These type of people are stuck in the middle ages. There is nothing we can do. The world around them will continue to evolve.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Iran's Supreme leader bans women from biking in public
- Thread starter walking fiend
- Start date
- Status
These type of people are stuck in the middle ages. There is nothing we can do. The world around them will continue to evolve.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
An Islamic nation being regressive and backwards? Shocked. Utterly shocked.
FreddieQuell
Member
Trust me in not trying to tell anyone what to believe but to withhold a person the freedom to travel within even her own town on a bycicle is just ridiculous and demeaning to a persons humanity.
A sad day for women in Iran
Seems like that's the point isn't it?
I don't really think people are saying Iran was a beacon of humanity, yes it was terrible but can you say it's any better in terms of human rights now or if it was any better even after the revolution? If anything it was and has been the same with theocracy and conservatism added on top. Let's not forget the public executions, mass incarcerations and torture of anyone who spoke up in the post revolution era.
Hence, the opinion that eventhough it was one step forward, it was several steps backwards at the same time. Because abuse of human rights exist in both era...you have to at the very least, consider whether the overall degree of freedom in society might have been more than what there was post revolution.
Just like what happens when pretty much every other country goes to shit...conservatives.
People are being tortured and dying in Iranian jails under the new guys too. Only they can't wear mini skirts or ride bikes or freely choose a government.
It may have sucked under the Shah but it still sucks and now everyone is oppressed instead of just the enemies of the Shah.
I'm not sure I see an improvement.
Having just been in Indonesia for a couple weeks, this generalization doesn't hold much weight. Iran's government is utter shit, plain and simple.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Of course it moved backwards. Not saying that. It's more when I see posts that seem to seem to paint Shah era Iran is such a white light, or ones that ignore the reasons for the general popularity of the revolution (and not just because "they like being ultra-conservative and religious, that's just how Iranians are like") and the fact that it wasn't solely religious irk me.
It's like when you see people handwave what European countries did in past centuries by saying "oh, they were the most advanced countries of the time, better than other countries of the time". I get the need to contextualize what happened, but that doesn't mean what happened should be hand-waved away.
Again, trying to downplay what's wrong with the current government in any way (because I HAVE seen people try to say "oh it's better than the Shah's time", which is obviously bs)
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
It was already banned, source = iranian friend.
Nothing to do with religion or theocracy, but with power structure. A fringe of the population is ultra-conservative and always require to be satisfied, the same happen in Saudi Arabia. People associate in the West religion with being conservative or ultra-conservative but it's not the case in many muslim countries, both spectrum of political range are equally muslims and negating this is playing the game of the ultra-conservative.
And unsurprisingly, in Saudi Arabia women cannot drive auto while it's well known that women are allowed to ride horses in Islam and the own Companions of the Prophet ﷺ did.
Everything is not black and white in Iran, and in many aspect is one of the most progressive muslim country on some issue likegender change (they get regulary insulted for that buy sunni masses when Al-Azhar stated a somewhat similar fatwa) or women educational level, religious and secular. Saying that everything was great in Shah "because mini-skirt" is really falling in the trap of the neo-colonial model of governance, where a Tyrant can secure western support only by showing exterior signs of "wester value". The Shah was not only a tyrant but misogynistic :
source
And his father was just a secular fundamentalist who banned the veil in public space as well as the turban.
Nothing to do with religion or theocracy, but with power structure. A fringe of the population is ultra-conservative and always require to be satisfied, the same happen in Saudi Arabia. People associate in the West religion with being conservative or ultra-conservative but it's not the case in many muslim countries, both spectrum of political range are equally muslims and negating this is playing the game of the ultra-conservative.
And unsurprisingly, in Saudi Arabia women cannot drive auto while it's well known that women are allowed to ride horses in Islam and the own Companions of the Prophet ﷺ did.
Everything is not black and white in Iran, and in many aspect is one of the most progressive muslim country on some issue likegender change (they get regulary insulted for that buy sunni masses when Al-Azhar stated a somewhat similar fatwa) or women educational level, religious and secular. Saying that everything was great in Shah "because mini-skirt" is really falling in the trap of the neo-colonial model of governance, where a Tyrant can secure western support only by showing exterior signs of "wester value". The Shah was not only a tyrant but misogynistic :
source
And his father was just a secular fundamentalist who banned the veil in public space as well as the turban.
TheRealTalker
Banned
the war with Iraq helped him to take over
there isn't a improvement
last year alone I believe they executed 2000+ people
I am just saying that the best part of modern Iran was before the Shah and the current Regime
Tallshortman
Member
The main issue imo was that he betrayed the liberals/progressives after the revolution after promising to work with them. Their support was important in ousting the shah but the iraq war essentially allowed him to set up the oppressive theocracy we have today.
walking fiend
Member
That is not true. Shah was utter garbage too.
Anyway, I don't care about that too much. I hope some publicity can turn this into a hot issue and hopefully they will back off.
The problem I see is that unlike a Shah, replacing an authoritarian theocracy is much much more difficult.
I don't think I know of a single instance in modern history where it has happened...outside of Egypt where Muslim Brotherhood was trying to do the same thing before the military stepped in and told them to fuck off, but that happened in such a short time frame that it wasn't difficult. In case of a country like Iran which has had 2 generations of this, it is pretty much ingrained in the life of every Iranian now.
He said before the Shah
I don't think I know of a single instance in modern history where it has happened...outside of Egypt where Muslim Brotherhood was trying to do the same thing before the military stepped in and told them to fuck off, but that happened in such a short time frame that it wasn't difficult. In case of a country like Iran which has had 2 generations of this, it is pretty much ingrained in the life of every Iranian now.
He said before the Shah
Captain Chaos
Member
2016
entremet
Member
I think you mean theocratic here.
walking fiend
Member
You mean 2500 years ago? Cause Iran was a monarchy/empire since 500 BC until 40 years ago, ruled mostly by tyrant despots.
Anyway. Let's not derail the thread. No one wants to go back in time.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Iran ladies and gentlemen.
TheRealTalker
Banned
my posts says
before the Shah
and my post prior said even more about that
what I mean is before the Shah took full power in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
A better example is Senegal, but in any case Indonesia is still a democracy with a lot of issue. The system is not rotten at it's core like in Iran.
BigBeauford
Member
Just another tourist point to add to that "Dont visit Iran" thread.
Sumio Mondo
Member
Iran ladies and gentlemen.
2009 looked like a real fun time... :/
Neoleo2143
Member
Biking and Riding a car have had massive societal implications by expanding the sphere of possible connections any one person could make. To put it into perspective, it's not terribly likely that the 1st wave Feminist Movement would have gotten much traction without the Bicycle enabling women to travel beyond the household than ever before and thus talk to more women beyond the neighbors in walking distance.
This is a huge setback for women's rights in Iran.
Psychoward
Banned
He never said it was an improvement or even implied it. Just that using those pictures to show how great and progressive Iran used to be can be somewhat misleading.
And it's clearly supported by Islamic scripture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm#Hadith
Also supported by vast numbers of muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
But hey, the reform will happen any day now...
It's taboo in North Korea for women to ride bikes too, there is an expression there which folk shout to women seen riding them, which roughly translates to..
You'll tear your cunt
.. quite why any country would want to follow their lead..
Milly Osworth
Member
All thanks the awesome thing called religion.
You what mate?
While not banned by government it was looked down on in the US in the early 1900's. Women were banned by their families from riding bikes as bike seats were bad for a women's virtue. The real issue is the freedom bikes give women to go further and not need men to do stuff for them.
There is a group fighting this issue in Afghanistan for awhile now. A company I worked for sponsored them and helped get them to start having a competitive team to travel.
http://www.afghancycles.com
https://vimeo.com/137796562
There is another great charity http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org that doesn't focus on women but helps the considerably. By giving women bikes girls can do required chores and still get to school. They do better then most charities by starting factories and mechanic shops so the product is suited to and supported in the environment and jobs are created. Other charities would focus on donating bikes but they would break and there would be no parts/people to fix them.
What? Did I say something wrong? Feel free to correct me.
It's a little more than that
walking fiend
Member
He was shit and before that was shit too.
Shah means King in Persian, so you need to clarify whether you mean Mohammad Reza Shah or his fatger Reza Shah.
I believe stoning is practically removed from legislation. It has been practiced three times IIRC.
Iran ladies and gentlemen.
Palette Swap
Member
Disheartening.
In the long run, I still hope the country opening up to more liberal nations, and the fact they have an educated population (particularly women) bites the conservatives in the ass and they evolve out of this awful theocracy.
In the long run, I still hope the country opening up to more liberal nations, and the fact they have an educated population (particularly women) bites the conservatives in the ass and they evolve out of this awful theocracy.
This is because Allah in all his wisdom created 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets so that after 13,800,000,000 years of constant stochastic evolution and hundreds of mass extinction events on just one of these 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets, a small subset of homo sapiens sapiens (bit of an ironic name in this instance) could fret over whether the hymen bleeds during the wedding night, right?
Makes perfect sense.
Makes perfect sense.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Adultery is not judged by this criteria but by admission or 4 testimony.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Barbaric atrocities neatly codified into law. But I'm told those are just fringe tribal customs, or something. Nothing to do with religion --
Iran ladies and gentlemen.
-- Oh wait.
Oh, that makes it reasonable then!
afternoon delight
Member
i think we shuld give them the benefit of the doubt its kinda cleraly a sin
And if someone doesn't believe in sin?
Wtf is that!?Even those side-saddle bikes that women used to ride in the 1800's?
afternoon delight
Member
Well then clearly they're damned to hell, I mean, that's a given. God speaks to me through many holy books and that much is clear for the nonbelieber.
In the west, it used to be uncouth for women to ride bicycles because of fear of the seat rubbing up against them while riding, which could have lead to involuntary masturbation. So they invented side-saddle bikes for women to ride "properly" with their legs dangling. It's also why their used to be a stigma against women riding horses.
Assuming that bullshit is the basis of this law in Iran, shouldn't side-saddle bikes be ok?
tearsintherain
Member
We should all watch the movie Malena starring Monica Bellucci, she rides a bike in it and only after watching it do you learn that women on bikes is a pretty cool thing
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Correcting something doesn't mean condoning it.
Stoning don't exist in the Quran.
walking fiend
Member
The basis [his basis] is that it will attract men too much and will lead them to sin. Basically, one of the reasons they use for enforcing Hijab; to keep the society pure from doing evil.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked