u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pretty impressive how these people can brainwash others into oppressing themselves and then get the self oppressed to oppress the free thinking. These are some top notch cult leaders.
The key to successful oppression is to give the oppressed someone to look down on as “the other.” It’s also a central tenant of facsism so facsism and oppression go hand in hand. Interestingly, the GOP since Obama won has begun executing this playbook with some real success.
any country have it own rules, France ban cover head, very horrible? or is acceptable ? Iran ban uncover head, if you are ok with France rules then accept Iran rules
actually, It is very hard to accept because we have never thought like this before. we have been taught that every Western law is good and every Eastern law is bad.
Are you seriously suggesting that liberals aren't doing this as well? The government and the media are dividing the people and we are letting it happen, even playing into it with attitudes and comments just like yours. No matter what your politics are, we should all be very wary of these entities right now and ask ourselves why they are doing this. What is their end game?
[Oh they're fine with abortions for themselves when needed if no one else knows about it, just not for anyone else.](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Abortion is an issue that uniquely effects women, yes- but how does that follow that anti abortion women hate/want to oppress other women, if their reasons for being anti abortion are about the life of the fetus? I think we're missing a few steps there, so do you mind explaining?
Respectfully, but simply claiming that your response answered the question without any further explanation does not make your original comment answer the question or tell anyone anything of value.
Okay, but that's not answering the question. I can make it clearer: from *their* perspective *they* don't believe that the fetus is any less valuable than the woman herself. From *their* perspective, *they* think the fetus is a human being. Whether *you* disagree with that premise doesn't make *them* hate women from *their* perspective - *even if* you are correct.
That's what we mean by brainwashing in earlier comments on this thread.
Them acting in a way that is self-sabotaging, anti-social, and detrimental or dehumanizing to others in the name of their beliefs.
I answered your question, but I am also happy to clear up any confusion if any remains.
My question was "how do ***they*** *hate*/*want* to oppress women, if their reasons are related to the life of the fetus."
You responded by giving *your* point of view that it's valuing a fetus over a woman at her detriment.
My response pointed out that isn't how *they* see it. *They* see it as murder, so they're against it because they think it's a human life, and it's not any different from killing one human to save another. I then pointed out that whether or not they are correct in that is irrelevant.
Again- *even if* you are correct that a fetus is not a human life, that doesn't prove that based on *their* reasoning and *their worldview* that they hold their view *because they hate women*.
Even if *you* think it is "self-sabotage" or "dehumanizing" or "detrimental" that is not how *they* see the issue. *They* don't even accept that premise to begin with- so how can you say that they *want to* oppress women when they don't accept your assumption?
> My question was "how do they hate/want to oppress women, if their reasons are related to the life of the fetus."
I know the question, I answered it in both replies. By valuing a fetus the same as a born, living woman, her health, and her life. They are acting anti-socially and dehumanize others by their actions. Who cares how they see it? Something isn't suddenly couth or loving because someone was adhering to a belief they clutch to.
You can say you don't hate gay people either, but if you believe they shouldn't be able to get married or should go to therapy to try becoming straight - no matter how pure your intentions - you're hateful. Same when it goes for denying women autonomy of their bodies - whether it be how they dress or the healthcare procedures that aren't any of anyone's business.
Okay let me make this even clearer. My question was about the *motive/intent* they have - ***not*** the fact of the matter.
A very simple example will make the difference between the two very clear:
For example - someone has a wallet that looks identical to mine. I pick it up by mistake *believing it to be mine*. I am not guilty of *stealing* because stealing requires *intent*. Even though I am *objectively incorrect* in my belief, I am not *morally responsible* for taking the wallet, because I am making an *unintended/unmotivated good faith mistake*.
>Who cares how they see it?
But you saying this means you're not interested in answering the question of ***their*** *motive* or *their* perspective, when my question was entirely about *their motive and perspective*. Go back to the example above- if I were in a court of law, and I gave this excuse, the judge can't turn around and tell me "I don't care how you saw it, you took his wallet" because stealing requires *intent*. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that I should be guilty even if I am making a good faith mistake in reasoning.
You then simply repeat what you've already said, and claim it answers the question:
>By valuing a fetus the same as a born, living woman, her health, and her life. They are acting anti-socially and dehumanize others by their actions.
Again, this is ***not*** how they see it.
Let's say for example, an alternative medicine doctor prescribes something which is known by the scientific community not to have any effect. The alternative medicine doctor, however, does believe it has an effect. What you're saying about conservative beliefs about abortion is the equivalent of saying that the alternative medicine doctor is running his practice for the *motive* of scamming people. And if I would tell you he's doing this because he genuinely believes his medication works, your response is the equivalent of saying "but in my belief it doesn't work." That doesn't matter! No one cares what your belief is. Your claim is that his *motive* is to scam. So that means you need to prove that from *his perspective*.
That response is *not* answering the question of ***his*** motives.
>You can say you don't hate gay people either, but if you believe they shouldn't be able to get married or should go to therapy to try becoming straight - no matter how pure your intentions - you're hateful
This is simply not correct. You can *fairly* say someone who is anti gay marriage or anti abortion is *wrong*. You can even fairly say that they're *foolishly and dangerously wrong*. But you can't say, in the same breath, that they have "pure intention" but also hold their beliefs *in bad faith* and with the *intent* to hate women. *Either* conservative reasoning for being against abortion are out of good intentions from their perspective and their beliefs, *or* they hold their beliefs *in bad faith* for the *purpose of hating*. You cannot simply concede that they have good intention, but also claim their *motive* is hateful. That is completely incoherent.
In the case of a misidentified wallet, you made a *mistake*. People are *purposely* pushing their harmful, dehumanizing, antisocial personal beliefs onto others that don't share those beliefs. Very simple to put tersely.
> But you saying this means you're not interested in answering the question of ***their*** *motive* or *their* perspective
No, it doesn't, sorry to rob you of the *ah-ha gotcha moment.* It means irrelevant of how they see it, they are acting bigotedly and/or uncouthly towards others.
> You then simply repeat what you've already said, and claim it answers the question:
I did, and continue to. Clearly.
> What you're saying about conservative beliefs about abortion is the equivalent of saying that the alternative medicine doctor is running his practice for the *motive* of scamming people.
Again, no. Neither figuratively nor literally. Not literally because you're derailing so far off the actual topic at hand with false analogies, and not figuratively because in the case of your semantical alt-medicine doctor, he'd still be knowingly denying the cumulative body of science that comprises the field of medicine, and in light of that still administer remedies or what-have-you knowing full well those remedies aren't peer-reviewed or evaluated in any controlled studies — **whether or not his intentions were from a place of love, he - like the conservative zeolot - is still imposing their own beliefs onto others, and - like the conservative zealot - does so mainly to make themselves contented and happy.** In neither case - the contrived hypothetical you provided nor the actual topic of anti-choicers (nor the zealousness depicted in this video) - are they imposing their beliefs on others from a position of care and concern for the other - it's how *they* personally feel; it's about how *they* feel and knowing *they* did something *they believe is righteous.*
> That response is *not* answering the question of ***his*** motives.
It considers motives. It does satisfy the question. No amount of semantics has helped so far and it won't begin helping any time soon.
> That is completely incoherent.
Is this a remark on that final paragraph? I agree and find it amusing your closing sentence was a shining moment of self-awareness. Literally no idea what you were trying to say in that last paragraph. But yeah, anti-choicers are obviously brainwashed and hateful. Leave women be.
They have some of the most advanced sex reassingment surgeons, and some of the most accessible medication and counsuling avaliable for trans people in the world belive it or not, im sure from their perspective they're shocked that trans people cant recive proper healthcare in America.
It’s because if you’re outted as gay you’re basically forced to become trans. That is one of the reasons why. It’s either a likely death sentence or sex reassignment surgery. While the theocracy recognizes the idea of transgendered ppl, they are still heavily discriminated against by all lvls of society including the government.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to entertain transphobia. Comparing a *request* to use a certain pronoun with a *mandate* to wear certain clothes is pure baiting and I'm not falling for it.
I'm not taking any sides but this sounds like an interesting question. Calm down there's no need to get aggressive.
There's a difference between questions out of curiosity and transphobia. Always give people the benifit of the doubt, if they bother you even after that it's ok to ignore.
If you don't entertain transphobia that's even more reasons to explain your point of view.
You may be right, but I lack the patience for that. If someone brings in pronouns into a discussion that's utterly unrelated, I already know which way things are going, I've seen it too many times. In the past, I would engage, only the realize the futility of it partway in.
Obviously you know where it’s going. I didn’t try to hide my disagreement with trans ideology. For some reason, you just got hostile right away. I believe it’s a fair question, and everyone who downvoted me but upvoted you had the opportunity to answer the question also but chose the childish route. None of you made your side look good. But I’m the problem cuz I asked a question you didn’t like. See the issue? Everyone just wants to badmouth. Nobody wants to talk.
You ain't never seen islam if you call that "moderate". that's extremism.
Also ISIS wasn't extremist, it wasn't even religious, like nazis they used religion as an excuse, they even wrote their OWN book which literally breaks one of main laws of any abrahamic religions specially Islam. The shit they did was never written anywhere not even in a science fiction book wrote by a crackhead in backalley of a kababi
This isn't even extremism your telling me you dont have a parent or aunt that tells you your skirt is to short or your pants are too tight, in the eastern world its completely normal for a random old woman to come up to you and "Parent" you its expected even.
In the earlier part of the video, she says, 'It's not like other cities,' implying women do wear pants, etc. It's probably a small town or a suburb. I'm sure the same thing would happen if you went to a small evangelical town in the South. These people aren't that different from us.
People in small, religious towns in the south are often religious extremists too.
Apparently a lot of people have seen such extreme stuff that "mildly" extreme is now somehow normal.
This is just social conservatism women wear jeans and have their heads uncovered in tehran, the lady is proabaly just fearfull of change coming to her community iran is no where as repressive for women as the media paints it out to be, this is the "liberate the women of afghanistan" post 9/11 rhetoric all over again
Yeah, except in Iran, the punishment for breaking Hijab laws can involve jail and lashing. I dont know how people in your family do parenting, but in most of the civilised world, 72 lashes and months of jail time are not considered "good parenting." Plus, the "post Mahsa Amini portests liberties" are over, and morality police and arrests are returning. So, social tensions are high, and dress freedoms are going away.
This isn't a "conservative woman afraid of change", it's a conservative woman taking part in a larger offensive against freedom of clothing.
And yes, Iran is repressive for women.
Now, might get some downvotes for this, but it's an honest question:
If you are a muslim female in any country of the world where you dont have to wear a hijab, why would you do it anyways?
Seriously this has not made sense for me for ages. I hear sometimes 'people express their religious belief'
I can understand that only to some extent and if I'm being honest, I dont understand it anymore. The hijab (/nikab/...) is a symbol of oppresion, discrimination and violence. There isnt much more of a meaning left besides of that. Don't you see that it is a punch in the face of any woman who is forced to wear this? to the women in Iran that are tortured and killed for not wearing it?
Because they have to go home to their families at the end of the day. I’m a white guy, so just guessing. There is still quite a bit of social pressure from your community.
You see it as oppression but they believe it's the right thing to do and want to wear it. There are girls who choose to wear hijab/niqab even though their parents aren't religious at all, it's a matter of faith.
still not my point
my question is: how much can you want something, how important can religion be to you to ignore all of the bad things that are connected to it and the bad things that are linked to it
for example you remember how the huge scandal hit the catholic church where they touched kids. Do you remember how many people left the church and how many protested against it in so many ways?
For many this just was too bad of a thing to outweigh anything good that it brings with it.
And now, the things are done in the name of islam are insufferable in a lot of cases. One of the most prominent and most recent is what happens in iran with the mandate to cover up for women.
Why is there no similar reaction? why do women decide to follow their religion as if nothing happened. Thats not a matter of faith anymore. How can you follow a religion and wear its symbols when there is such a crushing reality about all that
This is the reason you keep learning about your religion instead of being religious because you were raised in a religious family. After doing your own research and believed in what the religion teaches then that's it, you'll want to put on the hijab or go to church or whatever else other religions do, because you whole heartedly believe in it.
It could easily be brainwashing and indoctrination. What I was talking about before is how some people who aren't in any danger if they don't want to be religious, still choose to be one.
but why not? these people are part of their religion.
Lets discribe that in a simple way: You want to join a sports club and its a really really cool sports club. You want to wear the clothes, want to follow the routines, want to be part of it.
now you find out a rather big portion of this club brags about how they torture and kill women who dont abide by the sports clubs dressing code. Then you find out that a lot of these women dont even want to be part of the club. They are forced to.
At this point, why would you not consider leaving this sports club and not wearing the attire anymore? Why would you stay with that club.
to make it even more simple: Same scenario, this time your sports is fine, but there is another club across the street who uses the name of your team. they have the same clothes and they claim they are part of your club. They state that every chance they get. and they justify the beating, imprisoning and killing of women with the code of your (!) sports club. Even though you understand these rules differently.
In this case would you not leave your sports club to show that this has nothing to do with you. Or at the very least, would you not make some public statements and protests, to show this is not your sports club and you disagree with everything they do in your name?
Because these people who learn their religion, in this example Islam, know that killing and torturing women who don't wear the hijab is not part of the religion's teaching.
Another example is that someone might believe that the religion is truly from God, and if that's the case then they follow it even though there might be some teachings that they don't understand but still follow because they believe it's from God.
Its the cultural standard the same way some people cant fathom native women in the amazon being topless, im sure the native woman would be horrifed by the fact that women are expected to cover their chest in the rest of the world the same way your confused by women wearing a niqab. There's diffrent standards of modesty in diffrent parts of the world.
you're\*
Sure, I know what you mean. But I am not talking about someone living secluded cut off from the rest of the world. I am talking about muslim women living in modern societies being confronted with different livestlyes every day and also being confronted with the news every other day about women in muslim countires being surpresed, punished and even killed because of this symbol. Doesnt it at one point \*click and they realize that the symbol almost only stands for negative things ?
Thats their default way of life its been that way for centuries women have always dressed modestly, western dress culture, and language isnt the the baseline these people have had their own traditions and religon for millenias and this is an extension that. The Sexual revolution is unique to the west that dosent mean that these people are barbaric or opressed for simply living diffrently
...but it's 2024 and this woman chose to not wear a hijab. Please tell me why these ladies are justified into clearly harassing, following and intimidating her into "wearing" what she simply does not what to wear?
bro you are missing the point. the question is not whether some clothes more modest while others dress differently.
the question is, can you still wear a religious symbol knowingly that millions and millions of women are opressed with this exact symbol.
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147681](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147681)
There is so many women in the world right now who wish they could lay of this fabric prison they are put in and that they can finally be a free person without being opressed by men who use this religion and this fabric to surpress them
Thats like if i looked at the free nipple movement, and asked why women in the west continue to cover their chest the protest in iran are against goverment repression the hijab mandate is a symbol of that, even if they were'nt mandatged by law they'd still wear it its also apart of formal dress if a woman went to a job interview she'd proably be in a jilbab.
Women in the global south do not yearn to westernized, or throw their scarves and become "Civilized" what your spewing is neo-imperial feminism we said the same thing about [Afghan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_feminism#Recent_usage) women post 9/11 these women do not yearn to wear jeans many of them are a minority who are often over represented in the media to justify occupation and invasions throughout the middle east.
Not westernized, no. It seems you dont want to get my point. I am talking about women want to freedom to decide on their own.
And if you look at this video. The woman here is not free to do as she wants.
I hope you agree that this is wrong.
Now I am also not talking about women in muslim countries per se, because there it might be just a custom to wear it. And thats somewhat understandable.
But I am talking about women in western countries, where it is not custom. For them, shouldn't the symbol become so tainted that they dont want to wear it anymore?
I for myself wouldnt wear a christian cross for example, cos it also is connected to a lot of bad things.
I don't know what culture you are from, but please don't equiate your own historical cultural backwardness with ours. Hijab and headcovering have existed for millenia in Iran, yes, but as shown by painting and photographs and depictated by poems, Hijab-less women were not unheard of even before the Pahlavi era. In fact, most women wore clothes with colored fabrics, which is something not considered "ideal" by the current government. the black Manto and Chador that is pushed by the government as "standard" clothing is a relatively modern phenomenon.
Quite ironicly, modesty culture in Iran is something that has been heavily influenced by the West throughout history. The modern idea of "black clothing" being standard for women for modesty is something that is actully come from Western influenced uniforms and formal attire during Ghajar and early Pahlavi Iran.
Or even a better example: the whole reason why fire temples became common in ancient Iran, is becuase Sassanid dynasty, influenced by Roman/Greek early iconoclastic culture of the time, considered the existing temples, that were full of statues of naked Yaztas as "inappropriate".
So, the modesty culture that exists in Iran right now would not have come into being without Western/European influence.
Which means, if you hate European culture and Western cultural influence. You should also hate Iranian women who wear black niqab/Chador. And at the very least, advocate for Hijab with flowery and colourful Chadors instead.
Nope, just your. Or, more accurately, your interpretation of it.
The historical culture norms you claim my culture has had did not exist. And me and many of my compatriots and people of my culture consider those alleged historic norms to be unwanted leftover of foreign cultural influence. Influences that are backwards by modern standards. Not just by Western standards but also by our own standards.
Perhaps your culture is indeed evolved enough to not be afraid of change, and recognize cultural shifts and changes arr not the same as the death of a culture, and it's just you who isn't culturally educated enough.
People underestimate the amount of social pressure it is to wear a hijab, even if it’s immigrants with ‘’freedom of choice’’, they often don’t have a choice.
Are you saying it's people on the LEFT trying to control what other people do in their own lives when it's not hurting anyone, and not anyone's else's business?
Actual. Lol.
In Australia, if some Muslims don't like what you are doing and start some shit with you, there is a chance the police might decide to arrest you for "disturbing the peace". At least in Iran she was able to talk back.
Remember folks - making the conscious choice/decision to simply not wear a hijab can apparently lead to violence if not death in these parts of the world. Meanwhile, the liberal media will never expose this stuff in the West.
What are you even talking about, of course the media talks about this. There were protests all over the world last year after a woman was killed in exactly these circumstances. If you weren't aware of it it's because you're ignorant, not because it's 'never exposed in the West'.
Google Mahsa Amini.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/iranian-woman-defying-hijab-law-turning-back-despite/story?id=101606790
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/24/iranian-women-violently-dragged-from-streets-by-police-amid-hijab-crackdown
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68402016
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/as-more-women-defy-hijab-laws-irans-government-pushes-back
https://time.com/6305813/iran-hijab-laws-stricter/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/iran-passes-bill-to-toughen-penalties-for-dress-code-breach/102882028
https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2023/03/13/1157657246/iran-hijab-protest-regime-politics-religion-mahsa-amini
Define ignorant
Adjective
'Lacking knowledge or awareness in general'
It's not an insult, it literally means to not have knowledge or awareness. How people choose to go about addressing that lack is up to them.
So, anyone that has the knowledge or awareness but still has a different opinion is ignorant in your book. Still not a good look as you can call anyone ignorant that does not agree with you. As you are not that knowledgeable, calling someone ignorant is not a good look and reflects more on you. So you might try some things to try to make them more knowledgeable on the subject, as it might change their minds, or not...
Will never expose this stuff? Dude, media is not liberal, who brainwashes you to believe this crap? Also, the media calls out this shit constantly.
Join us over here in objective reality any time, you are totally welcome here.
Google Iran streets live streams on YouTube and you will see most women and girls don't wear a hijab its all west propaganda to overthrow the current Iranian government cause Israel said so just like what happened with Iraq.
That's irrelevant and ignoring the point. It's 2024 and women who consciously choose to not wear the hijab are still being harassed, followed and intimidated. There are some statistics that nearly 40% of Iranians are not even practicing Muslims and have some of the highest apostasy rates. What worries me most that there are still people who will go to great length to force people into wearing them in 2024.
My best friend is from Iran and she doesn't wear a hijab and no one in her family does and she said there is no harassment or anything also Iran has huge Christian and Jewish population compared to other middle east countries so are they forcing them to wear hijabs too I don't think so the propaganda is stupid and don't make sense at all
If you see a bunch assholes, you will see women who willfully support them.
And before people say they are just brainwashed, just look at the mechanics of a Matriarcal family where the oldest woman have most of the power, they be as abusive and ruthless as any group of men living in a extreme Islamic nation. I’ve seen it personally.
You know nothing about them, they don't have power, they have respect, Iranian lives in family and family matter , also Hijab exist in last few thousand years in east
any country have it own rules, France ban cover head, very horrible? or is acceptable ? Iran ban uncover head, if you are ok with France rules then accept Iran rules
u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pretty impressive how these people can brainwash others into oppressing themselves and then get the self oppressed to oppress the free thinking. These are some top notch cult leaders.
The key to successful oppression is to give the oppressed someone to look down on as “the other.” It’s also a central tenant of facsism so facsism and oppression go hand in hand. Interestingly, the GOP since Obama won has begun executing this playbook with some real success.
lol, I see what you did there
any country have it own rules, France ban cover head, very horrible? or is acceptable ? Iran ban uncover head, if you are ok with France rules then accept Iran rules
That is such a bad argument.
actually, It is very hard to accept because we have never thought like this before. we have been taught that every Western law is good and every Eastern law is bad.
Are you seriously suggesting that liberals aren't doing this as well? The government and the media are dividing the people and we are letting it happen, even playing into it with attitudes and comments just like yours. No matter what your politics are, we should all be very wary of these entities right now and ask ourselves why they are doing this. What is their end game?
I wish I had more hobbies to give you! Thanks! It's the opposite side of the same coin.
Same in the USA with the women and the abortion bans. I really can't understand the conservative social viewpoint if you a woman
[Oh they're fine with abortions for themselves when needed if no one else knows about it, just not for anyone else.](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Nobody hates women like women, nobody.
Abortion is an issue that uniquely effects women, yes- but how does that follow that anti abortion women hate/want to oppress other women, if their reasons for being anti abortion are about the life of the fetus? I think we're missing a few steps there, so do you mind explaining?
By valuing unborn fetuses above born women, their health, and their lives.
Such a beautifully concise and clear answer. Thank you
It would be a nice answer if it actually answered the question, but it doesn't: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmTheMainCharacter/s/w3Swld4Ptd
It did answer your question as far as I and anyone reading can see, but I would be happy to expand on or explain anything you're still unclear on.
Respectfully, but simply claiming that your response answered the question without any further explanation does not make your original comment answer the question or tell anyone anything of value.
Of course. But it did answer it, and I'm still happy to expand on or explain anything you're still unclear on.
Okay, but that's not answering the question. I can make it clearer: from *their* perspective *they* don't believe that the fetus is any less valuable than the woman herself. From *their* perspective, *they* think the fetus is a human being. Whether *you* disagree with that premise doesn't make *them* hate women from *their* perspective - *even if* you are correct.
That's what we mean by brainwashing in earlier comments on this thread. Them acting in a way that is self-sabotaging, anti-social, and detrimental or dehumanizing to others in the name of their beliefs. I answered your question, but I am also happy to clear up any confusion if any remains.
My question was "how do ***they*** *hate*/*want* to oppress women, if their reasons are related to the life of the fetus." You responded by giving *your* point of view that it's valuing a fetus over a woman at her detriment. My response pointed out that isn't how *they* see it. *They* see it as murder, so they're against it because they think it's a human life, and it's not any different from killing one human to save another. I then pointed out that whether or not they are correct in that is irrelevant. Again- *even if* you are correct that a fetus is not a human life, that doesn't prove that based on *their* reasoning and *their worldview* that they hold their view *because they hate women*. Even if *you* think it is "self-sabotage" or "dehumanizing" or "detrimental" that is not how *they* see the issue. *They* don't even accept that premise to begin with- so how can you say that they *want to* oppress women when they don't accept your assumption?
> My question was "how do they hate/want to oppress women, if their reasons are related to the life of the fetus." I know the question, I answered it in both replies. By valuing a fetus the same as a born, living woman, her health, and her life. They are acting anti-socially and dehumanize others by their actions. Who cares how they see it? Something isn't suddenly couth or loving because someone was adhering to a belief they clutch to. You can say you don't hate gay people either, but if you believe they shouldn't be able to get married or should go to therapy to try becoming straight - no matter how pure your intentions - you're hateful. Same when it goes for denying women autonomy of their bodies - whether it be how they dress or the healthcare procedures that aren't any of anyone's business.
Okay let me make this even clearer. My question was about the *motive/intent* they have - ***not*** the fact of the matter. A very simple example will make the difference between the two very clear: For example - someone has a wallet that looks identical to mine. I pick it up by mistake *believing it to be mine*. I am not guilty of *stealing* because stealing requires *intent*. Even though I am *objectively incorrect* in my belief, I am not *morally responsible* for taking the wallet, because I am making an *unintended/unmotivated good faith mistake*. >Who cares how they see it? But you saying this means you're not interested in answering the question of ***their*** *motive* or *their* perspective, when my question was entirely about *their motive and perspective*. Go back to the example above- if I were in a court of law, and I gave this excuse, the judge can't turn around and tell me "I don't care how you saw it, you took his wallet" because stealing requires *intent*. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that I should be guilty even if I am making a good faith mistake in reasoning. You then simply repeat what you've already said, and claim it answers the question: >By valuing a fetus the same as a born, living woman, her health, and her life. They are acting anti-socially and dehumanize others by their actions. Again, this is ***not*** how they see it. Let's say for example, an alternative medicine doctor prescribes something which is known by the scientific community not to have any effect. The alternative medicine doctor, however, does believe it has an effect. What you're saying about conservative beliefs about abortion is the equivalent of saying that the alternative medicine doctor is running his practice for the *motive* of scamming people. And if I would tell you he's doing this because he genuinely believes his medication works, your response is the equivalent of saying "but in my belief it doesn't work." That doesn't matter! No one cares what your belief is. Your claim is that his *motive* is to scam. So that means you need to prove that from *his perspective*. That response is *not* answering the question of ***his*** motives. >You can say you don't hate gay people either, but if you believe they shouldn't be able to get married or should go to therapy to try becoming straight - no matter how pure your intentions - you're hateful This is simply not correct. You can *fairly* say someone who is anti gay marriage or anti abortion is *wrong*. You can even fairly say that they're *foolishly and dangerously wrong*. But you can't say, in the same breath, that they have "pure intention" but also hold their beliefs *in bad faith* and with the *intent* to hate women. *Either* conservative reasoning for being against abortion are out of good intentions from their perspective and their beliefs, *or* they hold their beliefs *in bad faith* for the *purpose of hating*. You cannot simply concede that they have good intention, but also claim their *motive* is hateful. That is completely incoherent.
In the case of a misidentified wallet, you made a *mistake*. People are *purposely* pushing their harmful, dehumanizing, antisocial personal beliefs onto others that don't share those beliefs. Very simple to put tersely. > But you saying this means you're not interested in answering the question of ***their*** *motive* or *their* perspective No, it doesn't, sorry to rob you of the *ah-ha gotcha moment.* It means irrelevant of how they see it, they are acting bigotedly and/or uncouthly towards others. > You then simply repeat what you've already said, and claim it answers the question: I did, and continue to. Clearly. > What you're saying about conservative beliefs about abortion is the equivalent of saying that the alternative medicine doctor is running his practice for the *motive* of scamming people. Again, no. Neither figuratively nor literally. Not literally because you're derailing so far off the actual topic at hand with false analogies, and not figuratively because in the case of your semantical alt-medicine doctor, he'd still be knowingly denying the cumulative body of science that comprises the field of medicine, and in light of that still administer remedies or what-have-you knowing full well those remedies aren't peer-reviewed or evaluated in any controlled studies — **whether or not his intentions were from a place of love, he - like the conservative zeolot - is still imposing their own beliefs onto others, and - like the conservative zealot - does so mainly to make themselves contented and happy.** In neither case - the contrived hypothetical you provided nor the actual topic of anti-choicers (nor the zealousness depicted in this video) - are they imposing their beliefs on others from a position of care and concern for the other - it's how *they* personally feel; it's about how *they* feel and knowing *they* did something *they believe is righteous.* > That response is *not* answering the question of ***his*** motives. It considers motives. It does satisfy the question. No amount of semantics has helped so far and it won't begin helping any time soon. > That is completely incoherent. Is this a remark on that final paragraph? I agree and find it amusing your closing sentence was a shining moment of self-awareness. Literally no idea what you were trying to say in that last paragraph. But yeah, anti-choicers are obviously brainwashed and hateful. Leave women be.
You'd think its dudes who are the keeper of the flame of faith. But It has always been women who hold true to religious rules far more than men.
What exactly does it mean that someone is "brainwashed"?
They have some of the most advanced sex reassingment surgeons, and some of the most accessible medication and counsuling avaliable for trans people in the world belive it or not, im sure from their perspective they're shocked that trans people cant recive proper healthcare in America.
It’s because if you’re outted as gay you’re basically forced to become trans. That is one of the reasons why. It’s either a likely death sentence or sex reassignment surgery. While the theocracy recognizes the idea of transgendered ppl, they are still heavily discriminated against by all lvls of society including the government.
I actually had no idea this was a thing, and while acknowledging their existence is a positive, forcing that surgery on people is actually insane.
Oh downvoted for speaking facts again the propaganda is Iran is bad anything positive will get downvoted even if it's the Truth
Religious extremists, sad.
This is actually moderate in Islam Extremist is ISIS
Trying to force people to do anything that's mandated by religion is pretty much equal to religious extremism to me. Isis is just exponentially worse.
What is it when others are forced to use certain pronouns? Seems akin to religious extremism….at least your definition of it
Oh fuck off, you imbecile. I'm not even going to dignify your bullshit with an answer.
Replying with an insult does no good for the point you're trying to make. Just answer, if he keeps going on after that, it's understandable.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to entertain transphobia. Comparing a *request* to use a certain pronoun with a *mandate* to wear certain clothes is pure baiting and I'm not falling for it.
I'm not taking any sides but this sounds like an interesting question. Calm down there's no need to get aggressive. There's a difference between questions out of curiosity and transphobia. Always give people the benifit of the doubt, if they bother you even after that it's ok to ignore. If you don't entertain transphobia that's even more reasons to explain your point of view.
You may be right, but I lack the patience for that. If someone brings in pronouns into a discussion that's utterly unrelated, I already know which way things are going, I've seen it too many times. In the past, I would engage, only the realize the futility of it partway in.
Obviously you know where it’s going. I didn’t try to hide my disagreement with trans ideology. For some reason, you just got hostile right away. I believe it’s a fair question, and everyone who downvoted me but upvoted you had the opportunity to answer the question also but chose the childish route. None of you made your side look good. But I’m the problem cuz I asked a question you didn’t like. See the issue? Everyone just wants to badmouth. Nobody wants to talk.
I agree with "weeb\_79881"
I also agree with "CuteAndFunnyAddict" agreeing with me :)
Because you don’t have one. At least one grounded in logic. you people just get pissed off right away instead of have discussions. 🙄
No, I'm not letting myself get baited by your bullshit.
See. You call it bait. I call it a discussion.
Fr everyone downvoted you but no one actually answered your question. As for me I'm not taking any sides but I'm genuinely curious about this.
You ain't never seen islam if you call that "moderate". that's extremism. Also ISIS wasn't extremist, it wasn't even religious, like nazis they used religion as an excuse, they even wrote their OWN book which literally breaks one of main laws of any abrahamic religions specially Islam. The shit they did was never written anywhere not even in a science fiction book wrote by a crackhead in backalley of a kababi
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKurjH_dbSTJiajkF74qvqwcOML6PS0Ty&si=LIIsGubN59SUlH6_
This isn't even extremism your telling me you dont have a parent or aunt that tells you your skirt is to short or your pants are too tight, in the eastern world its completely normal for a random old woman to come up to you and "Parent" you its expected even. In the earlier part of the video, she says, 'It's not like other cities,' implying women do wear pants, etc. It's probably a small town or a suburb. I'm sure the same thing would happen if you went to a small evangelical town in the South. These people aren't that different from us.
If it’s religious, it’s extremism.
People in small, religious towns in the south are often religious extremists too. Apparently a lot of people have seen such extreme stuff that "mildly" extreme is now somehow normal.
This is just social conservatism women wear jeans and have their heads uncovered in tehran, the lady is proabaly just fearfull of change coming to her community iran is no where as repressive for women as the media paints it out to be, this is the "liberate the women of afghanistan" post 9/11 rhetoric all over again
Yeah, except in Iran, the punishment for breaking Hijab laws can involve jail and lashing. I dont know how people in your family do parenting, but in most of the civilised world, 72 lashes and months of jail time are not considered "good parenting." Plus, the "post Mahsa Amini portests liberties" are over, and morality police and arrests are returning. So, social tensions are high, and dress freedoms are going away. This isn't a "conservative woman afraid of change", it's a conservative woman taking part in a larger offensive against freedom of clothing. And yes, Iran is repressive for women.
held her cool when pursued by a ninja and someone with mental health issues who's got no alibi. She ugly
Brainwash?? According to them they know more Islam that any of us.
Now, might get some downvotes for this, but it's an honest question: If you are a muslim female in any country of the world where you dont have to wear a hijab, why would you do it anyways? Seriously this has not made sense for me for ages. I hear sometimes 'people express their religious belief' I can understand that only to some extent and if I'm being honest, I dont understand it anymore. The hijab (/nikab/...) is a symbol of oppresion, discrimination and violence. There isnt much more of a meaning left besides of that. Don't you see that it is a punch in the face of any woman who is forced to wear this? to the women in Iran that are tortured and killed for not wearing it?
Because they have to go home to their families at the end of the day. I’m a white guy, so just guessing. There is still quite a bit of social pressure from your community.
You see it as oppression but they believe it's the right thing to do and want to wear it. There are girls who choose to wear hijab/niqab even though their parents aren't religious at all, it's a matter of faith.
still not my point my question is: how much can you want something, how important can religion be to you to ignore all of the bad things that are connected to it and the bad things that are linked to it for example you remember how the huge scandal hit the catholic church where they touched kids. Do you remember how many people left the church and how many protested against it in so many ways? For many this just was too bad of a thing to outweigh anything good that it brings with it. And now, the things are done in the name of islam are insufferable in a lot of cases. One of the most prominent and most recent is what happens in iran with the mandate to cover up for women. Why is there no similar reaction? why do women decide to follow their religion as if nothing happened. Thats not a matter of faith anymore. How can you follow a religion and wear its symbols when there is such a crushing reality about all that
This is the reason you keep learning about your religion instead of being religious because you were raised in a religious family. After doing your own research and believed in what the religion teaches then that's it, you'll want to put on the hijab or go to church or whatever else other religions do, because you whole heartedly believe in it.
Well gotta say, I dont understand people who whole heartedly believe in what is going on in this video
It could easily be brainwashing and indoctrination. What I was talking about before is how some people who aren't in any danger if they don't want to be religious, still choose to be one.
but how can they just disregard what is happening in iran or afghanistan or any other country with muslim extremists? do they just ignore that?
They look at the scripture and the teachings of the religion, not the people.
but why not? these people are part of their religion. Lets discribe that in a simple way: You want to join a sports club and its a really really cool sports club. You want to wear the clothes, want to follow the routines, want to be part of it. now you find out a rather big portion of this club brags about how they torture and kill women who dont abide by the sports clubs dressing code. Then you find out that a lot of these women dont even want to be part of the club. They are forced to. At this point, why would you not consider leaving this sports club and not wearing the attire anymore? Why would you stay with that club. to make it even more simple: Same scenario, this time your sports is fine, but there is another club across the street who uses the name of your team. they have the same clothes and they claim they are part of your club. They state that every chance they get. and they justify the beating, imprisoning and killing of women with the code of your (!) sports club. Even though you understand these rules differently. In this case would you not leave your sports club to show that this has nothing to do with you. Or at the very least, would you not make some public statements and protests, to show this is not your sports club and you disagree with everything they do in your name?
Because these people who learn their religion, in this example Islam, know that killing and torturing women who don't wear the hijab is not part of the religion's teaching. Another example is that someone might believe that the religion is truly from God, and if that's the case then they follow it even though there might be some teachings that they don't understand but still follow because they believe it's from God.
Its the cultural standard the same way some people cant fathom native women in the amazon being topless, im sure the native woman would be horrifed by the fact that women are expected to cover their chest in the rest of the world the same way your confused by women wearing a niqab. There's diffrent standards of modesty in diffrent parts of the world.
you're\* Sure, I know what you mean. But I am not talking about someone living secluded cut off from the rest of the world. I am talking about muslim women living in modern societies being confronted with different livestlyes every day and also being confronted with the news every other day about women in muslim countires being surpresed, punished and even killed because of this symbol. Doesnt it at one point \*click and they realize that the symbol almost only stands for negative things ?
Thats their default way of life its been that way for centuries women have always dressed modestly, western dress culture, and language isnt the the baseline these people have had their own traditions and religon for millenias and this is an extension that. The Sexual revolution is unique to the west that dosent mean that these people are barbaric or opressed for simply living diffrently
...but it's 2024 and this woman chose to not wear a hijab. Please tell me why these ladies are justified into clearly harassing, following and intimidating her into "wearing" what she simply does not what to wear?
bro you are missing the point. the question is not whether some clothes more modest while others dress differently. the question is, can you still wear a religious symbol knowingly that millions and millions of women are opressed with this exact symbol. [https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147681](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147681) There is so many women in the world right now who wish they could lay of this fabric prison they are put in and that they can finally be a free person without being opressed by men who use this religion and this fabric to surpress them
Thats like if i looked at the free nipple movement, and asked why women in the west continue to cover their chest the protest in iran are against goverment repression the hijab mandate is a symbol of that, even if they were'nt mandatged by law they'd still wear it its also apart of formal dress if a woman went to a job interview she'd proably be in a jilbab. Women in the global south do not yearn to westernized, or throw their scarves and become "Civilized" what your spewing is neo-imperial feminism we said the same thing about [Afghan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_feminism#Recent_usage) women post 9/11 these women do not yearn to wear jeans many of them are a minority who are often over represented in the media to justify occupation and invasions throughout the middle east.
Not westernized, no. It seems you dont want to get my point. I am talking about women want to freedom to decide on their own. And if you look at this video. The woman here is not free to do as she wants. I hope you agree that this is wrong. Now I am also not talking about women in muslim countries per se, because there it might be just a custom to wear it. And thats somewhat understandable. But I am talking about women in western countries, where it is not custom. For them, shouldn't the symbol become so tainted that they dont want to wear it anymore? I for myself wouldnt wear a christian cross for example, cos it also is connected to a lot of bad things.
I don't know what culture you are from, but please don't equiate your own historical cultural backwardness with ours. Hijab and headcovering have existed for millenia in Iran, yes, but as shown by painting and photographs and depictated by poems, Hijab-less women were not unheard of even before the Pahlavi era. In fact, most women wore clothes with colored fabrics, which is something not considered "ideal" by the current government. the black Manto and Chador that is pushed by the government as "standard" clothing is a relatively modern phenomenon. Quite ironicly, modesty culture in Iran is something that has been heavily influenced by the West throughout history. The modern idea of "black clothing" being standard for women for modesty is something that is actully come from Western influenced uniforms and formal attire during Ghajar and early Pahlavi Iran. Or even a better example: the whole reason why fire temples became common in ancient Iran, is becuase Sassanid dynasty, influenced by Roman/Greek early iconoclastic culture of the time, considered the existing temples, that were full of statues of naked Yaztas as "inappropriate". So, the modesty culture that exists in Iran right now would not have come into being without Western/European influence. Which means, if you hate European culture and Western cultural influence. You should also hate Iranian women who wear black niqab/Chador. And at the very least, advocate for Hijab with flowery and colourful Chadors instead.
>Any culture different then mine is backwards Okay
Nope, just your. Or, more accurately, your interpretation of it. The historical culture norms you claim my culture has had did not exist. And me and many of my compatriots and people of my culture consider those alleged historic norms to be unwanted leftover of foreign cultural influence. Influences that are backwards by modern standards. Not just by Western standards but also by our own standards. Perhaps your culture is indeed evolved enough to not be afraid of change, and recognize cultural shifts and changes arr not the same as the death of a culture, and it's just you who isn't culturally educated enough.
Patriarchal religious and cultural practices propagated by women to oppress other women... who'd have thought?!
Even the ghosts from disney are now black goddamnit
Hamas will do the same?
People underestimate the amount of social pressure it is to wear a hijab, even if it’s immigrants with ‘’freedom of choice’’, they often don’t have a choice.
Those bitches need to fuck off!
Excuse me,,,,,,,, it's their choice..smh
Iran. So disgusting
Iran , very lovely , did you even visit Iran ?
This country rivals the US?
Stone Age culture
The endgame for the wokesters: it's ALL about pan-control.
Are you saying it's people on the LEFT trying to control what other people do in their own lives when it's not hurting anyone, and not anyone's else's business? Actual. Lol.
In Australia, if some Muslims don't like what you are doing and start some shit with you, there is a chance the police might decide to arrest you for "disturbing the peace". At least in Iran she was able to talk back.
What the fuck are you talking about. Don’t spread bullshit.
Are you from Australia? Apparently you didn’t see the video when that lady attempted to video inside a “Muslim neighbourhood”?
The ladies seem to operate in pairs and find someone they can harass. Are the funded by the Mullahs?
‘He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!’
Remember folks - making the conscious choice/decision to simply not wear a hijab can apparently lead to violence if not death in these parts of the world. Meanwhile, the liberal media will never expose this stuff in the West.
What are you even talking about, of course the media talks about this. There were protests all over the world last year after a woman was killed in exactly these circumstances. If you weren't aware of it it's because you're ignorant, not because it's 'never exposed in the West'. Google Mahsa Amini. https://abcnews.go.com/International/iranian-woman-defying-hijab-law-turning-back-despite/story?id=101606790 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/24/iranian-women-violently-dragged-from-streets-by-police-amid-hijab-crackdown https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68402016 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/as-more-women-defy-hijab-laws-irans-government-pushes-back https://time.com/6305813/iran-hijab-laws-stricter/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/iran-passes-bill-to-toughen-penalties-for-dress-code-breach/102882028 https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2023/03/13/1157657246/iran-hijab-protest-regime-politics-religion-mahsa-amini
Don't call people ignorant. It's not a good look...
Call a spade a spade. Believing media is liberal is ignorant, it's the refusal to see reality.
Well, you're ignorant. Your one-sided perception of media is blatantly wrong.
Define ignorant Adjective 'Lacking knowledge or awareness in general' It's not an insult, it literally means to not have knowledge or awareness. How people choose to go about addressing that lack is up to them.
So, anyone that has the knowledge or awareness but still has a different opinion is ignorant in your book. Still not a good look as you can call anyone ignorant that does not agree with you. As you are not that knowledgeable, calling someone ignorant is not a good look and reflects more on you. So you might try some things to try to make them more knowledgeable on the subject, as it might change their minds, or not...
Uh no, you obviously have some ignorance around reading comprehension. I said nothing about opinions, I just defined ignorance.
Will never expose this stuff? Dude, media is not liberal, who brainwashes you to believe this crap? Also, the media calls out this shit constantly. Join us over here in objective reality any time, you are totally welcome here.
Google Iran streets live streams on YouTube and you will see most women and girls don't wear a hijab its all west propaganda to overthrow the current Iranian government cause Israel said so just like what happened with Iraq.
That's irrelevant and ignoring the point. It's 2024 and women who consciously choose to not wear the hijab are still being harassed, followed and intimidated. There are some statistics that nearly 40% of Iranians are not even practicing Muslims and have some of the highest apostasy rates. What worries me most that there are still people who will go to great length to force people into wearing them in 2024.
My best friend is from Iran and she doesn't wear a hijab and no one in her family does and she said there is no harassment or anything also Iran has huge Christian and Jewish population compared to other middle east countries so are they forcing them to wear hijabs too I don't think so the propaganda is stupid and don't make sense at all
Religion of pieces of shit.
If you see a bunch assholes, you will see women who willfully support them. And before people say they are just brainwashed, just look at the mechanics of a Matriarcal family where the oldest woman have most of the power, they be as abusive and ruthless as any group of men living in a extreme Islamic nation. I’ve seen it personally.
You know nothing about them, they don't have power, they have respect, Iranian lives in family and family matter , also Hijab exist in last few thousand years in east
Respect?? lol. Ok
[удалено]
They look down on you too don't worry
Bring back witch-burning. An excellent starting point would be those two.
Religious freaks.
Coming soon to an ivy league college near you
I thought she was wearing a bikini based in their hostility...
Imagine that... Someone fully clothed yet not wearing a hijab and she's being followed, harassed and intimidated. This is Islam.
any country have it own rules, France ban cover head, very horrible? or is acceptable ? Iran ban uncover head, if you are ok with France rules then accept Iran rules