Darth Ghandi
Banned
I was talking about the proverb...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Swedens feminist government criticized for wearing headscarves in Iran
- Thread starter Shiggy
- Start date
- Status
I was talking about the proverb...
MistakenMobius
Member
How do u think homosexuals member of the delegation were feeling being in a country that has stellar records about LGBT rights?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Thats my issue with this. Call out Sweden for this, but this obviously is a very pointed criticism at these women. The solidarity picture seals it. They're in control of what happens in their country and that should still be applauded. Article diminishes them which I dont think is fair at all.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
That's something that goes both ways.
radios shipping overview
Member
Are you talking about the same people with these two paragraphs?
And? What's your point? They shouldn't have gone?
Spaced Harrier
Member
I remember as a child President Mary Robinson not wearing a headscarf meeting the Pope and and why should she?
Nor did President Mary McAleese wear it in Saudi Arabia.
(Though I'd question whether we should send anyone there in the first place.)
Nor did President Mary McAleese wear it in Saudi Arabia.
(Though I'd question whether we should send anyone there in the first place.)
VendettaRed07
Member
Yes.
It was their choice to appease a regressive policy and custom for a religion their are not apart of. But it was a bad one, I think.
I don't think it's wrong to complain about it after they specifically announced a "feminist foreign policy" but also true that dealing with Iran despite all the human rights violation is a much bigger issue.
I'm confounded by some of the answers here.
If I decide to visit your house, I'll very much make certain to respect your rules. If I have a problem with how you run your house, I'll make sure to let you know and ultimately not visit. It's pretty basic ettiquette at play here. Had this been the other way around (if the Iranians had visited Sweden), then we'd be having a different discussion, but that's not what's going on here. Sweden deems that trade and a healthy relationship with Iran is worth doing, so that's why they're doing it.
They realise this themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/13/swedens-feminist-government-criticized-for-wearing-headscarves-in-iran/?utm_term=.82423945fa3c
If I decide to visit your house, I'll very much make certain to respect your rules. If I have a problem with how you run your house, I'll make sure to let you know and ultimately not visit. It's pretty basic ettiquette at play here. Had this been the other way around (if the Iranians had visited Sweden), then we'd be having a different discussion, but that's not what's going on here. Sweden deems that trade and a healthy relationship with Iran is worth doing, so that's why they're doing it.
They realise this themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/13/swedens-feminist-government-criticized-for-wearing-headscarves-in-iran/?utm_term=.82423945fa3c
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Diplomacy is having to put up with someone you don't agree with. Otherwise there would be need for diplomacy. So, you have this country that is in the middle of a conflict zone and you want their support. Do you A) boycott them and isolate them, or B) play friendly so that there is a cultural exchange (don't worry, freedom always win people over eventually) so that both countries can benefit?
Heck, Iran was almost one of the cool countries before their revolution and when freedom was lost. They'll be back some day. We want them as allies even though they're going through a rough spot.
Heck, Iran was almost one of the cool countries before their revolution and when freedom was lost. They'll be back some day. We want them as allies even though they're going through a rough spot.
The mistakes you make are that a) it's not a two way street, as Iran as shown multiple times. You come to their house - you must confirm to their stances. They come to your house - you also must confirm to their stances (see handshake issue and italian statues). And b) that both things are equal when they are clearly not. There's a huge difference between having to accept that people live in a free society vs having to accept that you are a second-tier citizen because of your gender and thus have to cover yourself up.
Of course it was a pragmatic decisions because they want the money aka business deals and connections. Doesn't make the bending over backwards any better though from a moral perspective.
It's really a shame because they're young and would have so much potential as a modern nation, yet are held back by the old fundamentalists.
they didn't ask for them to be removed tho iirc
Perhaps you mean before the US and the UK sponsored a coup that removed the democratic [ish] system and reinstalled the Shah? Because the Islamic revolution was a direct consequence of that
Iran is a theocracy. So both.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Yep the damage done by colonials. It's insane.
And isn't the Islamic revolution a partial recon? After revolution the liberal element were sidelined then disappeared but were ultimately integral in it succeeding?
From everyone I've heard who has traveled there the people are wonderful and generous. I really feel for them.
Quite the opposite, I'd argue that not forcing people to adhere to certain customs if they don't want to is perfecty in line with liberal Swedish values. We don't think that Swedish men forcefully grabbing the hands of women who don't want to shake hands with them as striking some kind of blow for women's rights, for instance. We rightfully consider it borderline asssault.
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2010-06-23/lakare-tvingade-patient-skaka-hand
As for the Iran visit, we also have a tradition of respecting the rules of the host even if we don't necessarily share them. We'd take our shoes off when entering their home even if we'd had a habit of keeping them on in our own, for instance. I understand why this can come off as weak and hypocritical, but I don't think that at all - I think it's perfectly in line with our values.
There's an argument to be made that they should have made a political statement by refusing to wear the hijabs. However, I trust them to have had a good enough reason to choose not to.
This I can agree with, but I also don't see how adding ourselves to their long list of percieved enemies would necessarily change that. The trade agreement is part of a long term effort to strengthen peaceful relations, if that helps us influence them further down the line, the hijab wearing during visits could very well be worth it. Something I'm sure the delegation took into account.
| Praxis |
Banned
When in Rome.
If you don't like it don't go. I know I wouldn't.
If you don't like it don't go. I know I wouldn't.
Euh, I was in Iran a few months ago and wearing scarves is obligated by law (in public places), it's not a choice...
You dont' do it out of coutesy but because you have to. Police will come to you and tell you to wear one if you don't.
Once you are at home or with family you are free to go as you want.
Yeah, it's a great country with friendly and open people who are, contrary to how media might show them, look up to western culture - especially young people who would want their country to be a lot more liberal.
But they are also very proud of their country, and dislike the huge bias other parts of the world have against it.
You dont' do it out of coutesy but because you have to. Police will come to you and tell you to wear one if you don't.
Once you are at home or with family you are free to go as you want.
Yeah, it's a great country with friendly and open people who are, contrary to how media might show them, look up to western culture - especially young people who would want their country to be a lot more liberal.
But they are also very proud of their country, and dislike the huge bias other parts of the world have against it.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Sweden usually hasn't let progressive politics get in the way of good business. See their arms exports to some shadier countries.
Not that I blame them, Sweden knows how to handle economics better than most countries.
Ever since learning more about Iran I've considered them a great people stuck behind an oppressive regime. Unlike some of the nearby failed states in the middle east, I think democracy would actually work there if someone got rid of the religious regime/revolutionary guard.
But then Saudi Arabia would probably start meddling to ruin everything.
That's exactly the problem. Western societies should not support this inequality.
That's a false equivalence as those are separate issues and not in any way connected with this. They have nothing to do with what is going on here. You can't point at other directions to justify your shitty behaviour. You're still being shitty.
So you do not like how they run their country. Great. You still have to conform to their rules and laws though if you want to visit. Just because you have grievences with how they run their country, does not justify you to do whatever you want if you decide to visit. No one is forcing you.
Well, if you don't like it, don't visit. It's as easy as that.
Toby Dammit
Banned
absolutely ridiculous
how people can have sympathy for the Iranian government is beyond me
Vigilant Walrus
Member
The overarching point here that I would like to touch on is this: The muslim world is not monolithic and it is not in agreement regardless if there should be cultural reforms to the female headdress.
Many muslims believe that muslim communities internally have to make the revolution if it chooses to abandon that cultural aspect. Many muslim feels it's the moral obligation of side actors to not allow the oppression to continue.
And both sides have their own narrative to drive home about women who wants to wear the scarf.
In the end it is impossible for Sweden to do the right thing, because the world is split on the solution.
In this instance Sweden decided that it cannot force other countries to reform. Iran is a country that stands up for things that goes against everything Sweden stands for. Capital punishment, torture, inhumane incarceration, press suppression, no separateion between church and state funded terrorism.
Swedes looks past it because it has national interests and alone it is not going to alter to Iran. Sweden is a small country which while significant, has its status and quality of wealth through diplomatic deals. To ignore the transactions and business dealings with impure states would have a significantly negative impact on the Swedish economy.
It begs a unsolvable question; How bad does a country have to be before you refuse profit and financial security to deal with them?
The cynical truth is that we look the other way when it comes to capitalism. We set aside or ideological differences because we can both make money.
Sometimes we go in alliances with scrupilous countries because it makes our country more secure. Iran is powerful. It is the Shia stronghold of the world. It is a staging center Shias all over the world and it's the main enemy of the deplorable statehoods in SA and Israel.
As a result these 3 countries create a unholy axis of fuckery that gets fed steroids by western powers selling them more and more arms to destroy one another. It extends the conflicts artistically and creates ripple effects throughout the entire region.
This is not just a middle eastern thing either. We looked away during the Iraq invasion and assisted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands over complete bullshit that didn't held up in any court of law. Even today, no US president has ever called the Iraq war more than a mistake, despite a civilian tally of between 500,000-1,000,000 people. Or China who is doing cultural cleansing through immigration in Tibet, and systemic corrupt overthrows in regions like Hong Kong.
A country like Sweden cannot stand up to these powers, or even Iran. It is small and decides to make a buck. If it didn't, 20 other EU countries would step up to sell to Iran. Progressive ideals has its place, but you cannot replace that with the need for hard wealth that strengthes your country directly as opposed to good will.
Many muslims believe that muslim communities internally have to make the revolution if it chooses to abandon that cultural aspect. Many muslim feels it's the moral obligation of side actors to not allow the oppression to continue.
And both sides have their own narrative to drive home about women who wants to wear the scarf.
In the end it is impossible for Sweden to do the right thing, because the world is split on the solution.
In this instance Sweden decided that it cannot force other countries to reform. Iran is a country that stands up for things that goes against everything Sweden stands for. Capital punishment, torture, inhumane incarceration, press suppression, no separateion between church and state funded terrorism.
Swedes looks past it because it has national interests and alone it is not going to alter to Iran. Sweden is a small country which while significant, has its status and quality of wealth through diplomatic deals. To ignore the transactions and business dealings with impure states would have a significantly negative impact on the Swedish economy.
It begs a unsolvable question; How bad does a country have to be before you refuse profit and financial security to deal with them?
The cynical truth is that we look the other way when it comes to capitalism. We set aside or ideological differences because we can both make money.
Sometimes we go in alliances with scrupilous countries because it makes our country more secure. Iran is powerful. It is the Shia stronghold of the world. It is a staging center Shias all over the world and it's the main enemy of the deplorable statehoods in SA and Israel.
As a result these 3 countries create a unholy axis of fuckery that gets fed steroids by western powers selling them more and more arms to destroy one another. It extends the conflicts artistically and creates ripple effects throughout the entire region.
This is not just a middle eastern thing either. We looked away during the Iraq invasion and assisted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands over complete bullshit that didn't held up in any court of law. Even today, no US president has ever called the Iraq war more than a mistake, despite a civilian tally of between 500,000-1,000,000 people. Or China who is doing cultural cleansing through immigration in Tibet, and systemic corrupt overthrows in regions like Hong Kong.
A country like Sweden cannot stand up to these powers, or even Iran. It is small and decides to make a buck. If it didn't, 20 other EU countries would step up to sell to Iran. Progressive ideals has its place, but you cannot replace that with the need for hard wealth that strengthes your country directly as opposed to good will.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
Some cold hard truth here.
Just like we shouldn't do business with any country that is supporting inequality like gay marriage, LGBT rights, pro death penalty etc?
Shit like this makes it harder for people aware of the imperialist and colonial past of non-western countries to speak out against cultural practices in those same countries they might disagree with. Jesus Christ, Iran was not one of the cool countries before the Islamic revolution unless you count having an oppressive authoritarian regime with a murderous secret police installed for economic and geopolitical purposes by the US and the UK as vital to being 'cool'. Brush up on your fucking history.
Anyway, I'd like to see countries with legalized gay marriage and a strong feminist bend to more actively promote those values internally and abroad. I don't see anything wrong with wearing local dress when in another country but not when that local dress is government enforced. The discussion should, however, always be about how we express and promote our values. People talking about Iranian representatives not shaking hands or asking for special treatment often sound like far-right assholes going on about getting 'cucked'. Our values and our tolerance should never be compromised because of the values or (in)tolerance of others.
Spaced Harrier
Member
They let down every woman in Sweden but far far more importantly they let down every woman in Iran.
Here's some actual feminists, in Iran:
Here's some actual feminists, in Iran:
Of course it is connected because it makes the whole "you have to adapt to the local customs"-arguement fall apart, as they(iranian politicians) are not "adapting to the local customs" when they come to visit.
We are not talking about random tourists here but government officials.
Well thanks for the advice, I won't. Until things change dramatically over there.
I didn't say pre-islamic revolution Iran was awesome, but that's it's a shame they are being held back nowadays by old fundamentalist psychopaths.
At the risk of sounding arrogant: 95 % of the world has shadier governments than ours. If we let that be a limiting factor for trade, we'd starve. The arms export, for instance, is supposed to allow us to funnel enough money back into our own defence to make sure that we don't have to either end up invaded by or dependent on said shadier governments.
Well yes, the last point isn't really in play anymore because our defence is now totally inadequate. But that was the original spirit behind our exports and worked well enough until after the Soviet Union collapsed.
ClosingADoor
Member
If its a private visit, adapt. If you are there in official capacity, don't go along with clear sexist laws. Criticism here is fair I think.
What about male politicians? What are their obligations?
Yes, I agree. We shouldn't.
If Iran isn't doing it, then they're being shitty. How does that in any way change the fact in this case? Sweden would still be shitty if they ignored it.
And how does that change the fact that they have to respect the laws of the country that they're visiting?
ClosingADoor
Member
They should demand their female colleagues be treated the same, and Iran has no business in demanding only men attend. If the politician is a women and she has business there, then she needs to be treated the same as a male politician.
(In that case we shouldn't have done any business with the US until a few years ago)
I'm of the idea you can help Iran better by including them in the modern world, it will make the regime less powerfull.
By isolating them you aren't helping the people of Iran, you aren't doing "the good thing" because it seems like a good stance morally. By all means support equality - but don't isolate the country.
Showing that women are there to make big business deals might help more then making a stance of not going there because of the headscarves.
So if they send an all-male delegation they don't need to do anything? My problem is that the criticism seems to be asynchronous.
Skellig Gra
Member
Not surprised at the outrage but this is international diplomacy not a Facebook argument. You respect people's customs as much as possible when you are on their home soil.
You are equating both "Not shaking a womans hand / having naked statues hidden" and "forcing women to wear headscares and long clothes" as "shitty" implying it's on the same level when it is clearly not. We don't live in a world where somehow all aspects of all cultures are on equal footing. Treating women as lesser humans is on a completely different level and shouldnt be catered to.
Well technically they don't because most of them, assuming they're on a special mission, will actually have diplomatic immunity.
ClosingADoor
Member
But you don't sent an all male delegation, because Sweden has women in government, they have business there so they should make the visit. If the government only sents men instead, that would be bad also.
Sunster
Member
Our Minister of Defence in Saudi-Arabia. Definitely one of her better moments. Why should we bow to their regressive gender politics ?
especially when they don't even ask you to. like, we are all hating on Iran here but did they even ask them to headscarf-up?
Enosh
Member
yep in a normal situation them wearing a head scarf would be nothing special
but they declared their intentions to "promote a gender equality perspective internationally, and to adopt a feminist foreign policy in which equality between women and men is a fundamental aim." and were willing to call out the US president on it (I'm sure that wasn't the most diplomatic way to do it either)
yet when it comes to any non western country they cave in immediately
but they declared their intentions to "promote a gender equality perspective internationally, and to adopt a feminist foreign policy in which equality between women and men is a fundamental aim." and were willing to call out the US president on it (I'm sure that wasn't the most diplomatic way to do it either)
yet when it comes to any non western country they cave in immediately
I think you're missing my point. Not respecting your host that has invited you to his or her home is shitty behavior, period. It ends there.
That doesn't change the fact that they still can be expelled.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Bunch of men criticizing women for not being feminist enough.
It doesn't, if "disrespecting your host" would mean subjugating under ridiculous customs that have you as less-worthy human.
Sure.
radios shipping overview
Member
^^^^^^^^^
My problem, which is why I chose that example, is that the criticism is asynchronous. All this is without taking into account diplomacy.
Whether or not these politicians made the correct decision is another question altogether.
Well, the second article features criticism by Masih Alinejad, so not quite.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked