You can actually go on YouTube and search “Tehran walking tour” or something similar, and like half the women aren’t wearing any head covering whatsoever…
I don’t know if there are different rules for performers, but I am a bit suspicious. Is the guardian trying to drum up consent for restarting the war? I think some skepticism is warranted.
And before y’all downvote me to oblivion for for being a dictator loving tankie or whatever, remember that the Guardian is British corporate media…the same country where protesting genocide gets you charged as a terrorist. It’s not exactly a place where the ruling class has ever given a shit about human rights.
People have increasingly challenged the “modest dress” mandates over the past decades, but there used to be a “Guardian Patrol” that would try to enforce modest dress in public spaces. After Mahsa Amini’s death the Guardian Patrol was shut down, and there was a massive increase in women skipping head coverings, in particular in larger cities like Tehran and Esfahan.
However, skipping modest dress in media is a different matter. It has become laxer, but not by the same extent. The religious leadership is extra sensitive about modesty in music, so I think the context of “singing for men without head covering” is the signal here.
I’d also mention that there will be a lot of backsliding of these hard-won victories with this war, as ultraconservatives are gaining a lot of power and legitimacy.
It’s worth noting that Tehran (the city) is generally a little more lax than most of the rest of Iran/* … I’d guess she was singled out because her lack of hair covering could be seen easily from other parts of the country, and they don’t want the women there getting ideas
/* Source: I dated a girl from Tehran once, and that’s what she told me
Literally, there’s an incredible amount of footage from Iran where the vast majority of women aren’t wearing anything of the sort. Do just high profile people get targeted?
It’s common for a lot of authoritarian places to have laws that are selectively enforced. Since the enforcement is rare many people don’t bother following them but if someone bothers someone high up for any reason then breaking the law (that tons of other people break all the time anyway) is an easy excuse for the authorities to come down like a sack of bricks with a pretext ready. Being higher profile makes it more likely that you catch the eye of someone who hates you so it can be safer being some random person too low to notice instead. Though higher profile people also have more people ready to defend them generally so if you do get on someone’s list it’s better to have people in your corner who will make noise and maybe get punishment lessened or called off.
Probably trying to make an example out of her. There has been significant public resistance to the hair covering laws in recent years and the government has made various attempts to bring women back under control. But as with all tyrannical governments, if enough people resist, they simply can’t go after everyone.
It’s the number one perk of being an authoritarian ruler. Your Authority is absolute and unquestionable. Meaning your hypocrisy is sanctioned and allowed. The rules are only enforced to punish the vulnerable. Whether it’s Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping. The rules are flexible if not invisible until the moment you cross leadership. Then they will descend on you feigning morality.
I know before the war started, I read some coverage from the Guardian of the protests in Iran that was leaning pretty hard into some lurid details and leaving out relevant information that didn’t suit the narrative.
I’m not going to defend their bs, but let’s not pretend that puritanical views on female (reproductive and otherwise) morality aren’t killing people in places like the US.
We kill women for having a uterus, not for appearance. Look at the supreme Court’s garbage triggering abortion laws across the country. There is a death toll.
In my experience many of the most strident critics of hair coverings refuse to see the similarity to anti-nudity laws, especially nipple covering which is specific to women.
I mean I think the downvotes speak to the fact that the average person is not willing to admit the harms that our own ideas of modesty cause.
Or they think you’re using whataboutism to make it about an issue your personally care about instead of the still very real issue conveyed in the article.
I can kind of see that criticism but I think talking about our own issues and hypocrisy here has relevance here. We do very similar things in our countries and there’s very little fuss about it.
And I did acknowledge that I agree Iranian morality policing should be condemned, so it’s not like I’m trying to defend them, just talk about a related issue.
Then maybe don’t make your statements “Yes… but”, make them “Yes, and”. It makes it less about how you think people should be worried about your issues and simply brings up a related issue as well.
And, again, it’s not like people don’t care. Just like it’s not that people don’t care about the climate crisis, economic inequality, or health care… it’s just people only have so much energy to give. And the current systems we live in do not provide room for an overabundance of sharing it.
Backwater trash policies.
Omg men saw your HAIR! Give me a fucking break. Grow the fuck up and stop acting like children who can’t control themselves.
As soon as Religion gets into Politics, things invariably go backwards to a 7th century (or whenever that specific religion was invented) mentality.
Yes absolute separation is needed
But
I’m not a believer so don’t think like believers
Lashing people is horrific
You can actually go on YouTube and search “Tehran walking tour” or something similar, and like half the women aren’t wearing any head covering whatsoever…
I don’t know if there are different rules for performers, but I am a bit suspicious. Is the guardian trying to drum up consent for restarting the war? I think some skepticism is warranted.
And before y’all downvote me to oblivion for for being a dictator loving tankie or whatever, remember that the Guardian is British corporate media…the same country where protesting genocide gets you charged as a terrorist. It’s not exactly a place where the ruling class has ever given a shit about human rights.
This was in qom which seems like a overtly religious backwater
People have increasingly challenged the “modest dress” mandates over the past decades, but there used to be a “Guardian Patrol” that would try to enforce modest dress in public spaces. After Mahsa Amini’s death the Guardian Patrol was shut down, and there was a massive increase in women skipping head coverings, in particular in larger cities like Tehran and Esfahan.
However, skipping modest dress in media is a different matter. It has become laxer, but not by the same extent. The religious leadership is extra sensitive about modesty in music, so I think the context of “singing for men without head covering” is the signal here.
I’d also mention that there will be a lot of backsliding of these hard-won victories with this war, as ultraconservatives are gaining a lot of power and legitimacy.
It’s worth noting that Tehran (the city) is generally a little more lax than most of the rest of Iran/* … I’d guess she was singled out because her lack of hair covering could be seen easily from other parts of the country, and they don’t want the women there getting ideas
/* Source: I dated a girl from Tehran once, and that’s what she told me
Literally, there’s an incredible amount of footage from Iran where the vast majority of women aren’t wearing anything of the sort. Do just high profile people get targeted?
It’s common for a lot of authoritarian places to have laws that are selectively enforced. Since the enforcement is rare many people don’t bother following them but if someone bothers someone high up for any reason then breaking the law (that tons of other people break all the time anyway) is an easy excuse for the authorities to come down like a sack of bricks with a pretext ready. Being higher profile makes it more likely that you catch the eye of someone who hates you so it can be safer being some random person too low to notice instead. Though higher profile people also have more people ready to defend them generally so if you do get on someone’s list it’s better to have people in your corner who will make noise and maybe get punishment lessened or called off.
Probably trying to make an example out of her. There has been significant public resistance to the hair covering laws in recent years and the government has made various attempts to bring women back under control. But as with all tyrannical governments, if enough people resist, they simply can’t go after everyone.
That’s a good point, bit like the UK with social media posts
It’s the number one perk of being an authoritarian ruler. Your Authority is absolute and unquestionable. Meaning your hypocrisy is sanctioned and allowed. The rules are only enforced to punish the vulnerable. Whether it’s Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping. The rules are flexible if not invisible until the moment you cross leadership. Then they will descend on you feigning morality.
Everything I’ve seen from The Guardian is reputable.
I know before the war started, I read some coverage from the Guardian of the protests in Iran that was leaning pretty hard into some lurid details and leaving out relevant information that didn’t suit the narrative.
I agree but I wish people would act this way towards western modesty laws as well.
We’re not great, but we don’t publicly torture women for not covering their heads…
I’m not going to defend their bs, but let’s not pretend that puritanical views on female (reproductive and otherwise) morality aren’t killing people in places like the US.
We kill women for having a uterus, not for appearance. Look at the supreme Court’s garbage triggering abortion laws across the country. There is a death toll.
We aren’t exactly doing great in the west.
My BS? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Western governments need to be shamed too.
I believe the “their” there was referring to Iran’s BS, not yours
It is because that is the behavior being questioned, and it was trying to make it clear that I had no interest in glorifying it in any way.
Oh. Well that’s a weird thing to say because I don’t think anyone is defending them but OK.
That is exactly what I was doing.
Yeah I agree. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying though, I’m still unsure.
It’s cool. Happens to me late at night.
Which people? Pretty sure you’d find lots of people doing just that, mostly those who are criticizing policies like the one in the article as well.
In my experience many of the most strident critics of hair coverings refuse to see the similarity to anti-nudity laws, especially nipple covering which is specific to women.
I mean I think the downvotes speak to the fact that the average person is not willing to admit the harms that our own ideas of modesty cause.
Or they think you’re using whataboutism to make it about an issue your personally care about instead of the still very real issue conveyed in the article.
I can kind of see that criticism but I think talking about our own issues and hypocrisy here has relevance here. We do very similar things in our countries and there’s very little fuss about it.
And I did acknowledge that I agree Iranian morality policing should be condemned, so it’s not like I’m trying to defend them, just talk about a related issue.
Then maybe don’t make your statements “Yes… but”, make them “Yes, and”. It makes it less about how you think people should be worried about your issues and simply brings up a related issue as well.
And, again, it’s not like people don’t care. Just like it’s not that people don’t care about the climate crisis, economic inequality, or health care… it’s just people only have so much energy to give. And the current systems we live in do not provide room for an overabundance of sharing it.