A muslim woman in a headscarf applies for a job as a hairdresser. She tells the potential employer that she has to wear her headscarf at all times. Predictably, she is turned down for the job. She is now suing the hairdresser for discrimination.
Why do I say ‘predictably’? It’s because no hairdresser with any business sense would employ a stylist whose hair the customer cannot see. If I, as a customer, cannot see what the stylist has done to her own hair, why should I trust her with mine?
The case continues. I only hope common sense prevails. By all means, wear a headscarf if your religion mandates you to do so (doubtful, but let that pass); but don’t expect to work in a field where we need to see your hair.
Just wondering: if her religion really demands that she go everywhere with her hair covered, and given that no-one would trust a stylist with concealed hair, perhaps the logical (even if absurd) conclusion to draw is that perhaps Allah never intended for his women to work as hairdressers in the first place? I wonder if she’ll think on that.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
if her religion really demands that she go everywhere with her hair covered, and given that no-one would trust a stylist with concealed hair, perhaps the logical (even if absurd) conclusion to draw is that perhaps Allah never intended for his women to work as hairdressers in the first place?
No, Allah intended that all the world must bow down to islam. So even hairdressers and their customers must accept without complaint the fact that the woman attending to their hair has hidden hers from view. And as soon as the customer has had her hair done, she too, must done the headscarf before exiting the premises.
Or maybe the koran does not actually force women to wear headscarfs after all. I don’t think it does, but what do I know?
November 9th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I think it says dress modestly, a relative thing - that does not specifically require a headscarf, or any other particular garment.
The all over covering thing is, as I understand it, largely Arabic cultural imperialism.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I never manage to understand why girls with headscarves seeking to appear modest wear a face full of make-up.
As a man, the headscarf makes no difference to the attractiveness of a woman, but make-up does.
Muslim women need to go back to the drawing board on this subject, me thinks.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Bel,
I’m surprised at, and hugely disappointed with, this post. Our politics are different but, until now, I have viewed your posts as fair and non-discriminatory. Had you omitted the last paragraph I would have disagreed with your point but accepted the post as raising legitimate issues. The last para, however, is unnecessary and, imho, demeans you.
Why should the wearing of the headscarf matter?
Should a man who is bald or has had his head shaven be refused employment as a hairdresser?
What is important is how good is the person as a hairdresser.
Should we only eat in cafes / restaurants whose kitchens we have inspected or whose foods we have sampled?
November 10th, 2007 at 11:04 am
So it would be acceptable to discriminate against a woman who had lost her hair due to cancer, or permanently due to another case, despite being a skilled hairdresser?
Or a man who chooses to sport a skinhead? Or is bald?
It is nonsense that this Muslim woman was rejected because she wears a headscarf. It appears to be because she is Muslim, and if that is the case I hope that the hairdresser gets sued very heavily. It’s just not okay in a diverse country to allow such discrimination, like they did in Nazi Germany against Jews.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Calum and Mountjoy, I hear what you are saying, but take it from me, as one who has spent many hours in a hair salon: when choosing a hair stylist, many women look at the hair of the potential stylist, in order to judge whether she is a competent hairdresser. If her hair is not up to scratch, then people think twice about letting her loose on theirs. If a stylist has her hair covered, you can see how this will present difficulties.
Calum, I am sorry you are disappointed with the post. I do not think the last paragraph ‘demeans’ me, as you put it. You are entitled to your view, but it is not one I share. I can say what I please about any religion, and the last paragraph was simply pointing out the absurdity of the lady’s insistence on wearing a headscarf on religious grounds. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the koran mandates that women wear headscarfs everywhere, and what I was pointing out there was that, if the wearing of a headscarf was an absolute rule, that would lead to the absurd conclusion I highlighted in the paragraph. I am sorry that you picked up a different, and negative point from that paragraph, but there we are.
And as for being ‘non-discriminatory’, I think it is only fair that the owner of a hair salon has the right to expect that her workers advertise their hairstyles.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Calum and mount: yes to your questions.
It should be up to the people doing the hiring to hire the people they feel will best SHOW what their company is made of and what the customer can expect.
You will find bald men in barber shops the world over, but you won’t find many (any?) in a salon.
Bel: funny how she didn’t sue the other 24 (twenty-four) places that denied her a job heh
November 11th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Very interesting post, although, I must say, Calum I thought your criticism of Bel’s last paragraph to be rather harsh.
I understand the point about losing hair to cancer, etc, and I suppose a hairdresser is within her rights to make or waive the rules as she sees fit, in the interests of her business. What I do not appreciate is people being held to ransom because of somebody else’s religion.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
The relevance here is simple. The employer made it clear that they were seeking a candidate that would model her hair in order to promote the business, as an employer its her right to do that as it’s a primary part of her business function.
The candidate could not fulfil that function and was therefore rejected.
The argument surrounding bald stylists is flawed, should we employ blind bus drivers in the interests of equality?
Only in communist dictatorships are employers required to hire people whom they view as unsuitable for the job. How close are we now?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Oh Key-rist Calum & Mountjoy,
I think I agree with you guys, but not for the reasons they suggest (come on, can you guys can the “the UK is becoming Nazi Germany bollocks”. You should know good and well this country bends over backwards to accomodate the stone age practice of a supposed minority of their followers)
I am reminded of the Somali cab drivers in Minnesota who refuse to take people carrying sealed alcohol or guide dogs in their cabs. Sorry, but if you are licenced by the state to provide a service, provide it or get another job.
Here, headscarf lady is not refusing to provide a service. Surely, the only service she provides is a hair cut.
I’ve had guys and gals with hairstyles I’d never consider cut my hair. It’s not about their hair, it’s mine.
Salon owner should have turned ALL applicants lose on models and judged by the quality of the haircut they produced.
So sorry Bel, I see your point, but respectfully disagree.
As for you, Calum and Wotsit, stop ringing your hands and being so smug. You’re right, but for the wrong reasons.
love
November 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Lord Nazh
Just caught the bit about her being rejected 25 times.
The difference might be in the other 24, the hirers played along and couched the bad news in, “sorry, we loved you, but the competition was fierce and at the end of the day, the person we hired had more experience and was better qualified. Gosh, it’s hard to turn down so many good people and we wish you all the best in your career” - rather than stating the obvious.
It’s a PC World and you gotta play the game.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Kris,
“It’s a PC World and you gotta play the game.”
Says who? Only because we let it become that way and only we can turn the tide.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Wolfie
Does this mean you are going to bankroll the salon owner’s defence at the Employment Tribunal?
November 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Alas I don’t have the money for such things.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
From what I read Kris, she was rejected each time for the same thing.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I agree, Bel. Whatever was the woman doing applying in the first place?
February 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I hate to sound stupid being a man and all (plus not having enough hair to need fussing over) but how would a stylists own hair be an advert for her skills since she would have someone else do it (unless like me she simply shaved it all off and even then I need someone to check I haven’t missed a bit at the back).
Seems to me a very spurious argument to support some pretty dreadful and unnecessary discrimination since no good stylist would be stupid enough to do her own hair.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
refreshing to see a debate revealing diverse points of view….BNP and Daily Mail sites filter out those comments that point out their lack of complete logic..