6 ms·

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

by eganist 10y ago

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.)

kemiller2002 10y ago
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.
jkot 10y ago
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. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796
- microcolonel 10y ago
  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. What would I know, though? :- \
- bilbo0s 10y ago
  Anyone reasonably well educated on the MidEast region realizes that Iranian women are relatively well off. Certainly light years ahead of their arab counterparts. Better educated, more free and as you, rightfully, point out, they hold more positions in the government of the Islamic Republic than clerics do. But none of that is the issue. The question is whether or not this stricture violates human rights? I know from experience that if you ask an Iranian woman if she wants to wear a hijab, she will most likely say "yes". (I'm told that the fuss to do your hair every morning is something most women would just as soon do without.) The thing is women should have the right to say "no", even if most would never use that right. That's the issue. Not whether or not women would want to go without a hijab, or whether or not Iranian women are more free.
  - jkot 10y ago
    I understand it is human rights issue. My point is that many women voted for those rules. This problem could be solved in a single election.
    - gambiting 10y ago
      As an interesting sidenote - did you know that there were entire groups of women who were against giving women voting rights, in both UK and US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
      - jkot 10y ago
        Nobody wants to be drafted, it is a waste of time. Women also voted against Equal Rights Amendment in 1970ties.
      - truth_sentinell 10y ago
        Omg. Is that for real? How can people be so dumb? Can someone please explain?
        berntb 10y ago
        Think for five seconds. 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.)
0xFFC 10y ago
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.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  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.
radmuzom 10y ago
> control women Very similar to conservative politicians in US trying ban abortion or limit access to it.
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  That's a completely different thing. In that case, you're dealing with another live, which is not the property of the woman...
- programmarchy 10y ago
  No, not very similar. With abortion you're terminating the life of a child. Do homicide laws "control women", too?
  - brainfire 10y ago
    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.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      Upvote for a fine illustration of Poe's law.
  - elros 10y ago
    No, no, you're not. There is no child. You're getting rid of an embryo, and embryos have no rights.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
berntb 10y ago
>> Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. 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.
edko 10y ago
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.

by eganist 10y ago

kemiller2002 10y ago

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.

jkot 10y ago

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. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36182796

microcolonel 10y ago
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. What would I know, though? :- \
bilbo0s 10y ago
Anyone reasonably well educated on the MidEast region realizes that Iranian women are relatively well off. Certainly light years ahead of their arab counterparts. Better educated, more free and as you, rightfully, point out, they hold more positions in the government of the Islamic Republic than clerics do. But none of that is the issue. The question is whether or not this stricture violates human rights? I know from experience that if you ask an Iranian woman if she wants to wear a hijab, she will most likely say "yes". (I'm told that the fuss to do your hair every morning is something most women would just as soon do without.) The thing is women should have the right to say "no", even if most would never use that right. That's the issue. Not whether or not women would want to go without a hijab, or whether or not Iranian women are more free.
- jkot 10y ago
  I understand it is human rights issue. My point is that many women voted for those rules. This problem could be solved in a single election.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    As an interesting sidenote - did you know that there were entire groups of women who were against giving women voting rights, in both UK and US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism
    - jkot 10y ago
      Nobody wants to be drafted, it is a waste of time. Women also voted against Equal Rights Amendment in 1970ties.
    - truth_sentinell 10y ago
      Omg. Is that for real? How can people be so dumb? Can someone please explain?
      - berntb 10y ago
        Think for five seconds. 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.)

0xFFC 10y ago

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.

microcolonel 10y ago
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.

radmuzom 10y ago

> control women Very similar to conservative politicians in US trying ban abortion or limit access to it.

truth_sentinell 10y ago
That's a completely different thing. In that case, you're dealing with another live, which is not the property of the woman...
programmarchy 10y ago
No, not very similar. With abortion you're terminating the life of a child. Do homicide laws "control women", too?
- brainfire 10y ago
  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.
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    Upvote for a fine illustration of Poe's law.
- elros 10y ago
  No, no, you're not. There is no child. You're getting rid of an embryo, and embryos have no rights.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

berntb 10y ago

>> Iranian leadership is ideologically driven. 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.

edko 10y ago

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.