‘I will never wear a headscarf again’: Outrage in Iran after woman dies in custody

[bnew]

Im saying I support people trying to preserve their culture. I never said 1 is superior. Do you know what a culture war is? I dont think you do .

it ain't their culture, it's a religious custom imposed on their entire female populace by militant religious fanatics.

edit:

would you claim The Tignon Laws of 1786 was black culture or american culture?

that was imposed on black women.

Tignon Laws: The dreadful rule that banned black women from displaying their hair - Face2Face Africa

Black women are often praised and revered for their hair. The texture of black hair is suitable for forming unique styles from the afro to braids. Even mainstream media often imitate styles invented and catered to women with Afrocentric hair without a mention of appreciation. Nevertheless...

face2faceafrica.com

The Louisiana Tignon Laws Of 1786

In 1700s Lousianna, you might have found Black women wearing beautiful, extravagant hairstyles. Unfortunately, their style was too provocative for insecure w...

www.pushblack.us

 

[50CentStan]

He has “Allahu Akbar” in his profile. That coupled with his wild statements he clearly has a dog In the race

So because you're ignorant on religion and cultures I cant have a non biased opinion? If you knew anything you'd know Irans muslim population and ruling party are shytes, who are different from most "mainstream" muslims. But again, you're ignorant about the situation and you want to vilify people who are different from you.

 

[50CentStan]

it ain't their culture, it's a religious custom imposed on their entire female populace by militant religious fanatics.

edit:

would you claim The Tignon Laws of 1786 was black culture or american culture?

that was imposed on black women.

Tignon Laws: The dreadful rule that banned black women from displaying their hair - Face2Face Africa

Black women are often praised and revered for their hair. The texture of black hair is suitable for forming unique styles from the afro to braids. Even mainstream media often imitate styles invented and catered to women with Afrocentric hair without a mention of appreciation. Nevertheless...

face2faceafrica.com

The Louisiana Tignon Laws Of 1786

In 1700s Lousianna, you might have found Black women wearing beautiful, extravagant hairstyles. Unfortunately, their style was too provocative for insecure w...

www.pushblack.us

The way hijab is worn in iran is not religious is what im saying. You can see all their hair. Its a cultural practice which is being forced on them.

 

[Micky Mikey]

Y'all really in here clowning that man that defended their women? That's not simp shyt.

I'm to believe you dudes would let some Black women get lit up like some cowards in a protest because you #HOH and not simps... but you will cry online all day about the Black women that slander Black men. You can't have it both ways. If women can't depend on the protection of their men then you deserve to be replaced.

You gotta know when to step up and be a man. fukk that corny shyt and the jokes.

Well said

 

[ShaneTheRogue]

Im saying I support people trying to preserve their culture. I never said 1 is superior. Do you know what a culture war is? I dont think you do .

How is that preserving their culture when they weren't doing all that before?

Someone in this thread posted a link showing Iran use to be similar to the rest of the West culturally then fascists came and took over the govt. and starting forcing their personal interpretation of what their culture is on people.

There's Muslim women that consent to following these aspects of the culture in countries where non-compliance isn't punishable by imprisonment or violence...so what makes you think beating people into a coma is needed to "protect the culture?"

All this is accomplishing is making the women want to reject and question the culture. If you can only maintain your culture with threats of brutal violence perhaps the culture is trash.

 

[50CentStan]

How is that preserving their culture when they weren't doing all that before?

Someone in this thread posted a link showing Iran use to be similar to the rest of the West culturally then fascists came and took over the govt. and starting forcing their personal interpretation of what their culture is on people.

There's Muslim women that consent to following these aspects of the culture in countries where non-compliance isn't punishable by imprisonment or violence...so what makes you think beating people into a coma is needed to "protect the culture?"

All this is accomplishing is making the women want to reject and question the culture. If you can only maintain your culture with threats of brutal violence perhaps the culture is trash.

Iran during the rule of the shah was a puppet state being raped by the west for their resources. Yes they were westernized. But their culture is not defined by how they were in the 70s and 80s. Islamic influence has been in Persia for hundreds of years. Im not saying you have to abuse and beat your population into subordination. Im saying their governments goal is to maintain their own culture because they see western culture as a threat to their society. The same way the west feels about them. Are the going about it the wrong way. Sure.

 

[Dorian Breh]

No, that's not what I think and that's not what I said nor implied.

The distinction I drew is clear and can be illustrated by the difference between the Iranian situation, and say, French propagandists' efforts during the Algerian independence war, when the 5th Bureau of Psychological Action organized anti-hijab campaigns as yet another racist colonial tool. Intersectional feminists call that out.

Spoiler

Black Americans themselves have had encounters with instrumentalized western feminism used as a psyop to destabilize their organizations. And we know how bringing democracy to third-world countries has been used as a pretext by the US to appropriate resources. The examples are numerous.

Organic (Black South Africans, Iranian women, Congress of Ulama women) vs Non-organic (French propaganda in Algeria, Democracy to the Middle East, Gloria Steinem & Black Feminism)

That's the distinction I drew. External support for one category is fine, and not for the other.

i can see where you are coming from more clearly thanks to this response and dont find your position as objectionable as it first appeared to me

the reason i have concerns is that it is common in this kind of discourse to relate the development of personal freedom based values to some sort of moral decline. you can see examples of this sort of thinking in this very thread.

it seems that your not pushing things quite to that level, but i still question the organic vs inorganic dichotomy.

if a person living in the middle east visits a western democracy and then returns to proselytize the values of representative governance, where does that fall on the scale? does your opinion change if they attended a western university? what if they didnt attend the university but had a conversation with a student?

lets reverse things - where does the attempts by middle eastern theocracies such as saudi to radicalize western muslims fall? these people follow islam "organically" but are also "organically" western having been born raised and indoctrinated in the west.

these distinctions quickly break down in my eyes and get to the inherent flaws of moral relativism. i have many objections with the "external", "artificial" propaganda conducted by russian troll farms with the intention of radicalizing lower class whites into ethno-fascists.

but more often than not these people already "organically" had some of these ethno-fascist ideas. they were too stupid to put them into the pithy catchphrases used by turning point america but they were certainly ready to learn and use these catch phrases.

as such, i dont find this organic vs inorganic dichotomy to be useful. its too hard to draw the lines and ultimately doesnt make anything easier to understand.

instead i think that an ethical and moral value based judgment is more important. i personally think that the ethical value of letting women dress freely is important and however a citizenry arrives at this idea i cant begrudge it. there are posters in this thread like @Mowgli who think the repression of women has ethical value and i assure you they dont care whether this is organically achieved or carried out through inorganic violence.

i recognize your point that proselytizing western values with the purpose of creating economic dependence is not a good thing. but i think that approaching things from a value based perspective allows one to say "yes, colonialism is terrible" while still supporting personal freedoms.

 

[number21]

Y'all really in here clowning that man that defended their women? That's not simp shyt.

I'm to believe you dudes would let some Black women get lit up like some cowards in a protest because you #HOH and not simps... but you will cry online all day about the Black women that slander Black men. You can't have it both ways. If women can't depend on the protection of their men then you deserve to be replaced.

You gotta know when to step up and be a man. fukk that corny shyt and the jokes.

It's not the duty of a man to protect random women breh.

 

[ShaneTheRogue]

Hmm, even the middle east starting to lose grasp of their culture and for the cats hyping up the protest and whatnot you're cheering on for more people to get killed and hurt. Cause the men over there won't go down without fighting to protect their culture.

Men are literally fighting side by side with their women. Have you even watched any of the boots in the ground footage? This is primarily the doing of their fascist tyrannical government. The majority of the country ain't rocking with this shyt.

Any "culture" that beats a women in custody to death for showing her hair is an inferior culture and deserves to be wiped out anyway.

Fool really caping for a govt. with "morality police" pathetic.

 

[number21]

Men are literally fighting side by side with their women. Have you even watched any of the boots in the ground footage? This is primarily the doing of their fascist tyrannical government. The majority of the country ain't rocking with this shyt.

Any "culture" that beats a women in custody to death for showing her hair is an inferior culture and deserves to be wiped out anyway.

Fool really caping for a govt. with "morality police" pathetic.

Damn you're mad desperate to get in back and forth with me. Making up points to aruge that I didn't even elude to.

 

[Json]

Iran during the rule of the shah was a puppet state being raped by the west for their resources. Yes they were westernized. But their culture is not defined by how they were in the 70s and 80s. Islamic influence has been in Persia for hundreds of years. Im not saying you have to abuse and beat your population into subordination. Im saying their governments goal is to maintain their own culture because they see western culture as a threat to their society. The same way the west feels about them. Are the going about it the wrong way. Sure.

But isn’t this part of the problem? I remember reading how the full history of Persia is kind of downplayed in favor of Islamic Iranian culture.

This isn’t like Native Americans trying to make sure their language and culture pass down instead of western influence.

They are denying their own population to celebrate its own cultural history. The Middle East has never been homogenous. There were multiple cultures living right alongside each other.


It’s good you don’t agree with using violence but there’s a reason why they are using it. Cause people wouldn’t follow these rulers.

 

[ShaneTheRogue]

Damn you're mad desperate to get in back and forth with me. Making up points to aruge that I didn't even elude to.

You literally said Men over there won't go down without a fight to preserve their culture I said they're fighting against the govt. alongside their women against the govt and asked you if you saw any of the videos with evidence of just that.

And as usual you deflect like the incel coward that you are.

You don't do shyt but spam low effort right wing and anti Black extremist shyt all over the board and deflect and play dumb when people call you out. You should've been got permabanned.

 

[CashmereThoughts]

So because you're ignorant on religion and cultures I cant have a non biased opinion? If you knew anything you'd know Irans muslim population and ruling party are shytes, who are different from most "mainstream" muslims. But again, you're ignorant about the situation and you want to vilify people who are different from you.

I have vilified no one. You are projecting.

 

[number21]

You literally said Men over there won't go down without a fight to preserve their culture I said they're fighting against the govt. alongside their women against the govt and asked you if you saw any of the videos with evidence of just that.

And as usual you deflect like the incel coward that you are.

You don't do shyt but spam low effort right wing and anti Black extremist shyt all over the board and deflect and play dumb when people call you out. You should've been got permabanned.

Go eat a hot dog, you buffoon.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

i can see where you are coming from more clearly thanks to this response and dont find your position as objectionable as it first appeared to me

the reason i have concerns is that it is common in this kind of discourse to relate the development of personal freedom based values to some sort of moral decline. you can see examples of this sort of thinking in this very thread.

it seems that your not pushing things quite to that level, but i still question the organic vs inorganic dichotomy.

if a person living in the middle east visits a western democracy and then returns to proselytize the values of representative governance, where does that fall on the scale? does your opinion change if they attended a western university? what if they didnt attend the university but had a conversation with a student?

lets reverse things - where does the attempts by middle eastern theocracies such as saudi to radicalize western muslims fall? these people follow islam "organically" but are also "organically" western having been born raised and indoctrinated in the west.

these distinctions quickly break down in my eyes and get to the inherent flaws of moral relativism. i have many objections with the "external", "artificial" propaganda conducted by russian troll farms with the intention of radicalizing lower class whites into ethno-fascists.

but more often than not these people already "organically" had some of these ethno-fascist ideas. they were too stupid to put them into the pithy catchphrases used by turning point america but they were certainly ready to learn and use these catch phrases.

as such, i dont find this organic vs inorganic dichotomy to be useful. its too hard to draw the lines and ultimately doesnt make anything easier to understand.

instead i think that an ethical and moral value based judgment is more important. i personally think that the ethical value of letting women dress freely is important and however a citizenry arrives at this idea i cant begrudge it. there are posters in this thread like @Mowgli who think the repression of women has ethical value and i assure you they dont care whether this is organically achieved or carried out through inorganic violence.

i recognize your point that proselytizing western values with the purpose of creating economic dependence is not a good thing. but i think that approaching things from a value based perspective allows one to say "yes, colonialism is terrible" while still supporting personal freedoms.

I'm glad we understand each other's position better.

To answer your questions:

Spoiler

"if a person living in the middle east visits a western democracy and then returns to proselytize the values of representative governance, where does that fall on the scale? does your opinion change if they attended a western university? what if they didnt attend the university but had a conversation with a student?"

I think all these cases qualify as organic attempts at societal change.

"where does the attempts by middle eastern theocracies such as saudi to radicalize western muslims fall?"

I think it's a clear example of inorganic attempt at societal change.

The conditional factors that separate organic attempts at societal change from inorganic ones, in my book, are as follows:

1) Domestic inception (DI)
2) (In case of external support) Relative weight of domestic agents supporting the movement compared to those that don't (RW)
3) (In case of external support) Existence of underlying motives behind external support (UM)

All conditions are not necessary but sufficient.

Thus why I separate cultural influence from the issue: it doesn't prevent a movement from having a domestic origin, it's not support and there's no motive behind it. There is no nefarious intent between regular cultural exchange. I judge it not only inevitable (cultures and people have never been siloed) but also beneficial, overall, to everyone involved in the process of cultural exchange. Having access to more examples of how different peoples do things helps self-determination, I don't think it hinders it. Hence why I wouldn't consider the scenario you describe about the student as an inorganic attempt at societal change.

I don't only think that the distinction is useful, I think it is vital for anyone that values peoples' self-determination, which is a core element of anticolonialism. Morality is flimsy. While I imagine we both agree on the importance of women's basic human rights, we might disagree on whether polygamy, a deeply rooted cultural practice in Africa, should be banned on moral grounds, regardless of it approval or disapproval by African women. Same thing for the different flavors of feminism. Same thing for banning the hijab. Same thing for transgenders' rights. Same thing for reproductive rights, state structures, family structures and roles, etc etc.

I say let people decide for themselves first and foremost. Because being cool with inorganic movements to transform the tissue of societies that did not birth them on behalf of moral superiority, or even rationality, implies giving the strongest all the leeway necessary to impose their own values to the weakest, as has been done through history with disastrous effects.