September 20, 2012

"I don’t know what happened after that, all I could feel was the kicks of this woman who was insulting me and attacking me."

Said the Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti, describing a woman whom he considered "badly covered" and had warned, twice, to cover herself. To the first warning, she issued the snappy comeback "you, cover your eyes." To the second, she responded by beating him up.

Too much violence, but I do like that line "you, cover your eyes."

138 comments:

Roger J. said...

inshalla: she kicked the shit out of him--and it sounds like she did.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It isn’t the first time that clerics in Iran have been beaten up after delivering warnings, Mehr said."

-- That's an, ah, interesting fact.

Amartel said...

Persians are awesome. Their gov, however, sucks on an epic scale. (Hey, just finding commonality between cultures.)

traditionalguy said...

Thanks for posting this gem.

The end of the Muslim Cult will happen the day the oppressed women rise up and hit the cleric tyrants back twice as hard.

That's why educating women is verboten in the Muslim world.

The internet may yet do the trick.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

You go, girl.

ampersand said...

Someone should invent the BROka.
No eyeholes,chastity covering for this guy.

Strelnikov said...

Seek the protection of Allah! She'll understand.

Tibore said...

"It isn’t the first time that clerics in Iran have been beaten up after delivering warnings, Mehr said."

Sooo... perhaps the problem is with him then? Ya think?

sleepless nights said...

Too much violence, horseshit. Nothing works better and faster than facing down a bully.(See "American Revolution".)

I'm thinking that maybe this was a transvestite with attitude, however, to have the ability to kick the cleric's butt that badly.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

The uppity vagina caused it. Too much echoing and resonating. Not enough modesty.

Lyle said...

Natalie Portman may want to rethink her "women's right" ad for Obama.

Obama never really supported the Green revolution in Iran.

... and then there is that Muslim Brotherhood party in Egypt.

bagoh20 said...

We should demand that they install some sexual harassment law, or we will burn down our own embassies. How would they like that?

Crimso said...

Sounds like they're losing the War on Women. Better speed up those centrifuges...

Synova said...

I wonder what story she would tell.

MrCharlie2 said...

Kick him again for me

Shouting Thomas said...

You go, girl.

Agreed! Seems like just about the right amount of violence to me.

Tim said...

Among all the assholes who deserve a beat down, the Muslim clerics policing women for "proper" attire are close to the top of the list. Good for her.

Hope they don't execute her though.

Obama will have to send flowers to the Iranian regime, apologizing for all the abuse they'll take.

Eric said...

Too much violence? He survived, didn't he?

Lem said...

That "you, cover your eyes." resonates with me... even though I have penis and not a vagina.

I was born this way.

Synova said...

Why I ask what story she would tell is... I bet he touched her first.

Bob Ellison said...

Sounds like there may still be a little shit left in him. Kick him again.

Bob Ellison said...

Synova, interesting point. Maybe he was about to rape her.

No, really! That's what happens. Words like "rape" become meaningless, and acts like rape become unidentifiable.

Emil Blatz said...

What goes around, comes around. I'm just sayin' it's not smart to kick the Hojatoleslam.

Now, this guy does not make the list of notables:

List of notable Hojatoleslams

Mohammad Khatami
Mohsen Kadivar
Mohammad Javad Bahonar
Hassan Rowhani
Ali Younesi
Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi
Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehei
Abdollah Noori
Sheikh-ul-Lalazar Ali Tahir Arshed Pasha
Ahmad Koshali
Mohammad Reyshahri
Ali Fallahian
Abdolvahed Mousavi-Lari
Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi
Mehdi Karroubi
Ali Akbar Nategh Nouri
Ali Akbar Mohtashami-Pur
Esmail Shooshtari
Majead Ansari
Muqtada al-Sadr
Nusrat Amin Khanum
Hassan Nasrallah
Hojat Yaldaparast
Seyyed Muhammad Rizvi
Syed Sartaj Zaidi
Syed Abbas Aliya
Muhammad Baig
Shamshad Haider
Hurr Siberi
Syed Hassan Askari

So, maybe he's not such a big deal.

MadisonMan said...

I bet he touched her first.

Agreed. Touched her to cover her up.

Probably made him hard too.

Ken said...

"You go, girl."? Seriously?

If a woman told a man, anywhere in the world and for any reason, that he was poorly dressed, then this man started to violently attack the woman, would anyone dare to utter the phrase "You go, fella"?

There's a name for the cheering on of violence against men: misandry.

AllieOop said...

LMAO! It's a "blessing" in a way for her that she was somewhat covered, so he couldn't recognize her, she probably would be in prison. I hope they don't find out who she was.

Synova said...

I mean... he warned her... of what?

"Cover up or I will...."

What?

Wack her with his walking stick?

Grab her boob?

Shouting Thomas said...

There's a name for the cheering on of violence against men: misandry.

This stuff makes sense in the West.

Applying the logic of the men's movement to the Islamic world is kinda crack brained.

Let it go.

Nobody's cheering on violence against men as a class. We're cheering on violence against this asshole who brought it on himself.

Sigivald said...

Given that his "warnings" were implicit threats or either legal action or vigilante action (it being illegal to be "immodestly covered" in Iran", I don't think the equivalent of tarring-and-feathering is un-called-for.

(One might think "hey, beating the crap out of him isn't the equivalent of that", but remember that the tarring and feathering process was meant to be painful and often resulted in what I'd consider equivalent to a few days bed-rest recovering from bruises.

Plus, well, screw those guys. Totalitarian scolds deserve un-civil treatment like that.)

Darrell said...

I mean... he warned her... of what?

It could result all the way to a public hanging or stoning--especially if there is a lamppost handy and a crowd. And a piece of construction equipmant, like an endloader or crane.

EMD said...

poorly dressed


Yeah, that's it. Very perceptive, Ken.

Synova said...

Ken, I'm betting there was more to it.

Because it *is* ridiculous.

He (supposedly) said she wasn't covered well enough. She reportedly said "cover your eyes", and so he warned her again? They hadn't passed each other by then?

She was covered enough that he couldn't recognize her? But was revealed enough that he absolutely had to accost her on the street?

And he pledges to continue attempting to force others to comply with his understanding?

Now... I wonder... where were the witnesses? How could she just kick him and kick him and no one saw?

I wonder how she would describe the encounter.

Darrell said...

There used to be YouTube videos of
such spur-of-the-moment public hangings about 8 years ago or so. They disappeared after complaints.

Jane said...

much easier than enforcing all the chadors and burkas and the like would be for all pure and holy Islamic men to buy themselves glasses designed to make the world around them just fuzzy enough not to be tempted.

furious_a said...

There's a name for the cheering on of violence against men: misandry.

...let me fix that for you...

There's a name for Islamic Virtue Busybodies: wife-beaters.

Darrell said...

If he worked within the penal code--It is on public record that a single year of 1993, over 100,000 women were arrested and punished for breaking the hejab laws. Women bravely faced punishments, which till 1997 were more often than not 74 lashes. Now, Article 638, which relates to crimes against “modesty and public morality” says “women who appear without the sharia’ covering in public will be condemned to 10 days to 2 months prison or a cash fine of 50,000 to 500,000 rials”.

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/political_islam/punishmnt.html

Ken said...

Applying the logic of the men's movement to the Islamic world is kinda crack brained.

Really? It's just too much to ask that Muslims don't react violently to words? Ridiculous. If this man were threatening physical violence and it seemed imminent, I would agree with this statement. But the reality is, that's not the way it went down.

furious_a said...

She declared a jihad on his busybody mullah *ss.

If this man were threatening physical violence...

Some people just need beatin'.

Darrell said...

If this man were threatening physical violence and it seemed imminent, I would agree with this statement

The history of actions against women for this offense--which is well known by women--makes even his words and warning a life-or-death threat. Are you seriously telling me you would wait around to find out what happens next?

Synova said...

"If this man were threatening physical violence and it seemed imminent, I would agree with this statement. But the reality is, that's not the way it went down."

He's telling the story. I noticed how she was quoted, but he was not. Neither he, nor the article, describe his words or his actions, so how can you say it was words only?

There is a *hole* in the story. The hole is his actions. They carefully don't tell us, one way or another, what he did.

Darrell said...

I noticed how she was quoted

Where? Mehr is the state-run news agency, not the woman. All the quotes are Beheshti's--the cleric.

Or so I think.

Darrell said...

The woman has not been identified, I believe. If she had been, she'd be in deep shit.

Titus said...

You know there is a lot of hot pussy and big tits under those beekeeper outfits.

They need to whip em off and get with the program.

At least they should have holes for the nips and let some air on em.

tits.

phx said...

Remember the slap heard round the world.

edutcher said...

At one point, someone tried to recruit The Blonde to go to Saudi Arabia and nurse some royal.

She demurred and always said if she had, the clash of cultures would probably get violent.

Now I know how.

paul a'barge said...

too much violence

Hah hah hah. That's a good one.

No. Not enough violence.

And frankly, not enough by the men in Iran. It should not be a woman's job to pummel the Mooslim mutts who obsess over a woman's clothing. These fascists ought to be beaten by gangs of cajone-hung men with big sticks.

By the way @Ken, the mutt is not a man, so it's not misandry. Men don't say such things to women.

Titus said...

I wonder if the women there are allowed to trim the hedges. If not that would be so sad.

Nothing worse than an unruly bush.

Synova said...

"Where? Mehr is the state-run news agency, not the woman. All the quotes are Beheshti's--the cleric."

Yes, but it's presented as her actual words... even if it's his version of her actual words.

Her words are given, supposedly, verbatim. Her actions are described.

His words, and he's telling the story so he knows what he said to her, are left out. He warned her, and warned her again, but we aren't given any hint of what his warning was. He never says... and I was standing over *there* three feet away from her, quoting Muhammad. He doesn't say... "She kept walking away from me so I grabbed her arm and said she had to wait for the police."

He's telling the story, he's the one they're interviewing, and his own actions are never described and his own words that he said, never quoted.

paul a'barge said...

@Ken: Shut up.

You don't know how it went down.

And those of us who are paying attention have seen the videos of women being pulled into cars and dragged to Iranian government installations because of the way they were dressed.

So, unless you know what you're talking about, and you don't, shut your pathetic little pie hole.

wef said...

this woman was completely irresponsible wearing what she was wearing

she irresponsibly provoked someone to comment on her irresponsibility - and then she - the one who was acting irresponsible - attacked him!

so she's a criminal on top of showing off her irresponsible freedom of expression with her cheap, poorly made clothes, which were anyway just an embarrassment as a style statement

Synova said...

The omission doesn't prove he's hiding what he did, it might only mean that the culture doesn't care what he did, that of the two sides of the story his words and actions aren't open to censure.

Darrell said...

Do you think he would give an accurate account of his words and his actions? I don't.

I've seen encounters with clerics (and those roving gangs of "students" and standard keepers)on YouTube, and they're not polite or pleasant. I don't think he would wish to give an accurate account and hear the feedback. Or diminish the sympathy he thinks he is getting by telling the story in the first place. Why else would he talk to the Press?

Data Schlepper said...

Wow! Emma Peel lives.

Darrell said...

Well, actually, a woman can be sentenced to a lashing for making a criminal charge. If no man witnessed the incident, the charge is immediately dismissed and she is lashed. A woman's testimony in any case counts for 1/2 a man's--thus a man would be believed over her in any case.

Ken said...

Darrell,

The history of actions against women for this offense

Was there a history of action by this particular man or is it simply enough to know that some other men have committed violence against some other women, such that it's totally cool for this woman to react violently to words? Or are you just projecting? Are entire classes of people guilty or individuals?

After all, I'm an American white man. Is any black man justified in violently attacking him because I told him he should dress better? Simply being an asshole is not justification for violence.


Synova,

There is a *hole* in the story.

Fine. Fill it. If she was in imminent danger, or some circumstance that justifies or violence, tell it. But don't go assuming that this woman was in imminent danger, then act as if it's the truth.

Jumping to conclusions makes you no better than the Group of 88 or the people who prejudged George Zimmerman.


Paul,

By the way @Ken, the mutt is not a man, so it's not misandry.

That statement alone shows what a misandrist you are. After all, how many blacks were lynched by people who said "niggers aren't human"? By your rationale, it was okay to lynch some blacks.

How many Jews have been killed because non-Jews saw them as not human?
Dehumanizing people is easy and has devestating consequences.

Clyde said...

This story made me smile almost as broadly as the one the other day about the Pakistani protester who died after inhaling fumes from the American flag he was burning.

See, it's not always bad news from the Muslim world!

MadisonMan said...

But don't go assuming that this woman was in imminent danger, then act as if it's the truth.

You assume she was not in imminent danger, and act as if that's the truth.

Amartel said...

Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men or boys. That's not a problem in the middle east.
Hatred or dislike of women or girls, that's a huge problem in the middle east. The misogyny in the middle east is moreso than the misandry in the west, it's a far more institutionalized part of the culture, but there are parallels. Maybe that can help you understand why defending an Iranian cleric fashion police asshole makes you sound stupid. Consistency of crusade is not worth it.

If there was a regime that required men to cover up, go around wearing a head-to-toe tablecloth with eyeholes and sent its agents around to berate and beat men who were not properly covered, would violence be an appropriate response?
If not, why not?
And this is just one aspect of the many many ways that women are shut down in the middle east.

elkh1 said...

She should have gouged his eyes out.

Chip Ahoy said...

This story activated a hive of caterpillars in my stomach that crawled all over each other down there and suddenly I barfed a bunch of butterflies.

What? Shut up and hand me that glue. What? I got these marbles and I'm stickin' 'em to copper wire.

But that guy gets no sympathy. No sympathy at all. It's rough out there. Real rough. Realreal rough. No respect. No respect atoll.

Big Mike said...

She should have gouged the eyes out of that bastard offspring from a boar hog mating with a bitch dog. Then he would never have to gaze upon a badly covered woman again.

Kirk Parker said...

Ken,

"If this man were threatening physical violence"

What part of he was don't you understand?

Lem said...

With one little sentence... that Iranian woman inadvertently thought the Obama administration how to respond to the Islamists.

Pettifogger said...

First the Egyptian schmuck who died from inhaling fumes from burning American flags.

And now an Iranian religious policeman gets kicked around.

So many opportunities for schadenfreude, lately.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ken,

"You go, girl."? Seriously?

If a woman told a man, anywhere in the world and for any reason, that he was poorly dressed, then this man started to violently attack the woman, would anyone dare to utter the phrase "You go, fella"?


I think you are missing the point, which is that the man was reproaching her for failing to follow a religiously-ordained dress code, and she basically told him where he could stick his religiously-ordained dress code.

We are not talking about a woman kicking a man because he thought her dress clashed with her shoes here. "Poorly dressed," indeed.

Darrell said...

According to the semi-official From Fars news agency, women arriving at Tehran's 25th annual International Book Fair in the obligatory Islamic hejab were presented with flowers by the organisers. Meanwhile outside the entrance women deemed to be defying the regime's Islamic values by not dressing appropriately were beaten and dragged away by religious police.
http://www.mohabatnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4576:-qq-&catid=35:inside-iran&Itemid=278

Iran's moral police are arresting women who they say are not dressed according to the Islamic dress code.

Some of these women resemble those who campaigned in favour of the government back in February.

This report contains footage filmed on mobile phones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17902222

Darrell said...

Ken,

If you were talking about the US, Canada, or the main areas of London and Paris, I would say you are right. Words, opinions, shouldn't result in violence. But use your imagination for a few seconds. You are a woman in Iran. You've heard the stories. You've witnessed the actual beatings and abductions not only by police, but by the vigalante crews of unregulated moral police that are seemingly condoned by the authorities. You have been spotted and scolded. You are on his radar. Additionally, you already made the msitake of smarting off to him by saying "You, cover your eyes!" He warns you again. If you have gone out wearing some western style of clothing and a headscarf--like some women try during peak business times in main shopping area or business districts--you can't magically make it confirm to what he wishes: It won't grow longer or more loose fitting. He warns you again. You consider the consequences--up to two years in jail and a big fine, a beating, rape--he tells you that if you are dressing like a whore he is going to treat you as a whore, worse--maybe death. What do you do? Just run? No. He will chase you and maybe call for help and other men will assist him. Throw yourself at his mercy? Attack him so he can't follow you and make a clean getaway.

I know what I would do.

AllieOop said...

Wef, her actions were going to hurt only her, no innocent bystanders, poorly thought out analogy.

Good for her. Good he didn't know who she was.

Unknown said...

I believe that the Islamic fashion police carry a stick with them that they use to beat women who do do not meet their standards of modesty. At least that is how they do it in KSA and Afghanistan.

I recall reading a story during the Gulf War about one of those guys getting upset about American female servicewomen unloading airplanes in boots, trousers and T-shirts. He ran up to one and when she ignored his jabbering he hit her with his stick. She took away his stick and broke it so he hit her with his hand at which point she knocked him down and several other women proceeded to kick the cleric on the ground until the NCOIC made them stop so that they didn't kill him. The cleric was then escorted off the airfield.

phx said...

"You are so insignificant, so beneath me, that I, a perfect stranger, can interrupt your life to tell you what a low opinion I have of you and your dress."

And then you act all surprised when you get bitch slapped.

phx said...

Their morals.

phx said...

You need a new tag: "It Ain't Right, but WTF do you expect?"

Like if you make a movie insulting someone's religion.

Richard Fagin said...

No, NOT too much violence1 That malevolent, tyrannical regime and each of its so-called clerical agents is evil. Evil deserves to be removed from the planet. If they won't go willingly, unleash on them every bit of violence they would on us if they thought they could get away with it. Beating the piece of crap up isn't have of what he deserved.

Shame on you, professor, if you eschew all violence for lack of understanding of what stops bullies.

but I am a robot said...

I do like that line "you, cover your eyes."

What SCOTUS case does that remind me of? Is it Cohen v. California?

fivewheels said...

Since Ken is all alone on this, I'm going to offer some qualified support. While I *DO* in fact condone her actions in this case, based on our limited knowledge of the circumstances, I will fully agree that the degree of joy and high-fiving and "you go girl" cheerleading for the beatdown is indicative of the knee-jerk anti-male atmosphere we have here in the West.

As noted, cross-cultural judgments are tricky, but I think this reaction is indeed a reflection of what's happening in this culture. To offer a different analogy, I suspect that had the scolding been given by a more fully covered woman, who then was brutally beaten, no one would be cheering.

phx said...

I suspect that had the scolding been given by a more fully covered woman, who then was brutally beaten, no one would be cheering.

That's because a woman who did that would be evincing stocklholm-syndrome behaviors; really a victim herself. A man doing that though is getting clear benefits and personal gain from treating women as if they aren't fully human.

The idea that this is an anti-male thing doesn't deserve any support, unless you can make a better argument, IMO.

jdniner said...



Check out dawkins on fire.

jdniner said...

Can't post. lol

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2012/09/20/an-open-letter-to-mitt-romney-and-his-campaign/#co_1080745

Revenant said...

It's just too much to ask that Muslims don't react violently to words?

It is wrong to resort to physical violence because of words.

But I'm a busy man, and there are a whole lot of injustices in the world, and life is short. So I'm gonna have to pass on worrying about the dangers Muslim clerics face at the hands of angry fashionistas.

madAsHell said...

The pictures show a lot of blood. I can't believe a woman...errr, most women...would continue when blood was spilled.

The cleric is gay, and he hit on the wrong guy.

Bob Ellison said...

Now, now, madAsHell. He might not be gay. He might just really like barbecue. Could be he loves him some bacon and is trying to break out of the straits he's in.

Don't let's be mean to guys just because they want women to cover up.

No, wait; I'm just riffing here, and it's not that funny, because it's a serious situation, and I don't know the facts, and I'm a Westerner who doesn't understand Islam, and anyway it's not funny.

No, wait; it's awful. Is this story true? It rings true. Why don't the Persians rise up against this tyranny?

fivewheels said...

Yes, I suppose it can be argued that women are incapable of making their own judgments and must of course be acting at the behest of men under Stockholm Syndrome.

This is actually a common spinoff attitude of an "only women have rights, only men have responsibilities" type of feminism.

Darrell said...

If there is fucking Karma, the guys that need to come back as women under Islam are just checking in.

phx said...

Yes, I suppose it can be argued that women are incapable of making their own judgments and must of course be acting at the behest of men under Stockholm Syndrome.

This is actually a common spinoff attitude of an "only women have rights, only men have responsibilities" type of feminism.


Oh sure, there's no undue influence of women going on at all in the Middle East. All throughout Islamic MENA women are capable of making their own decisions and judgments.

You really believe this?

fivewheels said...

I believe that a woman who rightfully was afraid of the consequences of behaving like a free woman would not accost other women on the street.

But it's silly to argue at this meta a level over a hypothetical.

Tarzan said...

"You, cover your eyes."

God that is beautiful, and powerful!

wef said...

allie, dear, you are irresponsibly defending this obviously irresponsible woman who irresponsibly provoked a peaceful religious fellow to comment on her irresponsible way of dressing and then she became violent. Her irresponsibility was predictably not going to hurt only her - what orwellian nonsense - especially because it was the peaceful old man, trying reasonably to remonstrate against her provocative and irresponsible behavior, who ended up brutally attacked and hurt. Are you irresponsibly trying to excuse violence? For shame, and at your age. As for innocent bystanders, just think of the men who will now, understandably given this irresponsible provocation, go home and beat their wives as a preventative measure so they won't go out and irresponsibly wear anything more provocative than the traditionally responsible and quaint burqa. Community standards must be defended, or all hell will break loose. We saw that in Cairo and Libya. Haven't you been paying attention?

Tarzan said...

"There's a name for the cheering on of violence against men: misandry."

If the only thing you can see in this news point is a 'woman behaving violently towards a man' well then gag-a-fuggin-maggot.

There are times when an ass-kicking is richly deserved and the world will cheer you on, come what may. If that kicking comes from a pair of high heels, so what?

That said, I agree that violence (anyone against anyone) should not be the first choice...but how many times do you think this woman has been told how to appear, when to appear and when to disappear, in no uncertain terms since she was a child? How many friends of hers have been beaten or splashed with acid for 'embarrassing' a man?

Misandry.

What an absolutely pussy-ass thing to say.

fivewheels said...

Furthermore, suppose a man was being scolded by a woman for violating some other (to us) minor offense — let's say he was wearing a gold watch.

If he beats the crap out of the woman, is everyone high-fiving because the guy was defying silly religious strictures that we wouldn't stand for here? And calling for even greater violence?

Eric said...

If I got my ass kicked by a woman I'd pretend I couldn't recognize her either. She's probably 5'2" and weighs fifty pounds less than he does.

leslyn said...

"Sisters are doin' it for themselves," Aretha Franklin and the Eurythmics: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KrXTTFDIXJ0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKrXTTFDIXJ0.

leslyn said...

"Sisters are doin' it for themselves," Aretha Franklin and the Eurythmics: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KrXTTFDIXJ0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKrXTTFDIXJ0.

jr565 said...

She responded to words with violence. Being devils advocate here, but shouldn't the cleric have the right to say "keep yourself covered" without worrying about the threat of violence. Does the cleric not hae the right of free speech too? Though, why am I cheering this woman for standing up for her rights?

AllieOop said...

Wef, whaaaaatevahhhh!

EMD said...

If he beats the crap out of the woman, is everyone high-fiving because the guy was defying silly religious strictures that we wouldn't stand for here? And calling for even greater violence?


I love bullshit hypotheticals.

EMD said...

Wef-

Brevity is the soul of wit.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tarzan said...

"if he beats the crap out of the woman, is everyone high-fiving because the guy was defying silly religious strictures that we wouldn't stand for here? And calling for even greater violence?"

Is stoning women to death without repercussion a silly religious stricture? Hanging them from trees and beating them? Forcing them to marry against their will and throwing acid on their faces if they refuse?

These women face daily terrors and indignities the likes of which you and I cannot even imagine.

Likening the men in this equation with Catholic nuns tut-tutting over a man's public drunkeness or some such is beyond the pale.

Tarzan farts on your pussy-ass moral equivalence.

jr565 said...

Michelle Dulak Thompson wrote:
I think you are missing the point, which is that the man was reproaching her for failing to follow a religiously-ordained dress code, and she basically told him where he could stick his religiously-ordained dress code.

We are not talking about a woman kicking a man because he thought her dress clashed with her shoes here. "Poorly dressed," indeed.


I dont think it really matters if its a dress code religiously ordained, necessarily. Suppose it were instead an issue of a woman walking around topless in a state where walking around topless is illegal by law (religiously based or otherwise). And someone said cover yourself there were kids present and she started beating the guy for daring to tell her to follow the law. I would argue that she should be in jail. If you flipped it and it was a guy walking around with his dick waving in the air and a woman told him, put on some pants you perv, and he hauled off and started beating her, I doubt he'd be considered a hero.

The issue is where a society draws the line on propriety. Obvioulsy, Islam is much stricter with its propriety rules than we are. But, we still have propriety rules. You can't walk around most streets completely naked. What if someone, though did test those rule of propriety and someone called them out on it, and then got beaten for it. I'd have a hard time saying that I'd agree with the beating.

Tarzan said...

"She responded to words with violence. Being devils advocate here, but shouldn't the cleric have the right to say "keep yourself covered" without worrying about the threat of violence. Does the cleric not hae the right of free speech too? Though, why am I cheering this woman for standing up for her rights?"

If the person, a woman in this case, lived in a just and civil society, then yes on all fronts. Self-control is the price we pay for the many benefits that come from this.

If you honestly believe that the society this woman was raised in is a just and civil one, then the doe in the headlights expression on your face would be perfectly understandable.

Execrable, but understandable.

Synova said...

jr, all we know is that he warned her about what she was wearing.

Others have pointed out that these "warnings" in Iran often involve being beaten and/or hauled away.

The article isn't concerned with his actions.

Synova said...

And I would certainly say that the cleric can and should have the right to stand on the street and scold whomever he wishes to scold, just like street preachers here.

But Iran isn't here and... okay, suppose, devil's advocate, he never touched her. He sees her, objects to her clothes, "warns" her, and she says, "You, close your eyes." And she does... what? Keeps walking? Probably. Do you suppose she stopped and intended to confront him? Possible, I suppose, but not likely. And so he does... what as she keeps on going? Chases after her?

All of a sudden, without him yet touching her, even if we translate this to some city in the United States... I'm a woman being chased by a strange man. I've a right to feel threatened and I've a right to *physically* demand he back off.

Also, it seems there are no witnesses in this story. So figure that I'm being chased by a strange man on a *deserted* street.

I suppose it's possible he happened upon someone who was *looking* for an excuse to beat him up, but about the only thing we know about *his* actions according to the story is that he is the one who persisted in the encounter.

jr565 said...

Tarzan wrote:

"She responded to words with violence. Being devils advocate here, but shouldn't the cleric have the right to say "keep yourself covered" without worrying about the threat of violence. Does the cleric not hae the right of free speech too? Though, why am I cheering this woman for standing up for her rights?"

If the person, a woman in this case, lived in a just and civil society, then yes on all fronts. Self-control is the price we pay for the many benefits that come from this.

If you honestly believe that the society this woman was raised in is a just and civil one, then the doe in the headlights expression on your face would be perfectly understandable


We in the west certainly find Islam to be unjust and oppressive. But Islam finds its self to be just and civil, and woman are to cover themselves for a legitimate reason (though obviously we disagree with that reason). What if in our more just and civil society someone found the idea of wearing pants to be oppressive and beat people who told them otherwise. As, I'd imagine, if there were rules against public nude ness and someone kept taking their pants off there would be some compulsion in getting that person to toe the line. The cops would probably arrest that person. Just ask any flasher.

jr565 said...

Synova wrote:

all we know is that he warned her about what she was wearing.

Others have pointed out that these "warnings" in Iran often involve being beaten and/or hauled away.

we have dress codes in this country too. Specifically, you can't e naked or,display public lewdness in many/most states. And if you violate the rules, the cops are likely to be called and you can be hauled off. Plus, if you are doing something considered lewd in public, people seeing your actions might even call you out on it.
Obviously where we draw the line on propriety is a lot less strict, but we still do have those rules.

Tarzan said...

Money quote from another poster on another forum discussing the same topic:

"Again, this is not some guy. This is the type of guy who is TELLING you what to do with the implied authority to do something about it. Iran is the type of place where clerics transcend all boundaries of law - the same cleric will hear your trial, marry you off, give you a parking ticket and tell you what to wear with real authority. Believe me when I say it wasn't a passing comment, it was absolutely a threat."

This changes the equation significantly, if you're not outright determined to play "Imam Apologist" to your dying breath.

Chip S. said...

Pussy Riot on tour!

EMD said...

But Islam finds its self to be just and civil, and woman are to cover themselves for a legitimate reason (though obviously we disagree with that reason). What if in our more just and civil society someone found the idea of wearing pants to be oppressive and beat people who told them otherwise.

Or what if a woman was raped and then stoned to death because she was responsible for the rape!

tiger said...

And the folks at Fark and to a lesser extent here - talk about how messed up Christianity is.

Islam and Muslim men are afraid of women, it's that simple.

As an aside I had a Presbyterian nun (really) tell me that Islam deserves our respect because
1) They invented the 'zero'(which the didn't, it came from India) and

2) The AF people operating the drones are most likely Christians therefore they were the moral equivalent of the Islamofacists that destroyed the WTC and killed 3000 innocent people.

She also told me that she couldn't understand why the more liberal the Presbytarians Church became the more they were losing membership.

She thought the more liberal they became the more people would want to join.

What an idiot.

jr565 said...

For example there's this story of a woman who reports a man jerking off in the park. She tells,the cops or the park rangers. She later sees him again in the park and he says"remember me" and proceeds to rape her.
What if when she saw that he was jerking off his response was "you, cover your eyes" and the second response was to beat her for telling him to stop masturbating in public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/nyregion/central-park-rape-suspect-was-sought-in-a-2002-murder.html

The difference is where our society draws its lines in propriety of course, but both societies still have our rules.

The public masturbators can be hauled off in our society. Maybe though, we're still too restrictive, and should allow that too, and the woman who got raped should have minded her own business and the cops should let people who want to masturbate in public and not haul them off to prison. I don't know too many people who would find this woman's response though to be wrong though.

Tarzan said...

"We in the west certainly find Islam to be unjust and oppressive."

Nonsense. We're talking about Sharia law here and it's way beyond oppressive and well into the territory of outright evil, and I will always cheer when evil gets it between the eyes.

You want to wax intellectual and say, "They have their way, we have ours, meh," or "evil is relative, they (the imams, that is) think we're evil, too" that's fine, but we're living on different planets. That kind of talk is just defensive maneuvering to ensure you never need to face up to an oppressive force you might have reason to be genuinely afraid of.

And yet many who express this sort of relativistic view nonetheless take great pride and pleasure when some trust-fund ruffian prowls the streets at night and throws a brick through the window of a bank or a Starbucks.

jr565 said...

EMD wrote:
Or what if a woman was raped and then stoned to death because she was responsible for the rape!


I agree that it's abominable. Though, many would argue that many of our punishments (death penalty of kids or borderline retarded) is similarly unjust and immoral.

Synova said...

Why stop there? Maybe we shouldn't haul people away for anything, even murder or rape? After all, it's just a moral code and who says ours is right?

She seems to have been covered enough that he couldn't recognize her. Also, men aren't required to cover and obscure themselves, so there's an element of inequality involved. Our society doesn't allow public masturbation for one sex and criminalize it for the other.

Arguing that this is a violation of a societal norm doesn't fly.

And even when we do haul people away for crimes we expect them not to be abused and to have due process. If they didn't we'd be cheering those who thwarted the police here as well.

jr565 said...

Tarzan wrote:
You want to wax intellectual and say, "They have their way, we have ours, meh," or "evil is relative, they (the imams, that is) think we're evil, too" that's fine, but we're living on different planets. That kind of talk is just defensive maneuvering to ensure you never need to face up to an oppressive force you might have reason to be genuinely afraid of.

you'll note I said I was playing the devils advocate. And oppressive force is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, how many libs are convinced thee is a war on women in this country? In other words we are the oppressive force, we are the cleric telling a woman to cover herself.
When that kid went to Thailand about ten yers ago, he was caned for grafittting walls. And most people said " those are laws over there, why should he be exempt. In other words, they have their ways, we have ours applied. If a muslim wants to kill his daughter in this country because she dishonored him, I HOPE that he isn't judged by his own societies rules.again, they have their ways and we have ours.

I'm guessing that if it were the latter scenario you WOULD argue, they have their ways and we have ours, no?

Just the other day there was another conversation about the limits of freedom of speech and the argument ws that thee was no justification for violence no matter what was said. Yet, here a woman is told to cover herself and it's perfectly justifiable to commit violence. Hell, I said I was cheering for her for standing up for her rights too.

I'm just saying, tht if ou look at a lot of these issues it makes our support of absolute principles become exercises in relativity depending on the scenario and location.

Tarzan said...

REVOLUTION! is fine and admirable so long as America is the target, is what this all boils down to. Hippies love a fight when the enemy is equivalent to their own mom and dad and they know they won't fight back.

jr565 said...

Synova wrote:

Why stop there? Maybe we shouldn't haul people away for anything, even murder or rape? After all, it's just a moral code and who says ours is right?

She seems to have been covered enough that he couldn't recognize her. Also, men aren't required to cover and obscure themselves, so there's an element of inequality involved. Our society doesn't allow public masturbation for one sex and criminalize it for the other.

Arguing that this is a violation of a societal norm doesn't fly.

we just had a topic a few weeks ago about how women aren't allowed to go topless, while men are in many states. What if a woman was topless in a stae that had been rule against that and when asked to cover herself she hauled off and started beating people? Would that violence be cheered or excoriated? maybe both?
And it is a social norm in that country for women to have burkhas, so it would fly for that country, though obviously not ours.

Tarzan said...

What I'm saying, very simply, is that 'their ways' are evil, in my opinion, and when I see people subject to those evil ways rebel openly, even with violence, against their oppressors I cheer them on with plenty of gusto. No if's, what-if's, and's, but's or maybe's.

Folks like you and I will always differ in large part as to "where the evil lies" and that's life. I see the institutionalized oppression of women, children, non-Muslims and gays in countries governed by Sharia law as utterly and unequivocally evil. If you see otherwise then it's perfectly sensible that my position would seem strange, perhaps even nonsensical to you.

Tarzan said...

"What if a woman was topless in a stae that had been rule against that and when asked to cover herself she hauled off and started beating people? Would that violence be cheered or excoriated? maybe both? "

Depends. If that state had a history of beating, incarcerating without trial or throwing acid on women who defiantly went topless, then I would applaud the violence.

If not, then I would not applaud, because in a reasonably civil and just society, there are legal and non-violent avenues via which change can be pursued, if not always successfully.

Once again, if you believe that the civil and legal culture in Iran is healthy, then it's perfectly understandable why this is all a puzzle of infinite depth to you.

Tarzan said...

On the flip side, for those OWS types who see Western Capitalism as the ultimate evil, I understand why they sometimes lash out violently. Some of them really do believe they are combatting a great evil and that any means is justified.

I don't condone it, though, because I believe they are seriously, dangerously deluded, and are seeking to harm something which, while not always acting in their personal interest, is nonetheless one of the sturdiest and most civil systems around, and something that has sustained them and those they love in ways they do not fully appreciate.

That puts us at odds, of course, and they in turn have no choice but to see *me* as evil.

So yes, it *is* relative in the end, and he (or she) with the most convincing argument and/or the greatest might with which to back it up or enforce it wins.

Me, I rooting for the good guys!

jr565 said...

Tarzan wrote:

What I'm saying, very simply, is that 'their ways' are evil, in my opinion, and when I see people subject to those evil ways rebel openly, even with violence, against their oppressors I cheer them on with plenty of gusto. No if's, what-if's, and's, but's or maybe's.

Folks like you and I will always differ in large part as to "where the evil lies" and that's life. I see the institutionalized oppression of women, children, non-Muslims and gays in countries governed by Sharia law as utterly and unequivocally evil. If you see otherwise then it's perfectly sensible that my position would seem strange, perhaps even nonsensical to you.

you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree with you about shariah. It is evil. Our way is the better way. The problem though is that, our way is not the only way to look at things. They would say our way is the evil way. So where the line is drawn ultimately becomes a relative question. Which means that a lot of our absolute values makes us hypocrites. For example, the idea that they have their ways and we have ours. Depending on who is asking the question and about whom, my guess is you'd have a totally different formulation. Because you think up ultimately that our way is the right way, therefore our standard should be applied.
But suppose there was a Muslim community in this country tht tried to force women in its community to wear burkas. Here you'd argue, you have your ways and we have ours, and because you're living in our country no you can't force people to wear burkas. (though, you can force people to wee pants and not go topless, so the state can compel certain behavior). But then if we go to a Muslim country where women are supposed to we're burkas, the norm would be for a woman to comply and not tell a man who tells her to comply with the nom to g f himself. Here, there way is woman wear burkas. If you believe they hae their ways and we have ours, which you do when it comes to people in this country, then unless you are inconsistent the same principle should apply for their country. Tough again, most of us are demanding that they get out of the 9th century and start applying our standard on how to treat people. If the reverse were true, if they were demanding that we become more muslim, (and in fact many are) we'd be bristling with anger at the affrontery.but we are demanding the same thing.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Darrell wrote:

The woman has not been identified, I believe. If she had been, she'd be in deep shit.

there is actually a benefit for women wearing burkas. She can beat up her oppressor and not be identified. Maybe women can adopt the burka as a subvervsive means to undermine Sharia. I.e. show just enough to get a cleric to tell her to cover up, then beat the shit out of him, then not be charged because she couldn't be identified. Kind of the way Charles bronson would goad muggers into attacking up him in Death Wish. Pretend to be hapless, walk in front of obvious criminals and let them take the bait, then kill them when they think they've got him cornered.

jr565 said...

Tarzan wrote:
That puts us at odds, of course, and they in turn have no choice but to see *me* as evil.

So yes, it *is* relative in the end, and he (or she) with the most convincing argument and/or the greatest might with which to back it up or enforce it wins.

yes, that's my point exactly. The only thing is, they are operating under the exact same principle.

Shana said...

I love this story. Kick him again!

jr565 said...

Synova wrote:

Why stop there? Maybe we shouldn't haul people away for anything, even murder or rape? After all, it's just a moral code and who says ours is right?

She seems to have been covered enough that he couldn't recognize her. Also, men aren't required to cover and obscure themselves, so there's an element of inequality involved. Our society doesn't allow public masturbation for one sex and criminalize it for the other.

Arguing that this is a violation of a societal norm doesn't fly.

And even when we do haul people away for crimes we expect them not to be abused and to have due process. If they didn't we'd be cheering those who thwarted the police here as well.

have you heard how many people, particularly minorities, particularly blacks, view the cops? Many do cheer those that do thwart the police in this country. Meaning, they view that people shot 17 times aren't give due process, or that blacks are targeted by cops for "driving while black" etc.

So whats the principle that you are arguing? That it's ok for society to compel you to do/not do something, like say not masturbste in,public, but only if society affords due process. Well, what if society doesn't provide due process, (in. Your opinion) does tht mean you can masturbate in public and beat people up who tell you otherwise.ultimately what it boils down to is, we don't like the idea that women should be forced to wear burkas. That's our cultural values. But for a cleric in Iran, it's the woman who is behaving egregiously. He's just pointing out her innapropriate behavior.

jr565 said...

Also, the argument earlier was that Muslims have no impulse control and that they can be set off by anything, and free speech should never be held hostage to those committing violence. Yet, here everyone (including me) are cheering for a woman beating a man telling her to cover up. Is it inconsistent? Or maybe the principles we're pushing aren't as absolute as we think, but in fact highly relative. Meaning, maybe sometimes violence is ok as a response to freedom of speech.

amba said...

Hey wait -- Naomi Wolf and Monica Lewinsky: separated at birth?

DEEBEE said...

Insha' Allah

kentuckyliz said...

This story made me happy.

But I am worried for her now, because she will be killed if they figure out who she is.

I was talking about this with coworkers. I said, I could imagine it's a hot day, I've got all the required clothes on, and I'm middle aged, and I'm having a hot flash. I have got to vent that heat off my body. So I loosen up some of my clothes to vent.

If a cleric berated me for that, I'd beat him up too.

A woman having a raging hot flash is no one to mess with.

The moral equivalence going on here points to the moral midgetry of some here. Or, to be charitable, utter ignorance about what sharia is really like--the misogyny Islam is based on.

I will recommend a film to you, that is a true story: "The Stoning of Soraya M." Let this film make it real to you, those in denial.

That cleric would have the BVM arrested--she is showing too much face and collarbone.

kentuckyliz said...

I am changing my profile pic back to Sexy Hijab to honor this woman! And to express my solidarity with all women oppressed by sharia!

kentuckyliz said...

I have heard from folks who served in the sandbox that the covered up women have feet like whores.

Stripper high heels, toenails painted, toe ring, etc.

They sexy up the one thing that is allowed to show.

Clyde said...

Further thought: He needs to shave his beard, turn in his Man Card and become a sitzpinkler.

Shana said...

What American or Western male is his right mind would tell the public that some anonymous female in a tent kicked his ass? Iranian clerics are obviously a special breed.

Synova said...

"we just had a topic a few weeks ago about how women aren't allowed to go topless, while men are in many states."

That is such a bogus "cause". Men don't go topless, hardly ever. People wear shirts. Men and women. Moreover, women can wear much skimpier outfits in more situations than men can. Go to a high school and see who has shoulders showing, who has butt cracks hanging out, and muffin rolls and bellies showing. Men don't wear spaghetti straps or short-shorts.

Men don't normally go "topless" unless they're at the beach.

The "topless" protesting ladies aren't protesting oppression, they're having a topless spectacle because they *can* not because they *can't*.

TMink said...

Too much violence? I am not sure. He was not harmed, and he will be less likely to say the same to another woman. Sounds like a very appropriate use of aggression to me.

Trey

Marshal said...

TMink said...
Too much violence? I am not sure. He was not harmed, and he will be less likely to say the same to another woman. Sounds like a very appropriate use of aggression to me.


I had my suspicions about the "violence" also. The article is sparse on facts. He says she pushed him and he "felt kicks", which is in turn described by others as "beaten". It's entirely likely all she did was push the busybody away from her and everyone's embellishing the rest.

jp said...

A well-placed kick to the groin bluuuuurs the vision.

EMD said...

(death penalty of kids or borderline retarded)

Different topic, and not religiously-based.


jr565 said...

Synova wrote:
That is such a bogus "cause". Men don't go topless, hardly ever. People wear shirts. Men and women. Moreover, women can wear much skimpier outfits in more situations than men can. Go to a high school and see who has shoulders showing, who has butt cracks hanging out, and muffin rolls and bellies showing. Men don't wear spaghetti straps or short-shorts.

I agree it's a bogus "cause", I'm just saying if we had a woman being told to put her shirt back on and resorted to violence over it we probably wouldn't be all that forgiving of it. Though agreed, being told you can't walk around topless is a lot different than being told you can't show any skin save your eyeballs. Can you imagine if women walked around topless in the ME? People's heads would explode.
also, in NYC at any rate a lot of guys do walk around topless. I happen to take a cab to work and pass a jogging track and there are always dudes running only in shorts. Usually it's dudes you don't want to see with their shorts off too. Sometimes you see these same people walking back from a run and they still don't have shirts. Sometimes I feel like the Muslim cleric. Put a shirt on you jackass. I don't actually say that but certainly think it.