From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: repression of women
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:42:13 GMT

In <1992Sep10.183412.19759@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> 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! 

Wrong.  Your analogy is not the same as the one Farzin (and I in another
posting) have made.  In Farzin's analogy, he is talking about wearing
more or less clothing, whereas tea and heroin are two completely
different substances with completely different effects.  Your analogy
would be correct if you said... "by the same analogy, shooting up
diluted heroin is the same as shooting up more concentrated heroin..."
etc.  Try again.

>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. 

Wrong.  Kissing is a completely different act from rape.  Only if you
believe that kissing is a "lesser form of rape" does your analogy hold
true.  Is kissing just a lesser rape?  Few people seem to think so....
Try again. 

>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.

I do not support inhuman treatment of women, and (from previous postings
I've seen of his) I'm convinced Behnam Sadeghi does not either.  I am
personally not directly familiar with the situation in Iran, but to say
that for a country to have laws requiring a modest dress code is
repressive is ridiculous.  As we have said, *all* countries in the world
impose a limit to how scantily you can dress in public.  Where they draw
the line in each country is determined partially by culture (which
includes religion).  

>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?

Wrong, the situations are completely different.  Is racism rooted in
American law?  They are not the same situation differing by degrees,
they are completely different situations.  Try again.

>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.

All you are saying is that just because a view is held by a majority of
the public doesn't necessarily make it right.  So what is right?  How do 
you test righteousness?  Please tell me the test, so I can make the scientific
evaluation. 

For better or for worse, what the public wants is the test used in all
democracies.

>The point at issue is this: women have the right to choose their dress. Period.

Nobody has complete freedom to choose their dress code in *any* country.
Period.  All countries impose minimum requirements for public dress.

>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. 

I am talking about minimum dress codes for public wear.  All countries have 
them.  Yes, even the states of the USA.

>We are talking about wearing the normal dress that women wear 
>everywhere else on this planet. 

You just previously argued that just because the majority does it
doesn't necessarily make it right.  Have you already forgotten?

>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.

>Mash Bagher

Well, as I said, I don't know directly the situation in Iran.  However,
I disagree with your principles that you state above, for the reasons I 
state above.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   

==================================================================
=   A poor man said to a rich one:				 =
=     `All my money goes on food.'				 = 
=     `Now that's your trouble,' said the rich man. `I only 	 =
=   spend five per cent of _my_ money on food.'			 = 
=                                        			 =
=                -- Idries Shah, _The Magic Monastery_		 =
==================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian