Interesting article: I wonder what the reasoning is behind the roman catholic practise of women wearing a scarf etc when in church, yet it isnt required outside?
Well worth a peruse over a pint of guinness!

Quite simply, modern society is not a world where men are in charge of women. And if you have any problems with that – tough luck. Your opinion is no longer valid or welcome. You can disappear and lock yourself up in your prehistoric patriarchal cave of nostalgia and cry over the tragic loss of the glory days when we all worshipped the phallus.

I am not entirely sure that is true. What you mean is that the West, and more specifically Northern European Protestant liberals and then socialists, have created a world in which women do not need the overt protection of men. There is little inherently in the nature of the modern world that says women do not need the protection of men. We could have chosen a different arrangement if we wanted. We, by and large, don’t. Even if we simply stopped the state interfering women would need more protection and hence be more under the control of men.

To insist that women conceal their bodies creates a dangerously unbalanced sexual dichotomy. The message it sends out is: Women are sexual meat and men are sexual predators. This is neither fair, nor true and does gross injustice to both men and women.

Ummm, I think that evolutionary psychology, in fact most people looking at Darwin and humans, would say that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Thus that dichotomy exists. And it always will. Not that I disagree with the point, but it has to be about the degree, not the nature, of the problem.

Equally, this dichotomy creates a culture where men see women’s bodies as a carte blanche of desire – the notion that, if girls put their booty out there then guys are entitled to pinch it, is ludicrous.

Absolutely.

“So, to Fifa and other sporting authorities – forcing women out of their hijab is patriarchal and unacceptable.”

It’s a good job they haven’t, then. isn’t it?

The Iranian women’s Youth Soccer team played in the Youth Olympics last year in a version of the hijab acceptable to both sides. Iran has changed its position, not FIFA.

…and while we’re at it:

FIFA has banned snoods, and unless I am very much mistaken, this is a by-product of that ban.

And I can distinctly see knees and elbows in this shot of the Iran men’s soccer team:

http://world-cup-wallpaper.com/iran/iran-national-football-team.html

I only have one quibble, I think, with this post.

“it is equally unacceptable to fatuously argue that it should be permitted without engaging in a debate.”

I see no reason to have a debate as to whether the hijab should be *permitted* – a debate over whether it is *desirable* seems entirely valid though.

“Quite simply, modern society is not a world where men are in charge of women. And if you have any problems with that – tough luck. Your opinion is no longer valid or welcome. You can disappear and lock yourself up in your prehistoric patriarchal cave of nostalgia and cry over the tragic loss of the glory days when we all worshipped the phallus.”

No. You can’t dismiss someone’s opinion by shouting “not valid!” or “go away”! Well, you can, but you haven’t advanced your argument one bit – in fact, if anything you’ve harmed it by demonstrating that you’re unable to defend it in the fact of contrasting opinion (and let’s face it, gender equality is pretty easy to defend).

That was one unfortunate moment in an otherwise excellent article, though. I especially like this, it’s very well said: “To insist that women conceal their bodies creates a dangerously unbalanced sexual dichotomy. The message it sends out is: Women are sexual meat and men are sexual predators. This is neither fair, nor true and does gross injustice to both men and women.”

Quite a few WAGs – or bidding WAGs – might prefer to watch their football idols playing football in the nude. In ancient Greece, women were barred from attending the Olympic games.

Is it “bigotry” to insist on clothing for footballers at matches – or to insist on the wearing of beachwear at seasides except for designated nudist beaches?

@ 7 Bob B

“Is it “bigotry” to insist on clothing for footballers at matches – or to insist on the wearing of beachwear at seasides except for designated nudist beaches?”

No, it’s squeamishness. If there were a generally unpopular culture that was into nudity, and nudity had henceforce been legal but was then banned as an attack on people of that culture, then it would be bigotry. Context is all.

Your argument is attractive – that women should be free to wear the hijab because they should be free to wear whatever they like, not out of religious/cultural oppression. It does seem odd, though, that in exercising their freedom they should choose to display a symbol of their own oppression. How does that work?

As for the plainly bigoted opposition to universal optional human nudity, why do we exempt animals?

In America, in the early 1960s, there was a media campaign – Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (SINA) – to clothe naked animals to prevent unacceptable offence to those with aesthetically sensitive dispositions:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_society_for_indecency_to_naked_animals/

As I recall from reports by Michael Frayn in the Guardian at the time, the campaign attracted much popular support with offers of donations to finance the supply of clothing for animals to wear.

This is a hard one – which is the most repellant – the corrupt fat cats at FIFA, or religious ideologues who insist on pervading all spheres of life with their silly ideas about women and clothing?

@ 9

“It does seem odd, though, that in exercising their freedom they should choose to display a symbol of their own oppression. How does that work?”

They see said repression as a good thing.

@ 10

“As for the plainly bigoted opposition to universal optional human nudity, why do we exempt animals? ”

I don’t know. As for the banning of the hijab in sports, why are you forever asking irrelevant questions?

Correct me if I’ve got it wrong but the rationale for obliging women to wear headscarves is surely to prevent muslim men who aren’t related from becoming inflamed.

If so, surely FIFA should oblige all the women playing football at the Olympics to wear headscarves if only to prevent complaints about discrimination and about upsetting muslim men. Better still, men should excluded from watching. After all, in ancient Greece women were banned from watching the Olympic Games, presumably because they might become inflamed at the sight of all those athletic men.

@ 14 Bob B

You’re so weird. Why would FIFA want to conform to the ideals of certain subset of Islam?

“You’re so weird. Why would FIFA want to conform to the ideals of certain subset of Islam?”

It would certainly amount to unacceptable discrimination to allow one set of rules about compulsory headscarves for one national team in the Olympics and not apply the same rule to all the other teams. Besides, with all the danger of inflaming without hijabs, surely the spectators should be segregated as a precaution. I dread to think what might happen otherwise. As a safeguard, I won’t be watching any of the football matches just in case.

The laws of the game set out what players wear. This would be a better article if it was written by someone that seemed to know about football rather than what they think about what goes on on in football. The same laws apply at all levels across the whole world – surely the ultimate equality. As a referee, I used to have debates with players about wearing jewellery crosses etc. – the laws say no,

@ 16 Bob B

“It would certainly amount to unacceptable discrimination to allow one set of rules about compulsory headscarves for one national team in the Olympics and not apply the same rule to all the other teams.”

Um, who’s suggesting the Olympic organisers make hijabs compulsory for certain teams?

“Besides, with all the danger of inflaming without hijabs, surely the spectators should be segregated as a precaution. I dread to think what might happen otherwise. As a safeguard, I won’t be watching any of the football matches just in case.”

You appear to be satirising, for want of a better word, a point of view espoused by nobody on this thread. The stand-up routine is hilarious and all, but I’m not sure how you think this contributes to the topic.

@18: “Um, who’s suggesting the Olympic organisers make hijabs compulsory for certain teams?”

Try reading @17 for official football rules on the dress code at matches.

The wearing of hijabs will become defacto compulsory for some national Islamic teams if their national Olympic committees decree so.

“You appear to be satirising, for want of a better word, a point of view espoused by nobody on this thread. ”

C’mon. Just what is the rationale for the morality police in Iran enforcing the wearing of headscarves or burqas if the dress code is a matter of personal choice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR6JYidmXxE

Many other videos on YouTube about the morality police in Iran have been hacked to stop them working. So much for free expression. Evidently, some women in Iran are not inclined to adopt the official dress code or the morality police wouldn’t need to enforce it.

Try video clips – when they are working again – on the city of Samarkand where shots of the indoor market show women going about their ways without headscarves or burqas. There’s no doubt about the Islamic heritage of Samarkand but evidently many women there choose not to conform with the Islamic dress code.

If dress codes can be enforced for humans then why not for animals too if nudity is so offensive? The extent of popular support in America for the SINA campaign in the early 1960s showed that some folks really believed that animals should wear clothes.

I have to laugh sometimes at the idea that covering one’s head means you’re less likely to be considered a sex object, that there’s some protection against being ogled or worse. Not long ago I saw a group of young men eyeing up a couple of Hijabis walking along the high street, whilst they had previously totally ignored an attractive young woman of Asian origin wearing western dress, Maybe I’ve missed the point and that’s why young Muslim women are increasingly covering up in a way their mothers didn’t?

[20] “Not long ago I saw a group of young men eyeing up a couple of Hijabis walking along the high street” – a bad case of this, perhaps?
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Veil_fetish

@ 1 Doug:

“I wonder what the reasoning is behind the roman catholic practise of women wearing a scarf etc when in church, yet it isnt required outside?”

I believe it has to do with interpretations/translations of 1 Corinthians 11:10. Most plausible interpretation I’ve heard: women are supposed to wear the veil in church as a sign of subordination to men. Silliest interpretation (but hey, this is religion we’re talking about): women are supposed to cover their heads in church so as not to tempt/offend the angels/Nephilim looking down from above.

@ 19 Bob B

“Try reading @17 for official football rules on the dress code at matches.”

You mean that bit where it says totally nothing about FIFA mandating headscarfs?

“The wearing of hijabs will become defacto compulsory for some national Islamic teams if their national Olympic committees decree so.”

But it’s not discrimination on the part of FIFA to allow teams to set their own dress codes. It would only be discrimination if FIFA said that Iran had to wear headscarfs but other countries didn’t (or were banned from doing so).

The rest of your post appears to be irrelevant stuff about human rights abuses in Iran – in other words, more waffling to prove a point that nobody’s arguing against, and as such very much par for the course.

Had to go out yesterday to put out the rubbish for collection today and to shop for groceries.

I’d barely reached the bus stop when I saw on the other side of the road a completely naked dog. Judging by this, the Israelis know just how to deal with cannine outrages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13819764

I’d hardly managed to overcome that traumatic experience when a lady of Middle Eastern appearance joined me at the bus stop – she lives nearby in the neighbourhood.

Not only was she unaccompanied by a male relative but she wasn’t wearing a headscarf or a burqa either. What’s worse, she smiled and said hello and asked whether the bus she wanted had passed. Naturally, I was inflamed but, fortunately, a bus came along just in time.

“But it’s not discrimination on the part of FIFA to allow teams to set their own dress codes. ”

It is – because it will set a precedent and there will be continuing pressures upon FIFA thereafter to allow exceptions for all sorts of other clothing, national/religious emblems and personal jewelry – some of which could be dangerous.

A little reflection might suggest good reasons reasons why FIFA would want to avoid all that. Try re-reading @17.

What is the exceptional rationale for the Iranian women’s football team to wear headscarves? Does it apply to other Iranian athletes at the Olympic games, if not, why not?

We seem to have reverted to the infantile tactic of dubbing anyone as a “bigot” who disgagrees with enforced wearing of headscarves and burqas in public places.

Iranians in Iran wouldn’t need a morality police to enforce the Islamic dress code if all women there wanted to conform with the code.

@ 25 Bob B

“It is – because it will set a precedent and there will be continuing pressures upon FIFA thereafter to allow exceptions for all sorts of other clothing, national/religious emblems and personal jewelry – some of which could be dangerous.”

How does this add up to discrimination?

“A little reflection might suggest good reasons reasons why FIFA would want to avoid all that. Try re-reading @17.”

LOL! I’m well aware that there are good reasons FIFA might want to avoid that. Health and safety springs to mind. I’m merely pointing out that it’s not discrimination. Move those goalposts back where they were.

“What is the exceptional rationale for the Iranian women’s football team to wear headscarves? Does it apply to other Iranian athletes at the Olympic games, if not, why not?”

One would assume that it did. As for “exceptional rationale”, that’s what’s being used to justify banning the Iranian team. The headscarfs haven’t been banned for being dangerous or anything, they’ve been banned as they are labelled “religious”. Which they’re not overtly, they don’t have religious symbols on or anything. To use your example, as many religions outlaw nudity, presumably FIFA should be consistent and say nudity is ok too.

“We seem to have reverted to the infantile tactic of dubbing anyone as a “bigot” who disgagrees with enforced wearing of headscarves and burqas in public places.”

Who has reverted to that tactic? Who is “we”? Can you show me an example? And make sure it’s an example of someone being called a bigot for disagreeing with headscarf-wearing being enforced, NOT someone being called a bigot for wanting to force people not to wear headscarfs (not that the latter would be fair either, but you should back your claim).

@Chaise Guevara #26:

“The headscarfs haven’t been banned for being dangerous or anything, they’ve been banned as they are labelled “religious”. ”

Actually, that’s precisely the reason they’ve been banned. Religion isn’t the issue; an Iran team competed in the Youth World Cup last year wearing an agreed form of headscarf – which didn’t include the neck covering, which has been caught, AIUI, in the backwash of the snood ban.

Law 4 prescribes the player’s equipment.

OTOH, Bob B…

@ 27 Robin Levett

“Actually, that’s precisely the reason they’ve been banned. Religion isn’t the issue; an Iran team competed in the Youth World Cup last year wearing an agreed form of headscarf – which didn’t include the neck covering, which has been caught, AIUI, in the backwash of the snood ban.”

Source article says, or at least implies very heavily, that the ban is because: “Fifa’s rules for the 2012 Olympics state that: “Players and officials shall not display political, religious, commercial or personal messages or slogans in any language or form on their playing or team kits.” ”

For their part, the Iranians seem to be claiming that this kit or one very like it was OK last time but now someone’s reinterpreted the rules. I guess the Guardian could be misrepresenting the story but that would be unusually sneaky of them – regardless of what some people on here would no doubt claim, that sort of thing isn’t really the Grauniad’s style.

A good discussion of the ban here
http://www.thenation.com/blog/161228/let-them-play-behind-fifas-decision-ban-womens-team-iran

According to Zirin, “the team had already received assurances from FIFA that the uniforms were in compliance. They had even had played preliminary rounds without a blip from Blatter”.

I think we are all duty bound to oppose anything given the seal of approval by the unholy alliance of Blatter & Kissinger not least because the metaphorical goal posts were moved half way through the game.

I suppose the team could have reluctantly complied with FIFAs bullying, but I suppose generations of female head covering is culturally more important than a footy competition – even if the Iranian women were heading the group (no pun intended).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_AFC_Women%27s_Pre-Olympic_Tournament

@Chaise Guevara #28:

This has a history – as mentioned in the a & e charge nurse’s link at #29:

“The team was also informed that since 2007 FIFA has held the view that wearing a hijab while playing “could cause choking injuries.””

The Iran youth team played last year in the Youth Olympics in hijabs; but the hijab in question did not cover the neck. IFAB had ruled in 2007 that:

“The wearing of a hijab is already covered by Law 4 on Players’ Equipment.”

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/media/newsid=112584/

The background to that decision is set out in the following link:

http://f442.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/no-headscarf-allowed-fifa/

“For their part, the Iranians seem to be claiming that this kit or one very like it was OK last time but now someone’s reinterpreted the rules. I guess the Guardian could be misrepresenting the story but that would be unusually sneaky of them – regardless of what some people on here would no doubt claim, that sort of thing isn’t really the Grauniad’s style.”

The Grauniad story *is *misleading, since it quotes the Iran Federation (which of course has a percentage in suggesting the ban is religiously motivated) but not the background, in particular the fact that it is Iran that has sought to reinterpret the rules. As I point out above, its team played in the Youth Olympics wearing an approved hijab; but this isn’t that hijab.

The difference between the two hijabs is the neck covering – and given the ban on snoods, with which it is entirely consistent and which has no possible religious content, it is difficult to see IFAB giving way on this.

BTW, this is an issue determined by IFAB, which is composed half of the UK Federations, and half the rest of FIFA.

@26: “Who has reverted to that tactic? Who is ‘we’? Can you show me an example? ”

Try re-reading the heading of this thread: Banning the hijab in sports: bigotry rears its head again

There are solid, well-founded reasons for trying to keep religious conflicts away from international football tournaments. It’s not just a matter of some Islamic countries wanting their women athletes and footballers to wear hijabs – why not burqas? – while others don’t, there are also sectarian conflicts, such as in Scotland, as well.

The current displays of sectarian conflicts in the politics of Northern Ireland – such as the Orange Order marches – derive from the outcome of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 between the armies of two rival claimants to the English crown who also had conflicting sectarian affiliations.

They wouldn’t need a morality police in Iran to enforce the Islamic dress code if women there willingly wanted to conform with it.

@the a&e charge nurse #29:

From your link:

“So what is really going on here? First of all, we should dismiss any of FIFA’s concerns about the welfare of the women involved. Blatter is an unreconstructed sexist and without resistance, women’s soccer would look something like the Lingerie Football League.”

Indeed he is; but Blatter has very little to do with the decision. The decisions ojn uniform are taken by the IFAB, which is composed of the four home unions with two votes each, and 8 votes for the rest of FIFA; with a 75% majority required for changes to the laws.

I tend to agree with your, and Zirin’s, view of Blatter; but dismissing the safety concerns out of hand because of Blatter’s views is a non sequitur.

We know that the Iran Youth team competed last year, wearing a version of the hijab that was approved by IFAB; we also know that that was not the version that the Iran team turned up in in Qatar. The difference was the neck covering; and since the snood has also been banned for safety reasons (unless you’re suggesting that Carlos Tevez wears one for religious reasons), it is pretty obvious that the issue is not any real or imagined desire on Blatter’s part to sex up female soccer.

“…not least because the metaphorical goal posts were moved half way through the game.”

I think that this assertion needs to be treated with a great deal of care. That there was at all times an approved (and previously worn) form of hijab available for the team to wear rather undermines its veracity.

@ 30 Robin and 31 Bob B

“The difference between the two hijabs is the neck covering – and given the ban on snoods, with which it is entirely consistent and which has no possible religious content, it is difficult to see IFAB giving way on this.”

and

“Try re-reading the heading of this thread: Banning the hijab in sports: bigotry rears its head again”

Fair enough – it appears I may have been misled by an article whose author was also misled by a poorly research Guardian article. As this is my entire source material for this topic I concede your point.

I think PC has gone to far in UK & Wales and as in France the hijab should be banned from being worn in public places.It is a dangerous and IS a Health & Safety issue when women driving wearing them have restricted views of the road.This is dangerous.
In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive:perhaps this is the reason why?
All comments welcomed.

[32] so the ban was reasonable, or at least free from the kind of sexist, or cultural bullying implied in the OP?

You seem to be saying that the Iranian women could have worn approved headgear but preferred to sabotage their own olympic bid because they (or somebody else on their behalf) insisted on wearing something else?

The plot thickens!

NO I wasn’t saying that.

[36] my comments were in response to Robin @32.

I might be wrong but I suspect the number of hijab related RTAs pale into insignificance when compared to the carnage that results from tear arse young men driving under the influence?

I have no idea if this type of head/neck gear presents a genuine health & safety threat, perhaps the FIFA officials have some evidence that it does, or more likely that it might?

@ 34 G.K.Brightmore

“I think PC has gone to far in UK & Wales and as in France the hijab should be banned from being worn in public places.It is a dangerous and IS a Health & Safety issue when women driving wearing them have restricted views of the road.This is dangerous.”

Wouldn’t banning the hijab be the PC move – i.e. outlawing something because someone else found it offensive? If you don’t like the idea of “PC gone mad”, surely you should support women’s right to wear a hijab.

As for the point about safety when driving – fair enough, but that’s an argument for banning motorists from wearing hijabs, not for banning them in all public places.

“In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive:perhaps this is the reason why?”

No, it’s because Saudi Arabia has a horribly bigoted culture and legal system.

@ #35:

“so the ban was reasonable, or at least free from the kind of sexist, or cultural bullying implied in the OP?”

The latter certainly; whether banning snoods and hijabs covering the neck is reasonable on safety grounds I don’t have enough information to say.

“You seem to be saying that the Iranian women could have worn approved headgear but preferred to sabotage their own olympic bid because they (or somebody else on their behalf) insisted on wearing something else?”

Whether there’s a relevant difference in the rules of Islam in relation to modesty in dress as interpreted by Iran’s mullahs between teenagers and adult women I couldn’t say; I do know that they don’t apply the rules to their men’s teams, who flaunt their knees and elbows on the pitch.

Sport and politics – often uncomfortable bed fellows?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/SFA-Welsh-and-Irish-furious.6789111.jp

Why are we bigots and not the Muslims? Aren’t the Muslims bigots for insisting on wearing the hijab in the modern age?

@ Matt

“Why are we bigots and not the Muslims? Aren’t the Muslims bigots for insisting on wearing the hijab in the modern age?”

Look up “bigot”. It doesn’t mean “uncool”.

So why don’t MEN wear the hijab? Why if it is religious head dress?
No- it is an obvious sign of the subjective of women to the Patriarchy and as such is insulting to being a woman.I have even seen girls as young as six or seven being made to wear them. Why?
In the UK women died in the beginning of this century to gain the Vote ,Equal Rights & respect for women.Should we now sacrifice our rights in a Christian country and tolerate tis discrimination? I think not nor should any liberated thinking woman.
I am proud to be a woman so why should I cover my face and walk behind men? This is the 21st century not the fourteenth .Do we want to regress to a time when women were hounded as ‘witches’ and burned at the stake by men?? I think not.
PC correctness has had it’s day.

@ 43 G.K.Brightmore

Problem is, you’re talking about women’s liberation in the same breath as announcing that you want to force women to wear the clothes you approve of. It’s kinda contradictory.

And I don’t understand why you say you’re anti-PC when you’re advocating a PC postion – forcing people to sacrifice personal choice in the name of equality.