380
western women rights
(thelemmy.club)
inspired by lemmitors at https://lemmy.ml/post/49343381
any guy in it just for women to wear skimpier clothing should probably be investigated.
This is framing of women in western clothing as more progressive vs women in hijab/chador is incredibly racist. It relies on Islamophobic stereotypes that play Islam as a less advanced civilization when compared to the rest. Please do not forget that the Iranian revolution that got rid of the shah was an internal, peoples revolution against a hostile empires marionette. The ayatollah was the synthesis of contradictions inherent to Iranian society and depicting current Iranian society as regressive compared to the Iranian society under the shah is effectively saying that westerners "know better" what the Iranian people need than the Iranian people themselves. This is racist. Whatever point you want to make against theocracy is lost in all the racist baggage that comes with the image.
Not discussing the racism part but the Iranian revolution was actually two-folds, like the Russian revolution. The first revolution was brought by a vast array of people, from islamists to communists. Many people hoped to keep their progressive way of life and to get political freedom on top if it. Way they got is a second revolution in the form of a swift consolidation of Khomeini's power and a theocracy, with political assassinations and vice squads.
What ever problems the Iranians have is their own to figure out and solve unless they explicitly ask for help, and certainly not from Imperialist Liberals from the Global North playing white savior for the "poor, helpless, primitive SaVaGeS" in the form of more Western bombs dropping on their Childrens heads to "free" them (from this mortal coil) like you're doing them a favor and should thank you for it. /s
In the 1971 pic those on the top are bazaari, women of the rich merchant class who are the ones that paid to crush the student socialist rebellion and bring in the Ayatollah from Qom.
Womens rights is when literacy rate is 20%
Yeah ok.
Womens rights is when 19% child mortality rate
Oppression is when life expectancy go up
@Jabril@hexbear.net
Something I notice about all these spaces. When I post facts about Islamic resistance, instead of people asking something "wow thats actually incredible, do you know how they did this incredible thing?" We end up stuck in a pattern of having literally the same conversations trying to explain basic concepts.
I know that I'm impressed when I see these statistics. Maybe thats because hijab made me stupid and oppressed π€ͺ π«
The reality of the Islamic resistance is so shrouded in mystery due to Islamophobia that it's impossible for many to see their accomplishments as nothing more than a coincidence, which is ironically an anti-materialist way of viewing the world.
Right. Couldn't have said it better myself. The leadership of the resistance is way more rooted in real existing circumstances.
For example, one might ask about how the Islamic Revolution improved womens literacy so much in such a short period of time. Well, the leadership was aware that Iranian women of all ages and social/economic classes attended the mosque. So they set up womens reading programs in all the mosques, urban and rural. And women teachers were paid to run these programs for everyone from kids to grandmother's. Seems pretty smart to me. Using the character of the masses as a way to promote social good rather than trying to mold them into whatever westernized ideation. Seems pretty rooted in materialism to me!
As you said though, such a thing gets shrouded in myth. The Iranians, the Palestinians, the Lebanese... portrayed as simultaneously magically resilient and well organized while also backwards in need of secularization. I dont have the words for this dualism but maybe you see what Im getting at.
It reminds me of the noble savage trope, but perhaps there is a more apt comparison.
I was getting at it in the news mega thread where Shia Islam was discussed but until people take time to study the history of Islam at large, as well as of Shia specifically, it is impossible to have an accurate analysis of the resistance movement. Shia history has revolutionary sentiment built into the lineage, it reminds me a lot of Juche, with generations of revolutionaries passing down a revolutionary history long before marx was around to describe dialectical materialist analysis. The conditions demanded a revolutionary sentiment and a revolutionary analysis and that is within the DNA of the movement, continuing on into today. Repression has prevented Marxism from being as popular in the Ummah as it once was and will be again but revolutionary and liberatory sentiment within Islam predates Marxism and can be repressed but never removed.
I wrote a long reply but it got deleted when i changed tab on accident.
Anyway short version about how people should learn about how the founding of Islam was basically a revolution of the proletariat and subaltern against slave owning land owning classes of the Quraish.
How Islam was appealing because it guaranteed rights to people to the people who were slaves and protected women from horrible mistreatment of the time and forcibly redistributed wealth to the masses from the wealthy.
how Ali (as) and Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) were killed because they fought against revisionist capitalists who wanted to undo the gains of the revolution. And how this is necessary to understand the role of why for instance Sayed Abdul-Malik al Houthi announced the mobilization to reunify Yemen on the day of Ashura.
Abu Dharr was talking about capital accumulation over a thousand years before Marx!
One cannot understand the resistance without understanding Karbala and one cannot understand Karbala without understanding at least a little basics of early Islamic History.
Maybe with the terminology above, this can be legible to the marxists.
Lady Khadija (ra) the first follower of Muhammad (saw) and also the first class traitor !
"Democracies" and you put Japan, S Korea, and the zionist child-killing cancer on it.
Does Japan not have a functioning democracy? And what's wrong with Korea?
You see, a democracy π is when a country is operating as a forward military base for the US empire. 15 military bases and 55,000 US troops in Japan and 28,000 US troops in S Korea are just there to protect democracy π from authoritarian China π‘ And DPRK π‘
And fake settler colony that has been committing genocide with US-made weapons since its invention is also very good democracy π
Anyways. Comparing health outcomes of countries that are economic beneficiaries of imperialist looting with a country under siege from imperialism is not making the point you think it is making.
Please take your zionism and leave.
If you're going to say Iraq and Pakistan are dictatorships then you'd have to be an unashamed hypocrite to say Japan, functionality a one party state, isn't.
The user is right that my comparison wasn't fair. So I found a better one.
Two pics mean nothing bro, do you think there are not women like in the picture above currently? And if that were the case, what do you think it happened in Iran during the '70's that caused this "issue" when it comes to religion? ahh, yeah, it's always the us empire.
It don't change anything, in any case is there a difference if a woman has the chois to wear a jihab or is forced to wear one.
What is a jihab?
Did you know Reza Shah threw acid on women wearing the chador to force them to wear western clothing? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about
Same energy lol https://youtu.be/gE2OzGfIDLQ
Zerush is very concerned about jihab and Muslamic ray guns π
I know this case, but it also change nothing of what I said, the difference between having the option to wear what you want and being forced to wear what other want. In extremis like in the case which you mencioned, irrelevant if it is a chador, hijab or western clothes. if it is against what the women want.
The whole point is that it is a choice in Iran, it is not compulsory. Go to Iran right now and you will see women choosing not to cover their hair, walking around with the same fashion sense that you'd see in Venice Beach or NYC. There are women walking around in jean shorts and no head covering in Tehran every day without an issue.
I'm from South Spain and here are living a lot of muslim immigrants. As you say, a lot of women which cover their hair and others not. Normally they cover their hair when they are married. But same asin some other countries, it's their decision, because religion or tradition to do it, when nobody is forcing to do it by drastic laws, like in some islamic theocracies where they don't have a choice.
In Iran the law was recently paused and because of this, naturally some women don't wear the hijab, but in other countries they are even forced to wear an burka without any liberty of choice. As said, it's different to have a choice or to be forced by others.
https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/18/iran-pauses-implementation-of-stricter-hijab-law-for-women
Yes in some places there are conservatives due to the way that colonialism and imperialism has impacted the world but as far as Iran goes, your quote shows that the people of Iran were sufficiently progressive to reject an attempt by some conservatives to push a conservative agenda. They were defeated in this attempt by the masses who are still overwhelmingly Muslim, but understand that the Quran says hijab is voluntary because it explicitly states religion cannot be compulsory.
No one here has defended it being compulsory, Muslims by and large are not pushing for it to be compulsory, and those that do are embodying a reactionary mindset imposed on them via colonialism and imperialism. Instead of focusing on what Muslims do and don't do it would be better to focus on ending capitalism so that people everywhere have more freedom from oppressive power structures, access to education and the ability to make decisions from a place of clarity and stability
I would push back against this framing a little bit. I feel as if the idea that Iranian hijab isn't real and therefore many women are without, is in many ways a way of appealing to the liberals and watering down the nature of the revolution. Hijab is enforced for people who represent the nation and appear on state television and hold office. I think this is great (hijab is also defining men's clothing too but idk if westerners even know that).
Holding onto it is a visible and tangible way to reject westoxification and reject liberalism. This isnt the place to enumerate but the position of the martyred Leader was that it should be heavily encouraged but nobody should be berated or attacked for not wearing good hijab. Here is link: https://english.khamenei.ir/news/9390
I don't really expect many people here to grasp the nuances of what is being expressed though.
But I categorically reject the idea that all people who support compulsory hijab are backwards conservatives etc. There is a famous letter from Fanon to Ali Shariati where he observes that the characteristics of Islam make it uniquely capable of countering westernized cultural domination. In many ways "hijab is a fortress against cultural imperialism"
I believe that, instead, it is these western xenophobic clowns that are the reactionaries.
Of course we already know The takfiris like isis/al qaeda do not represent Islam but idk if war on terror brain allows people to understand that.
this is the only point I am trying to make, that it is not inherent to the religion to compel hijab, which undermines the entire position of westerners who think it is compulsory. pointing out that there are non religious people and non muslims living their lives without fear of retribution drives the reality home that most people are choosing to veil because they are religious and personally want to, and not because of some threat of violence. they see people being good Muslims and want to emulate that out of devotion, not coercion.
while I agree with the benefits of wearing hijab for those who choose to, and I also understand how the imperialist and colonial powers are driving an anti-western sentiment that contributes to many clinging to hijab as something that should be compulsory as a defense against imperialist cultural hegemony, the desire to make anything compulsory for anyone else seems inherently conservative. Conservationism is often a natural defensive reaction from some external conditions, and even if it is understandable reaction to the legitimate enemy of the world it doesn't make it something I would personally agree with as the desired end goal. in the end it needs to be a personal decision or else the intention in the heart is impure and it is not legitimate submission to the will of Allah swt but a deception born of coercion.
I think i am not communicating what I mean. What I am saying is that "mandatory hijab" for public facing people such as athletes representing their country or newscasters etc can be a good thing. A funny example is like look at the womens volleyball team. One might argue that this isnt even Islamically hijab anyways lol its a symbol nonetheless. Let me just post some images and quotes and you can see what I mean for the nuance.
I think there is some nuance here which is getting lost
Ahh ok I was talking about the idea that wsterners have of mandatory hijab enforced on citizens at large but it seems like you're specifically talking about the dress code requirements for state representatives ?
Yes I'm talking about the requirements that exist for state & media representatives and such wear hijab (even if its "bad hijab") in order to represent the country
The French ban is not analogous at all. Like a fabrication.
But you understand right that the majority of the cases where people are enforcing dress on women it is people forcing western clothing on them? Do you not understand the hypocrisy of posting an image like what you did and saying that this has to be what the women want but implying that they want the thing that is repeatedly forced on them? The people in Iran chose this government with revolution and they have a constitutional democracy, they need to be empowered to work within their system. By posting pictures of women under the Shah wearing American clothes and implying this is best you are simply supporting imperialism against them
Yes, I understand perfectly, but it isn't the same. I know that society, fashion and other influences can push a women th use some clothings, but she isn't really forced by law to do it, she always has the choice, it's different in countries where a women is drastically punished if she don't wear a hijab or even a burka, even if she don't want to wear it. Sorry if YOU don't see the difference.
Thanks for letting me about a new worthless account to block
i didnt understand what you tried to say