inspired by lemmitors at https://lemmy.ml/post/49343381
any guy in it just for women to wear skimpier clothing should probably be investigated.
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
397 points (88.5% liked)
Memes
56896 readers
990 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the 1971 pic those on the top are bazaari, women of the rich merchant class who are the ones that paid to crush the student socialist rebellion and bring in the Ayatollah from Qom.
This is framing of women in western clothing as more progressive vs women in hijab/chador is incredibly racist. It relies on Islamophobic stereotypes that play Islam as a less advanced civilization when compared to the rest. Please do not forget that the Iranian revolution that got rid of the shah was an internal, peoples revolution against a hostile empires marionette. The ayatollah was the synthesis of contradictions inherent to Iranian society and depicting current Iranian society as regressive compared to the Iranian society under the shah is effectively saying that westerners "know better" what the Iranian people need than the Iranian people themselves. This is racist. Whatever point you want to make against theocracy is lost in all the racist baggage that comes with the image.
Not discussing the racism part but the Iranian revolution was actually two-folds, like the Russian revolution. The first revolution was brought by a vast array of people, from islamists to communists. Many people hoped to keep their progressive way of life and to get political freedom on top if it. Way they got is a second revolution in the form of a swift consolidation of Khomeini's power and a theocracy, with political assassinations and vice squads.
What ever problems the Iranians have is their own to figure out and solve unless they explicitly ask for help, and certainly not from Imperialist Liberals from the Global North playing white savior for the "poor, helpless, primitive SaVaGeS" in the form of more Western bombs dropping on their Childrens heads to "free" them (from this mortal coil) like you're doing them a favor and should thank you for it. /s
The reality of the Islamic resistance is so shrouded in mystery due to Islamophobia that it's impossible for many to see their accomplishments as nothing more than a coincidence, which is ironically an anti-materialist way of viewing the world.
It reminds me of the noble savage trope, but perhaps there is a more apt comparison.
I was getting at it in the news mega thread where Shia Islam was discussed but until people take time to study the history of Islam at large, as well as of Shia specifically, it is impossible to have an accurate analysis of the resistance movement. Shia history has revolutionary sentiment built into the lineage, it reminds me a lot of Juche, with generations of revolutionaries passing down a revolutionary history long before marx was around to describe dialectical materialist analysis. The conditions demanded a revolutionary sentiment and a revolutionary analysis and that is within the DNA of the movement, continuing on into today. Repression has prevented Marxism from being as popular in the Ummah as it once was and will be again but revolutionary and liberatory sentiment within Islam predates Marxism and can be repressed but never removed.
Does Japan not have a functioning democracy? And what's wrong with Korea?
If you're going to say Iraq and Pakistan are dictatorships then you'd have to be an unashamed hypocrite to say Japan, functionality a one party state, isn't.
Two pics mean nothing bro, do you think there are not women like in the picture above currently? And if that were the case, what do you think it happened in Iran during the '70's that caused this "issue" when it comes to religion? ahh, yeah, it's always the us empire.
It don't change anything, in any case is there a difference if a woman has the chois to wear a jihab or is forced to wear one.
What is a jihab?
Did you know Reza Shah threw acid on women wearing the chador to force them to wear western clothing? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about
I know this case, but it also change nothing of what I said, the difference between having the option to wear what you want and being forced to wear what other want. In extremis like in the case which you mencioned, irrelevant if it is a chador, hijab or western clothes. if it is against what the women want.
The whole point is that it is a choice in Iran, it is not compulsory. Go to Iran right now and you will see women choosing not to cover their hair, walking around with the same fashion sense that you'd see in Venice Beach or NYC. There are women walking around in jean shorts and no head covering in Tehran every day without an issue.
I'm from South Spain and here are living a lot of muslim immigrants. As you say, a lot of women which cover their hair and others not. Normally they cover their hair when they are married. But same asin some other countries, it's their decision, because religion or tradition to do it, when nobody is forcing to do it by drastic laws, like in some islamic theocracies where they don't have a choice.
In Iran the law was recently paused and because of this, naturally some women don't wear the hijab, but in other countries they are even forced to wear an burka without any liberty of choice. As said, it's different to have a choice or to be forced by others.
https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/18/iran-pauses-implementation-of-stricter-hijab-law-for-women
Yes in some places there are conservatives due to the way that colonialism and imperialism has impacted the world but as far as Iran goes, your quote shows that the people of Iran were sufficiently progressive to reject an attempt by some conservatives to push a conservative agenda. They were defeated in this attempt by the masses who are still overwhelmingly Muslim, but understand that the Quran says hijab is voluntary because it explicitly states religion cannot be compulsory.
No one here has defended it being compulsory, Muslims by and large are not pushing for it to be compulsory, and those that do are embodying a reactionary mindset imposed on them via colonialism and imperialism. Instead of focusing on what Muslims do and don't do it would be better to focus on ending capitalism so that people everywhere have more freedom from oppressive power structures, access to education and the ability to make decisions from a place of clarity and stability
this is the only point I am trying to make, that it is not inherent to the religion to compel hijab, which undermines the entire position of westerners who think it is compulsory. pointing out that there are non religious people and non muslims living their lives without fear of retribution drives the reality home that most people are choosing to veil because they are religious and personally want to, and not because of some threat of violence. they see people being good Muslims and want to emulate that out of devotion, not coercion.
while I agree with the benefits of wearing hijab for those who choose to, and I also understand how the imperialist and colonial powers are driving an anti-western sentiment that contributes to many clinging to hijab as something that should be compulsory as a defense against imperialist cultural hegemony, the desire to make anything compulsory for anyone else seems inherently conservative. Conservationism is often a natural defensive reaction from some external conditions, and even if it is understandable reaction to the legitimate enemy of the world it doesn't make it something I would personally agree with as the desired end goal. in the end it needs to be a personal decision or else the intention in the heart is impure and it is not legitimate submission to the will of Allah swt but a deception born of coercion.
Ahh ok I was talking about the idea that wsterners have of mandatory hijab enforced on citizens at large but it seems like you're specifically talking about the dress code requirements for state representatives ?
But you understand right that the majority of the cases where people are enforcing dress on women it is people forcing western clothing on them? Do you not understand the hypocrisy of posting an image like what you did and saying that this has to be what the women want but implying that they want the thing that is repeatedly forced on them? The people in Iran chose this government with revolution and they have a constitutional democracy, they need to be empowered to work within their system. By posting pictures of women under the Shah wearing American clothes and implying this is best you are simply supporting imperialism against them
Yes, I understand perfectly, but it isn't the same. I know that society, fashion and other influences can push a women th use some clothings, but she isn't really forced by law to do it, she always has the choice, it's different in countries where a women is drastically punished if she don't wear a hijab or even a burka, even if she don't want to wear it. Sorry if YOU don't see the difference.
Thanks for letting me about a new worthless account to block
i didnt understand what you tried to say