Kuwait Takes Some Small Steps...

[quadraphonics]

Ah, so thats why women get a good education, jobs etc. I get it now.

That's just it: they don't get many jobs, despite all the educational opportunities.

Their testimony in court is considered to be worth half that of a man.

Their right to inheritance is considered to be worth half that of a man.

They are forced to cover their heads in public.

They cannot become judges.

The list goes on, although I've only been addressing actual constitutional discrimination, and not the day-to-day treatment of women, and the authorities' complicity in it. Likewise, we should recall that what goes on in upper-class, urban parts of Iran is very different from what happens in the rest of the country.

What is true is that women in Iran are treated much better than women in backwards places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But that isn't saying much, and the advances women have made in Iran have been in spite of the government there and the Abrahamic monotheism that underpins it (just like everywhere else, including the entirety of the West).

Socialist Iran treated women good ---> Kill Mossadeq, install dictator

Communists treated women good in Afghaistan ---> Fund and arm Al Qaeda to kill them

Unfortunately for the US, that is how US foreign policy is seen around the world.

Only fruitcakes in this thread think that US foreign policy is driven by an urge to prevent women's liberation.

 

[otheadp]

Only fruitcakes in this thread think that US foreign policy is driven by an urge to prevent women's liberation.

Fruitcake alert! *ahemArsalancoughcough*

 

[S.A.M.]

Why not? It makes as much sense as anything else the US says.

 

[quadraphonics]

Mossadegh was not elected by the British.

Yes I know. Nor was he elected prior to the start of US intervention there, which is what you were talking about.

Iran was the first of the Middle Eastern states to adopt a parliament in 1905.

A parliament with little real power over the monarch, which was eviscerated by the Shah in short order (all of this decades prior to any American involvement).

The 2 billion in AK-47 had no role at all,

It's difficult to destroy infrastructure with AK-47's.

But, speaking of billions of dollars, where is your indictment of the Saudi and Pakistani dictatorships in all of this?

and neither did the abandonment of Afghanistan once they had been used to fight the proxy war.

Wait, I thought you didn't like us interfering in Afghanistan? And now you're complaining that we left them alone?

 

[Arsalan]

That's just it: they don't get many jobs, despite all the educational opportunities.

They do

Their testimony in court is considered to be worth half that of a man.

Their right to inheritance is considered to be worth half that of a man.

use of a false agument forwarded by anti-Islamists.

They are forced to cover their heads in public.

Forced... Or want?

They cannot become judges.

Interesting

The list goes on, although I've only been addressing actual constitutional discrimination, and not the day-to-day treatment of women, and the authorities' complicity in it. Likewise, we should recall that what goes on in upper-class, urban parts of Iran is very different from what happens in the rest of the country.

What is true is that women in Iran are treated much better than women in backwards places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But that isn't saying much, and the advances women have made in Iran have been in spite of the government there and the Abrahamic monotheism that underpins it (just like everywhere else, including the entirety of the West).

Day to day treatment of women isnt any worse than other parts of the world, yet somehoe we only want to focus on Muslim countries. Saying that they have made strides "in spite" of religion is like saying science has made strides "in spite" of government. They are loosely connected and add nothing to the argument.

Only fruitcakes in this thread think that US foreign policy is driven by an urge to prevent women's liberation.

No one is saying its driven by an urge to prevent, hehe, liberation, funny that word being used here, anyway, but we are saying its a direct result of the people being supported. If you support idiots with all your might, they will take power and think that they can do whatever they want.

 

[Arsalan]

Kind of hard to think straight when you're being bombarded with bullshit about alleged "daily bombings" and imaginary peoples calling themselves "Palestinians"...

Ya, just imaginary. Funny how the area wasnt called Israel for a long time prior to the creation of the state isnt it? Its because other people lived there and they defined themselves as Palestinians. They are the descendents of the Jews that used to live in old Israel.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes I know. Nor was he elected prior to the start of US intervention there, which is what you were talking about.

A parliament with little real power over the monarch, which was eviscerated by the Shah in short order (all of this decades prior to any American involvement).

It's difficult to destroy infrastructure with AK-47's.

But, speaking of billions of dollars, where is your indictment of the Saudi and Pakistani dictatorships in all of this?

Wait, I thought you didn't like us interfering in Afghanistan? And now you're complaining that we left them alone?

I have no objection to assisting countries, only empowering dictators. Why couldn't the US support Bhutto instead of Zia, why support Israel instead of Palestine, why not support Mossadegh instead of the Shah?

When countries with power misuse it to create hunger and inequity its rather odd to pretend they care about "human" "rights". And even more fallacious to then point fingers at the country where these dictators are given arms and funds to consolidate their rule.

 

[quadraphonics]

They do

Go and look up some statistics. It will be instructive to find out how wrong your preconcpetions are.

use of a false agument forwarded by anti-Islamists.

If so, it should be easy enough for you to provide a reliable, well-supported source that backs this up.

Forced... Or want?

Forced, obviously.

Day to day treatment of women isnt any worse than other parts of the world, yet somehoe we only want to focus on Muslim countries.

I'm happy enough to talk about women's rights in other countries, but you lot persist in vigorously promoting nonsense about Muslim countries specifically, and so here we are.

Saying that they have made strides "in spite" of religion is like saying science has made strides "in spite" of government.

Sure. It's not difficult to find instances of government impeding science, in order to cater to Abrahamic fundamentalists, even in modern, technology-oriented countries.

No one is saying its driven by an urge to prevent, hehe, liberation, funny that word being used here, anyway, but we are saying its a direct result of the people being supported.

And in other cases, women's liberation is a direct result of people who the US supports. The correlation between US political support, and women's rights, is the opposite of what your cherry-picked handful of examples would suggest.

 

[S.A.M.]

Forced is an odd concept. If Naga Sadhus came to the US, would they be permitted to walk about as they do in India? Laws are a matter of consensus. Creationists are forced to not teach ID in school.

 

[quadraphonics]

When countries with power misuse it to create hunger and inequity its rather odd to pretend they care about "human" "rights". And even more fallacious to then point fingers at the country where these dictators are given arms and funds to consolidate their rule.

You aren't talking to a "country" here. You are talking to individuals, who have essentially zero say in the decisions about where to send arms and funds and political support. I would happily agree with you that big sections of the American foreign policy elite don't give a damn about principle. But that's a different thing from a whole country, and anyway doesn't have any bearing on my own moral authority to point fingers at oppressors.

That powerful people in the US might be hypocrits doesn't justify your papering over real oppression, and pointing to inconsistencies in American foreign policy doesn't make for a compelling counterargument to me or other individuals here. It just makes you look like an naive ideologue.

 

[Arsalan]

Go and look up some statistics. It will be instructive to find out how wrong your preconcpetions are.

So your argument is based on statistics of women actually working? Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of women in Muslim countries want an education, yet dont want to work and focus on other things? In Muslim countries the salary of 1 person working can support a family and that is how they think. There is no need for a lot of people in the same household to work to provide for the household. If there is, then they work.

If so, it should be easy enough for you to provide a reliable, well-supported source that backs this up.

I cant provide something that isnt there. Your argument is false. It relies on a biased, manipulative, misinterpretation regarding finances usually forwarded by anti-Islamists.

Forced, obviously.

Ah yes, because after all, its not like Muslim women want to wear a veil or whatever they please. It must be forced

I'm happy enough to talk about women's rights in other countries, but you lot persist in vigorously promoting nonsense about Muslim countries specifically, and so here we are.

This thread was created not by me or SAM, but by someone whose intention was to show the apparent backwards attitude of the Muslim world. We replied to that. You however want to take it into another direction, and thats fine too.

And in other cases, women's liberation is a direct result of people who the US supports. The correlation between US political support, and women's rights, is the opposite of what your cherry-picked handful of examples would suggest.

Ofcourse, in some countries, the US has supported the right people. But in some Muslim countries, it has supported the wrong people, given them power and let them do whatever they want, as long as US finances benefit in some way.

 

[S.A.M.]

if the powerful people in the US are hypocrites who enable dictators that then behave like dictators its fallacious to pretend that the resultant policies are somehow independent of the power that sustains them.

 

[quadraphonics]

Forced is an odd concept.

Not really. When there's an enforcement organization that will punish you for noncompliance, it's pretty straightforward.

If Naga Sadhus came to the US, would they be permitted to walk about as they do in India?

Sure, although it might take a few court cases to work out all the details.

But the question of how US law would adapt to the introduction of a new group, is a very different thing from the way that, say, Iranian law treats half of Iran's population.

Creationists are forced to not teach ID in school.

Only in public school, and then only if they teach it as science. They are likewise prevented from using the schools, and their position as teachers, to proseletyze to students.

This is because students have a right not to recieve religious indoctrination in school, while science teachers have no right to teach students about their religion.

It's not oppression just because some religious person can't do anything he wants, including violating the rights of others. It's only oppression if it violates their rights.

I know that you are too smart to really be hung up on such a rudimentary idea, and so would greatly appreciate it if you would stop attempting to derail conversations by shotgunning fundamental errors into them.

 

[DiamondHearts]

You obviously have some interest in misrepresenting the status of women's rights in Iran, as well as many other aspects of any region you identify as Muslim.

The difference between you and I is that I have actually been there. I find your points about Iran mere propaganda and fear mongering. Iran is a beautiful country, and you should visit it to clear your misconceptions.

But, speaking of billions of dollars, where is your indictment of the Saudi and Pakistani dictatorships in all of this?

Saudi Arabian royal family is completely propped and supported by the US. The only patriotic and forward-thinking Saudi ruler, King Faisal, was assassinated by the Americans. They control Saudi Arabia, along with their puppets.

Your point about Pakistan makes no sense. Are you saying Pakistan is still a dictatorship? Do you still think Musharraf is in power? You do know that the Pakistani people elected the PPP, and Zardari became its leader, hence the President of Pakistan. Even though he is a shameless spineless puppet of the US, I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.

I have no objection to assisting countries, only empowering dictators. Why couldn't the US support Bhutto instead of Zia, why support Israel instead of Palestine, why not support Mossadegh instead of the Shah?

When countries with power misuse it to create hunger and inequity its rather odd to pretend they care about "human" "rights". And even more fallacious to then point fingers at the country where these dictators are given arms and funds to consolidate their rule.

Great questions SAM. If only we could expect more thought-provoking posts like this rather than simple restatement of prejudices.

 

[quadraphonics]

So your argument is based on statistics of women actually working? Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of women in Muslim countries want an education, yet dont want to work and focus on other things?

That would almost be funny, if it didn't have such ominous implications about you.

In Muslim countries the salary of 1 person working can support a family and that is how they think. There is no need for a lot of people in the same household to work to provide for the household. If there is, then they work.

See above.

I cant provide something that isnt there.

So there is no evidence that my statements were false?

Your argument is false. It relies on a biased, manipulative, misinterpretation regarding finances usually forwarded by anti-Islamists.

And yet, you claim that contradictory evidence does not exist. Strange, that.

Ah yes, because after all, its not like Muslim women want to wear a veil or whatever they please. It must be forced

When there's a law that says you have to wear a veil, and enforcement agencies tasked with locating and punishing anyone who does not comply, that is force, regardless of whether individuals would want to comply anyway.

If all Iranian women want to wear the veil, then why does the law exist in the first place? Why do so many Iranian women give up the veil as soon as they leave Iran? Why do so many of them complain that it is oppressive?

 

[quadraphonics]

Iran is a beautiful country

Many beautiful countries oppress women.

Your point about Pakistan makes no sense. Are you saying Pakistan is still a dictatorship? Do you still think Musharraf is in power? You do know that the Pakistani people elected the PPP, and Zardari became its leader, hence the President of Pakistan. Even though he is a shameless spineless puppet of the US, I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.

We were talking about the 1980's. Thanks for playing.

 

[otheadp]

Ya, just imaginary. Funny how the area wasnt called Israel for a long time prior to the creation of the state isnt it? Its because other people lived there and they defined themselves as Palestinians. They are the descendents of the Jews that used to live in old Israel.

Can you feel it? It's the sound of another thread going to hell because of pro-"Palestinian" zealots! lol

Dude, you know who is a REAL Palestinian? Ariel Sharon. He was BORN in Palestine. Even Arafish wasn't born in Palestine. He was born in Egypt. Ok do you really want to get into this, AGAIN?

Foreign aliens from surrounding Arab "countries" (there were no "countries" in much of the Arab world pre 1920) who swarmed into Palestine to get jobs at newly-created Jewish farms, who were constructed on freshly-cleared-out swamps with malaria, who btw died from malaria (the Jews, that is, not the foreign Arab aliens), are not really "Palestinian", even though they were bred to believe so.

 

[quadraphonics]

if the powerful people in the US are hypocrites who enable dictators that then behave like dictators its fallacious to pretend that the resultant policies are somehow independent of the power that sustains them.

Yes, we have lots of similar problems when it comes to the nexus of politicians and Abrahamic fundamentalists.

That's why I'm so good at recognizing them in other countries.

 

[pjdude1219]

Can you feel it? It's the sound of another thread going to hell because of pro-"Palestinian" zealots! lol

Right right its always the Palestinians fault

Dude, you know who is a REAL Palestinian? Ariel Sharon. He was BORN in Palestine. Even Arafish wasn't born in Palestine. He was born in Egypt. Ok do you really want to get into this, AGAIN?

You do know altering peoples names to make derogatory slurs of them is against forum rules.

Foreign aliens from surrounding Arab "countries" (there were no "countries" in much of the Arab world pre 1920) who swarmed into Palestine to get jobs at newly-created Jewish farms, who were constructed on freshly-cleared-out swamps with malaria, who btw died from malaria (the Jews, that is, not the foreign Arab aliens), are not really "Palestinian", even though they were bred to believe so.

How could they come from surrounding countries when it was all owned by the same nation? and still promoting the same lie that Palestine was nothing until the jews got there

 

[DiamondHearts]

Many beautiful countries oppress women.

Thanks for ignoring completely all the relevant parts of my post and only responding to this.

You a product of the US and Israeli propaganda against Iran. You have extremely limited knowledge of Iran as a country aside from what your leaders tell you. What a shame.

We were talking about the 1980's. Thanks for playing.

So what is your contention with dictatorships? Does that change anything? Gen Zia came in power with the help of the Americans as Z.A. Bhutto, being a Muslim patriot, was opposed to US meddling in the Muslim world. Then the US also killed Gen Zia in a plane crash and brought Benazir into power, who was merely their puppet.

The US supports dictatorships when they want, and preach that dictatorships are unacceptable when it serves them.