From: assist@unocss.unomaha.edu ( )
Subject: Re: repression of women
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:34:43 GMT

eshghi@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Kave Eshghi) writes:

>In article <rct.f86vp@lab.ntt.jp> farzin@apollo3.apollo3.ntt.JP 
>(Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: (in comparison with IRI's laws regarding women's
>dress)

>>
>>But the exact same observation can be made about women's cover in the US.
>>I mean there is a minimum cover that they are required to have in public
>>BUT the principle is the same. I am not defending any particular system
>>here. I am just pointing out that the two systems follow the same principle
>>but only degrees are different. Try to separate yourself from any specific
>>culture and you will see it that way too. You can say this is the degree of
>>minimum cover that I believe is appropriate but you can not say that one
>>country covers women and one country does not cover women.

>Great! by the same analogy, drinking tea is the same as shooting heroin,
>they are both addictive substances, only the degree is different! Also,
>kissing your child is the same as raping her, both of them are a type of
>intimate physical contact, only the degree is different. Farzin, I hope you
>(and the other apologists of the inhuman treatment of women in today's Iran)
>don't seriously think you can get away with this kind of schoolboy logic.
>You can rationalize any atrocity, however gross, in the same way. For example,
>Nazi apologists could say: so what, Nazi Germany killed all these Jews, but
>many societies kill some of their citizens (for example, USA) for some reason,
>so what the Nazis did was according to the same principle, only the degree
>was different, and who are we to blame another society for its cultural
>principles? After all, anti-semitism was a deeply rooted aspect of German
>culture at the time, so Hitler acted according to the cultural
>principles of German people,right?

>By the way, the laughable excuse for the harrasment of women  presented by
>Behnam Sadeghi (that the regime is 'forced' to take action against 'immodestly
>dressed' women due to pressure from 'the people') can be used to justify
>the killing of Jews in Germany (in fact, Hitler and Goebels often used 'public
>pressure' to justify their murderous acts in the same way). You can always find
>a 'public' which supports the most barbaric treatment of a section of the
>population, if you are in power and it suits your political needs.

>The point at issue is this: women have the right to choose their dress. Period.
>And don't confuse the issue by talking about 'even in US women are not allowed
>to go naked on the streets'. We are not talking about going naked on the
>streets. We are talking about wearing the normal dress that women wear 
>everywhere else on this planet. And don't give us the baloney about 'but
>Iranian culture is different'. Iranian culture has existed a long time before
>this regime came to power, and I can tell you with authority (as an Iranian)
>that beating women on the streets, terrorizing them and arresting them for
>showing a few strands of their hair is _not_ part of Iranian culture. It is
>as alien and unwelcome as going naked on the streets would be.

Excellent response Kave, but do not expect the Khomeini apologists
to understand any logical reasoning. They will go as far as, for example,
using the Radney King's case to justify terrorism against women in
Iran.