Italian and French style were also v v fashionable in 50s which is where the rest of the western world caught the idea.
But in the 60s theCalifornian beach style of free hair became the icon and scarves were dispensed with except in rich high fashion circles of Jackie Onassis etc.
But hiding the hair, in any society, is a form of control that is imposed within a patriarchal tradition, even if it is the women who end up policing conformity. And guess what ? I'm agin it. keep to the Fen Causeway
Tha's bahn' to catch thy deeath o` cowd Then we shall ha' to bury thee Then t'worms'll come an` eyt thee up keep to the Fen Causeway
It is interesting that there is rarely any talk about the women of conservative jews covering their hair. I had my office in near the synagoge and I was always wondering why so many of the jewish women were wearing wigs. Until somebody told me that they were not allowed to go outside with there head uncovered.
I have always suspected the fashion scarf evolved out of the piety scarf.
you are the media you consume.
Of those wearing the scarf, none show any skin beyond face and hands, which makes sense to me, as the concept at least on the surface seems be be whittled down to conservative muslims. About half wear full length coats, of those about half appear fashionable, the other half (more common among older women) wear drab gray wool Soviet-Russia looking coats. The other half wear long skirts with long baggy tops. I've seen a statistically insignificant number of women with the Saudi style get up (which still does and always will creep me out).
In Malaysia, the Malay women pay lip service to the whole idea - underneath they wear black, skin-tight full length tights and shirts, and over that wear what they would wear otherwise, usually short skirts and tops with very short sleeves.
And the biblical injunction on which this was based?
St Paul, 1 Corinthians, King James version
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.... 13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
And what was this a fashionable fossil form of?
It's more likely Paul is reflecting pre-existing eastern Mediterranean mores. A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
