http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/meast/iran-hijab-fisticuffs/index.html
While I'm not a supporter of violence in most cases, I can't say I'm not happy to see women fighting against the kind of oppression they receive in Iran.
Iranian cleric beaten up by a couple of women
- Thread starter Shadow Dragon
- Start date
While I'm not a supporter of violence in most cases, I can't say I'm not happy to see women fighting against the kind of oppression they receive in Iran.
it's a start. Now, if these ladies (and others like them) can wield their words as quickly and effectively as they can their fists, we might get somewhere...
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,202
- Reaction score
- 3,257
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
I'm torn on this. On the one hand it's meeting words with violence, which we have entire threads (and cultural attitudes) against.
On the other hand, certain kinds of cultural change are very hard to effect without action.
On the third hand, if the change is brought about this way, the violence and bullying may simply shift from one group to another.
On the fourth hand (maybe this is a game of bridge and I'm the dummy) it's really too easy to render judgement from a distance.
On the fifth hand (obviously this is a poker game and I might be bluffing with any of these bets) the comment of the fourth hand applies to every discussion we have of other countries.
On the other hand, certain kinds of cultural change are very hard to effect without action.
On the third hand, if the change is brought about this way, the violence and bullying may simply shift from one group to another.
On the fourth hand (maybe this is a game of bridge and I'm the dummy) it's really too easy to render judgement from a distance.
On the fifth hand (obviously this is a poker game and I might be bluffing with any of these bets) the comment of the fourth hand applies to every discussion we have of other countries.
Captcha
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 637
Well, not just VERBALLY assaulted... words don't put people in the infirmary for three days.
If they'd fought back with words or some other non-violent form of protest, I'd absolutely agree that it was good for them.
Fighting back with violence? Understandable, but I worry that it will just lead to MORE violence... some of it against women who've already been victimized enough.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2,330
- Reaction score
- 410
Bear in mind, we're only getting his side of the story. And we're likely to only hear his side of things officially. His idea of polite might have been communicating threats to the girls or physically intimidating them for all we know.
My first instinct is "woo! Girl power", but taking a step back I'm really fearful for what would happen if/when they're found. I mean, they beat the snot out of a Mullah. That's not exactly going to be let go easily even though he's not pressing charges.
My first instinct is "woo! Girl power", but taking a step back I'm really fearful for what would happen if/when they're found. I mean, they beat the snot out of a Mullah. That's not exactly going to be let go easily even though he's not pressing charges.
mirandashell
Banned
Part of me is angry that two strong healthy young girls beat the shit out of a lone elderly man.
But then two thngs came to my recollection, and my sympathy for that old man has now evaporated.
FIRST RECOLLECTUON:
Jesus came to preach the Good News to the people of Israel. And his style of preaching came in two forms. 1) The nicey-nice style of preaching in loving gentleness through parables and kind stories and acts of compassion. 2) The angry tirades where he called certain people a den of vipers and sons of dogs. This latter style of preaching was ONLY levied at people in leadership, never at the lowly unwashed masses. The poeple in leadership were (more often than not) priests and Pharisees and Saducees. He was furious with them because those guys fricking should have known better. They had the law in their hands, read it every day, and yet they were still lost in the darkness of their own sin and selfishness --just likie the unwashed masses were lost. But the priest class was guilty of WILLFUL ignorance, and thus Jesus had no tolerance for them. And he most especially hated when the priests nit-picked over tiny little details of the law of the sort than made the lives of laymen impossibly burdensom, such as microscopic violations of the Sabbath.
I am not saying Muslims need to ask themselves WWJD. Instead I am saying that the precedent Jesus set there is universally applicable to ANY leader of ANY cause: hypocrissy is hypocrsy, no matter where it is found.
SECOND RECOLLECTION:
Please read the following Saudi Arabian news story from 10 years ago concerning a special priestly police force of religious thugs whose job it is to uphold Sharia Law. I realize this took place in Aaba and not Iran. But strict adherence to dress codes is STILL strict adherence to dress codes. And when such strict adherence is taken to the edge of insanity and beyond, then all I can say is Fuck that old man in the OP. He'll never correct some young girl again now.
Too bad 15 girls are now dead because they were guilty of nothing more than hanging out in an all-girl's setting wearing no head scarves. But then when a fire broke out in the buiding, the whole place was so thoroughly filled with smoke that the girls were unable to find their scarves before attempting to flee in terror from the blaze.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm
But then two thngs came to my recollection, and my sympathy for that old man has now evaporated.
FIRST RECOLLECTUON:
Jesus came to preach the Good News to the people of Israel. And his style of preaching came in two forms. 1) The nicey-nice style of preaching in loving gentleness through parables and kind stories and acts of compassion. 2) The angry tirades where he called certain people a den of vipers and sons of dogs. This latter style of preaching was ONLY levied at people in leadership, never at the lowly unwashed masses. The poeple in leadership were (more often than not) priests and Pharisees and Saducees. He was furious with them because those guys fricking should have known better. They had the law in their hands, read it every day, and yet they were still lost in the darkness of their own sin and selfishness --just likie the unwashed masses were lost. But the priest class was guilty of WILLFUL ignorance, and thus Jesus had no tolerance for them. And he most especially hated when the priests nit-picked over tiny little details of the law of the sort than made the lives of laymen impossibly burdensom, such as microscopic violations of the Sabbath.
I am not saying Muslims need to ask themselves WWJD. Instead I am saying that the precedent Jesus set there is universally applicable to ANY leader of ANY cause: hypocrissy is hypocrsy, no matter where it is found.
SECOND RECOLLECTION:
Please read the following Saudi Arabian news story from 10 years ago concerning a special priestly police force of religious thugs whose job it is to uphold Sharia Law. I realize this took place in Aaba and not Iran. But strict adherence to dress codes is STILL strict adherence to dress codes. And when such strict adherence is taken to the edge of insanity and beyond, then all I can say is Fuck that old man in the OP. He'll never correct some young girl again now.
Too bad 15 girls are now dead because they were guilty of nothing more than hanging out in an all-girl's setting wearing no head scarves. But then when a fire broke out in the buiding, the whole place was so thoroughly filled with smoke that the girls were unable to find their scarves before attempting to flee in terror from the blaze.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm
Last edited:
I hope that 10,000 of these guys all throughout the Middle East are right now trembling in fear of opening their traps to young girls ever again.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 288
I know ideally they could have brought him to his knees with sound arguments and unimpeachable logic but bearing in mind it is Iran where women are half-human if not less and is in a state of political turmoil, these ladies were probably not educated to any kind of level where they could have done either.
Arguing with him would have been like the women were dueling a swordsman with a toothpick for a weapon. So, I'm all for beating the stuffing outta him. Let us hope for their sake that they get lost in the crowd and escape unpunished.
Arguing with him would have been like the women were dueling a swordsman with a toothpick for a weapon. So, I'm all for beating the stuffing outta him. Let us hope for their sake that they get lost in the crowd and escape unpunished.
i hope we can all come together in our condemnation of these women whose whorish audacity is an affront to the deeply-held religious convictions of this poor man.
I'm not a big fan of violence, although I certainly support it in self-defense.
In this case, I'll go for a loose definition of self-defense, given the situation that women in Iran face. Force is initiated against women in Iran on a regular basis. Meeting force with force is justifiable, IMO.
Sometimes, standing in front of a tank is sufficient as a statement of principle... but a molotov cocktail down the hatch is far more likely to result in significant change.
Both Martin Luther King and the Deacons for Defense and Justice were important to the civil rights movement.
One nice thing about the requirement for covering themselves; the women of Iran won't need V masks to disguise themselves to avoid retribution.
In this case, I'll go for a loose definition of self-defense, given the situation that women in Iran face. Force is initiated against women in Iran on a regular basis. Meeting force with force is justifiable, IMO.
Sometimes, standing in front of a tank is sufficient as a statement of principle... but a molotov cocktail down the hatch is far more likely to result in significant change.
Both Martin Luther King and the Deacons for Defense and Justice were important to the civil rights movement.
One nice thing about the requirement for covering themselves; the women of Iran won't need V masks to disguise themselves to avoid retribution.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Maybe the inappropriateness of anyone approaching a female non-family member for any reason would count in their favor.
Honestly I am not sure we know what happened physically. But the take home message of 'mind you own business' works for me.
Honestly I am not sure we know what happened physically. But the take home message of 'mind you own business' works for me.
billythrilly7th
Banned
I think they're heroes. Maybe rough-around-the-edges heroes, maybe thuggish heroes, but still heroes.
Almost every social reform movement I can think of needed to use violence before they got past certain roadblocks. Women bombed government buildings to draw attention to voting rights. While the African-American Civil Rights movement was largely peaceful, there were a few situations where violence and intimidation were the only things that led to progress. (And on that subject, the Ku Klux Klan at the height of its power did whatever it wanted and tortured whoever it felt like, except in places where people fought back with fists, guns, and in one case, a big wrench.) The LGBT rights movement was almost completely unsuccessful until a bunch of gay and transgender people rioted and beat the hell out of cops at the Stonewall Inn.
This guy was championing a system wherein women are treated like subhuman pets owned by their father, and who can essentially be purchased and raped at will. Sometimes, when you're dealing with slavers and rapists, you have to get violent, because that's what they can understand.
And while there's a popular belief that violence sabotages the reputation of movements that use it, it's a proven fact that limited violence actually helps in many cases. And that violence often gets whitewashed away and largely forgotten. Most people don't imagine bombs when they think about women getting voting rights, and they think the Civil Rights movement was entirely peaceful*, and even radical straight supremacists never bring up the violence at Stonewall when explaining why LGBT people are sinful and evil.
So, my only concern here is the safety of the girls. As far as morality goes, they were entirely in the right.
*Even the Non-Violence tactic made popular by Gandhi and King was basically use of violence, though instead of using violence against other people, you provoked them into using violence against yourself. Bull Conner attacking King's supporters wasn't unexpected--it was absolutely intentional on the part of the demonstrators, and helped greatly in raising national awareness.
Almost every social reform movement I can think of needed to use violence before they got past certain roadblocks. Women bombed government buildings to draw attention to voting rights. While the African-American Civil Rights movement was largely peaceful, there were a few situations where violence and intimidation were the only things that led to progress. (And on that subject, the Ku Klux Klan at the height of its power did whatever it wanted and tortured whoever it felt like, except in places where people fought back with fists, guns, and in one case, a big wrench.) The LGBT rights movement was almost completely unsuccessful until a bunch of gay and transgender people rioted and beat the hell out of cops at the Stonewall Inn.
This guy was championing a system wherein women are treated like subhuman pets owned by their father, and who can essentially be purchased and raped at will. Sometimes, when you're dealing with slavers and rapists, you have to get violent, because that's what they can understand.
And while there's a popular belief that violence sabotages the reputation of movements that use it, it's a proven fact that limited violence actually helps in many cases. And that violence often gets whitewashed away and largely forgotten. Most people don't imagine bombs when they think about women getting voting rights, and they think the Civil Rights movement was entirely peaceful*, and even radical straight supremacists never bring up the violence at Stonewall when explaining why LGBT people are sinful and evil.
So, my only concern here is the safety of the girls. As far as morality goes, they were entirely in the right.
*Even the Non-Violence tactic made popular by Gandhi and King was basically use of violence, though instead of using violence against other people, you provoked them into using violence against yourself. Bull Conner attacking King's supporters wasn't unexpected--it was absolutely intentional on the part of the demonstrators, and helped greatly in raising national awareness.
I can't help but think what the response would be if that had been an old Christian cleric admonishing a couple of gals for wearing short shorts and tube tops and they'd beaten up on him. But maybe beating up on old men is okay if you hate what they stand for.
The story was worth it for the pun:
Seriously, a sign of real social progress will be when MEN start telling such a religious leader to close his eyes or shut his mouth after "politely" asking a girl or woman to cover up.
QFT. The rights we enjoy today were earned by people willing to take huge risks and even spill blood (their own and others') to free themselves from oppression.
Some people are determined to heinously violate the rights of others, and asking them politely to stop isn't going to make a difference. Neither is logical debate. The ruling regime in Iran is obviously beyond logic.
If it happened in a place ruled by an oppressive Christian theocratic government where women were treated worse than slaves, I'd cheer them too.
I myself am so worked up over it I'm likely to storm a Tibetan embassy any minute now.
So one old man makes a remark and that entitles two young women to beat him up because they live in an oppressive country.
Guess blaming the victim is only wrong in some cases, huh?
Guess blaming the victim is only wrong in some cases, huh?