Ah yes, moral relativism exists therefore fining, imprisoning, beating and even raping women who don't comply with clothing requirements is just fine, as that's their culture and we generally insist women don't go topless.
Do you have any evidence that women are raped for not wearing the hijab? And is that happening any more than in the "enlightened Christian" countries, such as the US where people are also raped and murdered for the who they are?
http://www.rrsonline.org/?page_id=944
eg
>> Most studies reveal that approximately 50% of transgender people experience sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.48
>> The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people were three times more likely to report sexual violence and/or harassment compared to heterosexual people who reported to NCAVP in 2010.49
Surveys regularly show that people think the victims of violent sexual crime are partly to blame if they didn't fight back, or if they were in "the wrong place", or if they were intoxicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidance_Patrol
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/influx-of-mora...
In the less-developed regions it's usually gangs policing with which do apply violence and these have been growing in the west also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols
You can search youtube for the results, it's way to vile and NSFW to post it on HN.
Entirely different. If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence. But these are not the same semantics for blame; One says I should have been more diligent in avoiding harm; The other says I actually deserve harm. Conflating the two, or willingly ignoring the nuance is a liberal trick.
There are, despite liberal perception, few people that say someone intoxicated actually deserves to be assaulted, this is usually something put in peoples mouths. Meanwhile, this is very much the opinion wrt the Hijab - that the women are immodest and deserve punishment.
Show me a westerner that believes assault is a reasonable punishment for intoxication, and I'll show you crowd of westerners that despises them.
> If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence.
I think you are right about risks and outcomes, but not how it applies.
First, just in terms of your theory, what's the difference between a woman in London who doesn't cover up her skirt late at night, takes a risk, and gets assaulted, and a woman in Tehran who doesn't cover up her skirt with a hajib, takes a risk, and gets assaulted? (Bear with me ...)
* Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it', and not just to their buddies. There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude when rape victims report the crime and harassing them, to the degree that rape victims often don't report it. It's an official, if unwritten rule, to a meaningful degree.
* In Iran it's a written rule (I assume). Some in Iran will say she deserved it, as you noted for religious reasons. But I read that in Egypt, at least, a basis for that rule (I don't know how common, or if this is somehow religiously-based) is that women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist. That's pretty similar to 'she asked for it'.
I think to a great degree it may be the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society. Either way, she violated social norms - men's rules about what she can do with her body - and deserves what she gets.
So people don't really fit into this label, yet you can still say they "aren't trying to trick anyone". You can either speak about "liberals", or you can't. I said it was a "liberal trick", maybe 'leftist' is a better term.
> what's the difference between
It's hard to tell, you need to know what the relevant aspects are. Is not wearing a hijab in Tehran dangerous because of the perception that the crime is deserved? This confounds the situation where risk is both known to the degree that it is a precedent, but that the fact that it is a precedent is because of the public perception that victims deserve their treatment.
If someone lost their house betting on the stock-market, we might find them to blame for their foolishness, yet still not care to tell them to their face, due to the magnitude of the situation, unless you knew them and their situation well.
I would advise a woman in Tehran to wear the hijab if there was a risk not doing so might put them at risk. I would say they put themselves at unreasonable risk if they did otherwise - I wouldn't say 'blame' out of respect for the ambiguity of the word in such a serious context. None of this means I agree with the fact that this risk exists, or that anyone deserves to be assaulted.
> Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it' ... There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude
Who? And in what context? The US is big place, are you telling me the precedent in Tehran, and the 'unwritten rule' in the US are of the same magnitude and veracity? I'm not so sure.
In any case, if this where true, then it's bad when the US do it too - this has no bearing on Tehran, and is only if it's true.
> women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist
It is religiously based, in a place where that religious has real, unanimous, legal authority.
> the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society
Maybe so, except this thinking has no were near the same influence in the two cases.
Yes, it is much, much worse than in places like the US, it is carried out by state agencies like the morality police and by pseudo-state entities like the "Basij". As others pointed out, when you.move outside the cities things often get less 'civilised'
I understand that people don't want to fall into the trap of prejudice, but things are materially worse in places like Iran, and drawing parallels with how women are treated in the west is not helpful. We have problems, we don't have the morality police or relgious militias, at least here in the UK
I would request a different cite than FrontPage Mag, which appears to put a large banner at the top of every page saying 'Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out'.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=preacher%20gay%2...
There are wackos everywhere, in every religion and town and country. When it's in our world, we have the cultural knowledge to know how much threat they really represent. When we see "Iranian Imam says ...", is that the equivalent of the Pope? Some fringe but powerful archbishop? A broad consensus? The strip mall preacher?
And not just fringe people but American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president.
I don't have much love for the pope either, but I feel that he at least has some political restrictions in west.
> American leaders say hateful things, from mayors to governors to a guy who has a serious chance of being elected president
Trump seems to be a little different from past candidates though, and "American leaders say hateful things" lacks magnitude - what percentage of leaders, and how was this perceived? For most, even the impression of racism is a career ender, and they are under a great deal of scrutiny.
Something you said, not me. It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
Certainly women are assaulted - mostly by men - in many countries for violating social norms about their bodies. A big part of the women's rights revolution in the U.S. was taking control of that: Women decide what they can wear (bikinis), when to have sex (birth control and sexual assault laws), when to get pregnant (birth control), when not to (abortion), when they can be touched and commented on (sexual harassment). Before, it was a bunch of men telling women what they could or couldn't do with their own bodies.
IMO, the faster that principle of basic self-determination (applied in whatever ways the local women want) spreads around the world the better, including Iran but many other countries and cultures too, and the U.S. and Europe have a ways to go themselves. As one example, some online communities in those countries (not HN but known here) encourage the abuse of women.
Besides the fact that, in the US, there certainly are churches or places of worship in which you're allowed to wear whatever the hell you want.
Again, I didn't say that, you did. Perhaps quote something I did say. Regarding your statement, I'll repeat what I said above: It's a pretty inflammatory statement, so could you be specific about who does that and how often?
How about Iran (the country in question) arresting women for showing hair (the problem in question) on Instagram.
The problem with trying to quote you directly is that you actually aren't saying anything of substance. You're simply being an apologist who apparently can't muster up the courage to even take a stance on way or the other. You're just offering some good old PR hedging for an oppressive regime and trying to neuter the discussion with vague allusions to moral relativism.
I'll ask again, what exactly are you trying to say? As it stands now, you're bogging down an important conversation that needs to happen with half-baked apologism.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
This and prior insults make me think that talking to you really isn't valuable or worth more time. Enjoy your day.
I would like to say that if your point is simply that the hijab is an article of clothing, then yes, you're right, and no one here disagrees with you. The question here is about the legal code which requires that women wear said article of clothing. The western war against the hijab is not against cloth, it is against this legal and cultural structure. This should actually be self evident in your own posts: the west has been waging an internal war against abuse of women for decades, yet at no point was this war centered around the hijab. Obviously the war is not, never has been, and never will be about the hijab.
It has always centered around the structural problem of abuse of women. However, speaking in vague references like your own about the structural problem has proven to be unproductive. The way you eliminate structural abuse is by eliminating specific instances of abuse. One after the other after the other. For this reason, the war against abuse is endless, both in the west and abroad, as mentioned in my own comment.
There are few people who would declare that this war is won anywhere. Yet everyone can agree that tackling the specific problem of suffrage was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of abortion was a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse. The specific problem of the hijab will be a massive blow against the structural problem of abuse.
Reverting the discussion back to a philosophical one is not actually helpful, and many people find it insulting when it's done in response to a person showing enormous courage in tackling a real, practical problem. I hope that explains the knee jerk reactions you've received here.
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-stones-five-women-dea...
This isn't in Iran, but doesn't hackuser's lame moral relativism argument also apply to ISIS? Isn't stoning women to death for not wearing the hijab simply part of their moral code? After all, the US doesn't allow women to show their breasts in public.
Edit: If your issue is specifically that someone implied that specifically rape/murder happens to women specifically in Iran specifically for wearing a hijab, here's a glimpse at what it means to be arrested in Iran: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-jan-june11-iranianwomen...
You can see that women get arrested for not wearing the hijab here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-...
So no, for some reason I can't seem to find an official press release from Khomeini that a specific woman was raped/murdered for not wearing a hijab. I can only point to mountains of evidence of systematic oppression and abuse, which undoubtedly includes arrest/rape/murder, and which undoubtedly includes the violation of simply not wearing a hijab.
In my family my mother in law is wearing hijab and if I really need to point out an oppressed in my family I would say it's my father in law ;-)
Edit: I can't respond to the post below, for whatever reason. Minorities in question would be Assyrians and Armenians, for example, who are Christians and who absolutely have to cover their heads everywhere they go: http://forum.hyeclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2144
I don't doubt there is widespread oppression in Iran, but there are so many ugly rumors that go around that I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about.
Also, the hajib symbolizes all of Islam to many Western people, so I try to be careful about conflating one government's brutality with prejudice against a world-wide religion.
We all agree that forcing by law women to wear a hijab is wrong. That's currently happening in Iran, and it's easy to find many stories from reputable sources to say this is happening.
We can disagree about how to fight that. This chess champion thinks boycotting the championship if she's forced to wear a hijab is one way. Other human rights campaigners say that a boycott is wrong.
But other people have made a further claim. They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
> They've said that women in Iran are raped, beaten, or murdered for not wearing the hijab. It's those claims that you want a source for.
That wasn't the GGP's claim. Again, just trying to get some specific, real knowledge into the discussion (and for my own benefit).
EDIT: But I agree the GGP's claim isn't the main issue, and this discussion is becoming convoluted.
You're creating a strawman, and then demanding sources for it.
Not that you represent everyone in Tunisia or every Muslim in the world, but do you feel there's social pressure to wear one? Would they be looked down upon or criticized for not wearing one?
I have the freedom to wear a NASA spacesuit or a bearskin tomorrow, but the social repercussions are a big deterrent.
> The issue I'm having with that kind of discussion is that instead of pointing out an opression problem somewhere in the world it stigmatize an entire community
For what it's worth from one person on the Internet, I agree completely. It's one of my biggest worries. It's going to cause more oppression and is entirely unnecessary.
It's not.
I would be interested in what you think about my actual words.
If you didn't make the allusion, then you didn't say anything relevant to the topic at hand.
You are seeing (or hearing) dog whistles in your head, but they're not in mine or my words. What if someone wasn't interested in ideology (or actually disliked it) and just wanted to talk about the issue intelligently? What if the hajib is not an ideological statement but just an article of clothing?
All that extra baggage and meaning many attach to the hajib, and that you attach to my words, is in the eye of the beholder. It's the same thing, I think, that leads to abuse of makes innocent people (not that you are doing that, but I think one leads to another); they aren't people, they are ideological symbols of Islam, Judaism, Black, immigration, etc. We forget: They are just people, trying to go through their days.
EDIT: Edited out response to edited comment in parent. Thanks for your consideration.
That's not true. Don't speak for other people.
I agree that many people in the West have made it a symbol (that was a major point of what I wrote). And I strongly agree that women should wear what they want.
But I think that by making it a symbol, we create more problems:
* It's become part of the narrative used by hateful and scared people to promote the dangerous, oppressive prejudice against Muslim people. Inflaming that evil is dangerous and leads directly to harm for a very large number of people.
* Many people feel so strongly about the symbol that now they impose their view of the hajib on the same women, forcing them not to wear it (which is law now in some places in the West). That's no better than forcing them to wear it.
Everyone needs to stop telling women what to wear. Hyping up this symbol isn't helping, it's doing more harm.
> Yes, it happens in the West too, albeit to a much lesser degree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it happens elsewhere.
I agree on all points.
Is it acceptable to ban hijabs?
> Don't you think that's part of the reason the West is averse to the hijab?
Some of the West. Other parts of the west are fine with it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02vk6bj/high-street-hi...