Iran
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
D
Deleted member 294929
You know exactly whst I'm getting at. You have selective discrimination
Nonsense.
Trump is fat - fact.
Trump paints his face orange - fact.
Q. What is the first thing people do when people impersonate Trump?
A. Make themselves look fatter and paint their faces orange.
Q. What results do you get if you type in fat orange politician?
A. Trump. Lots of them.
D
Deleted member 294929
That doesn't make anyone who's fat feel like laughing.
They probably do reading your comments.
Good to see people standing up to the male oppression of women. Gets my thumbs-up.
Hairymelon said:
It could be, but only if someone is only concerned with Islamic women. I definitely do not see that in Noseall's comments. To be islamophobic would be like complaining about the treatment of Islamic women, while ignoring the plight of women in other religions, and outside of religion throughout the world. I do see that in many other poster's comments.
In other words, they're exploiting the treatment of women purely and simply as a ploy to argue against Islam teaching.
Now two points:
1) it's perfectly acceptable to oppose religious teaching, in general and using the subjugation of women in particular as an example of the imperfections in a religious teaching. But the mistreatment of women is not limited to Islam. It's a common problem throughout most if not all religions. It's also a problem for atheists and agnostics. It's not a religious problem, it's a societal problem.
2. it's not only perfectly acceptable to stand up for women of all faiths, and of none, it's desirable. But there is an argument that to do so, would be to perceive women as being unequal, (in that they need the protection of men, but that's a philosophical argument, which I don't avoid.)
So standing up for women is absolutely not islamophobic, but it could be if anyone uses the mistreatment of women (or any other issue) purely as a means to oppose Islam, or any other religious teaching.
D
Deleted member 294929
I'm deeply offended by that comment.
D
Deleted member 294929
Thank you God for you permission
So-called morality police, It's just hard to believe in this day and age. Is there a morality police force for the men in Iran? No, thought not.
I watched Michael Palin on the box last night (recorded) on his jaunt across Iraq. First thing you notice is that it's 99.9% men in the streets, hardly a woman in sight. He was invited to dinner by a bloke he met on the way. (I say met on the way, it was a feast and the whole family was around. A little bit like they were expecting him?) Michael asked them who prepared the food. It was the women of course, but the women weren't there. He asked if he could thank them. There was an odd few moments where they didn't appear to understand what the hell he was on about and then they moved on. No women were thanked.
He then met with a young woman and had a meal with her, outside the restaurant. No women allowed inside. She was bright and educated and was a campaigner for progress. But then she said something that surprised me. It was something along the lines of; she defends her 'right' to wear her hijab, or words to that effect. To my mind the hijab is the device that controls her and identifies her as second class in her own environment, yet she believes it is her 'right' to wear it.
I've heard it many times; 'I wear it because I choose to'. It might not be a PC thing to say, but this is BS and I believe women who support the imposition (because that's what it is!) of hijab wearing - imposed by men - are doing a disservice to women in general by trying to claim it is some sort of women's right or choice. The women in Iran just want nothing more than to be treated with common decency and respect. I hope they are able to achieve it.
I watched Michael Palin on the box last night (recorded) on his jaunt across Iraq. First thing you notice is that it's 99.9% men in the streets, hardly a woman in sight. He was invited to dinner by a bloke he met on the way. (I say met on the way, it was a feast and the whole family was around. A little bit like they were expecting him?) Michael asked them who prepared the food. It was the women of course, but the women weren't there. He asked if he could thank them. There was an odd few moments where they didn't appear to understand what the hell he was on about and then they moved on. No women were thanked.
He then met with a young woman and had a meal with her, outside the restaurant. No women allowed inside. She was bright and educated and was a campaigner for progress. But then she said something that surprised me. It was something along the lines of; she defends her 'right' to wear her hijab, or words to that effect. To my mind the hijab is the device that controls her and identifies her as second class in her own environment, yet she believes it is her 'right' to wear it.
I've heard it many times; 'I wear it because I choose to'. It might not be a PC thing to say, but this is BS and I believe women who support the imposition (because that's what it is!) of hijab wearing - imposed by men - are doing a disservice to women in general by trying to claim it is some sort of women's right or choice. The women in Iran just want nothing more than to be treated with common decency and respect. I hope they are able to achieve it.
If people wish to fit into a group, and be recognised as one of that group, they'll choose to wear the recognised "uniform" of that group, whether it's being festooned with tattoos. piercings, leather jackets, bell-bottom trousers, expensive designer wear, modest Islamic clothing, turbans, kimonos, or kilts, it matters not as long as that person is recognised as one of that group.
We don't argue that Scottish men are treated with contempt, or forced to wear a kilt, why should it be any different?
D
Deleted member 294929
Are they forced. Are they the only nationality that wear kilts or play bag pipes ...... No they are not...
How was he planning on thanking her ? by grabbing her butt ? such quantum entanglements are an all too frequent occurance here in the west. We certainly haven't figured it out, we are too lax and they are more restraint - different solutions to a difficult problem - human sexuality.
Last edited:
Have look at what it was like in Iran in the sixties and seventies compared to now. Talk about going backwards!
The Shah of Iran was forced out because his corruption disgusted the people of the country, forced to watch him lay on lavish banquets for foreigners and see their culture become subsumed by Western influence. The oil wealth of Iran was taken by the West, as it is in many countries, and the return of the Ayotollah was greeted with great joy by many people who saw a chance to take back control of their own country.
Sound familiar?
It should.
Americans have been determined to export their version of democracy around the world since the end of WWII and all they've managed to do is lay waste to foreign lands and kill millions of people through war, famine and economic sanctions that leave the people in poverty.
We have been complicit in this foreign policy whenever it clashed with our economic welfare.
And for all our efforts in the 21st century what have we actually achieved?
Trillions of dollars thrown at Afghanistan; failure. Libya; Syria and Iraq all ending in failure with thousands dead and millions displaced in the name of 'democracy'. Why do we persist in supporting these exhorbitant wars that create so much destruction and resort to cultural disruption when everything else has failed?
We see a thousand women marching in favour of women's rights and ignore the millions who happily live their lives without rancour. Do their opinions not matter? Muslim morality is not a matter for Western judgement since they consider our society corrupt, venal and even obscene in our treatment of women.
Perhaps we ought to remove the mote from our own eye before resorting to blanket condemnation of a culture most of us do not understand.
Sound familiar?
It should.
Americans have been determined to export their version of democracy around the world since the end of WWII and all they've managed to do is lay waste to foreign lands and kill millions of people through war, famine and economic sanctions that leave the people in poverty.
We have been complicit in this foreign policy whenever it clashed with our economic welfare.
And for all our efforts in the 21st century what have we actually achieved?
Trillions of dollars thrown at Afghanistan; failure. Libya; Syria and Iraq all ending in failure with thousands dead and millions displaced in the name of 'democracy'. Why do we persist in supporting these exhorbitant wars that create so much destruction and resort to cultural disruption when everything else has failed?
We see a thousand women marching in favour of women's rights and ignore the millions who happily live their lives without rancour. Do their opinions not matter? Muslim morality is not a matter for Western judgement since they consider our society corrupt, venal and even obscene in our treatment of women.
Perhaps we ought to remove the mote from our own eye before resorting to blanket condemnation of a culture most of us do not understand.