arabia, & moderate Muslims being too scared to report extremists in-community. But he does have a point.

It's also relevant that al-Gharbi is a US Muslim- US Muslim immigrants tend to be moderate.

OP posts:
miraxxx · 18/11/2025 15:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 16:07

@oldtiredcyclist I agree with you. But many will tell you that they condemn Iran, but that the UK is not Iran.

Which is why I think it is useful to ask these people if they agree that choice is crucial, and what they would do about all those British Muslim girls brought up indoctrinated that they will suffer unspeakable torment in hell if they show a little bit of hair. Is that not the opposite of free choice? Is it not a problem when young British Muslims do NOT have a free choice?

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:23

CForCake · 18/11/2025 16:07

@oldtiredcyclist I agree with you. But many will tell you that they condemn Iran, but that the UK is not Iran.

Which is why I think it is useful to ask these people if they agree that choice is crucial, and what they would do about all those British Muslim girls brought up indoctrinated that they will suffer unspeakable torment in hell if they show a little bit of hair. Is that not the opposite of free choice? Is it not a problem when young British Muslims do NOT have a free choice?

I think it's crucial to distinguish between levels of pressure.

I agree with oldtiredcyclist's post largely. But I don't think Islam being run, as a religion, by men, with laws set by men, automatically means that women can't choose to do certain things it requires, even extreme things like burkas.

All religions were founded and had rules set by men. Catholicism and many major Protestant denominations have all-male priesthood who set rules, including rules for women, same with Orthodox Judaism. This doesn't mean that no woman can follow the rules of those religions by free choice.

The key issue here is the level of pressure. If a woman knows that if she doesn't wear a hijab, her parents & wider circle will be disapproving but will ignore & treat her the same as before, then I'd say that's a level of pressure that's compatible with free choice.

On the other hand, if she knows that if she doesn't wear it she'll suffer abuse and shunning, then how is that a free choice?

I think selling sex is a comparison. It's something that most women would hate the thought of doing. If someone's getting their UC taken away wrongly & can't get another job or any other source of support, so sells sex to keep body & soul together, that's clearly not a free choice.
On the other hand, if someone wants to be able to afford more for their kids and have more time to spend with them, and will get that more easily by selling sex than working in a shop, then that is a choice. I'd argue that it's still less of a free choice than the first hijab scenario I outlined, because being able to spend time with your kids and give them a better life are very strong motivators. But imo it's still a choice, even though it's driven by external factors.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:35

Christians are generally much less dogmatic about dress etc here. I think US Amish offer a good comparison: rules vary based on order, but it appears that a segment do decree shunning for baptised Amish who leave, thus meaning an end to contact with friends and family left behind. This is hard to see as non-coercive. Any community which threatens shunning by family & friends if you disobey has crossed the line imo.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna49050710

Amish tradition of shunning is key to Ohio hair-cutting trial

In the stern, self-regulating world of the Amish, those who act out time and again by wearing the wrong clothing, going to movies or otherwise flouting the church's doctrine can find themselves utterly alone.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna49050710

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 16:40

CForCake · 18/11/2025 16:07

@oldtiredcyclist I agree with you. But many will tell you that they condemn Iran, but that the UK is not Iran.

Which is why I think it is useful to ask these people if they agree that choice is crucial, and what they would do about all those British Muslim girls brought up indoctrinated that they will suffer unspeakable torment in hell if they show a little bit of hair. Is that not the opposite of free choice? Is it not a problem when young British Muslims do NOT have a free choice?

I find it easier to have a clear-cut view on abuse when people know that things like not wearing hijab will mean permanent loss of family and friends.

Otoh, I find it harder to view teachings about hell that way. I was friends with some strict homeschooled Baptist children as a younger child. They led pretty normal lives, but they were definitely taught strict views from a young age, including that non-believers in Jesus are condemned to eternal hell because acceptance of Christ is the only way to be saved.

Was this abusive and preventing free choice? I'm torn. It didn't require them to do anything like wear a headscarf, it was more about inner belief.

OP posts:
CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:05

You are right. I mean, I still think that terrorising young children with these stories can amount to psychological abuse in some cases, but that's a tougher and less straightforward conversation, because how do you reconcile that with the parents' right to educate their children in their religion etc.

But the fact that many will cut off contact with you, or the fact that a woman who is not financially independent does not even have the freedom to make a different choice, are easier arguments

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:44

Carla786 · 13/11/2025 19:07

Thank you, this is very interesting. It's making me reconsider some ideas...I can definitely understand the idea of an older woman being dominant behind the scenes. However, I guess I'm trying to get my head around how this can coexist with widespread DV, forced marriage, honour killings, street sexual harassment, regimes like Saudi Arabia where women are very legally restricted, abbetted by sharia?

Is it in some ways a system then where older women have a kind of matriarchal power in the domestic sphere, but use this power to dominate younger women, not help & protect them? And younger women are at the bottom of the heap, rather than specifically women?

Also, of I can check : I thought Jat Punjabi families were usually Sikh? But of course there's long been Muslims in the Punjab, too.

Edited

Yeah I see it equally as enforcing communal values rather than just patriarchal values (lines here are blurry, men still won’t be punished in the same way women will for the same misdemeanour). I think wherever social control lies those who possess it have the power to punish, being a woman may mean you quietly arrange an abortion rather than murder your DD for example but the communal value of no sex before marriage is to be maintained. It’s just more risky for girls who do it than boys but men have also been honour killed, the vast majority of victims are ofcourse women. It is rooted in patriarchy but as I said theres a shocking number of women who drive honour killings and I get that these women are working within a system of patriarchy but many families just hush stuff up, to kill, you are a perpetrator not just a hapless victim of your circumstances. I hold those women just as culpable.

I think when I talk about financial control in jatt families you have to remember these are predominantly farming families, the women are making decisions over the family business, pricing of crops etc not just over household shopping. Ofcourse this is not every family. Yes jatt culture is more about a Punjab specific context rather than india vs Pakistan.

On another note I grew up at a time when people were just starting to adopt hijabs. Muslim women from the subcontinent were not wearing hijabs in the 70’s and 80’s. It’s an arabisation of south asian culture. A lot of Somalis moved to my area and a lot of the young girls were wearing hijabs, slowly it was adopted by south asians.

Even language has changed from using Punjabi/urdu to pepering language with random arabic words. It used to be “kasme bro” (I swear in urdu) to “wallhi bro”. I think it’s a search for identity for a lot of third generation rather than even second generation. I see it in the overidentifying with Palestinians but not Uyghurs and Sudanese (having said that no-one gave much of a shit about Syrians being barrel bombed either). So it’s not just rooted in religion I think it’s political for a lot of young people who perhaps for whatever reason feel alienated from their actual culture and have adopted aspects of what they think of as arab culture. I think when the Hijab was banned in French schools some girls actually started wearing them as a political act.

I remember the UAE hair dance that caused such a fuss, some british Pakistanis were moaning about it being haram on twitter and lots of Emiratis were bewildered and annoyed about being lectured on religion by non arabs who didn’t seem to understand that they had a distinct culture of their own and that they were quite fond of it. For some people following Islam means the eradication of a lot of their own actual culture.

So I think you have the religious people who genuinely think there will be hellfire and damnation if they don’t cover. Those who do so for social reasons (you definitely get treated nicer and get more automatic respect for being covered) and those for whom it’s political.

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:50

There are a lot of ex-muslims who talk about their experiences on podcasts etc. I would say though that many of them came from quite hyper religious families so have a very specific and very negative experience. I’m not defending anyone it’s just that I know families where mum and some sisters don’t wear a hijab but one or two of their sisters do. So not every family is enforcing it. Some of the women I know who wear a hijab have no intention of mentioning it to their daughters because they felt they didn’t have much of a choice themselves. Religion can be as oppressive or as gentle as you want it to be.

I think it’s very difficult for those of us who don’t have this religious background to understand the strength of feeling from women who feel like this is authentically their choice. I’m inclined to think it’s not a genuine “choice” as such.

CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:59

I may be politically incorrect, but I consider abusive any family or social environment that does not let children or other members make a different choice.
Parents who cut contact with their children if they vote for a different party.
Families which cut contact with members who leave the religion or decide not to follow certain specific religious rules.
Jehovah Witnesses teaching children they cannot be friends with children who are not JW.

It's all the same abusive s#@# to me

Carla786 · 18/11/2025 18:44

CForCake · 18/11/2025 17:59

I may be politically incorrect, but I consider abusive any family or social environment that does not let children or other members make a different choice.
Parents who cut contact with their children if they vote for a different party.
Families which cut contact with members who leave the religion or decide not to follow certain specific religious rules.
Jehovah Witnesses teaching children they cannot be friends with children who are not JW.

It's all the same abusive s#@# to me

That isn't politically incorrect: or it certainly shouldn't be! It is (or should be) basic decency.

OP posts:
Carla786 · 18/11/2025 18:52

Bringemout · 18/11/2025 17:44

Yeah I see it equally as enforcing communal values rather than just patriarchal values (lines here are blurry, men still won’t be punished in the same way women will for the same misdemeanour). I think wherever social control lies those who possess it have the power to punish, being a woman may mean you quietly arrange an abortion rather than murder your DD for example but the communal value of no sex before marriage is to be maintained. It’s just more risky for girls who do it than boys but men have also been honour killed, the vast majority of victims are ofcourse women. It is rooted in patriarchy but as I said theres a shocking number of women who drive honour killings and I get that these women are working within a system of patriarchy but many families just hush stuff up, to kill, you are a perpetrator not just a hapless victim of your circumstances. I hold those women just as culpable.

I think when I talk about financial control in jatt families you have to remember these are predominantly farming families, the women are making decisions over the family business, pricing of crops etc not just over household shopping. Ofcourse this is not every family. Yes jatt culture is more about a Punjab specific context rather than india vs Pakistan.

On another note I grew up at a time when people were just starting to adopt hijabs. Muslim women from the subcontinent were not wearing hijabs in the 70’s and 80’s. It’s an arabisation of south asian culture. A lot of Somalis moved to my area and a lot of the young girls were wearing hijabs, slowly it was adopted by south asians.

Even language has changed from using Punjabi/urdu to pepering language with random arabic words. It used to be “kasme bro” (I swear in urdu) to “wallhi bro”. I think it’s a search for identity for a lot of third generation rather than even second generation. I see it in the overidentifying with Palestinians but not Uyghurs and Sudanese (having said that no-one gave much of a shit about Syrians being barrel bombed either). So it’s not just rooted in religion I think it’s political for a lot of young people who perhaps for whatever reason feel alienated from their actual culture and have adopted aspects of what they think of as arab culture. I think when the Hijab was banned in French schools some girls actually started wearing them as a political act.

I remember the UAE hair dance that caused such a fuss, some british Pakistanis were moaning about it being haram on twitter and lots of Emiratis were bewildered and annoyed about being lectured on religion by non arabs who didn’t seem to understand that they had a distinct culture of their own and that they were quite fond of it. For some people following Islam means the eradication of a lot of their own actual culture.

So I think you have the religious people who genuinely think there will be hellfire and damnation if they don’t cover. Those who do so for social reasons (you definitely get treated nicer and get more automatic respect for being covered) and those for whom it’s political.

This is really interesting, thank you. I definitely agree about patriarchal explanations being often too simplistic. Understanding this kind of system as communal (though also patriarchal) seems a much better framework.

I agree re it being wrong to deny women's agency within this kind of system. Yes, clearly it restricts all women. But it feels deeply wrong to say, eg. A woman who drives on an honour killing, is just an innocent victim of a patriarchal system. I don't see why it's feminist at all to say that women can still make choices and have influence even within very oppressive systems (at least legally, in theory) It doesn't negate that the systems are misogynist, it just complicates the picture.

OP posts:
CForCake · 18/11/2025 20:05

@Carla786 That isn't politically incorrect: or it certainly shouldn't be! It is (or should be) basic decency.

My other politically incorrect thought is that talking about a Catholic or an atheist or a Muslim child makes as much sense as talking about a left-wing or a right-wing child: they are things they should decide for themselves when mature enough to do so. But religions know all too well that, if children were introduced to religion only as teens, too many of them would reject it. So indoctrinating from the very beginning is key

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 19/11/2025 07:07

Anything that ponders when a child is old enough to say ‘no’, is suspect.
Anything where boys are allowed to say no and girls are not is suspect.

CForCake · 19/11/2025 08:01

There is a problem every time children feel that they cannot disagree with their parents. This applies not just to religious environments but also to non religious groups and ideologies. Even to feminism. The children of some very radical feminists might be terrified to tell mum that, actually, they disagree with her on a few things.

Carla786 · 19/11/2025 14:23

CForCake · 19/11/2025 08:01

There is a problem every time children feel that they cannot disagree with their parents. This applies not just to religious environments but also to non religious groups and ideologies. Even to feminism. The children of some very radical feminists might be terrified to tell mum that, actually, they disagree with her on a few things.

Yes, this. I'm somewhat radfem myself but like all movements it had people who took it way too far. For example, the 70s radical feminists who were raising kids (including boys) in female communes and going to female bookshops where even small boys weren't allowed in. I don't think that's a good idea at all for childraising, apparently some boys even went extreme after & became MRAs.

Alice Walker's daughter Rebecca has spoken about her mother being very forceful about her views : she's a feminist still now but feels some was a bit much.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart, by the daughter of The Color Purple author

As a revered feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women through her iconic book The Color Purple. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

OP posts:
WarriorN · 20/11/2025 13:28

These three videos are now online from the battle of ideas and all raise interesting and important points. Theres another panel member who is like to hear but can’t seem to see a film of.

Article raising some interesting but flawed points on why some Muslim women wear niqab (full face veil with gap for eyes)
WarriorN · 20/11/2025 13:30

This is from a previous festival by Taj Hargey, a Muslim scholar who is very progressive and critical of dress codes.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/ZcAjxMFgSCE?si=o9mDgMnjekb5PZtN

Screamingabdabz · 20/11/2025 13:44

ForCraftyWriter · 11/11/2025 07:57

Nothing shrieks white saviour more than forming judgements about cultural practices of people we have no deep personal connection with.
The ‘many/most women are forced’ argument is a right wing cloak which effectively removes women’s right to self determination under the false guise of saving them
Long live the true British value of allowing women to choose for themselves and protecting their right to do so

I don’t have much experience with FGM but I know it’s wrong and should be eliminated. It’s usually women who perpetrate it but we all know it’s a deeply damaging and misogynistic practice.

Parallels can be drawn here so don’t use white saviour complex to distract away from the core male agenda at the heart of it.