Feminists don't wear clothes that prevent them from working

I've been a little irritated by the argument from some muslim women that wearing the niqab is a feminist action.

If they'd simply argued that they had the right to choose how to dress themselves, fine. Women who insist on wearing ballerina dresses in public or something unsuitable straight off the catwalk, are also exercising their freedom to dress themselves how they like, but they are not feminists, because you can only wear such clothes if you don't work (the exception being those in the fashion industry).

Women who wear the niqab can't work, they can't even have a cup of coffee in a public restaurant. Therefore they can only dress themselves this way if someone else is picking up the bill, either their fathers or their husbands.

Work empowers women because it means they have money of their own, they can choose who to marry or not marry for reasons other than money, they don't have to be nice to this or that man in order to live. Work also opens doors to meeting people from other walks of life, to making friends independent of your family and husband, to making decisions and contributing to the wider society at large. Countries where large proportions of women work - Sweden, Denmark, France, Britain, tend to be more stable. Prosperity and progress depend on women participating in the workplace, not least because it eases the burden on men to earn enough to feed their families.

Feminism has gone hand in hand with throwing off the restrictions of clothing that hinders work. It's no accident that for about a thousand years, women wore cumbersome clothes that prevented work, but since women won the franchise, women's clothes have become lighter and less restrictive. It's no accident that during the First World War, when women manned the factories in large numbers for the first time, cumbersome bustles with their yards and yards of cloth that hobbled you and got caught everywhere were abandoned, in favour of a simple blouse and straight skirt. And after the war, shirts got shorter to ease movement and walking, women started wearing trousers, and these developments not only allowed women to work, but to participate in sport like tennis for the first time (imagine trying to play tennis in a crinoline to understand the change involved).

And during this entire period, you had some women arguing against the vote and against women working, saying that they felt more empowered "working behind the scenes" in the traditional manner. This false argument is being presented again by some Islamic women.

On last night's Newsnight, there was a veiled woman insisting that she was veiled because she wanted people to judge her for herself not her appearance - only it was impossible to judge her for herself as you couldn't see her at all, all you could see was a bundle of cloth topped with glasses that reflected the light - it could have been a plastic dummy with a tape-recording under the cloth. It had the same effect as trying to judge someone in a balaclava "for themselves" - these things are designed to hide identity, rather than let others judge the real person. She also argued that dressing normally meant "wearing skirts that got shorter and shorter", which is nonsense. There is no prescribed skirt length anymore, you simply dress according to what suits your shape, and can easily wear trousers instead if you want - and it's certainly no reason to veil your face.

I'm from the post-feminist generation, and have taken the world of female freedom for granted. I like clothes and make-up and I like having my own money. It strikes me that muslim women who are cloistered behind the niqab are denied all these pleasures. They can't work, they haven't money of their own, they can't mix with people outside their families and communities, they can't look good, they can't even have coffee with friends at M&S. Perhaps the feminist movement needs to be revived to fight to free these women, the way the rest of us were freed in the early part of the 20th century.


Display: Sort:

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#1)

Interesting post, Snowflake, but I'm not sure why Muslim women can't work in the veil?

Not every job, sure, but there are plenty that you could do in the niqab and from reading comments about the web there are plenty of Muslim women who seem able to eat or drink under it as well.

Also, surely Muslim women can choose to wear work clothes at work but Islamic dress in their personal time?

And why can't they mix with people outside their community while wearing Islamic dress?

I am also puzzled by the assertion that you can't judge someone for themself if you can't see them. Surely the very point this woman was making was that she does not consider her "self" or "the real person" to be bound up in her physical body at all? That she wishes to recognised as and judged by what she says, thinks and feels, not by her face?

I realise I'm a man commenting on what many will think is a woman's issue and I don't claim to have any final answers on this one, but these questions did spring to mind arising from your thought-provoking article.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#2)

The whole point of social interaction is interaction. It is impossible to interact with someone who's face you cannot see. We get signals everytime we converse with someone as to whether they understand, what their emotions are, if they are upset, etc. and that determines the course the conversation takes.
The most disturbing aspect is why they should want to cover up completely. Is it lack of confidence? ashamed of their body? to stop prying eyes? Well by wearing the extreme clothing they are in fact drawing attention to themselves and getting adverse comment. With just the headscarf they would just be another face in the crowd and would escape notice altogether. At the bottom of it all is a deep insecurity in themselves and their beliefs. They want to proove their new-found faith by going to the extreme. Wrongly in my opinion. We didn't get all this nonsense in the 80's.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#3)

The whole point of social interaction is interaction. It is impossible to interact with someone who's face you cannot see.

Are blind people incapable of social interaction?

Aren't we interacting right now?

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#4)

No.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#5)

No. We are merely communicating.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#21)

Well, just so long as we're quite clear that you think blind people are physically incapable of social interaction, I'm happy to let other people make up their own minds...

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#6)

Nick, most women in the niqab don't work. Think about it - if you worked in a factory, you'd have to remove it - too much cloth, which covers their arms too, and which could get caught in machinery, against health and safety regs. If you worked in a bank branch, you'd have to remove it - most banks have a uniform and as they are customer-facing, they want the customers to see the smile of the member of staff they deal with - the idea is to make interaction more welcoming, not to scare the customer away with a black mask. Ditto working in a restaurant - both the hygiene element and the customer-facing element come into play.

I guess they could work in a back office doing java-development. But that requires a particular education and skill-set - what about the women who don't have it?

Muslim families tend to be the poorest in Britain (in sharp contrast with Indian/Hindu families, who tend to be middle class). The reason is that in muslim families the women don't work, and the men simply don't earn enough to keep them and their families.

And then there is the issue of excessive dependence of the female on the male, and the inability of the wider community to intervene. For instance if an Englishwoman got a black eye, everyone would see it, and society would rush in to help, her work-place would give her counselling, she'd be sent to the doctor etc. You simply can't identify what is happening under the niqab.

You are quite right that muslims can choose to wear work clothes at work and the niqab in private - but they don't. The idea of the niqab is that no one sees them apart from their families.

Finally, the niqab is a Saudi costume that originates with the extreme Wahabbi religion in the 1930's. There is no requirement for it by Islam. There isn't even a cultural link - most British muslims come from Pakistan, where they wear the colourful shalwar kameeze, which allows for modesty but looks good, allows you to work and show your face. If it was a cultural issue, these ladies would be wearing that.

Finally, everyone seems to be dismissing the importance of the Smile in human interaction. It's one of the most fundamental ways we signal friendliness and warmth.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#8)

"The reason is that in muslim families the women don't work"

This is strange.  Some of my work colleagues are muslim women, and they work.  And I teach an awful lot of young muslim women who intend to work, often with very ambitious ideas about their future careers, fully supported by their families.  Admittedly only a small minority wear a veil, but I have met several working women who do wear a veil.  I'm not sure what a feminist critique of that would be.  There is a large part of me that thinks that such garments are demanded of women in a patriarchal society or patriarchal family, and so free choice may be more restricted than it immediately appears.  But, when you start to think of it, the same could be true of short skirts and plunge-neck tops.  To argue that women's choice is a 'false consciousness' under the sway of male hegemony paints a very passive picture of women.

(PS: I know of one woman - hardly a representative sample I concede!!! - who wears a veil when out shopping or generally socialising, but - because of the nature of her job - does not wear one at work.)

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#9)

Duncan, the stats are showing something different. See the following link, based on work by the ONS.

Some 17 percent of Muslim men and 18 percent of Muslim women were unemployed compared to just five percent of Christian men and four percent of Christian women. "Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African groups had low levels of participation in the labor market," the study found.

"Their high unemployment rates suggest that even when active in the labor market they experienced difficulties finding employment."

A third of Muslims lived in households which, according to the census definition, were overcrowded, compared to just six percent of Britain's Christians.

Some 44 percent of ethnic Bangladeshi and 26 percent of ethnic Pakistani households were deemed to be overcrowded, against an average for the country of seven percent

Just over half of Muslim households owned their houses compared to a national average of nearly 70 percent.

See also this link:

Current statistics show that there are two unemployed people of Pakistani origin for every one from India.

Pakistani families form the largest households in Britain, with an average of six members, but on average they are worse off than small white families living on state support. At the end of the nineties eighty percent of all Pakistani and Bangladeshi families earned less than the average national wage. That is one reason why Pakistanis have difficulty in integrating.

Feminism is important as experience shows that emancipation of women results in smaller families, and therefore better conditions for said family. Getting women into work should also help financially, but no one is going to give you a job if you are strangely dressed in a niqab. It makes no sense to wear clothes that hinder work. And as Gordon Brown said, English skills are key to the well-paid jobs. So too is education (where the stats show that muslims are lagging behind everyone else).

This is classic Labour territory, we've solved these problems before for other communities, and we should be making strenuous efforts to help this community out of their poverty. But we can't do it if we pussyfoot around the things holding them back. One of the things holding them back is lack of empowerment of women. All studies show that the more power women have, the better their entire families do. We shouldn't shy away from saying this for "cultural" reasons. Remember that feminism and alleviating poverty are part of the Labour tradition. (On the other hand laissez faire multi-culturalism was imported into Britain from Canada by Michael Hesletine in the early 80's, and we shouldn't feel shy about pointing out where it is falling down).

Leaving them alone hasn't worked thus far, and it's our duty to lend them a hand and some advice. Some self-appointed Islamic leaders may think we should leave it all to them, but they've made a mess, and if we're all going to be "One Britain" it's our business too.  

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#10)

Getting women into work should also help financially, but no one is going to give you a job if you are strangely dressed in a niqab.

Where do you draw the line? Hassidic or even Orthodox Jews? Sikhs in turbans? Blind people?

I do think this is putting all the onus on the workforce to conform and none on employers to be fair in their recruitment and working practices.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#11)

How about a common-sense approach? If you wouldn't hire someone who insists on wearing a balaclava to work, you won't hire someone wearing a niqab. A niqab is not required by Islam at all, so drawing the line is not offending anyone's religious practices. I'm not sure why you are therefore equating this with a turban (which is a religious requirement). And no one is preventing islamic women from wearing a hijab and trousers.

Secondly, for health and safety reasons, floating scarves, niqabs which are essentially cloth covering the face, shoulders and arms to the waist are not sensible in factories. Because they get caught in machinery. It's also hard to do manual work with arms from under a poncho/niqab, and it's hard to do customer-facing jobs with your face covered.

I don't think it's the employers who are being bloody-minded here.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#12)

A niqab is not required by Islam at all

My understanding is that this is a matter of individual interpretation, though I'm not a Muslim. I'm guessing you're not either though?

As for the point about factories - obviously that's the case but what percentage of the female workforce is employed on the shop floor in the manufacturing sector though?

I don't think it would necessarily be a problem with a public-facing job, it just depends on the nature of both the work and the customers that the employee is likely to be dealing with.

At any rate, I'm willing to bet that a large proportion of jobs are neither skilled manual work nor public-facing.

And that's quite without the fact that it's perfectly possible - and I believe that a number of Muslim women do this - to wear a veil at times but not at work if and when it's inappropriate for their job.

I'd say it's perfectly possible to find work.

Now there may well be (indeed I'm sure there is) a big problem with economic inactivity among working class ethnic minority women but I think that this is a rather more complex problem than simply ascribing it to the niqab or drawing a simple line between the two.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#17)

I think the line should be drawn at people who need crutches. I think people who currently have crutches should be taken out in the street and shot. Speaking of which, how's the leg nick?

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#20)

Do you think I should wear the veil? ;-)

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#16)

Hi - this is Duncan, but form work where I'm not logged in or whatever.

Your statistics show that 82% of muslim women in Britain work.  So I agree that the statistics back up the argument that unemployment amongst muslims in Britain is too high (and there all sorts of reasons for that) but it doesn't really back up the idea that this is a gender problem, or even specifically that it is a muslim problem (comparisons with other minority ethnic populations and the overall population would be more useful than comparisons with 'Christians' really).

So I agree there are important issues to consider - I'm not sure the niqab is at the heart of those issues.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#13)

Nick, most women in the niqab don't work.

That may well be true, but that doesn't mean that the one causes the other. It may be the same factors causing women to wear the niqab and their not working, whether that is a patriarchal family or community (which we should fight against - but people should say what they mean instead of using the niqab as some kind of proxy battle) or religious conviction or other kind of choice, or racist hostility; or it may be that they choose to wear the niqab because (or when) they are not working. Probably it is a mixture of different factors in different cases.

You give various examples of jobs you can't do while wearing a niqab but equally there are many more jobs that you can, or you can wear work clothing while at work and whatever you like when in your own time. The idea that "java development" is typical of "backroom" jobs is, I think, being a little flippant.

The reason is that in muslim families the women don't work, and the men simply don't earn enough to keep them and their families.

Don't your statistics below suggest that Muslim male unemployment is actually only 1% less than female unemployment?

But at any rate, this precisely illustrates my above point - a tiny proportion of UK Muslims choose to wear the niqab, so the general issue of Muslim women not working is clearly a rather broader and bigger one than the very specific issue of the niqab.

And then there is the issue of excessive dependence of the female on the male, and the inability of the wider community to intervene.

These are indeed serious issues, but I'm not aware of any statistics suggesting domestic violence is any worse among Muslim families? Many abusive men learn to hide the damage done to the victim one way or another, I'm not sure you can really say that the niqab in particular is a major factor in this.

Now, there may well be a more general problem of patriarchal families in some particular communities, and certainly when out canvassing I'm often struck by the number of households where the father decides how the rest of family (particularly women but often also adult children) will vote.

But if that's what we mean, let's just say it rather than pretending that we're discussing the niqab.

You are quite right that muslims can choose to wear work clothes at work and the niqab in private - but they don't. The idea of the niqab is that no one sees them apart from their families.

That is not my understanding and certainly from comments I've seen from Muslim women on the net and in the media (and indeed Duncan makes the same point about an acquaintance elsewhere here) there are many who vary their dress according to the occasion.

Now, there may be some women who are only seen by their families, and that this condition is imposed by familial or societal pressures, and I would concur that I find that rather more concerning, but to claim that is universally and without exception the case is, I think, stretching the point.

That said, I am aware that there is a voice that is missing from this forum and many other debates on this issue, and that is Muslim women themselves - unless you are a Muslim woman? (Not a rhetorical point, all I know is your nom de plume so I genuinely have no idea!)

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes that ... (#14)

No I'm not a muslim woman. I agree with you, it would be nice if a muslim woman popped up on this forum and contributed her view.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes ... (#7)

Well said Snowflake5, I couldn't agree more.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#15)

I agree with most of what you say Snowflake.  The biggest fear for muslim sexual equality is that the wearing of the niqab has now become a political statement - what better way to encourage the muslim female intelligentsia to adopt the full garment.

It is symbol of female oppression and is the final attempt to ensure the female muslim is invisible and without a voice.

If only there were some other garment that also supported female equality I would support their fight to wear it in all occasions.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#18)

How often have you been into a petrol station, shop or bank and seen "Motorcyclists please remove helmet"? every day yes. How often have you seen "Muslim women please remove veil"? Never. Try walking into a shop or building society wearing a balaclava or ski mask and see how far you get, about two paces thats how far. There will never be tolerance or intergration in this country while one particular racial group is discriminated against so much. Which group? white, middle class, English speakers thats who.
Andy, Dunstable Beds.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#19)

Yeah, because you could easily run away from a robbery wearing a niqab.

I'm guessing that the moment a gang of niqab-wearing armed robbers start knocking off petrol stations with sawn-off shotguns, such signs might appear. In the meantime...

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#22)

(This is Doctordunc, just posting from work)

That is simply absurd.  It does not stand up to any scrutiny, the assertion that white, middle-class 'english-speakers' are the most discriminated-against group in society.  Your examples show how absurd it is: as though wearing a motorcycle helmet or ski mask in a shop is somehow an inalienable right, denied to white people but granted to an array of minorities.  (I think you'll find that it is not only white people who are asked to remove motorcycle helmets, and ski masks are best reserved for when skiing, for all races).  The idea that the pampered majority in the society are discriminated against because they can't do absurd things they wouldn't want to do anyway, is not much of an idea.  One can reasonably compare the issue of the BA worker and her crucifix and the the teaching assistant and her veil: neither item is required by their religion, but both feel that wearing it is expressing their religion in a way they should be free to do.  The only legitimate question (under the Human Rights Act) should be whether they are able to do their job properly while wearing that item (and both should have equal protection under their law, based on their right to religious expression guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law since 2000).  Under human rights legislation and employment legislation they are equal. But no minister has come out saying that the crucific wearer ought to be sacked, and people don't have crucifixes torn off them in the street.  That discrepency between legal discrimination and actual received discrimination is vital - and it functions clearly in the favour of white middle-class men.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#23)

There a fundamental differences between the two cases (crucifix woman and veil woman).

In the same way that John Stuart Mill said that citizens should be allowed to do anything, so long as it doesn't harm others, these women should be allowed to express their religion at work, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Nadia Eweida (the crucifix woman) is not harming anyone by wearing the crucifix. To ask her to remove it seems like an unreasonable request by her employer - uniform code or not. This isn't France and we shouldn't legislate against (or allow businesses to stop employees) expressing an opinion, religious or otherwise, through clothes/jewelry. So long as that expression doesn't impact on the doing of the job.

Aishah Azmi (the veil woman) however, IS harming children's education if her wearing of a veil makes it difficult for them to understand her (through either muffling of her voice or inability to pick up facial expressions). This is combined with the fact that she said she would only teach unveiled to female students - a clear case of discrimination.

If Aishah was wearing a veil that didn't interfere with her ability to teach (i.e. one that didn't cover her face) - i would support her in the same was as Nadia Eweida.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#24)

(Doctordunc)

I repeat:

"The only legitimate question (under the Human Rights Act) should be whether they are able to do their job properly while wearing that item (and both should have equal protection under their law, based on their right to religious expression guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law since 2000)."

I don't think that contradicts your remarks: if the employment tribunal concludes that she can't do her job properly and still wear a veil, fair enough.  But Phil Woolas has no special insight into the answer to that.  

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#25)

Let's go back to the crux of the matter here. The niqab came into widespread use due to the expansion of the wahhabi movement - an extreme conservative branch of Islam, which resulted from the House of Saud taking over what is now Saudi Arabia. It was used as part of the wahabbi movement's repression of women.

I find it absolutely appalling that anyone who claims to be a socialist can be defending the niqab given this historical (and on ongoing in Saudi Arabia) context.

This isn't about cultural identity. This is about a symbol of a patriarchal tyranny that continues to deny women basic human rights.

By the way I am a man.

Re: Feminists don't wear clothes.... (#26)

I agree with snowflake that the vail does prevent women from working and interacting properlly and I also agree that it is somewhat demeaning to women to wear it. However I think that if it is the womans choice to wear it then that is their choice and no one should try to make the choice for them. I am all for womens rights, but it is not the right of a country to change the way another country is run just because they disagree with the way it is being run. If you disagree with something that does not make it wrong. So if a muslim country finds it unapropriate for women to show their faces in public then so be it. No one has the right to change that.