Swedish "Feminist" officials wear headscarves in Iran

[dust1n]

To me it's a question of priorities. If you're one of these Swedish officials - who have self-declared as being a "feminist government" (or some such) - then what's your priority? Feminism or trade with Iran?

I don't really seem them as mutually exclusive... but even if I did, I'm not sure the value of an empty symbolic gesture that doesn't actually result in any tangible differences is worth pursuing at all costs...

 

[icehorse]

empty symbolic gesture

I guess one person's empty symbolic gesture is another's show of solidarity.

 

[dust1n]

I guess one person's empty symbolic gesture is another's show of solidarity.

I think this is a pretty weak sentiment, seeing how it ignores that Muslim women, for the most part, have internalized their religion already, like most people do, and do not see that empty symbolic gesture as a "show of solidarity" anymore than they do see it as "anti-Muslim imperialist antagonism."

I guess sometimes one person's empty symbolic gesture is anothers show of solidarity to the person making the empty symbolic gesture, but doesn't actually mean anything of the sort to the people its supposedly sharing solidarity with...

 

[icehorse]

I think this is a pretty weak sentiment, seeing how it ignores that Muslim women, for the most part, have internalized their religion already, like most people do, and do not see that empty symbolic gesture as a "show of solidarity" anymore than they do see it as "anti-Muslim imperialist antagonism."

I guess sometimes one person's empty symbolic gesture is anothers show of solidarity to the person making the empty symbolic gesture, but doesn't actually mean anything of the sort to the people its supposedly sharing solidarity with...

If apostasy wasn't not only a crime but a capital crime I think your argument would have some merit, but it seems to me you're kind of arguing the merits of Stockholm syndrome?

 

[dust1n]

If apostasy wasn't not only a crime but a capital crime I think your argument would have some merit, but it seems to me you're kind of arguing the merits of Stockholm syndrome?

No, I just find the glaring selective bias of when you think other people are exercising their ideals or not particular interesting...

Like, for some reason, if I took this supposed feminism purity test to see if a I'm (or the Swedish Head of EU Affairs and Trade) hardliner enough, and extended it out to it's natural conclusion, one would think that all parties guilty of similar charges would treated the same-- which would include numerous countries, and beyond the scope of just "Islamic misogyny" itself. But you haven't addressed it when I brought it, so I'm not sure how you view that.

Should I refuse to buy blankets made by Amish people? I mean... is trade really that more important than those women I view as subject and exploited, but who themselves view themselves as exercising their own will and practicing their religion?

Should I entirely disassociate from any economics associated with Pentecostals, because they aren't allowed to cut their hair when they want to?

Is refusal to shop at a Republican's business because the owner doesn't believe in two woman should be allowed to marry if they don't want another natural conclusion?

And why would that mindset only apply to feminism?

Should I be pissed at Bush for holding the Saudi King's hand because they are anti-democratic on top of being misogynistic? The USSR wasn't misogynistic, but it was still an imperialist terrorist for many people... wasn't JFK out of line ever committing diplomacy with these people on their terms?

 

[icehorse]

Should I refuse to buy blankets made by Amish people?

In your many counter examples, do any of those religions make apostasy a crime?

Now, I understand that the next layer of the onion is indoctrination, but one step at a time.

 

[dust1n]

In your many counter examples, do any of those religions make apostasy a crime?

Now, I understand that the next layer of the onion is indoctrination, but one step at a time.

Wait, so you draw the line at apostasy now? What's that have to do with feminism at all?

 

[icehorse]

Wait, so you draw the line at apostasy now? What's that have to do with feminism at all?

I draw the line at universal human rights, and making apostasy a crime is a direct violation of universal human rights. So, postponing a discussion on indoctrination for the moment, if an Amish woman feels she's being abused, she can leave. The same cannot be said for a woman in Iran.

 

[dust1n]

I draw the line at universal human rights, and making apostasy a crime is a direct violation of universal human rights. So, postponing a discussion on indoctrination for the moment, if an Amish woman feels she's being abused, she can leave. The same cannot be said for a woman in Iran.

So, in your opinion, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Swedish minister wore a head covering or not... she shouldn't have been there in the first place anyways...

Le Pen refused to meet with the Mufti in Lebanon because of a headscarf. Lebanon doesn't have laws against apostasy, just against blasphemy... so why meet him regardless if she had to wear a headscarf or not?

And to answer your question, the US states, and many European countries, have relationships with countries where apostasy is actually a crime. I'm not sure if the punishment dealt out if really of important to ya:

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (heck they prosecute Muslims who convert to different sects of Islam). Hell, we are helping Saudi Arabia overthrow a coup in Yemen to replace a government in the country that itself also holds apostasy a crime punishable by death...

And, why would it just be apostasy... there are numerous countries we trade with that have misogynist cultures, can not be easily left, or that practice extrajudicial killings of people for all kinds of extraneous reasons? Is criminal apostasy (especially a non-lethal one) slightly more important than unjust killings that happen around the world for different reasons? Should we move our bases out of the Philippines because they are slaughtering drug addicts in the streets?

 

[icehorse]

@dust1n

I'm sorry, this seems like a series of false choices and strawman arguments.

This specific thread is about officials who have declared themselves to be feminists. I would extend my concern if these officials behaved the same way in relationship to ANY Sharia-driven society.

In other words, I would feel the same way if these Swedes wore headscarves when visiting SA.

As for your broader points, these are - IMO - really important questions (start a thread!).

 

[dust1n]

@dust1n

I'm sorry, this seems like a series of false choices and strawman arguments.

This specific thread is about officials who have declared themselves to be feminists. I would extend my concern if these officials behaved the same way in relationship to ANY Sharia-driven society.

In other words, I would feel the same way if these Swedes wore headscarves when visiting SA.

As for your broader points, these are - IMO - really important questions (start a thread!).

But why would your concerns only be extended specifically to officials who declared themselves to be feminists specifically wearing a headscarf...

You seemed to be saying earlier that because Islamic misogyny exists in Iran, women officials who visit there should not wear the legally imposed headscarf the all women wear there, even if that means cutting off that diplomatic relationships... that seems to me to relate to feminism.

But then why would the headscarf specifically matter? If they didn't wear headscarf and made their show of solidarity, they are still effectively initiating trade with the same country where it still illegal for women not to wear a head scarf. So that makes the foreign official a champion for those women how, exactly?

Saudi Arabia and Oman also has a misogynistic culture. Are you saying we should trade with a misogynistic culture so long as it doesn't require our women governmental officials to wear a headscarf on a visit?

Then I got confused because you brought apostasy into the conversation. So, should women serving in government positions not conduct diplomacy with Iran because it represses women, prosecutes apostasy (which affects men and women), specifically w/o a headscarf only?

You said, "I draw the line at universal human rights, and making apostasy a crime is a direct violation of universal human rights."

You clarified a bit in saying that you would have the same concerns if a Swedish self-proclaimed feminist wore a headscarf to Saudi Arabia. But you have no problem with a self-proclaimed feminist conducting trade with a misogynistic culture that penalizes apostasy, so long as she is not required to wear a headscarf? I mean, that's sort of the crux of my question there.

Also, they aren't straw men or false choices. They are questions as I'm trying to ascertain the reasoning of your objection specifically to this one thing, but not necessarily others.

I think I understand your position in that a self-proclaimed feminist in a governmental position should not be required to wear a headscarf, even if it means cutting off the diplomatic matter, regardless any positive or negative affects that may occur to the people you are showing solidarity with. That's been made clear, I think.

EDIT: To try to make it a little clear, less redundant.

 

[icehorse]

I think I understand your position in that a self-proclaimed feminist in a governmental position should not be required to wear a headscarf, even if it means cutting off the diplomatic matter, regardless any positive or negative affects that may occur to the people you are showing solidarity with. That's been made clear, I think.

Almost, but not quite. Let's imagine that these officials showed up without headscarves... then what would the Iranians have done?

 

[icehorse]

By the way,what you are doing for your thousands of posts never makes you a good man. You were just lucky enough while they were not.

I acknowledge that I've been very fortunate. All I'm doing here is fighting for universal human rights. Do you have a problem with that? I must confess, I'm confused?

 

[icehorse]

lol,for universal human rights, seems like you are mimicking a comedian that you cannot. Try harder but not on me.

Does ANYONE understand this post? If so, please explain it. thanks!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it's hypocritical of them to call themselves feminists and submit to this misogynistic law.

Just trying to understand if you'd have them break the law or not go at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Diplomatic immunity

So that's a yes?

 

[dust1n]

Almost, but not quite. Let's imagine that these officials showed up without headscarves... then what would the Iranians have done?

I do not know. Maybe they had the meeting anyway and nothing happens, maybe they refuse to have the meeting? I mean, one side here is threatening to pull out of the meeting over a sensitive topic; so not entirely outlandish that the other party would be willing to as well.

 

[icehorse]

Just trying to understand if you'd have them break the law or not go at all.

It would appear that given diplomatic immunity (DI), they could do a scarf-free visit without breaking the law. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that DI didn't apply:

What we have here is not as simple as a cultural difference, what we have here is a crucial difference in values. So to me, when they wear the scarf, they are demonstrating that they value their short-term economic gains more than they value feminism.

 

[Shad]

So that's a yes?

Given they are so-called feminists I would say yes as it would consistent with the views of feminism. After all it is a law which makes the Hijab mandatory rather than a choice. They are in a unique position of making a stand without any repercussion from law enforcement. However they caved which calls into question if they are feminist or merely pandering.

 

[Notanumber]

Given they are so-called feminists I would say yes as it would consistent with the views of feminism. After all it is a law which makes the Hijab mandatory rather than a choice. They are in a unique position of making a stand without any repercussion from law enforcement. However they caved which calls into question if they are feminist or merely pandering.

This is why Milo has a dim view of feminists. They are very picky when it comes to choosing their targets.