For almost 40 years, our people have been deprived of hearing the graceful and beautiful voice of women singing. If beauty is forbidden, we'll proudly break your law. Singing traditional Iranian songs at a historical mosque in Iran. #WhiteWednesdays pic.twitter.com/DghtBxn2rK
— My Stealthy Freedom (@masihpooyan) January 16, 2018
January 16, 2018
"If beauty is forbidden, we'll proudly break your law."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
This is what a real women's rights struggle looks like, one where people are putting their safety and lives on the line to resist oppression.
Where's Samantha Power to denounce the women at the UN.
Oh right.
Women like this woman are strong women, and they'll never wear a stupid pussy hat.
Worth more than a red carpet full of virtue-signaling black dresses.
Meanwhile, strange stirrings in the attic.
Margaret Atwood is a Blood Drinking Monster
compare that to Western Feminists
https://www.unwatch.org/walk-shame-swedens-first-feminist-government-don-hijabs-iran/
AllenS - indeed.
Lovely. I hope she is still singing.
Western feminists like Joy Behar and Meryl Streep are too busy navel gazing to care.
Iran is a shithole.
(for lefties only: I mean it's government)
Pretty good lip syncing.
Toronto police say hijab-cutting incident never happened, investigation is closed
The hijab story wasn’t true – but our compassion must not waver
Inga isn't a feminist. Margret Atwood isn't feminist.
THIS woman is a feminist.
It would be more powerful if she had a vagina hat on...just sayin'.
Damn straight. And may I give a shout-out to the great Googoosh?
I suppose I would consider myself a "feminist" if "feminist" meant that there should not be political or legal inequality on the basis of sex. Unfortunately, it seems that modern feminists believe that there should be no inequality between the sexes at all and that any such inequality is a sign of oppressive forces.
But in any event, there is not much purpose as far as I can tell in comparing "western feminists" with "feminists" in Iran. The baseline is totally different. The issues are more trivial, though that does not mean nonexistent. It is perfectly permissible for American activists to focus on American society, since that this the society they have the most likelihood of impacting. Similarly, British activists should primarily be concerned with Britain and Iranian activists primarily concerned with Iran.
Just sayin' J.
The pussy hats look a tad ridiculous when a woman in another country faces imprisonment or even death when she advocates for the most basic human rights.
I'm not sure I needed a Smug mansplaining of the differences between foreign and domestic feminism.
@Rusty:
The pussy hats look a tad ridiculous when a woman in another country faces imprisonment or even death when she advocates for the most basic human rights.
I agree they look ridiculous and that the modern feminist movement is really a victim of its own successes. It does not have much of a raison d'etre in modern western society and is thus frequently forced into more absurd and decadent positions.
But then again, there really is not much that western feminists (or governments) can do for the struggle of women's rights in Iran. That unfortunately is a job for Iranian society and attempts to force them from the outside are likely to be unsuccessful and counterproductive.
Solidarity, J. Solidarity.
@Rusty:
Solidarity, J. Solidarity.
Perhaps, but that's mostly just virtue signaling. Western feminists are certainly free to declare their "solidarity" with Iranian protesters, but that and three bucks will get you a gallon of milk.
Western feminists are certainly free to declare their "solidarity" with Iranian protesters,
They're actually much more likely to side with Muslim hardliners.
Who is more honored by American feminists:
Linda Sarsour or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
@Gahrie:
They're actually much more likely to side with Muslim hardliners.
I know this is a popular sort of talk radio/cable news point, but it seems like a bit of a stretch. There is certainly a strain of SJW activism that champions Muslims' roles as ethnic minorities, but are there any significant feminist activists who have "side[d] with Muslim hardliners?" I don't know the answer to that question, but do you have any examples readily at hand?
I don't know the answer to that question, but do you have any examples readily at hand?
Linda Sarsour and Ayaan Hirsi Ali
@Gahrie:
Linda Sarsour and Ayaan Hirsi Ali
I certainly do not agree with Sarsour, but she is a pretty typical SJW activist who (like Ali, incidentally) is attractive because of her ethnic identity traits. I do not think it is fair to say that she has sided with "Muslim hardliners."
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I have never been a particular fan of her's. She undoubtedly has a powerful and inspiring life story, but I have never found her political commentary particularly interesting or even correct. She always seemed to me more of an affirmative action lecture circuit attraction than a serious commenter on these issues. She mostly mouths neoconservative points of view on the Middle East and Islam that are incongruent with her ethnic identity, and thus she is interesting on that level. I think her calls for an Islamic "reformation" are pretty simplistic, unrealistic, and useless.
That hashtag is uh, ... problematic.
Smug doesn't think Sarsour has sided with Muslim hardliners?
Yet Sarsour praises unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing, Siraj Wajjah. But she also blames Zionists for a lot of stuff. So I can see how she appeals to Smug.
She's a hams fan girl, she would usher the real handmaids tale or something out of ferrignos assaain of the prophet series
@Birkel:
Sarsour praises unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing, Siraj Wajjah
Siraj Wahhaj was one of nearly 200 people identified who could "possibly" have been "alleged" to have been co-conspirators. No evidence of his guilt or involvement has ever been promulgated. He remains active in the Brooklyn Muslim community and has had no legal involvement. I certainly do not share his world view, but he is not a "Muslim hardliner."
But she also blames Zionists for a lot of stuff. So I can see how she appeals to Smug.
She does not "appeal" to me at all, and in fact my worldview (i.e. ethno-nationalism) is pretty diametrically opposed to hers. That said, Zionism certainly does share some weight of historical blame. I am willing to make that argument on its own merits. That she happens to agree with me is of no consequence.
She's a hams fan girl, she would usher the real handmaids tale or something out of ferrignos assaain of the prophet series,
Sarsour has actually publicly opposed Hamas. As for what "she would usher in," I imagine it is something very different than what I would want. Luckily, people like Sarsour do not actually have much political power to "usher in" a new world. There is a massive threat to the US, and Islam is only a tiny (and easily remedied) fraction of that.
You defend Sarsour who wants to destroy our civilization and savage Ali who wants to destroy fundamentalist Islam.
Well at least you didn't surprise me.
@Gahrie:
You defend Sarsour who wants to destroy our civilization and savage Ali who wants to destroy fundamentalist Islam.
First, I do not "defend Sarsour." I will defend her against untrue accusations, though. I said repeatedly that my worldview is completely opposed to Sarsour's. As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I do not "savage" her. I don't know the woman and am not prepared to make any personal judgments about her. I did say that her personal story was powerful and inspiring. What I am prepared to "savage," though, are her arguments. That she wants to "destroy fundamentalist Islam" is meaningless to me. As I have said before, I do not care much what people's motives are. It's what they say and do that matters. So I judge Sarsour and Ali on the same exact standard--by what they do and what they say. I don't give a crap about their identity traits.
...ethno-nationalism...
I don't give a crap about their identity traits.
Which is the lie?
You share Sarsour's point of view. She also is an ethno-nationalist.
Smug will Smug away and hope the Smug covers what Smug really believes.
I like the online trolls who deny the logical implications of their own writing best of all.
@Birkel:
...ethno-nationalism...
I don't give a crap about their identity traits.
Which is the lie?
Neither is a lie, because they're talking about two different things. But it's no surprise that someone as churlish as you would confuse the two. Reread what I wrote, "What I am prepared to 'savage,' though, are her arguments. Someone's arguments rest or fall on their merits; their identity traits are completely meaningless to the argument. This is what the ad hominem fallacy is all about.
You share Sarsour's point of view.
Hmm...let's see. I am opposed to all immigration. I am opposed to being involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I oppose all affirmative action and all racial preference systems. She's an anti-Trumpist while I've been a supporter of Trumpism since before Trump. She's also an SJW, while I am a believer in, say, racial differences in IQ or the implication in Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve. But other than that, yeah, totally same point of view.
Smug loves ethno (ethnicity) nationalism.
So does Sarsour.
Both think similar thoughts about one country for reasons that Smug keeps to itself and Sarsour says prominently. For the same reasons.
Now I'm churlish? And you called me on it? Well I guess that put me right in my place. Hey Smug, you're a liar and a poor liar at that.
We all have our weaknesses.
@Birkel:
So does Sarsour.
Right, that must be why everyone who writes on the nationalist right despises Sarsour. And of course, as I have said, I despise her policies.
Both think similar thoughts about one country for reasons that Smug keeps to itself and Sarsour says prominently. For the same reasons.
Of course, even if I was motivated 100% by antisemitism, it would make no difference to any argument I make. This is the kind of logic 101 you cannot seem to wrap your brain around. And of course, I have no difference opinion towards Israel; I think it has the same rights and obligations as any other state in the international system.
Hey Smug, you're a liar and a poor liar at that.
You just can't seem to identify a single thing I've actually lied about.
We all have our weaknesses.
You should certainly know that better than anyone.
Ethno-nationalist is your thing. It is also Sarsour's thing.
You just start at different ethnicities and different definitions of states.
Further, it's cute that you think one assumption you make that defines your positions (meaning it allows an observer predictive power for your positions) has nothing to do with what you type. Delightful and wrong. It's self serving. You argued backward from one poor conclusion based on worse assumptions. That's ok. I get it.
The Smug. Work on that.
BTW, the lie was that an ethnicity nationalism doesn't care about identity traits.
It's in the name.
Your own sentences are incompatible.
Post a Comment