Does anyone like or support face-covering (hijab or burka)??

Bags I think I read that aristocratic Macedonian women in the time of Alexander the Great wore veils to cover their faces when in mixed company. That was before Alexander conquered Persia, where they also wore veils, and became quite "Persianised".

A well as Roman Catholic women compulsorily covering their heads in church (up until Vatican II, I imagine), women still do in Orthodox Christian churches. In the nineteenth century, Orthodox Jewish women from some parts of eastern Europe would not have dreamed of being seen "in their own hair" and wore elaborate wigs.

However, I can't think, offhand, of more examples of face covering.

@absentgrana :
The sheitel ('pious' wig) is still worn by frum Jewish women in this country.

All these things seem to me, a mere male, to be repressive, and in many cases condemn women to be thought of as chattels - certainly (however they try to rationalise it) not the equal of their male counterparts.
Women are people too!

Absent it may be an old fashioned view for someone to be proud of their partner and want to show them off, but the younger couples around here still seem to believe it. And a lot of oldies too. (Sorry, I should have said partner in my post, I was tired.)

I have been told that Muslim men dislike having their women seen by others as they are afraid they may lose them. I don't know if this is true or what it says about them.

feetlebaum I didn't know that. I'm amazed.

Nfk I have never understood this business of being proud of other people and I can't imagine wanting to show off my partner or to want to be shown off by him. Actually, I would be horrified if Mr absent took that notion into his head.

The suggestion that compelling your wife to cover up may stem from fear of losing her – presumably because some other man might take her away not because she wants to go. Making daughters wear the niquab or burka – lack of faith in the self control of men in general? I think it is probably just a symbol of ownership.

I think it all goes back to honour cultures - in which the honour of the family is linked to the virtue of its women. But whatever its cultural roots - and they are cultural rather than religious - my view is that you can't start legislating about what people wear, just because it is different to the kind of clothing you favour. Where would it end. Not just religious symbols like turbans and orthodox Jewish wigs but facial piercings, baggy trousers that hang below your buttocks. Who is going to be the offical arbiter of proper dress nfk ?

I would like someone to start a culture which bans women/girls from going out in bare fake-tan-streaked (and in this weather, mottled) legs, very short skirts, Ugg boots and with a mobile phone attached to the ear.The culture would also frown upon bare "muffin tops" and thongs which are visible to the unfortunate bystander situated behind the offender. To asolutely sure of not being sexist, it would also punsh with ritual humiliation, "builders' bums", low slung jeans or trousers which reveal undergarments, socks with sandals and those awful "long"baggy shorts usually worn with socks and trainers which suddenly appear when we hear the first cuckoo.
There would be no recourse to appeal. Punishment would be meted out by grannies with excellent dress sense and taste who could either beat the offenders about their person with their knitting, or tell them all about their bunions.
End of. (but actually. I am serious!!)

Hey jessM - I would be happy to be the official arbiter of proper dress - see my post above It might allay my Victor Meldrew tendencies.

Just move to Saudi my dear and it will all be taken care of! (But might, I'll grant you, deprive you of this new role that seems just tailored for you)

petallus Isthisallthereis I am a little confused. In a previous post you say you don't have grandchildren although your SO does. You were annoyed when someone later erroneously referred to you having grandchildren I seem to remember. But now you say you don't want your grandchildren growing up seeing women hiding their faces in public. So that's a bit of a mystery, ain't it? Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?

Not relevant to this thread, but here goes. Since the previous post which you mention, my DS2 has visited a family party accompanied by a lovely young woman that I'd not met before. They seemed such a good pair that, daft as I am, I began thinking that maybe future.......

Also, since that earlier post, I've maybe begun almost to think of my SO's grandchildren as almost my own

Enough info? Back to post, which to me is fascinating.

grace I like your post. Can I join in on the sartorial panel?

The way this has progressed I find fascinating. Page 1 was vaguely tolerant of the burka and niqab.

Then on Page 2, janthea let rip, go, girl!

^I don't like burkhas or hijabs. I think it inhibits the women from integrating into the society in which they are living. In their own countries, that their society, so no problem. But in a western society (where they chose to live) then I think such clothing has no place. I have no objection to headscarves.

I agree it can also cause a problem with identification for whatever reason.

And it can look very scary for very old people or young children.

It's my opinion when you chose to live in a country then you should follow the customs and in the western world, it is not the custom to cover your face...^

Exactly, very well put! After this, the floodgates open and there are many more anti posts than there are pro or neutral. Thank you for yr honesty.

FlicketyB ^We hear a lot about respecting other cultures beliefs and norms, but no one talks of our cultural norms. In Europe we have a cult of the face. Go back in time, to literature and law. The Celts cut off an enemies head and displayed it. Medieval Kings displayed the decapitated heads of their enemies on city gates. Someone who covers their face has always been assumed to be up to some evil. Our distrust of the hoodie arises because we cannot see the wearer's face.

Our culture is deeply suspicious of people who cover their faces, See how character is judged by looking at someone's face. We decide from those imperceptible changes in a face that make expression whether we trust someone, suspect them and even love them. From the time it was possible to do so we have used photographs of the face to indentify people.

I feel that while I would always try to respect other people's beliefs and I have no problems with head or body coverings or the wearing of religious tokens. I feel very strongly that the cult of the face so underlies our culture that this is something we should expect people who live here to respect.^

Also few GNs have written "it's a complex issue" or "it's difficult". I don't see it that way. It's not complex or difficult.

You and me jeni a formidable combination!! (Will we allow combinations?) Anyone else for the dress police?

I have no problems with the head being covered but not the face!

No combinations or liberty bodices. Corsets only if worn underneath clothing ,not on top!

I wholeheartedly agree with the various people who have pointed out that facial expressions play an important role in communication in our society. Nevertheless, I would be strongly opposed to any move towards making wearing a particular item of clothing illegal.

I am ambivalent on this matter - my libertarian instinct is to say people should be allowed to wear whatever they like, allowing for security and hygiene. On the other hand, I loathe the attitude to women implied by covering them up and I doubt if every woman does it willingly.

I don't think most immigrants go to other countries because they are anxious to adopt a new culture. I don't think I have adopted much of the culture of France (I haven't become racist) but I obey all French laws. Without delving back too far into history, I don't think the British made much effort to adopt the cultures of the countries they invaded.

I have to say that I consider Dubai to be an evil, horrible state, which is built on the near-slavery of immigrant workers who are treated worse than animals. Most Westerners seem happy to employ people for a pittance and turn a blind eye to their conditions. However, they soon find out the truth about Dubai if they are involved in a vehicle accident with a Dubai national.

Nightowl - you almost always say the things I am thinking which saves me a lot of posting!

Not complex? Not difficult? isthatallthereis - what is it, actually, this easy thing that you propose? If you had Mr C at your beck and call? A law that says you cannot go outside with your face covered? Or you get sent to prison? Is that it?

JessM Yup, that'll do. Same as in France.

Will your law apply to people who have terrible facial disfigurements? For every problem there is a simple solution - which is wrong. I suspect a wind-up.

Wondering how long a prison sentence you would impose.

Greatnan. In my experience, people with facial disfigurements don't wear veils. Makeup yes but not veils. If it happens yes of course they'd be excepted.

JessM we send far too many people to prison. Deportation. Cheaper, more effective.

This is not a wind-up.

If there were to be a law, as in France, forbidding faces to be covered, one of the consequences would be even more women confined to the house, obliged to keep strict purdah. There could be no law obliging women to walk the streets and pathways of this country. How could it be enforced?

Much as I dislike the whole face covering, the alternative seems much worse.

As you suggest deportation, I think we can deduce that it is mainly new immigrants that you wish to punish. What about third generation immigrants who have never lived anywhere but in Britain? I am finding your posts uncomfortable. I am an immigrant and so is my daughter and her family (myself to France, she to NZ). We have been treated in both countries with great kindness.

Muslim girls born and brought up in this country are, increasingly, adopting the modes of dress which might well have been rejected by their mothers. Faith schools can only reinforce the tendency of a new generation of Muslims to regress towards a more restrictive Islamic tradition than that which their parents may have discarded.

Mm yes well let's do a little "thought experiment" here. British born Muslim girls and women across the nation decide the day after your act becomes law that they will express solidarity with their sisters by wearing the veil. 30,000 of them take to the streets in cities across the UK. What then? Where would you suggest deporting them to?