And in the end, it won't make a difference for one remarkably simple reason:
Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. They're committed to maintaining their theocracy because they're genuinely convinced it's their right from God to control women.
(Distinguishing leadership from people because the Iranian people tend to be much more pro-western.)
This maybe true, but it is a sign to the rest of the world that type of behavior is not acceptable. This act may not change Iran, but it may well help change many other places.
It is not that simple. Women can vote in Iran and be elected, with 51% of population they even have voting majority. There are 6% women PMs, clerics have less seats.
It doesn't seem that simple to me, though. The current regime is in place due to a coup; I have doubts that you'd be able to get much done for women post-1979 without paramilitary support.
As Iranian , I must say, you are so naive if you think people who holds the power in Iran genuinely believe in something. They are professional politicians. They know what are they doing, and they don't give fuck about Islam. Just search and look how they treated with traditional religious people in Iran (religious people who believes power and religion should be separate).
Actually this new generation of politicians (I mean Khomeini and after him) they are pretty good in changing old rules when they realize they are in losing side of the battle and not changing that rule will hurt they public figure in long run. Let me give you an instance, there is fuck load of hadith about chess itself being dirtier than alcohol (which punishment for it is death they catch you drunk 3 time), which in my opinion pretty absurd, like rest of religious beliefs. But Khomeini realized people will ask in long run what is dirty about chess ? And because it is so obvious that it is absurd, they changed the rule around 25 years ago.
My point is there is distance between something like hijab, alcohol, betting and something like chess. The idiots (mullahs) can justify (and they are aware of this fact) hijab for simple ordinary rural people (which is their only base in country other than people who earn money from this corrupt regime), but they cannot justify that even for naive people in rural area what is wrong about chess.
lets be honest, they don't give fuck about some bunch -not all of them, really small portion, I say it from my experience, right now I am student in Iran and I do regularly visit many universities in country- of student in university who shout and fight back for their rights, they would suppress them like lollipop if they try really hurt regime in any serious manner. If pressure become serious they would drop hijab rule in a day.
They may show to you they are 100% firm about their beliefs, but believe me when they realize just 1% danger (serious threat to regime nature, they don't give fuck about some chess championship tournament, what would happen? Tournament will cancel ? I bet the actual power in Iran would even be more happy if tournament gets cancelled), they would change their most basic rule if they can find a way to justify themselves to their supporters.
Not to get too presumptuous as an outsider; but it seems like a political system is part of Islam. It certainly is prescribed in scripture and described through Muhammad, even if some or many disagree. That said, Iranian government doesn't seem to be running a "proper theocracy", so I guess that point is moot.
Yeah , I agree, the whole fucking religion built on idea of ruling and forcing. Some people maybe would say something nice, which is absolute lie. I felt the Islam with my flesh and blood(and believe, and do your research too, Shia version of Islam is much more rational version of Islam than Sunnis or Wahhabi, I emphasize this point. Despite the western media's propaganda.). Because they basically ruined me and people's like me life's.
At the very core, Islam is about killing and forcing.
P.S. I am not saying other religions are better, they have done their fair amount of killing in their time. But west overcome the barrier, sadly middle East has not.
Also as an Iranian (which means nothing in the grand scheme of this conversation, which is precisely why I'm invoking my ethnic background), I stand by my statement because in the end, a religious commitment to an idea--see what I did there?--can help a person rationalize something completely backwards.
If you believe you have power by God's hand or by the hand of any other deity, you will justify keeping it through whatever means necessary because the circuitry involved in decision-making is not the same circuitry involved in reason.
I do agree with your point. I believe there is nothing contrary about our points.
My point was the rulers in Iran don't give fuck about any ideology and they are trying hard to use religious leverage in their benefits.
But if I understood your point correctly, I do 100% agree. Believe in something as dangerous as God , will give people illusion (they will justify in their mind) of controling of other people. Because at the very end they think they are better than others.
Update : I think there is no way to know which analysis is correct. Because at the very end in both analysis regime will do whatever they can to keep power. The only way to find out is to go through their mind. Which we cannot.
In both analysis regime will do whatever they can.
In my case they don't believe in any ideology just because of the power(they changed so many rules in Islam and they will change).
In your case (if I understand correctly) they will try every thing because their religion gave them permission to do everything to keep power.
If I should give specific answer,
I would not say you are wrong. I would just say there is no way to find out.
> Believe in something as dangerous as God , will give people illusion (they will justify in their mind) of controling of other people. Because at the very end they think they are better than others.
:)
Edit:
> If I should give specific answer, I would not say you are wrong. I would just say there is no way to find out.
I agree with this as well. We're all speculating, and in the end, it all manifests the same way.
Allowing women to dress inappropriately has a societal cost greater than the life of one child. Many lives could be ruined by the moral failures encouraged and enabled by bare flesh.
Well they do to some extent, ethic aren't that simple we as a society do criminalize feticide beyond the fact that a person (the pregnant woman) was assaulted, and in some jurisdiction feticide is or can be counted as homicide and murder.
In many countries there are various laws governing fetal rights, and most people agree that at least at some point the fetus is considered a human being hence the commonality of "born alive" laws.
This isn't an argument against the right to be able to have an abortion, but it is simply not true that embryos and fetuses have no rights either, fetal rights are a pretty big subject in ethics and morality and it is not an easy one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
unlike homicide, a woman has to carry a child inside of her body for 9 months, dealing with all manners of complications (even life threatening complications)
the abortion = homicide idea is so flatly intellectually dishonest, im surprised to even see it mentioned here.
It wasn't an equation. It was a question to illustrate the other extreme of the dialectic. My point was there's two lives in the balance -- conservatives want to protect the lives of the unborn, not "control women".
Right but it's a terrible analogy for this discussion, it literally does 'control women' by forcing them to carry a baby for 9 months.
How is forcing someone to do something they dont want to do, not 'controlling'?
Whether that is there motivation or not is up for discussion, but it explicitly does control women.
Whether the motivation for the hijab is to control women could also be debated, but that is beside the point that it /does/ control women.
Whether there is another life in the balance also does not change the fact that it explicitly controls a woman's body.
I'm not taking a stance here on whether abortion should be legal or whether it represents a homicide of some kind, im simply stating that it does in fact control a womans body, regardless of the intent.
> How is forcing someone to do something they dont want to do, not 'controlling'?
I think you've basically made my point. According to your definition, handcuffing a woman to prevent her from murdering an innocent adult with an axe is also 'controlling' her body. I hope you'd agree that is an acceptable use of force in order to protect a life.
Now re-read radmuzom's comment and I think you'll see the absurdity of his comparison, which is what I wanted to point out.
No, your point is excessively clear - that if forcing a woman to carry a child for nine months and go through the birthing process is controlling a woman, then so is arresting someone for committing a crime.
Its a plainly ridiculous point to make, regardless of whether you believe abortion is murder. Pregnancy simply isnt the same thing as criminal punishment.
Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy would pretty clearly be a cruel or unusual punishment. Or do you believe that going through a pregnancy should be the punishment for other crimes as well?
The point is there is another life at stake, the child's. You seem to keep ignoring that point. There is a balance to be struck between what a woman wants and the life of the child. Do you advocate third trimester abortion, even for a healthy fetus without complications?
Interestingly intellectually dishonest. How very cowardly of you to equate abortion with homicide. It's not even homicide, it's 1st degree murder. And doctors would be guilty of murder also.
I would advise you to acquire some actual information on how fertilized eggs are frequently self-aborted and how little a fertilized egg is like a human life.
Well of course I wish you nothing but the best with your new child but if he/she was delivered at 12 week he would have almost certainly died. Not human enough yet.
What a weird coincidence that all the dictators that oppress their population and steal the oil money have lots of ideology... and makes lots of external enemies to blame all problems on.
And yeah, the Iranian upper classes seem even as West oriented as most any population in Western Europe.
A reason it won't make a big difference is that she is ranked 98th in the world, so the impact of her not going won't be the same as if Judit Polgar (who, according to the article, is OK with the headscarf rules), or any of the top-10 players, were boycotting it.
I will cite the american chess champion: "I will NOT wear a hijab and support women’s oppression." Women's oppression in Iran is not just about the hijab. It's about women not being able to do what they want. This boycott is going to have strong, negative, repercussions on women sportsmanship in Iran, which is what the Iranian chessmaster said in my linked article.
>do you think that is what matters to most Iranian women who are forced to stay at home?
It may or may not matter to those actually being oppressed. But publicizing Iran's human rights abuses and oppressive theocratic policies does matter (on some level) to Iran's elites, because it harms the country's image.
The US is not even in the list of most militant secular cultures. It's not a choice; You can't say "don't go" as if they have a choice to go to another country to compete.
This reminds me of the mental contortions that e.g. USA Southerners used to perform while attempting to justify slavery. You are so ideologically committed to hijabery that you can't comprehend a simple statement of personal preference. You may disagree with Paikidze-Barnes (and most people) about the significance and the effects of the hijab. But given her beliefs, surely any reasonable person can understand why she would choose not to travel to a place that would require her to betray those beliefs?
I am not, I strongly wish that Iran will become a more moderate country in the future. But such a boycott will only further seclude the country, whereas an international championship for women in Iran is an actual step forward. Nazi Paikidze is free to not go, but she should not say she is fighting for women's oppression.
Yes, those American southerners who are trying to justify slavery....
Are you delusional, talking to sub 1/10th of a percent of the population, or referencing 100s of years ago when blacks sold other blacks as slaves?
No rational human in today's world tries to justify slavery. Inb4 you point to a small subsect of white nationalists while ignoring the small subsect of black nationalists entirely.
American southerners, black and white, aren't the mindless bigots you're painting them as.
I'm an American Southerner, but unlike you I read and comprehend both English and history.
I love that you regurgitate trivialities such as "blacks sold other blacks as slaves". Tell us more! What else have you read in Remembering Better Times Quarterly? Perhaps next you'll suggest that some former slaves had some difficulties as sharecroppers?
Your implication that I'm a stupid racist is noted and honestly was expected.
Curious if you have any further reference regarding my inability to read/comprehend English/history or if it was just baseless ad hominem? I feel I should be more well versed in my moral/intellectual inadequacy.
Is there some other way to read "blacks sold other blacks as slaves"? How could that statement, even if it were true, possibly be relevant to this conversation?
Or maybe they've listened to what Iranian activists have said?
> Her comments were echoed by Ghoncheh Ghavami, a British-Iranian woman who spent five months in jail in Iran for campaigning to allow women to watch men’s volleyball games in stadiums.
> Ghavami, whose time in jail drew international attention, said from Tehran: “The world must hear the pro-reform voices of people inside Iran and not ignore these pleas by isolating the country.”
That's someone who's actually fighting for women's rights in Iran (and who has done for some time), and who opposes a boycott.
Not sure how this affects Iran that much at all. I mean it won't affect the people or the government. The Tournament will go on happily without this player's participation. In my own opinion, a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran. I'm not sure why that isn't the route that was chosen for protest ?
If enough other players protest, I think they would move the tournament somewhere else. But like you say, if it's only this one player then the tournament can go on and there will be no reason to move it.
It's not FIDE (the world chess federation) that's protesting this. They simply had one country offering to host the tournament and automatically gave it to them, period.
For FIDE this also isn't a controversial place to hold this, they held a world championship in Khadaffi's Libya, wanted to hold one in Hussein's Iraq, and their president believes in aliens and makes money doing business with Assad.
She isn't an organizer, she's a player, so doesn't have any direct control over where they hold events. Boycotting the event though does put pressure on the organizers to move the event.
> a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran
If the standard for moving the tournament because some people object to the local sartorial rules, they will never find a location. Someone will always find objection. Potentially every culture in the world is participating; they can't avoid some cultural adjustment for everyone.
It's not some people, it's some player. And it's not "cultural adjustment" as if all morality is relative - this player is right, and can argue so on the basis of societal equality rather than on the existence of a grandiose deity.
You may be right that it rises above the typical issues in such situations. Certainly I personally agree that women should wear what they want. So, does it rise to that level?
I'm hesitant to go into someone else's home and tell them what is good for them; it's often ignorant (what do I know?), arrogant and becomes another kind of oppression with a long history, from missionaries to colonialists to aid workers to militaries 'freeing' other nations. Imagine Chinese players in the U.S. protesting racial prejudice - it would not be welcome and would be counterproductive.[0] Note that nobody has asked what Iranians think about it (AFAIK). I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose. Of course, the world is complex, my preference is not always an option and sometimes you have to take a stand. Is this one of those times?
In such an ideologically charged environment, using such a loaded symbol which many people use to demonize all Muslims, I don't think this is a good choice. Whatever the player's intent, it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred and oppression of Muslims. It may satisfy the choir, so to speak, but I think it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps.
Will the same player also insist on wearing a hajib at a tournament in a location in Europe where it's banned? Then I would support it; it would make a point for women's rights while fighting against anti-Muslim discrimination.[0] Other than that, there are plenty of ways for that player to protest oppression in Iran and elsewhere.
[0] To be clear, oppression in the U.S. and Europe isn't at a comparable level to Iran and other non-free countries.
> I'm hesitant to go into someone else's home and tell them what is good for them
What about a home consisting of a parent that abuses their children? "Missionaries, colonialists, aid workers and soldiers" sometime did free people; maybe we should focus on improving the success rate?
> Imagine Chinese players in the U.S. protesting racial prejudice
Actually, I think the liberal US media praise any racial protest. The question would be could the players back up their claims, given how much the US cares about racial justice.
> I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose.
this sounds nice, but over-tolerance is self defeating when you start tolerating intolerance. The question isn't about the freedom to wear a piece of clothing, its about the freedom to impose this requirements on others with aggressive theistic, non democratic derived authority.
> it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred and oppression of Muslims ... it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps
I not sure if this is true. You can let sleeping dogs lie, and you can ignore the problem too. I also think the crimes "Islamophobia" pales in comparison to the ills of Islam, the latter is a greater problem, not the former.
> Will the same player also insist on wearing a hijab at a tournament in a location in Europe where it's banned?
Depends on what her beliefs are. Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form of oppression, but as a way of combating it. Litter laws are a way of saying that the right to clean streets are more important that the right to litter. Hijab-bans are a way of saying reducing implicit religious oppression of women is more important than the right to religious expression. Any law or ban can be seen as "oppression", but only by looking at the context can we tell.
Do any of the hijab-banning western countries also ban Muslims, mosques, or other Islamic religious practice? If their goal was to discriminate against Muslims, why not do those things too, why just hijabs?
In contrast, Are the countries that require women to wear hijabs doing so out of respect for religious freedom? Don't mandatory hijab laws highlight the oppression, imposed on non-Muslim women too, and inform the reason for anti-hijab laws in non-Muslim countries exist?
You seem to overlook the points where I agreed with you, and then make the same arguments yourself.
Except when you make up strawmen and then criticize these imaginary people (see my other comment about liberals).
> the ills of Islam
The moment someone stereotypes everyone in a religion, they're wrong 99.9% of the time. Same with stereotyping 'liberals' (see my other comment). What if almost all people are individuals with their own ideas, just getting through their days, like you and people you actually know, and not ideological symbols and warriors?
I'm pretty sure the problem is the sterotypers and haters in every religion - it's the wise against the prejudiced, not one religion against another.
> Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form of oppression, but as a way of combating it
I don't think most people agree. Also, the majority generally agrees about oppression - otherwise it wouldn't happen. Lots of southerners supported slavery and then segregation.
Anyway, the strawmen and stereotypes aren't anything I can learn from, and I've got to go.
In any vaguely functioning ethical calculus, forcing every single person into a dress code is nothing compared to murdering hundreds of thousands of people right next door to Iran (Iraq).
No need to focus on what people in another country are doing. Focus on solving one's own barbarism. Leave others in peace to finally rebuild their stolen freedoms.
Step back and think of how much time and attention here in the West is invested in this article of clothing. Nations make laws about it; journalists write articles daily, it seems. Either many people in the West have a fetish with it or it's become much more than clothing; it's a symbol.
In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam. The clothing is alien to most people who read the Washington Post, a symbol to them of a religion that's alien to them. It's an excellent representation of fear of the unknown (which is exactly what the terrorists, lacking the resources to achieve their goals any other way, want to create: Terror, fear, to drive their targets to create large-scale conflicts that the terrorists cannot create themselves and otherwise nobody in any religion would want.)
Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women. Women in the west must cover their breasts, an absurdity in some other cultures (I vaguely recall an interview with women in one non-western culture, who laughed and asked, 'are men there babies? they are so obsessed with breasts?'). In the workplace, at houses of worship, and other serious places women must cover more of their bodies - bikinis generally are frowned upon! Other countries are more strict: In India, the strong custom, if not rule, is for women to cover themselves from the neck to the wrists to ankles (except in movies and ads, which are like the West). Other religions have rules too: Many orthodox Jewish sects required women to be fully covered, including something on their heads. And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions. (And there are rules for men to, but far less attention to them.)
Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.
Ah yes, moral relativism exists therefore fining, imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine, as that's their culture and we generally insist women don't go topless.
> imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine
Something you said, not me. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
Certainly women are assaulted - mostly by men - in many countries for violating social norms about their bodies. A big part of the women's rights revolution in the U.S. was taking control of that: Women decide what they can wear (bikinis), when to have sex (birth control and sexual assault laws), when to get pregnant (birth control), when not to (abortion), when they can be touched and commented on (sexual harassment). Before, it was a bunch of men telling women what they could or couldn't do with their own bodies.
IMO, the faster that principle of basic self-determination (applied in whatever ways the local women want) spreads around the world the better, including Iran but many other countries and cultures too, and the U.S. and Europe have a ways to go themselves. As one example, some online communities in those countries (not HN but known here) encourage the abuse of women.
So... what's your point? We all know the job isn't finished. It probably never will be. This is one woman who is attempting to spread those rights faster, and your commentary is limited to "well shucks maybe imprisoning women for driving is just their twist on not allowing people to go to church in bikinis!"
Besides the fact that, in the US, there certainly are churches or places of worship in which you're allowed to wear whatever the hell you want.
> your commentary is limited to "well shucks maybe imprisoning women for driving is just their twist on not allowing people to go to church in bikinis!"
Again, I didn't say that, you did. Perhaps quote something I did say. Regarding your statement, I'll repeat what I said above: It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
How about Iran (the country in question) arresting women for showing hair (the problem in question) on Instagram.
The problem with trying to quote you directly is that you actually aren't saying anything of substance. You're simply being an apologist who apparently can't muster up the courage to even take a stance on way or the other. You're just offering some good old PR hedging for an oppressive regime and trying to neuter the discussion with vague allusions to moral relativism.
I'll ask again, what exactly are you trying to say? As it stands now, you're bogging down an important conversation that needs to happen with half-baked apologism.
The claim was not "women are arrested for not wearing the hijab" (and everyone agrees that it's wrong to arrest people for clothing). The claim was "women are arrested, beaten, raped, murdered for not wearing the hijab". Is that true?
This isn't in Iran, but doesn't hackuser's lame moral relativism argument also apply to ISIS? Isn't stoning women to death for not wearing the hijab simply part of their moral code? After all, the US doesn't allow women to show their breasts in public.
Edit: If your issue is specifically that someone implied that specifically rape/murder happens to women specifically in Iran specifically for wearing a hijab, here's a glimpse at what it means to be arrested in Iran: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-jan-june11-iranianwomen...
So no, for some reason I can't seem to find an official press release from Khomeini that a specific woman was raped/murdered for not wearing a hijab. I can only point to mountains of evidence of systematic oppression and abuse, which undoubtedly includes arrest/rape/murder, and which undoubtedly includes the violation of simply not wearing a hijab.
When correcting someone for misquoting, you should take care to avoid misquoting yourself. Nursie didn't mention murder, and didn't mention the hijab or anything islamic in particular - though it was clearly about islam in context, the comment itself was culture-free, and was about moral relativism.
I would like to say that if your point is simply that the hijab is an article of clothing, then yes, you're right, and no one here disagrees with you. The question here is about the legal code which requires that women wear said article of clothing. The western war against the hijab is not against cloth, it is against this legal and cultural structure. This should actually be self evident in your own posts: the west has been waging an internal war against abuse of women for decades, yet at no point was this war centered around the hijab. Obviously the war is not, never has been, and never will be about the hijab.
It has always centered around the structural problem of abuse of women. However, speaking in vague references like your own about the structural problem has proven to be unproductive. The way you eliminate structural abuse is by eliminating specific instances of abuse. One after the other after the other. For this reason, the war against abuse is endless, both in the west and abroad, as mentioned in my own comment.
There are few people who would declare that this war is won anywhere. Yet everyone can agree that tackling the specific problem of suffrage was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of abortion was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of the hijab will be a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse.
Reverting the discussion back to a philosophical one is not actually helpful, and many people find it insulting when it's done in response to a person showing enormous courage in tackling a real, practical problem. I hope that explains the knee jerk reactions you've received here.
They have no substance. It clearly contains dog whistle allusions to certain ideologies, but when you get called out for supporting said ideology, you back off and act like you never made the allusion.
If you didn't make the allusion, then you didn't say anything relevant to the topic at hand.
Ironically, I think your statement, while again inflammatory, really encapsulates my point:
You are seeing (or hearing) dog whistles in your head, but they're not in mine or my words. What if someone wasn't interested in ideology (or actually disliked it) and just wanted to talk about the issue intelligently? What if the hajib is not an ideological statement but just an article of clothing?
All that extra baggage and meaning many attach to the hajib, and that you attach to my words, is in the eye of the beholder. It's the same thing, I think, that leads to abuse of makes innocent people (not that you are doing that, but I think one leads to another); they aren't people, they are ideological symbols of Islam, Judaism, Black, immigration, etc. We forget: They are just people, trying to go through their days.
EDIT: Edited out response to edited comment in parent. Thanks for your consideration.
Beating, raping and abusing is opression hijab is not.
I come from a Muslim country that acquired it freedom lately (Tunisia) and was oppressed the other way (wearing hijab was getting women to jail ...) guess what after we acquired our freedom the number of women wearing hijab multiplied , not because someone want them to wear it but because they want it. A lot of Muslim women living in france for example decide to wear hijab but each day a new law stop them from doing it in the name of women freedom, it's opression!!
In my family my mother in law is wearing hijab and if I really need to point out an oppressed in my family I would say it's my father in law ;-)
Iran is different. People trying to justify them with anecdotes like yours miss the point. What Iran is doing is ridiculous: there are minorities in Iran who are not Muslim, who've lived there for millennia even before Islam was a thing, who are now forced to wear a Hijab every day. How is that in any way justifiable is beyond me...
Edit: I can't respond to the post below, for whatever reason. Minorities in question would be Assyrians and Armenians, for example, who are Christians and who absolutely have to cover their heads everywhere they go:
http://forum.hyeclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2144
I don't doubt there is widespread oppression in Iran, but there are so many ugly rumors that go around that I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about.
Also, the hajib symbolizes all of Islam to many Western people, so I try to be careful about conflating one government's brutality with prejudice against a world-wide religion.
We all agree that forcing by law women to wear a hijab is wrong. That's currently happening in Iran, and it's easy to find many stories from reputable sources to say this is happening.
We can disagree about how to fight that. This chess champion thinks boycotting the championship if she's forced to wear a hijab is one way. Other human rights campaigners say that a boycott is wrong.
But other people have made a further claim. They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
I agree with your priorites. And I'm don't know it's false (or true); I'm just trying to learn some real, specific knowledge and not just a bunch more rumor.
> They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
That wasn't the GGP's claim. Again, just trying to get some specific, real knowledge into the discussion (and for my own benefit).
EDIT: But I agree the GGP's claim isn't the main issue, and this discussion is becoming convoluted.
Who in this thread is talking about being murdered for not wearing the hijab? And the original comments were not about Iran specifically, neither hackuser's nor Nursie's.
You're creating a strawman, and then demanding sources for it.
Thanks for participating, it's great to hear from someone who actually has experience with these things. The rest of us don't really know what we're talking about.
Not that you represent everyone in Tunisia or every Muslim in the world, but do you feel there's social pressure to wear one? Would they be looked down upon or criticized for not wearing one?
I have the freedom to wear a NASA spacesuit or a bearskin tomorrow, but the social repercussions are a big deterrent.
Not really in some social circles you will have pressure wearing hijab and others pressure not wearing it , like every place in the world. I mean if you come from religious family in US you will have the same pressure wearing a short skirt. But nothing outrageous.
The issue I'm having with that kind of discussion is that instead of pointing out an opression problem somewhere in the world it stigmatize an entire community.
Not all women that choose to wear hijab are oppressed (most are not) west need to understand it and stop that hijab war
Thanks for your input. It should be voted to the top of the thread, because as I said, very few others here actually know what they are talking about.
> The issue I'm having with that kind of discussion is that instead of pointing out an opression problem somewhere in the world it stigmatize an entire community
For what it's worth from one person on the Internet, I agree completely. It's one of my biggest worries. It's going to cause more oppression and is entirely unnecessary.
Don't you think that's part of the reason the West is averse to the hijab? Precisely because women have fought for years to be free from men micromanaging their bodies and behavior, the hijab stands out as a symbol of oppression. That's all that Iran is doing with its mandatory modesty laws: oppressing women. Yes, it happens in the West too, albeit to a much lesser degree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it happens elsewhere.
I agree that many people in the West have made it a symbol (that was a major point of what I wrote). And I strongly agree that women should wear what they want.
But I think that by making it a symbol, we create more problems:
* It's become part of the narrative used by hateful and scared people to promote the dangerous, oppressive prejudice against Muslim people. Inflaming that evil is dangerous and leads directly to harm for a very large number of people.
* Many people feel so strongly about the symbol that now they impose their view of the hajib on the same women, forcing them not to wear it (which is law now in some places in the West). That's no better than forcing them to wear it.
Everyone needs to stop telling women what to wear. Hyping up this symbol isn't helping, it's doing more harm.
> Yes, it happens in the West too, albeit to a much lesser degree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it happens elsewhere.
Do you have any evidence that women are raped for not wearing the hijab? And is that happening any more than in the "enlightened Christian" countries, such as the US where people are also raped and murdered for the who they are?
>> Most studies reveal that approximately 50% of transgender people experience sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.48
>> The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people were three times more likely to report sexual violence and/or harassment compared to heterosexual people who reported to NCAVP in 2010.49
Surveys regularly show that people think the victims of violent sexual crime are partly to blame if they didn't fight back, or if they were in "the wrong place", or if they were intoxicated.
There are numerous authorities on Islam who so say it's "okay" to rape women that don't meet their cultural norms (even if they don't live in their culture). Perhaps OP is referring to this incident http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/180393/muslim-imam-claims-...
There are people everywhere that say it and in poorer countries, I believe, that and other sanctioned violence generally is more common. I'd have to see some data to believe it's more than another ugly rumor, the kind that go with widespread prejudice, that such things are more common in Muslim communities. Certainly, these days, almost anything bad that can be associated with Islam is covered and is spun that way.
I would request a different cite than FrontPage Mag, which appears to put a large banner at the top of every page saying 'Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out'.
Definitely. But religious leaders in the West say such things too. I was looking for another video I once saw as an example, but this list should be familiar:
There are wackos everywhere, in every religion and town and country. When it's in our world, we have the cultural knowledge to know how much threat they really represent. When we see "Iranian Imam says ...", is that the equivalent of the Pope? Some fringe but powerful archbishop? A broad consensus? The strip mall preacher?
And not just fringe people but American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president.
Maybe we lack the context in many cases, but do we not know Iran to be a place where such thoughts have legs?
I don't have much love for the pope either, but I feel that he at least has some political restrictions in west.
> American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president
Trump seems to be a little different from past candidates though, and "American leaders say hateful things" lacks magnitude - what percentage of leaders, and how was this perceived? For most, even the impression of racism is a career ender, and they are under a great deal of scrutiny.
> didn't fight back, or if they were in "the wrong place", or if they were intoxicated
Entirely different. If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence. But these are not the same semantics for blame; One says I should have been more diligent in avoiding harm; The other says I actually deserve harm. Conflating the two, or willingly ignoring the nuance is a liberal trick.
There are, despite liberal perception, few people that say someone intoxicated actually deserves to be assaulted, this is usually something put in peoples mouths. Meanwhile, this is very much the opinion wrt the Hijab - that the women are immodest and deserve punishment.
Show me a westerner that believes assault is a reasonable punishment for intoxication, and I'll show you crowd of westerners that despises them.
First: The strawman, stereotype 'liberals' - they aren't like real people. Given a chance, people don't really fit in those boxes (conservative ones either); they are nuanced and have a mismash of beliefs, and aren't trying to trick anyone. Just like you and me.
> If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence.
I think you are right about risks and outcomes, but not how it applies.
First, just in terms of your theory, what's the difference between a woman in London who doesn't cover up her skirt late at night, takes a risk, and gets assaulted, and a woman in Tehran who doesn't cover up her skirt with a hajib, takes a risk, and gets assaulted? (Bear with me ...)
* Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it', and not just to their buddies. There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude when rape victims report the crime and harassing them, to the degree that rape victims often don't report it. It's an official, if unwritten rule, to a meaningful degree.
* In Iran it's a written rule (I assume). Some in Iran will say she deserved it, as you noted for religious reasons. But I read that in Egypt, at least, a basis for that rule (I don't know how common, or if this is somehow religiously-based) is that women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist. That's pretty similar to 'she asked for it'.
I think to a great degree it may be the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society. Either way, she violated social norms - men's rules about what she can do with her body - and deserves what she gets.
So people don't really fit into this label, yet you can still say they "aren't trying to trick anyone". You can either speak about "liberals", or you can't. I said it was a "liberal trick", maybe 'leftist' is a better term.
> what's the difference between
It's hard to tell, you need to know what the relevant aspects are. Is not wearing a hijab in Tehran dangerous because of the perception that the crime is deserved? This confounds the situation where risk is both known to the degree that it is a precedent, but that the fact that it is a precedent is because of the public perception that victims deserve their treatment.
If someone lost their house betting on the stock-market, we might find them to blame for their foolishness, yet still not care to tell them to their face, due to the magnitude of the situation, unless you knew them and their situation well.
I would advise a woman in Tehran to wear the hijab if there was a risk not doing so might put them at risk. I would say they put themselves at unreasonable risk if they did otherwise - I wouldn't say 'blame' out of respect for the ambiguity of the word in such a serious context. None of this means I agree with the fact that this risk exists, or that anyone deserves to be assaulted.
> Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it' ... There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude
Who? And in what context? The US is big place, are you telling me the precedent in Tehran, and the 'unwritten rule' in the US are of the same magnitude and veracity? I'm not so sure.
In any case, if this where true, then it's bad when the US do it too - this has no bearing on Tehran, and is only if it's true.
> women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist
It is religiously based, in a place where that religious has real, unanimous, legal authority.
> the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society
Maybe so, except this thinking has no were near the same influence in the two cases.
In the less-developed regions it's usually gangs policing with which do apply violence and these have been growing in the west also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols
You can search youtube for the results, it's way to vile and NSFW to post it on HN.
I'm glad others have responded to you with some evidence, I have seen some of it before but am going mostly on stories from Iranian family members who have been arrested and harassed and subject to physical violence for not covering their hair properly.
Yes, it is much, much worse than in places like the US, it is carried out by state agencies like the morality police and by pseudo-state entities like the "Basij". As others pointed out, when you.move outside the cities things often get less 'civilised'
I understand that people don't want to fall into the trap of prejudice, but things are materially worse in places like Iran, and drawing parallels with how women are treated in the west is not helpful. We have problems, we don't have the morality police or relgious militias, at least here in the UK
Westerners like to think that, but it's not true in my experience. Even in the multicultural U.S., think of the reception of every immigrant group: All were hated. Germans, Italians, Africans (EDIT: not that I'm suggesting they were ordinary, willing immigrants), Catholics, now Latinos ... Think of the attitude toward hajibs and Muslims in the U.S. and Europe - hardly accepting!
Anyway, we're making very broad, baseless statements about the opinions of hundreds of millions of people. People in my own family don't even agree on these issues.
And yet Europe has the Schengen area, where people are allowed to travel without requiring documentation, from Portugal to the far north of Sweden, despite some pretty different cultures. Where else in the world is there anything like Schengen?
There's this massive myth that Europe is all one culture, and it's not (you may even have heard about a sizable war in the past century that was predicated on cultural differences).
All countries have a variety of cultures. The U.S. has Alabama, New York City, Utah, Hawaii, the Bay Area, etc. You can always find a way to split people and set them against each other. There's the West; Europe and other Western nations; the UK and other countries; England, Scotland and Wales; London and the rest of England; different parts of London; different religions and ethnicities, the punks and the mods, etc, ad infinitum.
But I don't see any purpose to that. You also can unite people and get great things done together, as 13 very different colonies did in 1789. Why choose fighting with that alternative?
> you may even have heard about a sizable war in the past century that was predicated on cultural differences
I disagree. The cause of the war was one country trying to conquer the other ones. And each side was composed of countries of different cultures and languages. Germany, Japan and Italy; and the U.S., Russia, France, China, etc. on the other side.
And in fact, the EU was created to prevent another war; togetherness has succeeded: The idea of war inside the EU is now absurd.
Let me give you an example of how much some countries revere the West, to the point of obsession.
Saudi Aramco is the largest oil company in the world. It's base of operations is in Dhahran, a city in the eastern region of KSA. Aramco employs a ton of foreigners and of course want their employees to be as comfortable as possible. But this is difficult to do given KSA's strict culture. So what do they do? They build their employees an American-style suburban town outside of Dhahran proper, with its own schools, supermarkets, theatres, and so on. Women are allowed to drive within the town, and can wear whatever they want. The town is basically outside the jurisdiction of the Saudi religious police.
This is just one example. Go to Dubai and you'll see similar things. Foreigners are sometimes respected at the expense of other Arabs or Asians, and it can become discriminatory in some instances.
So next time you throw around such accusations, please think about it first.
it was not an accusation, but you seems as sensitive as blind to the issue.
> Women are allowed to drive within the town
picking out an exception to show tolerance is quite disingenuous, isn't it?
> Foreigners are sometimes respected at the expense of other Arabs or Asians, and it can become discriminatory in some instances.
yes and that's because of a culture promoting conformism to one standard instead of tolerance of all. you're not bringing forward an example of tolerance, but extreme conformism, which kinda gets back to the original point: they manage to be intolerant even in their mimicry of western style of life.
again, it's not about how one dresses, that's just extremely superficial to think. it's how you demand conformism, and it doesn't matter it's the hijab or the bikini, the crucial point is in the demand itself.
Your argument is that non-Western countries don't respect Western tradition and culture, while the West does. I provided two counterexamples that demonstrate non-Western countries who are willing to accept Western values, and I can provide more if you like.
Back to the hijab. No one is demanding that Westerners wear the hijab or whatever. All Muslim women are demanding is freedom to wear the hijab without being discriminated against. No one needs to build a Sharia city in America LOL
That sounds like an investment in recruitment, like an SV startup having free sodas. It doesn't necessarily imply respect, only business sense and a fairly "flexible" approach to laws and customs.
I'm not saying the changes aren't profound, just that they might as well be made out of respect or out of a need for hiring people they can't find locally.
There is an abundance of talent in the Middle East, not to mention Middle Easterners working abroad because of lack of opportunity back home. Look, I've lived in the UAE for 14 years, and I can tell you that this is what's happening. It may sound counter intuitive, but that's how it is.
The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in fact they're the biggest ass kissers out there.
If they had local talent available, why go through the expense of building a whole new town? I mean, respect alone doesn't justify burning money like that.
The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in fact they're the biggest ass kissers out there.
I don't know what media you're referring to, but I'd say that around here, Gulf countries are more likely to be represented as lackeys of US imperialism, and also as a place where our soccer players and managers go to make money (for example, the new manager of Al-Fujairah is my compatriot).
Because of their obssession with the West - not respect, obssession - which is the point I've been trying to make.
Well, I sometimes browse through the headlines and comments on /r/worldnews, which I think gives a good idea of what Americans think of current world issues.
Hah, Fujairah is a nice little town. Long time since I passed by as it's kind of out of the way of everything else.
Or looking at it another way, they created a ghetto outside of town in which foreign practices can be ignored as they won't pollute wider society. The minimal necessary evil to get what they want from the foreigners.
You can look at it however way you please. The reality is that they built an entire town to satisfy their Western employees. In case you didn't know already, there is already way more than enough talent in the Middle East. It's just Arab executives usually think that Westerners = more skilled.
In the UAE for example, there is an "unspoken" pay ladder that depends on your nationality. Keep in mind that each of these gets a different salary for the exact same position.
With respect, do you happen to know how accurate Wikipedia's article is? Especially on hot-button issues, I don't trust them without outside corroboration.
Your point about different social norms and rules is well taken. However, social norms are one thing and state enforced law is a different ball game.
A month ago, I went to Europe and my date had to wrap a scarf around her waist to visit a church (she was wearing shorts). That is totally cool. It's private property and they can set the rules as they please. But in public, women are free to wear what they want.
On a side note: I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles (not even the villages, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+village+women&source=...). Yes, certain Muslim population do wear hijab/niqab.
> I went to Europe ... in public, women are free to wear what they want.
In many places it is now state-enforced law that women cannot cover their heads, faces, and/or wear hajibs/etc.
But despite that serious problem, I agree there is far more freedom in Europe. My point is that people see the clothing as threatening; they are obsessed with what it symbolizes. I agree that the serious question is not clothing but women's freedom to wear generally what they want (among many other freedoms).
> I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles
That's very interesting to me. I certainly don't have your experience and knowledge, but I've been to India. Before going we were told that was the social norm, and when we were there, mostly cities in northern India including Delhi, that's what we observed. When we'd see a western woman in a tank top and shorts, she would stand out dramatically.
Honest question: How did I misunderstand what I saw?
I am very surprised that you had that experience in metropolitan city like Delhi. What were the women wearing? I don't even know what kind of dress women will have to wear which covers theirs wrists and ankles.
Here's what you will find Indian women wearing in day to day life:
1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top.
2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.
Do you have any photo of the outfit that you are talking about?
To be clear, I meant covered 'down to' their wrists and ankles, which might have been exposed.
> 1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top. 2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.
I'm not talking about a specific outfit; we saw plenty of what you describe, though not midriff-baring saris without something underneath.
The photos of the saris looks familiar so perhaps I should have said elbows and not wrists. But did we see bare calfs, much less thighs; midriffs; shoulders; chest below the collarbone much less cleavage (somehow, this is a little odd to list out)? Very rarely other than a few westerners and in mass media.
Obviously you know far more than I do about it. But while I may be forgetting some subtleties, we remarked on it at the time and I know what I saw. I wonder how to make sense of it.
> In many places it is now state-enforced law that women cannot cover their heads, faces, and/or wear hajibs/etc.
Is this for the same reasons as above though? When a courier delivers to a bank, they must remove their helmets, for example. That clothing can indeed, pose a threat.
Well, there's France and its recent decisions against the "burkini" and similar clothing, but it was widely mocked and as far as I know, at least one court has already overturned the ban.
There's been other violence against women for what they wear:
>> A Corsican mayor has also banned burkinis, amid tensions on the island and violent clashes between villagers and three Muslim families. Skirmishes at a beach in the commune of Sisco earlier this month left four people injured and resulted in riot police being brought in to stop a crowd of 200 Corsicans marching into a housing estate with a high population of people of North African origin, shouting “this is our home”.
(etc, there are many attacks on women who wear hijabs or niqabs)
Fair enough, I didn't mean to imply there's no discrimination against women wearing those and similar clothing, just that "state-enforced laws" against them are thankfully still not widespread across Europe, though I fear they might be in the future.
It happens that a woman is willing to forfeit her championship rights because she does not want to be forced to dress in a way just because she is a woman.
> symbol for fear of a religion
> clothing is alien > a religion that's alien to them
> representation of fear of the unknown
Maybe. Maybe people dislike it due to fear, fear of terrorism, and the alien, unknown religion.
But it's also a sign of oppression. I don't fear the religion that oppresses women (I'm not oppressed myself), but that doesn't i don't care. It it "alien"? yes, sort of, but also no - women were oppressed in the west too.
Does this matter? Unless by "alien" you mean either, I reject Islam only because I am not familiar with it, or if I was familiar with it I may tolerate it more I'd have to disagree; Are victims of abuse more tolerant of abuse?
> Women in the west must cover their breasts
Not true, there are places in the west this isn't the case, and if it's changing it can be in either direction. Also the reasoning is usually different, which is why mixed nude beaches still exit even in places you cannot be nude in public, i.e. you can do it with other consenting adults, just not in public where we cannot assume to have the consent of everyone - Does Islam allow this? No.
> ...other serious places women must cover more of their bodies...
And in a nightclub, you might have to dress smart and wear clothes, and why would you wear a bikini in a church?; These aren't public spaces. And since when were religions the voices of reason? You can opt out of any religion in the west, big differences.
> And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions
Uh, yes, freedom of speech/expression; You are also free to ignore those opinions, and have you own. Where is the problem?
> Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.
By everyone, you mean the handful of examples above, most of which are contextual, not restricted to clothing, and not restricted to women. Wearing a mankini to church may also be "frowned upon".
It's a sign to you of oppression, but some women prefer to wear it. I see women in the U.S. wearing it. If women are forced to wear it, that's a problem; that is oppression. It's not the clothing, it's the freedom that matters.
When you bring up exceptions and complexities in social norms in the West, realize that other cultures are just as complex in their rules. We're just not there to see it.
True, the perfect legal system should only lock up people who committed crimes, guns should only be bought by people who won't murder people with them and a Nazi flag might not represent oppression to some.
Now implement practical laws.
Some women prefer the hijab, some are forced to wear it. Many of those that are forced to do that also forced to hide the influence, even claim to be freely choosing it. How do we tell the difference? We're not there to see this either, especially when it's purposely hidden.
You will tell these people in free countries what they want; they aren't permitted to decide from themselves. If they desire otherwise they must have been forced, and if not that then they must have a psychological condition.
What other explanation could there be for doing something you disagree with? What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
> You will tell these people in free countries what they want
Yes, you will want freedom and liberty, no choice there; when did 'free country' mean otherwise? A "free country" allows people to be free; when people enter that society still bearing the shackles of their non-free origins they are not yet free.
> If they desire otherwise they must have been forced
must? I didn't say this, I said 'some'. If you want to talk about the issue don't misrepresent my words.
> What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
When you say you are you talking about me or society?
Again, total tolerance will tolerate intolerance. A free society still has rules and enforced motives. The difference is freedom is the goal, not religiously-defined piety.
> There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
What statement(s) are you referring to here? factual basis for which claim?
> In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam.
Weird reaction to an article about a non-Muslim woman who does not want to subject herself to medieval oppressive practices (let's not kid ourselves what Hijabs and Burqas really are) in order to participate in an international sports competition.
If you're going to be that disingenuous, men are told what to wear as well. No boardroom meetings wearing only jogging shorts, no funerals wearing flip-flops.
I grew up with a lesbian single mother during the tail end of first-wave feminism and the start of the second, so I've seen a lot of the struggles up close. It really bothers me that in the attempt to be inclusive people of muslim backgrounds, the modern progressive tends to ignore the rampant sexism in Islam.
Yes, there is still a mismatch in the west between the genders, but it's much less extreme - for example, nowhere in the western world is there anything like official morality police. Women in the western world have considerably more freedom to wear whatever they like, and while bikinis are frowned on in the workplace (so are speedos, by the way), women can still wear bikinis elsewhere, out in public. The government doesn't penalise them for wearing a bikini down Main Street, and droves of women do just that, weather permitting. In some places in the west, it's legal to go topless in public as well - like NYC. Whereas before first-wave feminism, it was considered shameful to be seen in public if you were pregnant.
The west is getting better and better at getting rid of these taboos. The islamic world is not - check out photos of Iran before the revolution, and there's plenty of muslim women without head coverings. To suggest that the issue boils down to simply where you draw the line on clothing is really disingenuous.
>> Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women.
In this case it is not a social norm it is a law. For breaking law you can be prosecuted and/or imprisoned, for breaking social norms you cannot. Social norms and laws are two different things, your comparison is extremely misleading.
To make it completely clear why your comparison is misleading look at following example:
In some Muslim countries you can be executed for leaving Islam and it is not a social norm, it is a law and part of criminal code they have.
Now imagine someone from conservative Christian family (let's say in US) changing their religion. They most probably will be judged by their families and some peers, but no one can prosecute them for that.
Enforcing by law certain group or minorities wear certain clothing is a definition of oppression. If there is no choice left, that is an oppression, there is nothing to discuss here really.
Consider that a population is told that something is the One True Way all their life -- and that anyone thinking differently is evil and should be thrown in jail.
Are you really surprised that a large part of those people would agree with what they are taught? (In Iran's case, this is also asked in an interview situation where their answers probably will reach the secret police known for torture and rape.)
What you need to understand here is that wearing a hijab or niqab is often not completely "her choice". Therefore it's seem as some form of opression.
First of all,I'm not sure if Islam says is mandatory, but not all religious folks go with it side by side.
For rational people, is not a secret that women are below men in most religions, specially Islam. I personally think these clothes are another shenanigan the patriarchs that wrote the Quran, used to "protect" their women (one has several), from other men. Same with the celibacy thing.
So, even though women say they choose to wear it, IMHO, this is just the Stockholm syndrome. The reality is that women raised on Islam families suffer a lot of pressure, because in their irrational tradition, the family has to decide the live of the woman. If the woman reveals against this, there is one common consequence: Disinheritance, your family will not longer treat you as a member, etc. Sure, there are religious families more tolerable, but that's not often the case.
And there's an even worst consequence a woman can face if she reveals against family traditions: Honor killing.
So, having those consequences in mind when "choosing" to wear or not a hijab, is not choosing at all.
a US citizen do not agree with a law in Iran and will not travel to Iran because of that, ok it'here right and I agree with here, now why the Washington post is writing an article about it? You tell me to help Iran women cause? Why waiting until a us women protest to think about Iran oppressed women. Or is it fine if Iran have a dérogation for the us women but keep oppressing the local women,who cares!! right?!!
That article is an exemple of the US media and politics definition of freedom, it's only for us people everywhere in the world, all others we don't care about you ...unless you have some oil for us!!
If you don't want to play by the house rules, leave. Quit whining or finding reasons to justify your actions.
1. Iran is a guest requesting to host the event, in this case, they should keep it neutral.
2. However, if this is Iran's games and they are the house master, then invitees respect theirs.
If you're in another man's house jolly well respect him and his rules. If you don't like it leave, no one's stopping you.
I don't like shoes to be worn in my house, if you don't wish to respect it, leave.
Every sovereign nation has the right to their own set of beliefs, you don't have to like it but when you're in their country, respect it. It's their home.
Disclaimer: I grew up with people of different religions and races and even served the army alongside them. Respect and tolerance goes a long way.
The FIDE statutes and International Olympic Committee code of ethics are very clear on not allowing discrimination on sexual and religious matters. FIDE is an International Organization, If they do not respect FIDE's code, they should not apply for organizing FIDE's competitions.
If the women are required to wear the hijab to compete than why don't the male chess players wear the hijab as well?
I imagine wearing something so contrary to what a player normally wears could affect performance.
Other sports have uniform requirements so if the competition has to be held in this location and one set of players have to wear a specific uniform, in this case the hijab, then they should require all players, gender be damned, to wear the hijab.
167 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 243 ms ] threadIranian leadership is ideologically driven. They're committed to maintaining their theocracy because they're genuinely convinced it's their right from God to control women.
(Distinguishing leadership from people because the Iranian people tend to be much more pro-western.)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796
What would I know, though? :- \",
Actually this new generation of politicians (I mean Khomeini and after him) they are pretty good in changing old rules when they realize they are in losing side of the battle and not changing that rule will hurt they public figure in long run. Let me give you an instance, there is fuck load of hadith about chess itself being dirtier than alcohol (which punishment for it is death they catch you drunk 3 time), which in my opinion pretty absurd, like rest of religious beliefs. But Khomeini realized people will ask in long run what is dirty about chess ? And because it is so obvious that it is absurd, they changed the rule around 25 years ago.
My point is there is distance between something like hijab, alcohol, betting and something like chess. The idiots (mullahs) can justify (and they are aware of this fact) hijab for simple ordinary rural people (which is their only base in country other than people who earn money from this corrupt regime), but they cannot justify that even for naive people in rural area what is wrong about chess.
lets be honest, they don't give fuck about some bunch -not all of them, really small portion, I say it from my experience, right now I am student in Iran and I do regularly visit many universities in country- of student in university who shout and fight back for their rights, they would suppress them like lollipop if they try really hurt regime in any serious manner. If pressure become serious they would drop hijab rule in a day.
They may show to you they are 100% firm about their beliefs, but believe me when they realize just 1% danger (serious threat to regime nature, they don't give fuck about some chess championship tournament, what would happen? Tournament will cancel ? I bet the actual power in Iran would even be more happy if tournament gets cancelled), they would change their most basic rule if they can find a way to justify themselves to their supporters.
At the very core, Islam is about killing and forcing.
P.S. I am not saying other religions are better, they have done their fair amount of killing in their time. But west overcome the barrier, sadly middle East has not.
If you believe you have power by God's hand or by the hand of any other deity, you will justify keeping it through whatever means necessary because the circuitry involved in decision-making is not the same circuitry involved in reason.
My point was the rulers in Iran don't give fuck about any ideology and they are trying hard to use religious leverage in their benefits.
But if I understood your point correctly, I do 100% agree. Believe in something as dangerous as God , will give people illusion (they will justify in their mind) of controling of other people. Because at the very end they think they are better than others.
Update : I think there is no way to know which analysis is correct. Because at the very end in both analysis regime will do whatever they can to keep power. The only way to find out is to go through their mind. Which we cannot. In both analysis regime will do whatever they can.
In my case they don't believe in any ideology just because of the power(they changed so many rules in Islam and they will change).
In your case (if I understand correctly) they will try every thing because their religion gave them permission to do everything to keep power.
If I should give specific answer, I would not say you are wrong. I would just say there is no way to find out.
:)
Edit:
> If I should give specific answer, I would not say you are wrong. I would just say there is no way to find out.
I agree with this as well. We're all speculating, and in the end, it all manifests the same way.
Very similar to conservative politicians in US trying ban abortion or limit access to it.
This isn't an argument against the right to be able to have an abortion, but it is simply not true that embryos and fetuses have no rights either, fetal rights are a pretty big subject in ethics and morality and it is not an easy one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
the abortion = homicide idea is so flatly intellectually dishonest, im surprised to even see it mentioned here.
How is forcing someone to do something they dont want to do, not 'controlling'?
Whether that is there motivation or not is up for discussion, but it explicitly does control women.
Whether the motivation for the hijab is to control women could also be debated, but that is beside the point that it /does/ control women.
Whether there is another life in the balance also does not change the fact that it explicitly controls a woman's body.
I'm not taking a stance here on whether abortion should be legal or whether it represents a homicide of some kind, im simply stating that it does in fact control a womans body, regardless of the intent.
> How is forcing someone to do something they dont want to do, not 'controlling'?
I think you've basically made my point. According to your definition, handcuffing a woman to prevent her from murdering an innocent adult with an axe is also 'controlling' her body. I hope you'd agree that is an acceptable use of force in order to protect a life.
Now re-read radmuzom's comment and I think you'll see the absurdity of his comparison, which is what I wanted to point out.
Its a plainly ridiculous point to make, regardless of whether you believe abortion is murder. Pregnancy simply isnt the same thing as criminal punishment.
Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy would pretty clearly be a cruel or unusual punishment. Or do you believe that going through a pregnancy should be the punishment for other crimes as well?
I would advise you to acquire some actual information on how fertilized eggs are frequently self-aborted and how little a fertilized egg is like a human life.
What a weird coincidence that all the dictators that oppress their population and steal the oil money have lots of ideology... and makes lots of external enemies to blame all problems on.
And yeah, the Iranian upper classes seem even as West oriented as most any population in Western Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-wom...
EDIT: it seems my point does not come across.
I will cite the american chess champion: "I will NOT wear a hijab and support women’s oppression." Women's oppression in Iran is not just about the hijab. It's about women not being able to do what they want. This boycott is going to have strong, negative, repercussions on women sportsmanship in Iran, which is what the Iranian chessmaster said in my linked article.
It may or may not matter to those actually being oppressed. But publicizing Iran's human rights abuses and oppressive theocratic policies does matter (on some level) to Iran's elites, because it harms the country's image.
Amazing. As an American I unapologetically support this woman's choice.
There's nothing 'Brute force' about this.
Fighting for equality in a specific context doesn't mean you understand or comprehend the injustices others have faced; She never claimed to though.
"If you don't want to bear a scarf on your head" - yeah, that's what she is opposed to, wearing a scarf, not what the submission represents.
These values you're denigrating as "american" and therefore "bad" really aren't.
I am not, I strongly wish that Iran will become a more moderate country in the future. But such a boycott will only further seclude the country, whereas an international championship for women in Iran is an actual step forward. Nazi Paikidze is free to not go, but she should not say she is fighting for women's oppression.
Are you delusional, talking to sub 1/10th of a percent of the population, or referencing 100s of years ago when blacks sold other blacks as slaves?
No rational human in today's world tries to justify slavery. Inb4 you point to a small subsect of white nationalists while ignoring the small subsect of black nationalists entirely.
American southerners, black and white, aren't the mindless bigots you're painting them as.
I love that you regurgitate trivialities such as "blacks sold other blacks as slaves". Tell us more! What else have you read in Remembering Better Times Quarterly? Perhaps next you'll suggest that some former slaves had some difficulties as sharecroppers?
Ok. Fair reference I suppose, if a bit odd.
Your implication that I'm a stupid racist is noted and honestly was expected.
Curious if you have any further reference regarding my inability to read/comprehend English/history or if it was just baseless ad hominem? I feel I should be more well versed in my moral/intellectual inadequacy.
How many "confederate" flags do you own?
> Her comments were echoed by Ghoncheh Ghavami, a British-Iranian woman who spent five months in jail in Iran for campaigning to allow women to watch men’s volleyball games in stadiums.
> Ghavami, whose time in jail drew international attention, said from Tehran: “The world must hear the pro-reform voices of people inside Iran and not ignore these pleas by isolating the country.”
That's someone who's actually fighting for women's rights in Iran (and who has done for some time), and who opposes a boycott.
For FIDE this also isn't a controversial place to hold this, they held a world championship in Khadaffi's Libya, wanted to hold one in Hussein's Iraq, and their president believes in aliens and makes money doing business with Assad.
If the standard for moving the tournament because some people object to the local sartorial rules, they will never find a location. Someone will always find objection. Potentially every culture in the world is participating; they can't avoid some cultural adjustment for everyone.
I'm hesitant to go into someone else's home and tell them what is good for them; it's often ignorant (what do I know?), arrogant and becomes another kind of oppression with a long history, from missionaries to colonialists to aid workers to militaries 'freeing' other nations. Imagine Chinese players in the U.S. protesting racial prejudice - it would not be welcome and would be counterproductive.[0] Note that nobody has asked what Iranians think about it (AFAIK). I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose. Of course, the world is complex, my preference is not always an option and sometimes you have to take a stand. Is this one of those times?
In such an ideologically charged environment, using such a loaded symbol which many people use to demonize all Muslims, I don't think this is a good choice. Whatever the player's intent, it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred and oppression of Muslims. It may satisfy the choir, so to speak, but I think it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps.
Will the same player also insist on wearing a hajib at a tournament in a location in Europe where it's banned? Then I would support it; it would make a point for women's rights while fighting against anti-Muslim discrimination.[0] Other than that, there are plenty of ways for that player to protest oppression in Iran and elsewhere.
[0] To be clear, oppression in the U.S. and Europe isn't at a comparable level to Iran and other non-free countries.
What about a home consisting of a parent that abuses their children? "Missionaries, colonialists, aid workers and soldiers" sometime did free people; maybe we should focus on improving the success rate?
> Imagine Chinese players in the U.S. protesting racial prejudice
Actually, I think the liberal US media praise any racial protest. The question would be could the players back up their claims, given how much the US cares about racial justice.
> I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose.
this sounds nice, but over-tolerance is self defeating when you start tolerating intolerance. The question isn't about the freedom to wear a piece of clothing, its about the freedom to impose this requirements on others with aggressive theistic, non democratic derived authority.
> it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred and oppression of Muslims ... it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps
I not sure if this is true. You can let sleeping dogs lie, and you can ignore the problem too. I also think the crimes "Islamophobia" pales in comparison to the ills of Islam, the latter is a greater problem, not the former.
> Will the same player also insist on wearing a hijab at a tournament in a location in Europe where it's banned?
Depends on what her beliefs are. Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form of oppression, but as a way of combating it. Litter laws are a way of saying that the right to clean streets are more important that the right to litter. Hijab-bans are a way of saying reducing implicit religious oppression of women is more important than the right to religious expression. Any law or ban can be seen as "oppression", but only by looking at the context can we tell.
Do any of the hijab-banning western countries also ban Muslims, mosques, or other Islamic religious practice? If their goal was to discriminate against Muslims, why not do those things too, why just hijabs?
In contrast, Are the countries that require women to wear hijabs doing so out of respect for religious freedom? Don't mandatory hijab laws highlight the oppression, imposed on non-Muslim women too, and inform the reason for anti-hijab laws in non-Muslim countries exist?
Except when you make up strawmen and then criticize these imaginary people (see my other comment about liberals).
> the ills of Islam
The moment someone stereotypes everyone in a religion, they're wrong 99.9% of the time. Same with stereotyping 'liberals' (see my other comment). What if almost all people are individuals with their own ideas, just getting through their days, like you and people you actually know, and not ideological symbols and warriors?
I'm pretty sure the problem is the sterotypers and haters in every religion - it's the wise against the prejudiced, not one religion against another.
> Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form of oppression, but as a way of combating it
I don't think most people agree. Also, the majority generally agrees about oppression - otherwise it wouldn't happen. Lots of southerners supported slavery and then segregation.
Anyway, the strawmen and stereotypes aren't anything I can learn from, and I've got to go.
Can you elaborate? what points, what arguments, what strawmen.
> the strawmen and stereotypes aren't anything I can learn from, and I've got to go.
straw-man this, stereotype that - you avoided responding to anything specific.
You don't learn anything in an echo chamber - in this case you might learn that you're wrong.
Ugh.
In any vaguely functioning ethical calculus, forcing every single person into a dress code is nothing compared to murdering hundreds of thousands of people right next door to Iran (Iraq).
No need to focus on what people in another country are doing. Focus on solving one's own barbarism. Leave others in peace to finally rebuild their stolen freedoms.
In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam. The clothing is alien to most people who read the Washington Post, a symbol to them of a religion that's alien to them. It's an excellent representation of fear of the unknown (which is exactly what the terrorists, lacking the resources to achieve their goals any other way, want to create: Terror, fear, to drive their targets to create large-scale conflicts that the terrorists cannot create themselves and otherwise nobody in any religion would want.)
Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women. Women in the west must cover their breasts, an absurdity in some other cultures (I vaguely recall an interview with women in one non-western culture, who laughed and asked, 'are men there babies? they are so obsessed with breasts?'). In the workplace, at houses of worship, and other serious places women must cover more of their bodies - bikinis generally are frowned upon! Other countries are more strict: In India, the strong custom, if not rule, is for women to cover themselves from the neck to the wrists to ankles (except in movies and ads, which are like the West). Other religions have rules too: Many orthodox Jewish sects required women to be fully covered, including something on their heads. And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions. (And there are rules for men to, but far less attention to them.)
Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.
EDIT: Some minor edits
Something you said, not me. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
Certainly women are assaulted - mostly by men - in many countries for violating social norms about their bodies. A big part of the women's rights revolution in the U.S. was taking control of that: Women decide what they can wear (bikinis), when to have sex (birth control and sexual assault laws), when to get pregnant (birth control), when not to (abortion), when they can be touched and commented on (sexual harassment). Before, it was a bunch of men telling women what they could or couldn't do with their own bodies.
IMO, the faster that principle of basic self-determination (applied in whatever ways the local women want) spreads around the world the better, including Iran but many other countries and cultures too, and the U.S. and Europe have a ways to go themselves. As one example, some online communities in those countries (not HN but known here) encourage the abuse of women.
Besides the fact that, in the US, there certainly are churches or places of worship in which you're allowed to wear whatever the hell you want.
Again, I didn't say that, you did. Perhaps quote something I did say. Regarding your statement, I'll repeat what I said above: It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
How about Iran (the country in question) arresting women for showing hair (the problem in question) on Instagram.
The problem with trying to quote you directly is that you actually aren't saying anything of substance. You're simply being an apologist who apparently can't muster up the courage to even take a stance on way or the other. You're just offering some good old PR hedging for an oppressive regime and trying to neuter the discussion with vague allusions to moral relativism.
I'll ask again, what exactly are you trying to say? As it stands now, you're bogging down an important conversation that needs to happen with half-baked apologism.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-stones-five-women-dea...
This isn't in Iran, but doesn't hackuser's lame moral relativism argument also apply to ISIS? Isn't stoning women to death for not wearing the hijab simply part of their moral code? After all, the US doesn't allow women to show their breasts in public.
Edit: If your issue is specifically that someone implied that specifically rape/murder happens to women specifically in Iran specifically for wearing a hijab, here's a glimpse at what it means to be arrested in Iran: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-jan-june11-iranianwomen...
You can see that women get arrested for not wearing the hijab here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-...
So no, for some reason I can't seem to find an official press release from Khomeini that a specific woman was raped/murdered for not wearing a hijab. I can only point to mountains of evidence of systematic oppression and abuse, which undoubtedly includes arrest/rape/murder, and which undoubtedly includes the violation of simply not wearing a hijab.
This and prior insults make me think that talking to you really isn't valuable or worth more time. Enjoy your day.
I would like to say that if your point is simply that the hijab is an article of clothing, then yes, you're right, and no one here disagrees with you. The question here is about the legal code which requires that women wear said article of clothing. The western war against the hijab is not against cloth, it is against this legal and cultural structure. This should actually be self evident in your own posts: the west has been waging an internal war against abuse of women for decades, yet at no point was this war centered around the hijab. Obviously the war is not, never has been, and never will be about the hijab.
It has always centered around the structural problem of abuse of women. However, speaking in vague references like your own about the structural problem has proven to be unproductive. The way you eliminate structural abuse is by eliminating specific instances of abuse. One after the other after the other. For this reason, the war against abuse is endless, both in the west and abroad, as mentioned in my own comment.
There are few people who would declare that this war is won anywhere. Yet everyone can agree that tackling the specific problem of suffrage was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of abortion was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of the hijab will be a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse.
Reverting the discussion back to a philosophical one is not actually helpful, and many people find it insulting when it's done in response to a person showing enormous courage in tackling a real, practical problem. I hope that explains the knee jerk reactions you've received here.
It's not.
I would be interested in what you think about my actual words.
If you didn't make the allusion, then you didn't say anything relevant to the topic at hand.
That's not true. Don't speak for other people.
You are seeing (or hearing) dog whistles in your head, but they're not in mine or my words. What if someone wasn't interested in ideology (or actually disliked it) and just wanted to talk about the issue intelligently? What if the hajib is not an ideological statement but just an article of clothing?
All that extra baggage and meaning many attach to the hajib, and that you attach to my words, is in the eye of the beholder. It's the same thing, I think, that leads to abuse of makes innocent people (not that you are doing that, but I think one leads to another); they aren't people, they are ideological symbols of Islam, Judaism, Black, immigration, etc. We forget: They are just people, trying to go through their days.
EDIT: Edited out response to edited comment in parent. Thanks for your consideration.
In my family my mother in law is wearing hijab and if I really need to point out an oppressed in my family I would say it's my father in law ;-)
Edit: I can't respond to the post below, for whatever reason. Minorities in question would be Assyrians and Armenians, for example, who are Christians and who absolutely have to cover their heads everywhere they go: http://forum.hyeclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2144
I don't doubt there is widespread oppression in Iran, but there are so many ugly rumors that go around that I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about.
Also, the hajib symbolizes all of Islam to many Western people, so I try to be careful about conflating one government's brutality with prejudice against a world-wide religion.
We all agree that forcing by law women to wear a hijab is wrong. That's currently happening in Iran, and it's easy to find many stories from reputable sources to say this is happening.
We can disagree about how to fight that. This chess champion thinks boycotting the championship if she's forced to wear a hijab is one way. Other human rights campaigners say that a boycott is wrong.
But other people have made a further claim. They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
> They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
That wasn't the GGP's claim. Again, just trying to get some specific, real knowledge into the discussion (and for my own benefit).
EDIT: But I agree the GGP's claim isn't the main issue, and this discussion is becoming convoluted.
You're creating a strawman, and then demanding sources for it.
Not that you represent everyone in Tunisia or every Muslim in the world, but do you feel there's social pressure to wear one? Would they be looked down upon or criticized for not wearing one?
I have the freedom to wear a NASA spacesuit or a bearskin tomorrow, but the social repercussions are a big deterrent.
> The issue I'm having with that kind of discussion is that instead of pointing out an opression problem somewhere in the world it stigmatize an entire community
For what it's worth from one person on the Internet, I agree completely. It's one of my biggest worries. It's going to cause more oppression and is entirely unnecessary.
Is it acceptable to ban hijabs?
> Don't you think that's part of the reason the West is averse to the hijab?
Some of the West. Other parts of the west are fine with it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02vk6bj/high-street-hi...
I agree that many people in the West have made it a symbol (that was a major point of what I wrote). And I strongly agree that women should wear what they want.
But I think that by making it a symbol, we create more problems:
* It's become part of the narrative used by hateful and scared people to promote the dangerous, oppressive prejudice against Muslim people. Inflaming that evil is dangerous and leads directly to harm for a very large number of people.
* Many people feel so strongly about the symbol that now they impose their view of the hajib on the same women, forcing them not to wear it (which is law now in some places in the West). That's no better than forcing them to wear it.
Everyone needs to stop telling women what to wear. Hyping up this symbol isn't helping, it's doing more harm.
> Yes, it happens in the West too, albeit to a much lesser degree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it happens elsewhere.
I agree on all points.
Do you have any evidence that women are raped for not wearing the hijab? And is that happening any more than in the "enlightened Christian" countries, such as the US where people are also raped and murdered for the who they are?
http://www.rrsonline.org/?page_id=944
eg
>> Most studies reveal that approximately 50% of transgender people experience sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.48
>> The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people were three times more likely to report sexual violence and/or harassment compared to heterosexual people who reported to NCAVP in 2010.49
Surveys regularly show that people think the victims of violent sexual crime are partly to blame if they didn't fight back, or if they were in "the wrong place", or if they were intoxicated.
I would request a different cite than FrontPage Mag, which appears to put a large banner at the top of every page saying 'Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out'.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=preacher%20gay%2...
There are wackos everywhere, in every religion and town and country. When it's in our world, we have the cultural knowledge to know how much threat they really represent. When we see "Iranian Imam says ...", is that the equivalent of the Pope? Some fringe but powerful archbishop? A broad consensus? The strip mall preacher?
And not just fringe people but American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president.
I don't have much love for the pope either, but I feel that he at least has some political restrictions in west.
> American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president
Trump seems to be a little different from past candidates though, and "American leaders say hateful things" lacks magnitude - what percentage of leaders, and how was this perceived? For most, even the impression of racism is a career ender, and they are under a great deal of scrutiny.
Entirely different. If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence. But these are not the same semantics for blame; One says I should have been more diligent in avoiding harm; The other says I actually deserve harm. Conflating the two, or willingly ignoring the nuance is a liberal trick.
There are, despite liberal perception, few people that say someone intoxicated actually deserves to be assaulted, this is usually something put in peoples mouths. Meanwhile, this is very much the opinion wrt the Hijab - that the women are immodest and deserve punishment.
Show me a westerner that believes assault is a reasonable punishment for intoxication, and I'll show you crowd of westerners that despises them.
> If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence.
I think you are right about risks and outcomes, but not how it applies.
First, just in terms of your theory, what's the difference between a woman in London who doesn't cover up her skirt late at night, takes a risk, and gets assaulted, and a woman in Tehran who doesn't cover up her skirt with a hajib, takes a risk, and gets assaulted? (Bear with me ...)
* Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it', and not just to their buddies. There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude when rape victims report the crime and harassing them, to the degree that rape victims often don't report it. It's an official, if unwritten rule, to a meaningful degree.
* In Iran it's a written rule (I assume). Some in Iran will say she deserved it, as you noted for religious reasons. But I read that in Egypt, at least, a basis for that rule (I don't know how common, or if this is somehow religiously-based) is that women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist. That's pretty similar to 'she asked for it'.
I think to a great degree it may be the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society. Either way, she violated social norms - men's rules about what she can do with her body - and deserves what she gets.
So people don't really fit into this label, yet you can still say they "aren't trying to trick anyone". You can either speak about "liberals", or you can't. I said it was a "liberal trick", maybe 'leftist' is a better term.
> what's the difference between
It's hard to tell, you need to know what the relevant aspects are. Is not wearing a hijab in Tehran dangerous because of the perception that the crime is deserved? This confounds the situation where risk is both known to the degree that it is a precedent, but that the fact that it is a precedent is because of the public perception that victims deserve their treatment.
If someone lost their house betting on the stock-market, we might find them to blame for their foolishness, yet still not care to tell them to their face, due to the magnitude of the situation, unless you knew them and their situation well.
I would advise a woman in Tehran to wear the hijab if there was a risk not doing so might put them at risk. I would say they put themselves at unreasonable risk if they did otherwise - I wouldn't say 'blame' out of respect for the ambiguity of the word in such a serious context. None of this means I agree with the fact that this risk exists, or that anyone deserves to be assaulted.
> Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it' ... There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude
Who? And in what context? The US is big place, are you telling me the precedent in Tehran, and the 'unwritten rule' in the US are of the same magnitude and veracity? I'm not so sure.
In any case, if this where true, then it's bad when the US do it too - this has no bearing on Tehran, and is only if it's true.
> women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist
It is religiously based, in a place where that religious has real, unanimous, legal authority.
> the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society
Maybe so, except this thinking has no were near the same influence in the two cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidance_Patrol
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/influx-of-mora...
In the less-developed regions it's usually gangs policing with which do apply violence and these have been growing in the west also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols
You can search youtube for the results, it's way to vile and NSFW to post it on HN.
Yes, it is much, much worse than in places like the US, it is carried out by state agencies like the morality police and by pseudo-state entities like the "Basij". As others pointed out, when you.move outside the cities things often get less 'civilised'
I understand that people don't want to fall into the trap of prejudice, but things are materially worse in places like Iran, and drawing parallels with how women are treated in the west is not helpful. We have problems, we don't have the morality police or relgious militias, at least here in the UK
and there is a reason for that.
Anyway, we're making very broad, baseless statements about the opinions of hundreds of millions of people. People in my own family don't even agree on these issues.
There's this massive myth that Europe is all one culture, and it's not (you may even have heard about a sizable war in the past century that was predicated on cultural differences).
But I don't see any purpose to that. You also can unite people and get great things done together, as 13 very different colonies did in 1789. Why choose fighting with that alternative?
> you may even have heard about a sizable war in the past century that was predicated on cultural differences
I disagree. The cause of the war was one country trying to conquer the other ones. And each side was composed of countries of different cultures and languages. Germany, Japan and Italy; and the U.S., Russia, France, China, etc. on the other side.
And in fact, the EU was created to prevent another war; togetherness has succeeded: The idea of war inside the EU is now absurd.
The rich may drink and carouse in ways that would shame a frat boy.
Not true at all.
Saudi Aramco is the largest oil company in the world. It's base of operations is in Dhahran, a city in the eastern region of KSA. Aramco employs a ton of foreigners and of course want their employees to be as comfortable as possible. But this is difficult to do given KSA's strict culture. So what do they do? They build their employees an American-style suburban town outside of Dhahran proper, with its own schools, supermarkets, theatres, and so on. Women are allowed to drive within the town, and can wear whatever they want. The town is basically outside the jurisdiction of the Saudi religious police.
This is just one example. Go to Dubai and you'll see similar things. Foreigners are sometimes respected at the expense of other Arabs or Asians, and it can become discriminatory in some instances.
So next time you throw around such accusations, please think about it first.
> Women are allowed to drive within the town
picking out an exception to show tolerance is quite disingenuous, isn't it?
> Foreigners are sometimes respected at the expense of other Arabs or Asians, and it can become discriminatory in some instances.
yes and that's because of a culture promoting conformism to one standard instead of tolerance of all. you're not bringing forward an example of tolerance, but extreme conformism, which kinda gets back to the original point: they manage to be intolerant even in their mimicry of western style of life.
again, it's not about how one dresses, that's just extremely superficial to think. it's how you demand conformism, and it doesn't matter it's the hijab or the bikini, the crucial point is in the demand itself.
Your argument is that non-Western countries don't respect Western tradition and culture, while the West does. I provided two counterexamples that demonstrate non-Western countries who are willing to accept Western values, and I can provide more if you like.
Back to the hijab. No one is demanding that Westerners wear the hijab or whatever. All Muslim women are demanding is freedom to wear the hijab without being discriminated against. No one needs to build a Sharia city in America LOL
The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in fact they're the biggest ass kissers out there.
The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in fact they're the biggest ass kissers out there.
I don't know what media you're referring to, but I'd say that around here, Gulf countries are more likely to be represented as lackeys of US imperialism, and also as a place where our soccer players and managers go to make money (for example, the new manager of Al-Fujairah is my compatriot).
Well, I sometimes browse through the headlines and comments on /r/worldnews, which I think gives a good idea of what Americans think of current world issues.
Hah, Fujairah is a nice little town. Long time since I passed by as it's kind of out of the way of everything else.
In the UAE for example, there is an "unspoken" pay ladder that depends on your nationality. Keep in mind that each of these gets a different salary for the exact same position.
1. UAE citizen
2. Western national
3. Western passport holder, but Arab
4. Same, but SE Asian
5. Arab
6. Southeast Asian
Source: lived in the UAE for 14 years.
Wikipedia has a great overview over the headscarf in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country#Iran
A month ago, I went to Europe and my date had to wrap a scarf around her waist to visit a church (she was wearing shorts). That is totally cool. It's private property and they can set the rules as they please. But in public, women are free to wear what they want.
On a side note: I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles (not even the villages, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+village+women&source=...). Yes, certain Muslim population do wear hijab/niqab.
In many places it is now state-enforced law that women cannot cover their heads, faces, and/or wear hajibs/etc.
But despite that serious problem, I agree there is far more freedom in Europe. My point is that people see the clothing as threatening; they are obsessed with what it symbolizes. I agree that the serious question is not clothing but women's freedom to wear generally what they want (among many other freedoms).
> I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles
That's very interesting to me. I certainly don't have your experience and knowledge, but I've been to India. Before going we were told that was the social norm, and when we were there, mostly cities in northern India including Delhi, that's what we observed. When we'd see a western woman in a tank top and shorts, she would stand out dramatically.
Honest question: How did I misunderstand what I saw?
Here's what you will find Indian women wearing in day to day life:
1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top. 2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.
Do you have any photo of the outfit that you are talking about?
> 1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top. 2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.
I'm not talking about a specific outfit; we saw plenty of what you describe, though not midriff-baring saris without something underneath.
The photos of the saris looks familiar so perhaps I should have said elbows and not wrists. But did we see bare calfs, much less thighs; midriffs; shoulders; chest below the collarbone much less cleavage (somehow, this is a little odd to list out)? Very rarely other than a few westerners and in mass media.
Obviously you know far more than I do about it. But while I may be forgetting some subtleties, we remarked on it at the time and I know what I saw. I wonder how to make sense of it.
Is this for the same reasons as above though? When a courier delivers to a bank, they must remove their helmets, for example. That clothing can indeed, pose a threat.
It's also been enforced by police who've forced women to remove clothing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-...
There's been other violence against women for what they wear:
>> A Corsican mayor has also banned burkinis, amid tensions on the island and violent clashes between villagers and three Muslim families. Skirmishes at a beach in the commune of Sisco earlier this month left four people injured and resulted in riot police being brought in to stop a crowd of 200 Corsicans marching into a housing estate with a high population of people of North African origin, shouting “this is our home”.
(etc, there are many attacks on women who wear hijabs or niqabs)
Is that example entirely a result of the clothing, or are there other factors at play? i.e. is causality established.
My experience of visiting a Greek orthodox church was that bare legs weren't tolerated on either sex.
Isn't the problem that some people like to tell women what they can't wear?
You have Iran saying they have to wear the Hijab, and France saying they can't wear the Burqa/Niqab.
How about both governments and religions let women make their own damned choices?
I gather that is big news.
Maybe. Maybe people dislike it due to fear, fear of terrorism, and the alien, unknown religion.
But it's also a sign of oppression. I don't fear the religion that oppresses women (I'm not oppressed myself), but that doesn't i don't care. It it "alien"? yes, sort of, but also no - women were oppressed in the west too.
Does this matter? Unless by "alien" you mean either, I reject Islam only because I am not familiar with it, or if I was familiar with it I may tolerate it more I'd have to disagree; Are victims of abuse more tolerant of abuse?
> Women in the west must cover their breasts
Not true, there are places in the west this isn't the case, and if it's changing it can be in either direction. Also the reasoning is usually different, which is why mixed nude beaches still exit even in places you cannot be nude in public, i.e. you can do it with other consenting adults, just not in public where we cannot assume to have the consent of everyone - Does Islam allow this? No.
> ...other serious places women must cover more of their bodies...
And in a nightclub, you might have to dress smart and wear clothes, and why would you wear a bikini in a church?; These aren't public spaces. And since when were religions the voices of reason? You can opt out of any religion in the west, big differences.
> In India
that once (as still) has a strong caste system, acid attacks and terrible sexual violence against women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape among others)
> And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions
Uh, yes, freedom of speech/expression; You are also free to ignore those opinions, and have you own. Where is the problem?
> Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.
By everyone, you mean the handful of examples above, most of which are contextual, not restricted to clothing, and not restricted to women. Wearing a mankini to church may also be "frowned upon".
It's a sign to you of oppression, but some women prefer to wear it. I see women in the U.S. wearing it. If women are forced to wear it, that's a problem; that is oppression. It's not the clothing, it's the freedom that matters.
When you bring up exceptions and complexities in social norms in the West, realize that other cultures are just as complex in their rules. We're just not there to see it.
Now implement practical laws.
Some women prefer the hijab, some are forced to wear it. Many of those that are forced to do that also forced to hide the influence, even claim to be freely choosing it. How do we tell the difference? We're not there to see this either, especially when it's purposely hidden.
How do we solve Islamic "Stockholme Syndrome"?
What other explanation could there be for doing something you disagree with? What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
Yes, you will want freedom and liberty, no choice there; when did 'free country' mean otherwise? A "free country" allows people to be free; when people enter that society still bearing the shackles of their non-free origins they are not yet free.
> If they desire otherwise they must have been forced
must? I didn't say this, I said 'some'. If you want to talk about the issue don't misrepresent my words.
> What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
When you say you are you talking about me or society?
Again, total tolerance will tolerate intolerance. A free society still has rules and enforced motives. The difference is freedom is the goal, not religiously-defined piety.
> There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
What statement(s) are you referring to here? factual basis for which claim?
Weird reaction to an article about a non-Muslim woman who does not want to subject herself to medieval oppressive practices (let's not kid ourselves what Hijabs and Burqas really are) in order to participate in an international sports competition.
I grew up with a lesbian single mother during the tail end of first-wave feminism and the start of the second, so I've seen a lot of the struggles up close. It really bothers me that in the attempt to be inclusive people of muslim backgrounds, the modern progressive tends to ignore the rampant sexism in Islam.
Yes, there is still a mismatch in the west between the genders, but it's much less extreme - for example, nowhere in the western world is there anything like official morality police. Women in the western world have considerably more freedom to wear whatever they like, and while bikinis are frowned on in the workplace (so are speedos, by the way), women can still wear bikinis elsewhere, out in public. The government doesn't penalise them for wearing a bikini down Main Street, and droves of women do just that, weather permitting. In some places in the west, it's legal to go topless in public as well - like NYC. Whereas before first-wave feminism, it was considered shameful to be seen in public if you were pregnant.
The west is getting better and better at getting rid of these taboos. The islamic world is not - check out photos of Iran before the revolution, and there's plenty of muslim women without head coverings. To suggest that the issue boils down to simply where you draw the line on clothing is really disingenuous.
In this case it is not a social norm it is a law. For breaking law you can be prosecuted and/or imprisoned, for breaking social norms you cannot. Social norms and laws are two different things, your comparison is extremely misleading.
To make it completely clear why your comparison is misleading look at following example:
In some Muslim countries you can be executed for leaving Islam and it is not a social norm, it is a law and part of criminal code they have.
Now imagine someone from conservative Christian family (let's say in US) changing their religion. They most probably will be judged by their families and some peers, but no one can prosecute them for that.
Enforcing by law certain group or minorities wear certain clothing is a definition of oppression. If there is no choice left, that is an oppression, there is nothing to discuss here really.
My point is that many women voted for those rules. This problem could be solved in a single election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
Consider that a population is told that something is the One True Way all their life -- and that anyone thinking differently is evil and should be thrown in jail.
Are you really surprised that a large part of those people would agree with what they are taught? (In Iran's case, this is also asked in an interview situation where their answers probably will reach the secret police known for torture and rape.)
First of all,I'm not sure if Islam says is mandatory, but not all religious folks go with it side by side.
For rational people, is not a secret that women are below men in most religions, specially Islam. I personally think these clothes are another shenanigan the patriarchs that wrote the Quran, used to "protect" their women (one has several), from other men. Same with the celibacy thing.
So, even though women say they choose to wear it, IMHO, this is just the Stockholm syndrome. The reality is that women raised on Islam families suffer a lot of pressure, because in their irrational tradition, the family has to decide the live of the woman. If the woman reveals against this, there is one common consequence: Disinheritance, your family will not longer treat you as a member, etc. Sure, there are religious families more tolerable, but that's not often the case.
And there's an even worst consequence a woman can face if she reveals against family traditions: Honor killing.
So, having those consequences in mind when "choosing" to wear or not a hijab, is not choosing at all.
That article is an exemple of the US media and politics definition of freedom, it's only for us people everywhere in the world, all others we don't care about you ...unless you have some oil for us!!
1. Iran is a guest requesting to host the event, in this case, they should keep it neutral.
2. However, if this is Iran's games and they are the house master, then invitees respect theirs.
If you're in another man's house jolly well respect him and his rules. If you don't like it leave, no one's stopping you.
I don't like shoes to be worn in my house, if you don't wish to respect it, leave.
Every sovereign nation has the right to their own set of beliefs, you don't have to like it but when you're in their country, respect it. It's their home.
Disclaimer: I grew up with people of different religions and races and even served the army alongside them. Respect and tolerance goes a long way.
I imagine wearing something so contrary to what a player normally wears could affect performance.
Other sports have uniform requirements so if the competition has to be held in this location and one set of players have to wear a specific uniform, in this case the hijab, then they should require all players, gender be damned, to wear the hijab.