Iranian chess ref accused of flouting dress code says she won't return home

[bendejo]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

It takes a big man to say , fair enough , I was mistaken.

Especially whilst living in a time when the trend is to double-down and make an ever bigger fool of yourself as a defense.

 

Going back to my comments about Catholic ladies in the US in the 1950s I'm pretty sure a woman would not be told to cover her head or leave, probably the worst would be a nun scowled at her.  I was in a Catholic grade school for a few years and can't recall if the girls had to wear something on their heads.

 

I was passing through Iran in 1975.  In those days most of the women wore a chador (sp?), which was a big, black cloth they threw over themselves and folded so that all you could see of them was one eye.  From the window of a bus passing through a small town I saw a couple with a baby; the woman passed the kid to the man, and for a moment she adjusted the chador by letting the wind catch it and then re-closing it.  In that moment I saw she was wearing a miniskirt.  Blew my mind!

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by bendejo

[blazes]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No it wasn’t.
 

Just because the current regime is an unpopular, oppressive one, under the control of a  fundamentalist religious clique, it does not mean all was honey and wine before it arose. 

 

The rule of the shah was not that of a modern western society. It was extremely unpopular in many sectors of Iranian society, hence the 1979 revolution. 

 

Clearly you've never heard of Mossadeq (or the CIA for that matter).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

[pegman]

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Amazing to think Iran was a modern western country in the 1960s and 1970s.

The world doesn't always move forward.

Try this "SAVAK" in Google and see what comes up. (Sorry to pile on I hadn't read the posts that followed.)

 

The door will be open in Canada for her. As it was for the young Saudi lady and will be for Harry & fam. 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by pegman

[unamazedloso]

Wish her well. Welcome to the 21st century. 

Only ugly women should cover up!!

 

Religion is just a burden on moving forward and i dont understand how anyone can still follow such rubbish. Everyones got access to so much information and history that should make them realize they are just stupid.

Thats my 2cents for today...

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Clearly you've never heard of Mossadeq (or the CIA for that matter).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

Wrong as usual and, also as usual, nothing to do with my post. 

[Nigel Garvie]

12 hours ago, oby said:

 

  1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

No it wasn’t.
 

Just because the current regime is an unpopular, oppressive one, under the control of a  fundamentalist religious clique, it does not mean all was honey and wine before it arose. 

 

The rule of the shah was not that of a modern western society. It was extremely unpopular in many sectors of Iranian society, hence the 1979 revolution. 

"the shahs intentions were to turn iran into a modern westernized state alienated and frustrated religious conservatives and traditionalists"

look at the pictures of iran under the shah and compare to the iran of today.. google images of iran before the 1979 revolution.

older iranians i have known  reminince (is a dreamy way of saying "remember the past.)  long for freedoms they were afforded by the westernization o.f iran.

persians are a proud people quite unlike the savages of the islamic revolution

vive la resistance

 

5 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Clearly you've never heard of Mossadeq (or the CIA for that matter).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

 

47 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Wrong as usual and, also as usual, nothing to do with my post. 

I may be wrong here, but it appears that although Blazes was correct in drawing attention to Mossadeq, he appended the comment to the wrong post. It was of course nothing to do with Bluespunk's post. However it is completely relevant to oby's post. 

"Freedoms they were afforded by the westernization of Iran.

Persians are a proud people quite unlike the savages of the islamic revolution".

 

They are indeed a proud people, and Mossadeq, offered them a tragically brief glimpse of a democratic broadly secular future. That was cut short by the re-installation of the Shah by the west, so that the Anglo Iranian oil company etc could carry on exploiting the country (Recognise the trend?). The Shah's secret police were infamous for their brutality. So the Iranians moved from the Shahs "savages" (Backed by the west) to the Islamic revolution "savages". 

 

No wonder most Iranians have strong feelings about the so called "Freedoms they were afforded by westernization". How generous of us........we'll give you miny skirts if you give us your oil. 

 

However the this is background to the topic. The dress code issue is basically about relative levels of mysogeny, female independence, and female freedom, in their centuries long march to equality, as is reflected in posts about what woman were required to wear centuries ago. For me the burqa, quite apart from looking like a bin bag, is as much a symbol of slavery as the leg irons and chains were many years ago. How strange that what women wear, and what they are allowed to do with their bodies, is determined by a bunch of very old, and generally very twisted men. Another glorious chapter in the history of Abrahamic religions.  

 

[bendejo]

On 1/18/2020 at 5:41 AM, Bluespunk said:

No it wasn’t.
 

Just because the current regime is an unpopular, oppressive one, under the control of a  fundamentalist religious clique, it does not mean all was honey and wine before it arose. 

 

The rule of the shah was not that of a modern western society. It was extremely unpopular in many sectors of Iranian society, hence the 1979 revolution. 

Yes.  When the Shah fell most of the people I knew thought it was a Good Thing, what with the stories of SAVAK and tales from the road of the police being rough with the travelers doing the overland route from Europe to India (the term backpacker wasn't used yet).  Within a few months after the revolution brought a change in sentiment.  The new leaders were making time go backwards.  It was then I understood what conservatism is really about.

 

During the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran they found instructional movies of torture techniques that the CIA made in Chile, or so it was reported.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:53 PM, rooster59 said:

An Iranian chess referee who has been accused of violating her country's Islamic dress code

I really wish media would stop referring to "Islamic" dress as there is no such thing. It's cultural, that's all.

 

In the case of Iran, IMO it's because a group of, IMO, very bad men want to keep women "in their place".

It's a wonder they didn't impose the burka on them, but probably realised that was a step too far.

Whatever sins the Shah committed, he was liberating women from the tyranny of bad men.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

It was then I understood what conservatism is really about.

Religious fanaticism is not conservatism.

[Chazar]

On 1/18/2020 at 10:53 AM, rooster59 said:

in which she appeared not to be wearing the headscarf.

all those defending Iran, makes  you laugh, expect a  good  stoning would sort  this  out eh

[Credo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religious fanaticism is not conservatism.

It most certainly is conservatism.   It is not liberalism that's for sure.  

[Somtamnication]

As the old 70's song goes: "you can keep your hijab on" or something like that. lol