Support NeoGAF

[You Are Viewtiful]

I really think this discussion gets more interesting once you think about how women who wear headdresses in the west are a group who are attacked often cause of that headdress.

It's two sides of the same coin. The common theme here is that women aren't allowed to wear the clothing of their choice, because of "customs" that are often set by, surprise, surprise: men.

 

[pashmilla]

It's two sides of the same coin. The common theme here is that women aren't allowed to wear the clothing of their choice, because of "customs" that are often set by, surprise, surprise: men.

Telling a woman what to wear is oppressive! We'll combat this by telling women what to wear!

Ah, logic. I almost gave myself a hernia trying to explain to my uncle why banning the burkini is just as sexist as the burkini itself.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

It's two sides of the same coin. The common theme here is that women aren't allowed to wear the clothing of their choice, because of "customs" that are often set by, surprise, surprise: men.

Well the thing is that a lot of muslim feminists are positive to the hijab in Sweden.
So it seems the discussion has become somewhat of a modern colonialism.

 

[ant_]

Well the thing is that a lot of muslim feminists are positive to the hijab in Sweden.
So it seems the discussion has become somewhat of a modern colonialism.

We aren't talking about Sweden, where individuals have freedom and the right to make their own choice. We're talking about Iran, where women are treated on a different standard than men by the law. There's no 'colonialism' here. Unless you think believing in basic human rights is colonialism?

 

[Darth Ghandi]

We aren't talking about Sweden, where individuals have freedom and the right to make their own choice. We're talking about Iran, where women are treated on a different standard than men by the law. There's no 'colonialism' here. Unless you think believing in basic human rights is colonialism?

I think you should read up on modern colonialism regarding headdresses and how that ties into the larger picture of Islamophobia.
This whole thread is brimming with it.

 

[ant_]

I think you should read up on modern colonialism regarding headdresses and how that ties into the larger picture of Islamophobia.
This whole thread is brimming with it.

Care to expand? There is something 'islamophobic' about rejecting the legal mandate of wearing a hijab?

 

[Skyzard]

Care to expand? There is something 'islamophobic' about rejecting the legal mandate of wearing a hijab?

Nah legally forcing the hijab is fucked up, similarly legally requiring women to remove burkinis in France is as fucked up.

Interestingly, it wasn't the case in previous generations. Similar to Iraq, after western interventions fucked over the country, people turned more and more to religion.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Care to expand? There is something 'islamophobic' about rejecting the legal mandate of wearing a hijab?

This is a great place to start.
https://troublesomethirtiesblog.wor...ijab-how-the-hijab-became-a-political-symbol/

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Also the people who criticize this never talk about how one of the representatives was from one of Swedens biggest unions who talked about workers right and the rights of women.

 

[Dude Abides]

There's a gross western imperialist angle to suggesting elected diplomats, or anyone else really, should go into a foreign and autonomous country and fail to comply with or disrespect the host's customs.

I find Iran's social policies appalling, which is why I would criticize their government, avoid going to that country and pressure my elected representatives to voice these concerns in my government. But that's it.

These diplomats should perhaps be criticized for patronizing a country whose human rights are subpar just to sell some damn buses – but to suggest they should do what they want in a country that is not theirs is WRONG, lest we forget the destruction white western society has already caused in this region and elsewhere when they've tried to force their ideals.

Yeah, these people not wearing headscarves is basically Mandatory Palestine all over again.

 

[APF]

I missed the part where he was required to wear that as a condition of his visit.

Wearing something as a bit of cultural tourism isn't the same thing as wearing it because the host country makes it legally compulsory.

Wait, your point was that turbans are legally compulsory in Saudi Arabia? If not, then why make the comment about male diplomats not wearing them?

 

[Dude Abides]

Wait, your point was that turbans are legally compulsory in Saudi Arabia? If not, then why make the comment about male diplomats not wearing them?

My point was that diplomats are generally not expected to conform to the particular modes of dress of the countries they visit, nor should they be. Unless they're women in Iran, apparently, because reasons.

 

[ant_]

This is a great place to start.
https://troublesomethirtiesblog.wor...ijab-how-the-hijab-became-a-political-symbol/

The best source is an editorial that illustrates some points but ultimately provides nothing of value to this conversation. It attempts to skirt around the point of female rights in Islamic countries and points to "fantasies of Westerners." I don't doubt the fantasies and brutality of westerners as they interacted with Islamic cultures throughout history.

But please, please, please do not tell me you are suggesting that the hijab is a sign of "women empowerment" in Iran. I can understand how the hijab may be skewed to represent empowerment in Western society - where a woman has a freedom to express her individual viewpoint. But when the law mandates that women remain covered, do not attempt to posit that it's somehow related to empowerment. This doesn't even begin to mention how women are treated in marriage / divorce in Iran.

This has nothing to do with colonialism. There are womens rights movements within Iran that detest this treatment which was re-instituted after the Islamic Revolution. This is, as the thread initially started out, a concern with feminism. If one is concerned about feminism throughout the world, they should shine their spotlight on the Middle East.

 

[APF]

My point was that diplomats are generally not expected to conform to the particular modes of dress of the countries they visit, nor should they be.

But--depending on the country and their customs in dealing with foreign envoys and diplomats--they are expected to conform to local customs (especially laws!), and, as I demonstrated, often do so when it's not required but appreciated (even men!).

 

[Dude Abides]

But--depending on the country and their customs in dealing with foreign envoys and diplomats--they are expected to conform to local customs (especially laws!), and, as I demonstrated, often do so when it's not required but appreciated (even men!).

What local customs are diplomats visiting the US expected to adhere to?

Again, if you don't see the difference between diplomats voluntarily wearing something that is normal in the host country as a form of cultural exchange and the host country requiring diplomats to do so I don't know what to tell you. If visitors from a Muslim nation visit a country where it was customary to drink alcohol do you think they should do so?

 

[APF]

What local customs are diplomats visiting the US expected to adhere to?

Do you mean beyond accepting our culture and laws?

If visitors from a Muslim nation visit a country where it was customary to drink alcohol do you think they should do so?

They should do whatever they believe will equate to the most acceptable balance between their individual belief system and their diplomatic and political goals.

 

[TTOOLL]

Telling a woman what to wear is oppressive! We'll combat this by telling women what to wear!

Ah, logic. I almost gave myself a hernia trying to explain to my uncle why banning the burkini is just as sexist as the burkini itself.

No, sorry, but you're wrong. See, there is some kind of order here and it's important. Banning burkini is not sexist because FIRST and foremost there is a culture that oppresses women by letting men dictating how they should behave and what they should wear.

This is the base here, this is sexist, this is oppressive. By banning the burkini you are breaking men's control over what women should wear, therefore it's not sexist.

I won't even start talking about how women don't wear the burkini by choice.

 

[Jeels]

No, sorry, but you're wrong. See, there is some kind of order here and it's important. Banning burkini is not sexist because FIRST and foremost there is a culture that oppresses women by letting men dictating how they should behave and what they should wear.

This is the base here, this is sexist, this is oppressive. By banning the burkini you are breaking men's control over what women should wear, therefore it's not sexist.

I won't even start talking about how women don't wear the burkini by choice.

Why is this becoming a burkini thread?

Why can't you just let whoever wants to wear what they want wear what they want, as modest or immodest as you consider it or regardless of what non white culture is comes from that you are apparently afraid of.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do you mean beyond accepting our culture and laws?

I don't know what "accepting our culture" is supposed to mean. When Saudis visit they wear the clothes from their home country. They don't change clothes for us.

They should do whatever they believe will equate to the most acceptable balance between their individual belief system and their diplomatic and political goals.

Ok, so if Sweden had decided they wouldn't wear the scarves, you'd have no problem with it. Is that correct?

 

[pashmilla]

No, sorry, but you're wrong. See, there is some kind of order here and it's important. Banning burkini is not sexist because FIRST and foremost there is a culture that oppresses women by letting men dictating how they should behave and what they should wear.

This is the base here, this is sexist, this is oppressive. By banning the burkini you are breaking men's control over what women should wear, therefore it's not sexist.

I won't even start talking about how women don't wear the burkini by choice.

Mm, sorry, but no, banning the burkini is sexist with a dash of racism to boot. Women being told they're "too covered up" and made to undress is profoundly disturbing. So what, we don't wear enough and we're sluts, we wear too much and we're terrorists? We can't win and men are not fucking helping. If a woman is being forced to wear a burkini by her husband, banning it won't magically make him realise how messed up it is. He'll just stop letting her go out. And, just like the hijab, many women DO wear the burkini by choice.

 

[TTOOLL]

Why is this becoming a burkini thread?

Why can't you just let whoever wants to wear what they want wear what they want, as modest or immodest as you consider it or regardless of what non white culture is comes from that you are apparently afraid of.

You must tell this to other people from a certain religion, not me, pal. If you have the courage to do so, of course.

 

[Dude Abides]

I've noticed that Americans who complain about people wearing hijabs or whatever never seem to get exercised about Christian sects who require head coverings, or Orthodox Jews.

 

[pashmilla]

I've noticed that Americans who complain about people wearing hijabs or whatever never seem to get exercised about Christian sects who require head coverings, or Orthodox Jews.

That's because they use concern trolling over women's rights as an excuse to be racist and islamaphobic whoops

 

[Magicgamer101]

Do people actually talk with female muslims and ask them their views? This thread just seems like people pushing their own agenda of Islamophobia. There are definitely female muslims who willingly wear the hijab.

Having to cover your hair as a woman in Iran shouldnt be compulsory by the law though.

 

[ant_]

I've noticed that Americans who complain about people wearing hijabs or whatever never seem to get exercised about Christian sects who require head coverings, or Orthodox Jews.

The attempt to try and compare the lawful requirement of wearing a headcovering in Iran to the religious practices of Orthodox Jews is laughable. I care about women that are treated differently in all religions. In most western countries, however, the women have the right to choose and are not mandated to be treated differently by law.

That's because they use concern trolling over women's rights as an excuse to be racist and islamaphobic whoops

Stop with this nonsense. If you want to have an argument, make a decent point. Stop with this virtue signaling.

 

[Dude Abides]

The attempt to try and compare the lawful requirement of wearing a headcovering in Iran to the religious practices of Orthodox Jews is laughable. I care about women that are treated differently in all religions. In most western countries, however, the women have the right to choose and are not mandated to be treated differently by law.

Good thing I wasn't comparing them, then. I was speaking of people who support bans on the various forms of head covering associated with Muslims or the people who claim they're inherently sexist.

 

[ant_]

Good thing I wasn't comparing them, then. I was speaking of people who support bans on the various forms of head covering associated with Muslims or the people who claim they're inherently sexist.

My mistake, I apologize. I'm getting frustrated over here. I agree with you; I don't support the banning of the hijab even though I detest it's origins. I think it's the wrong way to approach the problem.

 

[APF]

I don't know what "accepting our culture" is supposed to mean.

But you do know what accepting our laws means, right?

Ok, so if Sweden had decided they wouldn't wear the scarves, you'd have no problem with it. Is that correct?

Apparently you have not been following my posts in this thread.

 

[pashmilla]

The attempt to try and compare the lawful requirement of wearing a headcovering in Iran to the religious practices of Orthodox Jews is laughable. I care about women that are treated differently in all religions. In most western countries, however, the women have the right to choose and are not mandated to be treated differently by law.



Stop with this nonsense. If you want to have an argument, make a decent point. Stop with this virtue signaling.

I mean, the whole thing about women being forced to have their heads covered for worship in a bunch of Christian denominations is pretty shitty but no one ever gets up in arms about that. The forced wearing of the hijab is shit. People using that as an excuse to be racist and islamaphobic is also shit. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Dude Abides]

But you do know what accepting our laws means, right?

You do know that asking rhetorical questions rather than just stating your point is obnoxious, right?

Apparently you have not been following my posts in this thread.

Er, no, why would I? I made a comment and you responded. I'm not going to go research everything you've said on the topic.

 

[ant_]

I mean, the whole thing about women being forced to have their heads covered for worship in a bunch of Christian denominations is pretty shitty but no one ever gets up in arms about that. The forced wearing of the hijab is shit. People using that as an excuse to be racist and islamaphobic is also shit. That's what I'm saying.

No one is being racist or 'islamophobic' in this thread. The doctrine of Islam can be criticized, just as I criticize the doctrine of other religions that denigrate their subjects.

??? I wasn't talking about you? I was talking about people in general?

It remains baseless claim.

 

[pashmilla]

No one is being racist or 'islamophobic' in this thread. The doctrine of Islam can be criticized, just as I criticize the doctrine of other religions that denigrate their subjects.

??? I wasn't talking about you? I was talking about people in general?

 

[Jeels]

You must tell this to other people from a certain religion, not me, pal. If you have the courage to do so, of course.

I tell that to Muslims all the time, because I am one PAL.

You aren't any better than the Muslims I need to tell.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

How did no one make a joke about all the buses the Swedes are selling to throw Iran's women under.

Slippin'.

 

[APF]

You do know that asking rhetorical questions rather than just stating your point is obnoxious, right?




Er, no, why would I? I made a comment and you responded. I'm not going to go research everything you've said on the topic.

At least we still have mindless hostility between us.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

The best source is an editorial that illustrates some points but ultimately provides nothing of value to this conversation. It attempts to skirt around the point of female rights in Islamic countries and points to "fantasies of Westerners." I don't doubt the fantasies and brutality of westerners as they interacted with Islamic cultures throughout history.

But please, please, please do not tell me you are suggesting that the hijab is a sign of "women empowerment" in Iran. I can understand how the hijab may be skewed to represent empowerment in Western society - where a woman has a freedom to express her individual viewpoint. But when the law mandates that women remain covered, do not attempt to posit that it's somehow related to empowerment. This doesn't even begin to mention how women are treated in marriage / divorce in Iran.

This has nothing to do with colonialism. There are womens rights movements within Iran that detest this treatment which was re-instituted after the Islamic Revolution. This is, as the thread initially started out, a concern with feminism. If one is concerned about feminism throughout the world, they should shine their spotlight on the Middle East.

Well a big part of the people who have criticized this in Sweden do have the same idea that headdreasses are bad.
I have noticed that the same people who use have no interest in feminism in other ways then the potential use to shit on brown people and women at the same time.
That is a important facet of this.

 

[verbatimo]

Veiled government a slap in the face to the oppressed women

To the delegates of a feminist government take on the veil means yield to an ideology that does not believe in women's right to do anything other than to cover, bear children and satisfying her husband's excesses. Although Ann Linde's attempt to justify his and the other female delegates the veil, their decision to put on veils in itself, can not be interpreted otherwise than that the white flag before the Islamist misogyny.


http://www.expressen.se/debatt/beslojad-regering-ett-slag-i-ansiktet-mot-fortryckta-kvinnor/

 

[Sijil]

These are the laws, respect them and move on. If not then take your trade deals elsewhere, this is Sweden coming to Iran to cut a deal not the other way around. If you think even the Swedish government is going to put some political agenda before economic and trade deals, you're massively mistaken.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Sweden is not tolerant anymore. It is getting seperate bathtimes for men and woman cause of religion for example.
No wonder its got a "good reputation" from Iran.

Fake news everyone!

 

[Goodstyle]

This reminds me of how we never criticize how Muslim religious leaders preach anti gay rhetoric due to it being construed as colonialism. We give different standards to groups the West has screwed in the past.

 

[Jeels]

This reminds me of how we never criticize how Muslim religious leaders preach

Except we do all the time, particularly in the west. there's been a huge change in what I hear during sermons in the mosque Can't speak for outside of the west though.

 

[ant_]

Well a big part of the people who have criticized this in Sweden do have the same idea that headdreasses are bad.
I have noticed that the same people who use have no interest in feminism in other ways then the potential use to shit on brown people and women at the same time.
That is a important facet of this.

Do you want to point these people out or are they going to remain conjecture? I can grab random facts out of thin air, too.

Your idea that people are using this as a "sneaky way" to attack minorities and women is ludicrous. Maybe, you know, people just care about the issue and are consistent with promoting feminism throughout the world?

 

[mckmas8808]

This is awful. They are not tourists.
They are elected representatives.

If Hilary was President should she wear a headscarf?

To some degree, yes! That's not a big deal.

There's a gross western imperialist angle to suggesting elected diplomats, or anyone else really, should go into a foreign and autonomous country and fail to comply with or disrespect the host's customs.

I find Iran's social policies appalling, which is why I would criticize their government, avoid going to that country and pressure my elected representatives to voice these concerns in my government. But that's it.

These diplomats should perhaps be criticized for patronizing a country whose human rights are subpar just to sell some damn buses – but to suggest they should do what they want in a country that is not theirs is WRONG, lest we forget the destruction white western society has already caused in this region and elsewhere when they've tried to force their ideals.

This is totally gross, I agree. Western imperialist is terrible. Headscarfs aren't something that people should be pissed at.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Veiled government a slap in the face to the oppressed women

To the delegates of a feminist government take on the veil means yield to an ideology that does not believe in women's right to do anything other than to cover, bear children and satisfying her husband's excesses. Although Ann Linde's attempt to justify his and the other female delegates the veil, their decision to put on veils in itself, can not be interpreted otherwise than that the white flag before the Islamist misogyny.


http://www.expressen.se/debatt/beslojad-regering-ett-slag-i-ansiktet-mot-fortryckta-kvinnor/

Yeah, right..

The funny thing is how the people have a huge double standard regarding these matters.
A year or two back or foreign minister Margot Wallström criticized Saudi and got a ton of flack cause it could loose business.
Now the situation is the other way around.
Some people just wanna shit on everything.


And I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding the fact that the Swedish ministers DID not only talk about womens rights but also had one of the biggest union leaders meet with Iranian Unions representativs?

Do you want to point these people out or are they going to remain conjecture? I can grab random facts out of thin air, too.

Your idea that people are using this as a "sneaky way" to attack minorities and women is ludicrous. Maybe, you know, people just care about the issue and are consistent with promoting feminism throughout the world?

I see many posters in this thread (some who have been banned) who always try and shit on Muslims if possible.
But lets for a second give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really care about the issues that face women then we ought to have a discussion regarding how Sweden should deal with this.
My belief is that Sweden can make more strides for feminism thought dialog then making a grand stand that won't do anything but sour relations.
Now please take inte acount that the ministers also had representativs who spoke regarding womens rights and union rights.
Could you please explain how a confrontational attitude would help?

 

[verbatimo]

Yeah, right..

The funny thing is how the people have a huge double standard regarding these matters.
A year or two back or foreign minister Margot Wallström criticized Saudi and got a ton of flack cause it could loose business.
Now the situation is the other way around.
Some people just wanna shit on everything.


And I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding the fact that the Swedish ministers DID not only talk about womens rights but also had one of the biggest union leaders meet with Iranian Unions representativs?




I see many posters in this thread (some who have been banned) who always try and shit on Muslims if possible.
But lets for a second give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really care about the issues that face women then we ought to have a discussion regarding how Sweden should deal with this.
My belief is that Sweden can make more strides for feminism thought dialog then making a grand stand that won't do anything but sour relations.
Now please take inte acount that the ministers also had representativs who spoke regarding womens rights and union rights.
Could you please explain how a confrontational attitude would help?

Well I don't know what Sweden feminist can be done to Iran. But I do know that there has been some hush hush for certain things.
Many voices say that Sweden officials example is a bad thing.

Sometimes you need to take a stand, even if that means cooling relations. Why western women has to bend over when other side won't even budge. They won't shake woman ministers hands even when they are in Sweden. But i guess business is more important. Just like in Finland. Our goverment makes deals with Saudis and human rights issue is not important. Money talks.

 

[Jokab]

Well I don't know what Sweden feminist can be done to Iran. But I do know that there has been some hush hush for certain things.
Many voices say that Sweden officials example is a bad thing.

Sometimes you need to take a stand, even if that means cooling relations. Why western women has to bend over when other side won't even budge. They won't shake woman ministers hands even when they are in Sweden. But i guess business is more important. Just like in Finland. Our goverment makes deals with Saudis and human rights issue is not important. Money talks.

The headlines if the delegates had taken a political stand and lost the deal would have been even worse: "Scania announces layoffs because of feminist botching in Iran deal" Furthermore Sweden did send six women and four men, while Iran sent eleven men. I believe I read there was internal backlash in Iran for this, making them look bad.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

So since there are a lot of people in this thread concern trolling for Iranian feminists (along with a few people making nuanced arguments too to be fair) I thought I'd post this article about some reactions in Iran to the delegation. After reading it, do you still think it would have been better for Iranian feminism if the Swedish women had stayed at home (assuming you ever cared in the first place)?

Iranian president criticised for all-male delegation to meet Swedes

Iran’s president has come under criticism for surrounding himself with an all-male entourage while hosting a predominantly female delegation visiting Tehran from Sweden.

Pictures of the meeting at Tehran’s presidential palace show a smiling Hassan Rouhani sitting opposite the Swedish prime minister, Stefan Löfven, who had six women accompanying him.

Golnaz Esfandiari, an Iranian journalist, also criticised the photograph on Twitter.

Golnaz Esfandiari
(@GEsfandiari)
#Iran officials vs Swedish delegation. Congrats #Iran on the #allmalepanel in a country where 60 percent of university graduates are women https://t.co/x0k5Qs9vaT

February 11, 2017

Sussan Tahmasebi, an award-winning Iranian women’s rights activist, said the abundant presence of women in the Swedish delegation sent a powerful message to Iran. “The sensitivity around this issue is important because women should have been present among the Iranian delegation,” she said.

Rouhani has a number of women in his cabinet serving as his vice-presidents, including Shahindokht Molaverdi, who has been outspoken about women’s rights, but no female ministers– and none accompanied him at Saturday’s panel. Löfven met Molaverdi in a separate meeting in Tehran on Sunday.

Leila Alikarami, who monitors women’s rights in Iran, said Rouhani’s all-male delegation was particularly disappointing given his campaign promises to promote the cause.

“Molaverdi has a long experience in women’s affairs but she is not given enough powers,” Alikarami said, referring to the vice president. “She faces a lot of obstacles. Women’s rights is not this system’s priority, it only comes up at election time.”

Alikarami also said the visiting female diplomats should not have been forced to wear hijabs. “There should be a freedom of choice for all women,” she said. “They should not face discrimination because of their gender.”

Members of the Swedish delegation, particularly trade minister Ann Linde, faced criticism in Sweden for covering their hair.

But Tahmasebi said it was important for the women to attend. “If [the] Swedish women hadn’t gone to Tehran, the meeting would have taken place without them, but with male officials. It’s important that Iran would have relations with Sweden, a country that pursues feministic foreign policy,” she added.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Bunch of men criticizing women for not being feminist enough.

I'm a woman, can I criticize women for not being feminist enough then?

feminism should never take a knee towards religious misogyny

Yup

How interesting that the right is suddenly interested in standing up for supposedly 'women's rights' as soon as they can be used to antagonize brown people.

I'm not remotely close to right-wing, but I think this is bullshit and anti-feminist. What now

 

[norinrad]

Good on them for respecting the laws and culture of the country. I wish people would do that every where they go.

 

[Kin5290]

So since there are a lot of people in this thread concern trolling for Iranian feminists (along with a few people making nuanced arguments too to be fair) I thought I'd post this article about some reactions in Iran to the delegation. After reading it, do you still think it would have been better for Iranian feminism if the Swedish women had stayed at home (assuming you ever cared in the first place)?

Iranian president criticised for all-male delegation to meet Swedes

Thanks for this. It's important to remember that Iranian progressives, especially feminists, have a stake in this too.