Interesting article on a tricky subject - The big cover-up
Yes, people can wear what they like, as long as it doesn't impact upon society. I have to say that I find such total covering to be wrong on both practical and conceptual grounds.
I find it deeply insulting to men to suggest that women should cover themselves to prevent them from being the target of inappropriate sexual advances. Nine out of ten unwelcome sexual advances I have received have been in situations where any reasonable person would agree that there is a heightened 'risk' - parties, pubs, clubs etc. I find, and even when I was younger, I found, that the overwhelming majority of men do not actively regard women as sexual objects as they go about mundane everyday business. And, I have to say, most of the inappropriate sexual advances I have received outside of those situations have been from men whose background I surmise to be where women cover themselves.
I deplore the instruction
'Do not engage in social conversation with persons of the opposite sex,' it instructed. 'This is simple, just don't do it. When a kaffir [infidel] of the opposite sex asks you, "Did you have a good weekend", look down and say nothing in return.'and perhaps it explains why I was the casual victim of astonishing rudeness a few weeks ago. I was in a lift at work. Quite often it occurs that people who don't know each other, except as 'colleagues' have a light exchange of trivial banter, usually about the lifts themselves. I was in the lift with a man, and made some banal innocuous comment like "Oh these lifts, they have a mind of their own...". The man turned away from me and refused to respond, which shocked me, because such comment is usually met by a "Tell me about it!" or a knowing laugh, or a smile. I guessed what his problem was. Well, sorry, this is the workplace. We value diversity etc, but it works both ways.
I spent the past week in a local, rather than HQ, office, where I interviewed a variety of staff, mainly at middle-management grade. A mixture of men and women, some white, some Asian. Much of that interview process consists of me asking questions and them describing aspects of their work. Of course much of it is verbal, but the facial expressions are equally important. The facial expression can reveal whether they are trotting out the corporate line or they fervently evangelically believe it; the face can show that the person is concerned about their capacity to reach their target, even if they are reluctant to verbalise that concern. And this has always been the case throughout my professional life, regardless of employer, regardless of interviewee, regardless of subject matter.
About five years ago I was doing schools audit. I was at a girls' school, about this time of year, and I noticed the number of girls who had bare legs, in between the top of their socks and the hem of their skirts. I asked one of the staff whether any of the girls wear trousers; fiercely, she replied "No trousers, no headscarves". Just this week I saw many girls from some schools wearing trousers, and other schools where it was clear that trousers are banned. In my opinion, those in trousers looked smarter, and, crucially warmer. I have five suits. Four are trouser suits, the fifth is a light cotton skirt suit specifically for hot summer days.
As a consequence, she felt that it was inappropriate for boys and girls of seven or eight to play together.
To this we are coming? I think that is rank and disgusting. I think that most children of that age tend to gravitate naturally towards their own gender, except in specific circumstances, such as siblings, or best buddy, or whatever. But why force the issue? We have swathes of people working with teenagers, in particular, to build self-esteem, life skills, team-working, social cohesion, through music and drama, voluntary work, outdoor pursuits, (sports, particularly team sports are different, I'll concede), where girls and boys thrive by working together without the need for quasi-sexual contact.
It's a bit sick that everything is reduced to sex. Years ago, there was a sign on the Ladies at work "Men working within" and a male colleague, teasingly, said, "Now calm down..." To which I replied, "Would it surprise you to know that I work everyday with men all along this corridor, and I manage to stay calm on a daily basis..." All good natured teasing...
I'm not sure it's practical to ban niqabs, though. Go out tomorrow morning and observe how many people are covered up with hats, scarves, hoodies etc. When it gets really cold, I wrap my old University scarf round my face until all that shows is my eyes. But I remove it at work, and I remove it in shops etc. I also remove it on the Tube; on the Tube, in the rush hour, there is a tremendous use of facial communication as people indicate for another to go first, to express thanks, to share irritation or anxiety about a prolonged wait or stop, or indeed to enforce 'Let passengers off the train first". In most of those circumstances, verbal communication would be intrusive or time consuming, but the little smiles and twitches oil the wheels and create positive vibes. And I'm afraid that my overwhelming conclusion from years of observation is that women in niqabs are one of the groups least likely to co-operate in this unspoken accommodation.
But I still contend it should be socially acceptable for women to go topless in any circumstances where it's socially acceptable for men.
