You Say You Want A Revolution (In a Loose Headscarf)

by Guest Contributor Mimi, originally published at Threadbared

Because this is a fashion plus politics blog, I want to post some very brief thoughts about the protests rocking Iran after what some observers are calling a fraudulent election, reinstalling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against his main opposition, moderate reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi. (For news about the election and protests, The New York Times’ The Lede News Blog is frequently updated. For more analysis, check out Juan Cole.)

A glance at the Western media coverage from before and after the election reveals an overwhelming visual trope — the color photograph of a young and often beautiful Iranian woman wearing a colorful headscarf, usually pinned far back from her forehead to frame a sweep of dark hair. Such an image condenses a wealth of historical references, political struggles, and aesthetic judgments, because the hijab does. As Minoo Moallem argues in her book Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Politics of Patriarchy in Iran, both pre- and postrevolutionary discourses commemorate specific bodies –whose clothing practices play a large part— to create forms and norms of gendered citizenship, both national and transnational. What Moallem calls the civic body becomes the site of political performances in the particular contexts of modern nationalist and fundamentalist movements.

This particular image being disseminated throughout the Western press right now is no exception — we are meant to understand the looseness of the scarf, the amount of hair she shows, as political acts, manifesting a desire for Western-style democracy. But this shorthand is too simplistic, too easy. As Moallem argues, Islamic nationalism and fundamentalism are not premodern remnants but themselves “by-products of modernity.” As such, the image of the Iranian woman in her loose headscarf is not a straightforward arrow from Islamic backwardness to liberal progress, but a nuanced and multi-dimensional map of political discourse and struggle.

In her book, Moallem writes, “while I am interested in the production of the civic body, I want to show its instability over time in Iran.” We can see this instability in the histories of forced unveiling and forced veiling that mark particular historical and political moments in Iran. Very briefly, and no doubt simplistically, the pro-Western Reza Shah banned the veil in 1936 in a broad modernization effort, authorizing police to forcibly unveil women in the street. Women donned the veil during the lead-up to the revolution as a visible act of defiance against the Shah’s corrupt and brutal rule. After 1979, the broad coalition that had briefly united against the Shah was destroyed by the conservative Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, resulting in a fundamentalist regime that, among other things, enforced veiling for women. As such, Moallem argues, forced unveiling and forced veiling are not dissimilar disciplinary practices that regulate the feminine body as a civic body subjected to the order of the visible. Moallem observes,

“My grandmother’s body –like my own later– was marked by corporeal inscriptions of citizenship. Both of us shared an incorporated traumatic memory of citizenship in the modern nation-state. She was forced to unveil; I was forced to veil. Living in different times, we were obliged by our fellow countrymen respectively to reject and adopt veiling. Our bodies were othered by civic necessity.” (Between Warrior Brother and Veiled Sister, 69)

This is the barest intimation of the complicated history of the civic body we are seeing in photographs from Tehran now — in which the young woman with the scarf tied loosely, the lock of hair curling against her cheek or forehead, is made to stand for both this history and also for so much more. As such I would issue two cautions. The first, we cannot necessarily know from how a woman ties her headscarf what the shape of her politics might be. And second, we might commit further violence (refusing her complex personhood, for instance) in assuming that we can.

But because the hijab is so often made to stand as a visual shorthand for Islamic oppression in the West, I wanted to reference its specificity as a political performance of a particular feminine civic body in Iran (which would be different than its history in, say, Turkey, where some female Muslim university students are demanding their rights to education against the state ban on headscarves in public schools and government buildings) in order to render these photographs that much more complex, and the emerging political situation that much more nuanced, in this moment.

(Image Credits: New York Times, Huffington Post, Getty)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. links for 2009-06-22 « Cairene’s Nilometer on 22 Jun 2009 at 7:06 am

    [...] You Say You Want A Revolution (In a Loose Headscarf) at Racialicious – the intersection of rac… (tags: elections iran media women IranElections2009 gender) [...]

  2. Racialicious Breaks it Down: Femininity, Fashion, and the Power of the Image « thebibliophile Weblog on 23 Jun 2009 at 4:45 pm

    [...] website, Racialicious, I came across a post from Mimi, originally posted on Threadbared entitled, You Say You Want a Revolution (In a Loose Headscarf). In her elegantly written piece, Mimi highlights the gender, racial, and citizen-specific [...]

Comments

  1. Wendi Muse wrote:

    awesome piece. thank you for saying this. i’ve noticed on a lot of feminist blogs that the scarf shifts are being recognized, but not deeply analyzed..which is frustrating because it’s clearly more than just hair, no hair, scarf, no scarf.

  2. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    This is off-topic but I get so offended and upset when American guys just want to focus on “hot Iranian girls” in these photos that have been circulating blogs and they make comments about how hot those girls are, ignoring politics and the protests going on in Iran. This makes me sick. Seriously, boys. FUCK YOU.

  3. Abu Sinan wrote:

    The covering of the hair is used, and misused, by all spectrums of political thought in the Muslim world.

    I get just as offended by those who refuse women the right to wear the veil as those who demand that they wear it. Both sides, liberal and conservative, seem to think that they have the right to tell women what to do.

    How liberal are you if you can condemn a woman who makes a choice to wear hijab? Being forced TO wear the hijab is just as bad as being forced NOT to wear it. Both ideas assume the right to tell women what they must and must not do.

    On a side note, calling the current minority secular elite demonstratin in Iran today “reformist” is to ignore the history of the man they are demonstrating for.

    Mousavi was leading Iran when they started their secret nuclear project. He was also an early and avid support of the Lebanonese Hizb’Allah militant group.

    During his previous stint at leading Iran he was known as a religious radical and was anything but a reformer.

    To me this whole issue in Iran at the moment speaks of the monied, semi-westernised secular elite being completely unable to accept their loss at the hands of the poor, non Westernised majority.

  4. L wrote:

    @ Abu Sinan: “To me this whole issue in Iran at the moment speaks of the monied, semi-westernised secular elite being completely unable to accept their loss at the hands of the poor, non Westernised majority.”

    I really disagree with this. Have you seen the huge amounts of people protesting? Not just in Tehran, but in Tabriz, Shiraz, Esfahan, etc? This is much more than just a tiny minority of sore losers. That’s what Ahmadinemoron and the mullahs would like you to believe. Regardless of Mousavi’s dubious past (and trust me I am no fan of anyone involved with the Islamic regime), many people voted for him more as a vote AGAINST A’jad. Even if Mousavi’s not that great, their voices must be heard and the election was a BLATANT fraud. By protesting, they’re doing more than just supporting another insider — they’re disobeying their oppressive government and showing they have no trust in it. That’s a huge and important step in the right direction.

    (Sorry for the political rant.)

    That said, I’m actually glad there have been so many pictures published of women protesters who are pretty lax with their hijabs. It goes against common perceptions in the West of what these women look like and dress like.

  5. Faith wrote:

    Hijab, as usual, is being politicized but I suppose that is to be expected.

    @AbuSinan: Spot on! You’ve said everything I have been thinking for the past week. It has been disappointing that the Western media has not looked at the fact that much of the demonstrations taking place are in fact organized by a “monied, semi-westernised secular elite”. Everytime we see demonstrations on the news, most of the pickets signs are in English! I mean who are the demonstrators trying to appeal to? I feel as if they’re trying to appeal more to me than their fellow Iranians. The class angle of the divide in the Iranian elections (which the loose hijab photos illustrate so well) has been completely glossed over.

  6. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @L,

    Yes, I have seen the demonstrations for and against Mousavi.

    You talk about the numbers of people voting for either side, but the opposition hasnt given any concrete facts to support their claim. Prior to the elections A’jad was running ahead of Mousavi in polls, so it would have been an upset if Mousavi did win.

    If you, and they, claim it was a blatant fraud, I would have expected to see a lot of proof flooding the international press proving it. As of today, it just isnt there.

    By protesting they are showing that they prefer one brand of dictator and oppression over another. That is exactly why Western governments should stay out of this.

    This is no good pick in this fight. Mousavi lead Iran when their secret nuclear program was started and told the Financial Times before the elections he had no intention of stopping it.

    I see no benefit in supporting one tyrant over another. It was these same types that supported the Shah. I guess they think they’d rather have their tryant than someone else’s tyrant. It is not a step in the right direction, it is a side step, neither forward nor backwards.

    As to common perceptions, unless you missed it many of the pro A’jad forces were young well dressed men without beards. I am sure many expected robed and bearded men to be supporting A’jad.

    This has less to do with religion and such than it does with class. A’jad supporters are lower class and the poor. Mousavi supporters tend to be middle class/upper class and secular.

    There are more poor and lower class in Iran, hence a larger pool to draw votes from. Unless Mousavi tries to extend his support to the poor he will continue to not be able to pull enough votes to win.

    I resent people trying to make this into a religious issue. Mousavi was known as a religion hardliner when he ruled Iran so it is wrong to point to him as some sort of reformer. He isnt.

    The hijab issue being highlighted in this situation really misinforms people what is going on and has no benefit in understanding the situation.

  7. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Faith,

    They are trying to appeal to the international media to put pressure onto the clerics in Iran to overturn an election they lost.

    The fact is Iran has a larger pool of poor voters, hence any party that can draw a majority of them (A’jad) is going to win.

    The secular elite in Iran was the minority when we installed the Shah in Iran. After the Islamic Revolution a good chunk of them left (and settled in the USA) so they are even more of a minority than they were.

    The West MUST stay out of this. Havent we learned our lesson in Iran? Our installation and support of the Shah gave us the Islamic Revolution? Why support a extremist like Mousavi and risk other unknown outcomes for just another dictator with a slightly different flavour.

    Why do we in the West always think we have the right answers?

  8. Dylan wrote:

    I think AbuSinan raises some important points and im not sure L is accurate in what she says. You don’t know for a ‘fact’ from images that the election was a blatant fraud that is your belief.

    I wanted Ahmenijad to lose, however he pulled in a similar percentage of votes as his last victory, and he has equal numbers if not more of demonstrators on the street too. Both these points are not evidence of a clean victory on his part but i think people who get lost in emotion are jumping to conclusion we can’t prove.

    Good article btw. saw a similar one talking about all the rights taking away from women like french manicures since Ahmenijad came to power on the NYT – worth checking out too

  9. Xey wrote:

    I think a lot of people fail to realize that hijab and “veiling” take on different forms in different places and at different times. There is no monolithic hijab.

    Nice post.

  10. L wrote:

    I think it’s really sad that there are some here who are entertaining the idea that the election was not a fraud. It’s certainly possible that A’jad could have one fair and square with no government involvement, but that just didn’t happen last week.

    First of all, it was expected to be a close race. I’m sure some polls showed A’jad as the likely winner, as well as others who showed Mousavi as the winner. But a landslide was completely unexpected.

    Iranian state media released the results of the election almost immediately after the polls closed. In an election with handwritten ballots and an incredibly high turnout.

    A jump in voter turnout usually favors opposition/reformer parties. Why would all these new voters be mobilized to vote this time around if they just wanted to support the incumbent?

    A’jad won in all of his opponents’ home provinces. He beat Mousavi in Tabriz, he beat Rezai in Khuzestan, and he beat Karroubi in Lurestan. Places like Lurestan and Tabriz are home to majority populations of ethnic Lurs and Azeris, respectively (Karoubi is a Lur and Mousavi is an Azeri) and yet they failed to side with their hometown leaders.

    Also, several clerics/government officials have spoken out on the fraud. Khatami, Karroubi, Montazeri, Rafsanjani, and even hardline conservative Rezai have voices concerns. Why would they, as insiders, bite the hand that feeds them for no good reason?

  11. Evan wrote:

    In response to D.I.M.A.

    You should say “Fuck You” to the western media because they are ones snapping the photos and placing them all over newspapers and the internet.

    This reminds me of the Lebanon uprisings after the Hariri assassination in 2005. The western media fell in love with the pro-Hariri supporters who tend to be more affluent, more-western in dress and manners, and definitely more friendly to the United States.

    The bad guys were the Shiite Lebanese who lived in the slums of Beirut. The Shiites supported the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. As we all know, Hezbollah is viewed as a terrorist organization by the USA, Israel and other western nations.

    Anyway, the western media would snap photos of young, attractive veil-free Muslim and Christian Lebanese women marching against Syrian and pro-Hezbollah influence. Media pundits would claim that these women represent the future of the Middle-East. Democracy. Freedom from the hijab. I thought this was a ridiculous notion but whatever.

  12. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @L,

    You think the election was a fraud. Fine. I would ask you what proof can you bring to the table to prove it was a fraud? I am not fan of A’jad, but I am an engineer. As such I require facts. When you present some hard facts that can show a systemic tide of voter fraud I will believe you and others. To come up with millions of votes would mean that there was a vast network put together to enact what must have been a pretty elaborate mechanism to fix this vote. With such a wide system setting up such a fraud there would be ample proof. Why haven’t we seen any of that?

    You talk about a jump in voter turn out to favour reformists, but that isn’t always the case. Many times the conservative elements within a society can motivate their electorate in fear of the progressive side. The Republican gains in the USA in the 1990s is a clear example of that. Seeing that A’jad’s vote in this election were similar to a previous election he had, the numbers aren’t that remarkable.

    Again, speculation is all nice and fine, but without hard and solid evidence it means nothing.

    You mention government officials and clerics voicing concern, that could mean any number of things. It is hardly surprising when people in important positions voice concerns when tens of millions on both side of a situation take the streets and violence happens. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn’t voice concerns.

    All of this means nothing without proof. It is VERY telling when a group is accused of rigging millions of votes, yet they cannot come up with the most basic of physical proof?

    As the line goes “Show me the money”.

    Anyway, I wonder why all of the fuss in the Western media? There is a large picture on CNN’s site with an Iranian women holding a sign in English (looking for those Iranian supporters) asking “where did our votes go”. These people seem to be buying the line that Mousavi is some sort of Islamic reformer. Any look at this previous rule in Iran shows that this line is an out right lie. Mousavi is a hardline, Hizb’Allah supporter of Iranian nuclear rights just like A’jad. The only difference is that Mousavi panders to the secular/rich elite. A’jad is a similar extremist that panders to the large majority of poor in Iran.

    These guys are exactly the same, their supporters just come from different social economic backgrounds. The rich on the streets now are trying to over turn the majority win of the poor. There is a long history of this type of stuff in Iran.

    Obama even said it himself:
    “In any case, the president said Tuesday, there appears to be little difference in policy between Iran’s current head of state, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

    Mr. Obama discussed the situation in Iran with reporters at the White House, and in a series of interviews.

    Whether Mr. Ahmadinejad or Mr. Mousavi prevails when the results of Iran’s election are re-examined, Mr. Obama told one of his interviewers, the United States will be dealing with a regime that is hostile to Washington.”

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-16-voa59.cfm

  13. Lxy wrote:

    Here are a few dissenting perspectives that question the latest Color-coded Revolution (this time in Iran) that America and the West are touting.

    Let’s just say that things are more “complex” than the propagandistic “Iranian Democratic Reformers are Revolting Against Fundamentalist Islamic Theocrats”
    meme that some people have predictably embraced.

    The Iranian People Speak
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
    dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

    Ahmadinejad won. Get over it
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html

    The New York Times and the Iranian election
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j15.shtml

    And some political background on America’s “democracy promotion” efforts in
    Iran:

    The CIA’s Iranian Plan?
    http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22839.htm

    Convergence and Continuity: The American-Backed Terror Campaign in Iran
    http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1772-convergence-and-continuity-the-american-backed-terror-campaign-in-iran.html

  14. Beth wrote:

    The only people with the ability to “prove” it one way or the other are those who collected and counted ballots. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/iran_numbers/ details why statistics, in particular, don’t offer the opportunity to “prove” it either way. The only thing either side has is circumstantial evidence, and their actions since the election.

    The west’s reporting has certainly been interesting. It plays into a clear narrative of western ideals, but I’ve also noticed the US’s previous intervention being discussed more than I have in past news coverage. The technical nature of the information conduits obviously selects the stories being told, but it is also interesting that many of the first voices heard in western media weren’t western voices. They’ve now caught up, and I’m reading articles in the National Review that don’t mention a single Iranian source and “credits” George W. Bush with inspiring the protests, but for the first day or two the stories were very different than the conventional style of “we western reporters went to this other country and observed…”

  15. Sobia wrote:

    @ Abu Sinan:

    I have to say that I am agreeing with you. Although I have not made up my mind completely, but what you said about the “monied, semi-westernised secular elite being completely unable to accept their loss at the hands of the poor, non Westernised majority” resonated with me and reflected what I’ve been wondering for the past few days. Is this really about being truly defrauded or is it about a certain class being “rejected”?

    All the attention that the US has been giving to what’s happening in Iran is also distressing. To be honest, something is fishy about all this attention. I’m just glad that the US gov’t is staying out of it. And they seriously need to. This is none of the US’s, or anyone else’s, business.

    @ Faith:

    “Everytime we see demonstrations on the news, most of the pickets signs are in English! I mean who are the demonstrators trying to appeal to?”

    Good point. Though I wonder if the media is just not showing us the Farsi signs – although usually in Pakistani protests one sees the Urdu ones.

  16. harrumph wrote:

    1. “why all of the fuss in the Western media?”

    What fuss? The mainstream Western media were slow to cover the protests, have not devoted significant airtime or newspaper space to them, and have been consistently dismissive of the protesters, saying — day after day — essentially that “well, this will all blow over soon.”

    2. “without hard and solid evidence it means nothing”

    At this point, with military and IRGC officers, high-ranking clerics, academics and more joining millions of common people to protest and call the results into question, and with eyewitness accounts of fraud circulating, isn’t the onus on the government to provide evidence for the elections’ legitimacy? There was no transparency, there were no observers (there was no polling, by the way, except extremely limited telephone surveys done by Western organizations), opposition sympathizers were forced out of positions on electoral boards in the weeks leading up to the election, millions of handwritten ballots were counted in a matter of hours, the results were announced well ahead of schedule, there were tremendous irregularities in regional/ethnic distribution of votes, etc.

    There are not, for your information, commensurate numbers of people demonstrating for and against Ahmedinejad. Tens of thousands on one hand, hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) on the other.

    3. “This has less to do with religion and such than it does with class . . . Mousavi supporters tend to be secular.”

    Nice.

    4. “These guys are exactly the same”

    No. They are both Islamic fundamentalists, yes, and Mousavi was a hard-liner and a favorite son of Khomeini. However, Mousavi is a leftist Islamic fundamentalist and Ahmadinejad is a right-wing Islamic fundamentalist. There would be substantial policy differences between them — not policy differences that would matter to the US government, but policy differences that would matter to the Iranian people.

    Do you not see the hypocrisy in getting all worked up about how neither the mullahs nor the West should dictate who wears a headscarf or doesn’t . . . and then saying BUT OF COURSE the crazy Iranians shouldn’t have a nuclear program! Both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad support the nuclear program? They must both be evil!

    Or wait . . . maybe EVERY Iranian supports the nuclear program. Maybe it’s a huge point of national pride, and no leader, right or left, secular or fundamentalist, would give it up. Maybe it’s obscenely hypocritical for the United States to deny to other nations what it has in abundance (and uses as an implied threat behind all its foreign policy). Maybe it’s obscenely hypocritical for you to shrilly defend choice regarding hijab but deny it when it comes to matters of national security and geopolitical power.

    By the way, this is already bigger than just a choice of presidents. Why do you think they’re chanting “God is greatest” in the streets? It’s a challenge to Khameini’s authority, to his hubris in putting himself above the Iranian people and claiming to act with a divine mandate.

  17. Aishtamid wrote:

    @Abu Sinan #2 –

    I really disagree with your analysis of the Iranian election. Peruse Juan Cole’s website where he tallies up the numbers of the Iranian election and look at the size of those protests.

  18. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Here’s an interesting in depth analysis behind the current Iranian unrest:

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF18Ak01.html

  19. L wrote:

    @Aishtamid – Glad to see there’s one person here who agrees with me!

    These protests are a huge deal – the last time anything like this was seen in Iran was during the Islamic Revolution. When the protesters are written off as an inconsequential tiny minority it’s frustrating. If that were the case, then why the massive govt crackdowns on international media, text messaging, social networking and the web? Why the hordes of violent police? Why the dorm/university raids? And why has the protesting spread all over the country?

    These are some of my favorite blogs covering the election:

    http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
    http://www.juancole.com/

  20. The Elahater wrote:

    On the issue of the hijab, not sure if it’s been mentioned yet (I’m just catching up w/ the comments), but a lot of observant Muslim women actually were against hijab being mandatory b/c they felt, and many still do, that it takes away the choice from them and what makes it special to them. it almost degrades it. we can’t assume that women who want to hijab want everyone else to observe it, too.

    i have been to iran and i can just say, from my experience, that many, many women wear hijab in this way. in fact, i was told not to wear it super loose and covering all my hair, etc., because it would make me look like i was trying too hard! i did see many women in chadors, i did see loose-fitting scarves that covered all the hair, but i saw just as much hijab-wearers as are pictured here. it’s such a diverse country. i’m glad the point was made that the way a hijab is worn isn’t always a clear political act. but like with many things in iran, the hijab-law isn’t exactly clear-cut. the written law hasn’t changed, but the way it’s been enforced has. there’s so much gray area, so women push the boundaries until that becomes the norm, then a crackdown, then reverts, and it continues. it’s the same with iranian cinema, with every aspect of life.

    i think the most important issue in iran, above all else, is the lack of human rights. everything else is just a distraction and has been used by the regime as a tool in maintaining power.

  21. The Elahater wrote:

    also.. foreal? are people still tryin’ to say Ahmadinejad won in the way the govn’t says? it’s very likely he may have legitimately won, but if you peruse all of the facts, it’s impossible for him to have won the way the government says he did. i’m sure mousavi is not much better than him and i’m not placing any stock in that political system whatsoever.

    i think the real reason we’re seeing such a reaction from within iran is because many of the young people felt they could effect some sort of change from within the system by playing by the system’s rules. they feel utterly wronged and betrayed, especially since the regime isn’t even *tryin’* to cover it up. it’s like they got lazy: “meh, let’s say he won the same amount of votes in every part of the country.” also, this is bringing up a lot of pent-up angst of living under such an oppressive regime. we also need to quit thinking that all the poor people in iran don’t care about their human and civil rights. many just don’t have the privilege to be activists about it. Ahmadinejad won the initial election running a campaign based on making the economy more equitable. now the economy is the worst it’s ever been. also, many reformists boycotted the last presidential election b/c their candidates weren’t approved to run.

  22. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @elahater -

    Good points.

    @all –

    Random thoughts:

    1. I’m fucking thrilled to see people protesting when they thought an election was jacked. I still remember that disenfranchised feeling post the 2000 elections and the quiet resignation. If the people of Iran are motivated to take it to the streets, more power to them.

    2. I’ve seen lots of photos of signs in Farsi or Arabic – but they don’t get pick up like the other photos.

    3. I agree that our (read: western media) interest in this is sketchy. The US only likes democracy when it favors what we want in the region (and when tend to hold our tongues).

    4. I’m surprised that this convo veered away from women so quickly. Interesting.

  23. Fatemeh wrote:

    Mimi–GREAT FUCKING POST. Love it, love it, love it, and the history of the veil’s use as political propaganda in Iran is one of my favorite subjects. I think it’s very important to note that these pictures are being used to construct an idea of the average Iranian as sick of Islam, Iran, and Iranian ways of doing things. This type of Iran looks very palatable to the west, and makes us forget that Iran isn’t ever going to be America and isn’t interested in becoming like America, because it’s not America. It’s Iran.

    Latoya’s point about how this veered away from women so quickly is GREAT one. I ain’t tryin’ to point fingers…but y’all know who you are.

  24. luckyfatima wrote:

    Yep I noticed the hijab aspect of the coverage, too. And when they want to show Iran and Iranians as a threat or backwards, it is the chador images.

  25. Mary wrote:

    I’m sorry to take the discussion further away from the hijab, but there is a LOT of reason to doubt Iran’s election results. Bear in mind, this DOES NOT MEAN I think Mousavi is the great shining savior of Iran or whatever. Nor does it mean Ahmadinejad lost – in fact I think it’s quite possible he won. But his win under these particular circumstances just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Gary Sick runs down the sequence of events:

    *Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide

    *Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers

    *The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men

    *National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner

    *The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency

    *But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad

    *Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility

    *The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility (also see the comments of Juan Cole at the title link)

    *Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`i publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements [that he wait three days before certifying the winner]

    *Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.

    Juan Cole has also posted his doubts, not all of which are necessarily airtight, but the following two deserve particular mention IMHO:

    1. It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.

    3. It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran’s western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.

    And finally, Farideh Farhi, who has been analyzing Iranian election statistics for many years, says:

    Farhi says of the 11 million new Iranian voters, she “simply, simply cannot believe” that Ahmadinejad could have won 8 million of them.

    “The history of the Islamic Republic is that they never vote for status quo, they always vote for change,” says Farhi. “I know people who entered this electoral process, who never voted in the Islamic Republic, and they came in and voted simply against Ahmadinejad.”

    Also worth noting is that the reformists boycotted the previous presidential election – which Ahmadinejad only won in a runoff.

    And lest you think “Oh, this is just Western and Westernized Iranian intellectuals whining because they don’t like the results”… the president of Iran’s own election monitoring commission has called this election invalid, Ayatollahs Montazeri and Sane’i have both publicly come out against this result, and conservative candidate and former head of Revolutionary Guards Mohsen Rezaei has threatened to reject the “recount”.

    At what point do we start taking actual Iranian people at their word?

    IMHO, to bring it around to the original topic of hijab: while it is simplistic and reductive to look at the pictures of women showing hair and wearing loose scarves and make assumptions, in my view it is equally wrong to make the blanket assumption that “Oh, she is wearing a chador, he is working class, they cannot possibly be opposed to Ahmadinejad winning under any circumstances.”

    That’s also stereotyping, and in my view, a lot of American commentators seem to project the red state/blue state baggage (elitist smart people versus working class, “real America/real Iran”) onto Iranian society where it may not always fit.

  26. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Harrumph,

    1. I don’t know what media you watch or read. I am pretty much a news junky and this is ALL over the place CNN, Fox News, NPR, New York Times, LA Times, in a way that almost nothing in the Middle East is, unless it deals with Israel.

    2. I don’t doubt that many people within the Iranian establishment are getting involved. After all, this really seems to be all about people protecting their various class affiliations. I think you really have it backwards to say that the government has the responsibility to prove anything. The people making the allegations do and so far they have offered up nothing more than hearsay. With such a massive case of voter fraud, if it is true, it should be rather easy to come up with physical proof of the situation.

    3. Are you denying that the Mousavi supporters tend to be upper middle class/rich and more secular? It’s a fact.

    4. You say there would be substantial policy differences between the two? Obama doesn’t seem to think so, he said as much on the Voice of America. Mousavi is a supporter of Hizb’Allah, one of the people actually involved in the earliest parts of the Iranian nuclear project who has openly said he would NOT stop the Iranian nuclear program. You talk about policies that matter to the Iranian people, but it is clear that the policies would favour the same moneyed elite that are turning out for him today. The majority of the Iran people poor, and lower Middle Class, seem to think A’jad is their best bet.

    @ Aishtamid,

    Generally I like Juan Cole, but he has a dog in this fight. He is big supporter of the secular elite in the Middle East. I have no dogs in the fight, I don’t support anyone, so I just am calling it as I see it. The size of the protests means very little. If Mousavi got millions of votes it is easy to expect he’d be able to get tens of thousands of them to show up to protest.

    Once again no one can offer up ANY physical proof of a rigged election. This evidence, here in the States, wouldn’t even make it past a grand jury. It is all about “he said, she said”. Where is the real physical proof that is REQUIRED if one is going to claim a vote has been rigged and millions of votes stolen. Sorry, but if as the opposition claims, millions of votes were rigged, there MUST be physical, verifiable proof. Either that or A’jad has pulled off something no one else in known history could have pulled off.

    @L,

    Sure the protests are big. It would seem to me that the moneyed Iranians are upset that the majority lower middle class/poor of Iran are going to have more years of someone who claims to support them. Personally A’jad is a joke. I am a big supporter of Palestinian issues and the attention he draws to the subject is almost universally negative. My only interest in the whole issue is how the West seems to be completely distorting the issue and how so many Americans are buying into the BS.

    Many of the interviews with Iranians I have seen in Western media are almost always involving the very same Iranians, Western Iranians, who are part of the moneyed secular elite that is protesting. Their view is almost always in line with the opposition. It would be like asking a Sarah Paline supporter their views on Obama. It is nonsense. At least one of these American-Iranian beneficiaries today admitted the truth, maybe it was an accident. He stated that the opposition was in a minority in Iran and that A’jad supporters probably were the majority.

  27. Phrone wrote:

    I think it’s a bit strange to say that the burden of proof lies with Moussavi. I mean, if you’re not in power, how exactly are you supposed to proof that the voting was fradulent? You’re — by the very nature of election frauds — locked out of these negotiations and you don’t have access to the ballots. (In addition, for the people who have been mentioning physical proof, what do you mean by physical proof? There’s already been reports/rumors about burned ballots…how are you supposed to prove something like that?) The most that you can do is point to voting irregularities, which there were many. (How quickly the election results came in/were confirmed, Ahmadinejad carrying the hometowns of the opposition, the relative consistency of results as more votes were being counted, etc.) Also, if you were Ahmadinejad and you had been falsely accused, wouldn’t you have been able to produce proof and quell some riots? It seems like in this case it would be easier than the violent repressive measures that have been taken so far.

    In addition, it’s not like elections have never been stolen before…how would Ahmadinejad be pulling off something that no one else has ever pulled off before?

    There are definitely class issues going on, but I find it strange that people think this is just about one class not having a favorable outcome. I’m pretty sure other presidents, who have not been the favorite of the middle class, were elected, and yet these protests are unique in their magnitude.

    In terms of hijab, when I would see images of protests, I would never read “loose hair” = “demands for western-style democracy”. But I can understand how others might. I think a lot of the discourse that I’ve seen in the West has relied upon this notion that “Iran = non-Western = backwards/undemocratic” and “democracy = Western = progress”. When in reality, I think the issue is more than the Iranian people had their form of democracy, and they feel that it was taken away from them. And they are protesting because of it. I also think that whenever large protests occur in states that the West dislikes, the Western media seems to project all of its hopes that there will be a dramatic revolution, when in reality what the people are doing is mostly “rightful resistance”: protesting for a return to the status quo.

  28. Mary wrote:

    @ Abu Sinan

    3. Are you denying that the Mousavi supporters tend to be upper middle class/rich and more secular? It’s a fact.

    Honest question: are you certain this doesn’t fall into the “most A are B, therefore most B must be A” fallacy? If most rich people support Mousavi, does it automatically follow that the majority of his supporters are rich? If this is the argument, then can you please explain how this jives with Khatami (major Mousavi backer)’s landslide victory in 1997? This would not have been possible without at least some significant support from the working class.

    So while I certainly do not deny there are class issues playing out in Iran right now, nor do I exclude the possibility that Ahmadinejad really did win, I am very skeptical that it’s an immutable hard fact that working class people will always vote for Candidate A and upper middle class people will always vote for Candidate B.

    Generally I like Juan Cole, but he has a dog in this fight. He is big supporter of the secular elite in the Middle East.

    So what if he has a dog in this fight? That’s irrelevant to the the statistics or arguments he’s put forward. Can you prove him wrong on those merits?

  29. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Phrone,

    Why would it be strange to put the onus on proving an accusation on those who are making it? I guess we could just as well make defendants in criminal cases prove they are innocent as well right? I could say I think you committed robbery, is it up to you to prove you are innocent? It is up to those making accusations to prove them, full stop.

    If Mousavi and his supporters think there was some widespread scheme to steal hundreds of thousands, even millions of votes, they need to provide the hard evidence that lead them to think this way. The “I thinks” or “it seems” don’t carry weight in a discussion like this. If Mouasavi and his supporters are right there should be AMPLE physical evidence out there to prove their case. You talk about rumours….and I find it almost comical. Anyone, any place, can make up a rumour and with the internet the way it is today, who knows how many people end up believing it.? This is EXACTLY why there must be physical proof.

    You are using an illogical argument, never mind a straw man argue. No one said elections have never been stolen before, no one, certainly not me, is claiming A’jad might not be above it. All I, and others are trying to do is to look for real hard facts. The opposition has none. I am not A’jad, so I cannot answer for him. I am a Western, raised in the West so I expect the rule of law be enforced and I expect those that make allegations either provide physical evidence for their case or drop it.

    I don’t think these protests are unique in their magnitude, part of the problem is that the Western media has not be covering the counter protests. The one that was covered was reported to have just as large of a turn out or larger than the opposition protest. The Western media is really playing along to the opposition line and goes to show you they cannot be counted upon to give an accurate impartial look at the situation.

    @Mary,

    You are making a straw man argument. I never claimed all Mousavi supporters are the upper middle class/rich secular elite, I am sure they have some supporters in the lower middle class and the poor. However, it is pretty safe to say they draw the majority of their support from the upper middle class/rich and the secular elite. Notice when the authorities raided the ring leaders for some of the protests they didn’t hit the vast slums in Tehran? They hit the universities which, like the USA, tend not to be the regular hangouts for the very poor. Whereas I am sure there is some Mousavi support in the slums of Iran, it is safe to say that these places tend to support A’jad and other right of center politicians and parties.

    As to having a dog in a fight, when you are vested emotionally and politically to an issue the things you say and the claims you make must always be seen in that light. It often does taint what someone says and does concerning a given situation. As to proving Juan Cole wrong on the merits, when I see he or anyone else produce physical evidence proving the claims being made I’ll be more than happy to admit A’jad stole the election. That is why it is great in not having a dog in the fight, I don’t really care who wins, as long as it is a FAIR win.

    To this point all Mousavi has is here say and conjecture. Certainly not nearly enough to win in a rational debate on the subject.

  30. harrumph wrote:

    Abu Sinan –

    Again, I have to ask why you’re hung up on Iran’s nuclear program. Mousavi is a supporter, yes. So is almost every Iranian citizen! It is a matter is great pride & importance to them, and they will not give it up, nor should they. You seem interested in what happens in Iran only from Obama’s perspective — as a matter of American foreign policy. Since we’re supposed to be talking about women here (sorry): a Mousavi presidency, if it meant almost nothing else, would mean increased rights & freedoms for Iranian women. Not a turn to the West, not a secular society, not abolishment of the hijab — rights & freedoms within the laws of the Islamic Republic.

    Also, *if* the election results as reported were legitimate and *if* every single member of the “moneyed elite” voted for Mousavi — none for A-N, none for Karroubi, no blank ballots — that class would have to represent nearly 15% of the voting-age population to be a majority of Mousavi’s supporters. If, say, 80% of them voted, and they broke for Mousavi 75/25, they’d be a solid quarter of the population. And they’re not.

    Mousavi’s support *is* more urban than rural, I will grant you that, but it crosses class lines. His base is among women & young people.

  31. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *******MOD NOTE *************

    Chill. Especially you Abu.

    None of us are in Iran. (And for the record, we’ve only had one visitor to Racialicious from Iran in the past month.)

    None of us really has great information, so either scenario is equally plausible.

    So, with that NO MORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT VERIFYING THE ELECTIONS.

    All further comments need to be on the themes Mimi explored, including but not limited to the role of forced veiling/unveiling, women, the politics of images, and political nuance.

  32. Joseph wrote:

    @Abu Sinan
    Thanks for your clear-headed thoughts on the Iranian elections: I am still not sure how I feel but you have made me think.

    In any event I am very grateful to hear these messages:

    1) the way the veil is worn is not always a political statement

    2) The US is only interested in Democracy in the ME when it supports people we like. (Hezbollah were nominated democratically, remember?)

    3) The western media gaze shapes as much, if not more, than it reports about the ME.

    4) Any US citizen who isn’t overwhelmed with Deja Vu re: Bush’s second term needs to take their western privilege blinders off.

  33. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Oh, and I forgot.

    Something else not being discussed – how people are using and applying the term “reformist”:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18kerry.html?_r=1

  34. Dylan wrote:

    wow.

    “Chill. Especially you Abu.”

    He’s actually making some good points, ones not raised by the vast majority of others. And he certainly isnt outta control or rude.

    More and more i find this blog, which has always been so smart, is falling into the very behaviour it claims to speak against.

    Why must we speak about what the mods want us to when there’s a perfectly and interesting discussion going on with both sides voicing their opinions with manners.

    As you accurately point out no really knows and either scenario is equally plausible so persons discussing this seems perfectly reasonable.

    i wonder if this post will actually see the light.

    Thank you all for raising both sides of the debate.

    Mod Note – People are raising very good points about what is going on in Iran, and that is a wonderful thing. But it is important to stay on topic, as it is with so many other topics on this blog. There are thousands of ways conversations can spin and not all of them are aligned with our purposes. In this case, there are many different venues where you can have the debate about whether the elections are rigged or not. There are some currently going on at Jezebel, the NY Times, Global Voices, and many other locations. But we see much less conversation about the other issues brought up by Mimi, which is the reason why the Threadbared post was selected to reproduce here. – LDP

  35. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Latoya,

    I got ya. I think everything that needs to be said on the subject of verifying the elections has been said.

    Interesting link you posted. Part of the problem is that these issues are so very complicated that one cannot hope to even have a begining understanding by doing nothing more than reading the news and watching TV.

    As your link points out, McCain obvious has NOT done his work and obviously has NOT picked up a history book. His words, meant to help the opposition, actually work to the advantage of the current government.

    When the Western media calls the opposition “reformers” they are actually doing their readers and watcher a disservice. The opposition in Iran are not really reformers. It would be like calling Democrats reformers. The truth is all sides have different ideas on how some issues need to be addressed.

    The term “reformer” would tend to lead people to think that they want to end clerical rule in Iran or to completely change the government. This couldnt be farther from the truth. A quick glance at the leaders of the opposition let you know that they are part and parcel of the clerical system and in many cases are the very people who were involved in setting it up.

    Let’s get back to the headscarf. The obsession with it is really a Western thing. It isnt something that people in the Muslim world really dwell on as much as the West does, nor does it occupy the time in these countries as it does in the West. There are a lot more important issues faced by women in these countries than a piece of cloth on their head.

    It also isnt an indicator about how “progressive” or how “modern” someone in these countries are. Some of women involved in what are considered radical politics in the Middle East cover, others dont. The point is it doesnt mean that much.

    The hijab really doesnt say anything about anyone. You cannot tell how religious someone is who wears it. There are athiests who wear it. You cannot tell how modest or chaste someone is who wears it, there is even a term in Muslim circles “hojabies” for women who wear the hijab who sleep around.

    It means nothing and I wish non Muslim Westerners would get the point and forget about it as a statement for or against anything.

  36. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Thanks Abu.

    I just did our weekly radio spot on Vocolo.org which put even more questions into my mind on discussing the role of language, narratives and the West. I don’t want to derail, but I will probably open up a new thread on the role of online protest, as I was asked if I turned my Avatar on Facebook green in support…but again, new topic tomorrow.

    Back to the subject at hand, I’m really starting to get the impression that the veil issue really obscures everything else. I reread Lipstick Jihad yesterday and started in on Moaveni’s second book* and something she said struck me. She was talking about how the slipping the veil on in the West was like a neon flag screaming “Muslim! Muslim!” which wrenched her from anonymity and into the line of well wishers who informed her that she didn’t have to wear it in the US. She also mentioned that the headscarf was ubiquitous, so seeing a woman without one was like looking at a bare breast.

    I feel like that’s the attitude here when we discuss the issues of Muslim women. Everything gravitates back to the headscarf, almost as a point of fetishization. I wonder if I asked people about the main points of contention in the election, would they mention anything about women? Or recycle a line about the axis of evil?

    I also really liked how Kerry mentioned our interference in his op-ed. It amazes me how many global situations/conflicts can be traced back to a US-backed coup…

    *Before we start in, yes I know LJ is a memoir, not a text book, and the description of the events within are one Western journalist’s take on a very complex situation. But I specifically wanted to go back and research Moaveni’s take on the prior elections (which she covered for Time/BBC) and her thoughts on beauty as resistance, which was brought up on Jezebel yesterday.

  37. Kat wrote:

    I don’t think how one veils is indicative of a person’s politics. The fact that an Iranian woman can have her hijab tied loosely or wear a chador shows incredible variety of women’s choice of veiling within Iran and that’s a good thing.

    I don’t see the media overtly focusing or discussing on how a Iranian woman wears her hijab. Maybe the media was trying to subtlety imply something… but throughout the entire coverage, I really did not notice myself. I certainly did not equate “loose” hijab=western or chador=backwards.

    Iran is certainly an interesting place with an interesting and distinctive history so everything that we see in the pictures are not so simple.

  38. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Latoya,

    That would be an interesting subject. In the current issue I would love to see the subject discussed on how the use of modern technology overly represents the rich and elite. There is a reason why we are not seeing thousands of tweets from the slums of Iran.

    You are right, it is hard for us to preach about democracy when we overthrew an elected Iranian government and installed a dictator. We do this all of the time, we called for elections in Palestine, practically forced them on the Israeli and the Palestinians, then when Hamas was elected we refused to accept the will of the people. Democracy is about the freedom of a people to choose who leads them and sometimes people are going to get elected you dont like.

    This is EXACTLY why we arent pushing for democracy in Egypt and still shipping them billions every year. If there was real freedom in Egypt they’d elect another government we’d refuse to accept.

    Looking forward to your new post on the subject you mentioned.

  39. Markar wrote:

    *REGARDING CLASS ANALYIS: PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE FROM REZA FIYOUZAT ‘IRANIANS OUT IN THE STREETS’-

    http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat06182009.html

    *excerpt follows*

    We come to the final element to be considered, when providing a ‘class analysis’ of the Iranian political life: The most class-conscious, the most politically active of the Iranian working classes, are by far the most anti-government. How do we know this? We know this because they invariably end up in jail.

    It is interesting that articles claiming to be presenting a ‘class analysis’ completely ignore the significance of all the jailed labor leaders in Iran, and ignore the anti-labor posture consistently displayed by all governments in Iran’s modern history: that the current government is structurally anti-labor is well understood by those segments of Iran’s working classes not ideologically in the service of the regime.

    Why else would the government bother imprisoning a mere bus driver, Mansoor Osanloo? (for his and others’ info, see here) How much of a political threat can a bus driver be? Them be shaky foundations, indeed, that tremble at the sight of organized bus drivers. Osanloo is the head of the bus drivers’ union in Tehran, and has been a political prisoner, in and out of jail (currently in) for the past five years. That’s just one example. There are lots more (and you can read about some of them (in Farsi) here, and here; if you can’t read Farsi, find an Iranian friend).

    The most organized of the working classes represent a significant portion of the class of people affected most deeply and painfully by a badly managed capitalist economy. This has political consequences. Vast numbers of Iranian working people have turned apathetic, and simply do not participate in the political machinations of the system. When they do participate in significant numbers, as was the case in these last elections, it is because they see a realistic chance for using the differences between the rulers, for opposing the establishment candidate, and perhaps winning some concessions from this oppressive system; demands that are likely to inspire participation among the lower middle classes and the middle classes.

    Incidentally, the so-called ‘middle classes’ are working classes. They are simply more likely to be the better educated, better paid part of the working classes. That’s all. The fact that the word ‘middle class’ was invented by Americans to suppress the perception of actual existence of classes in North America is something to be studied in its own place, but, as somebody said once, “A rose is a rose by any name.”

    So the most fundamental distinction to bear in mind is that those segments of the working classes who do participate in the electoral process in Iran are by no means representatives of a homogenized class, and thankfully cannot automatically be assumed as representing all the working classes, all the peasants and all the poor.

    Just like all other classes in Iran, the working classes are also divided in many ways: between believers (in theocracy) and secularists, between supporters of the system and opponents of the system, between the different camps of the system, and our working classes too contain large segments of non-participants and non-believers who occasionally like to show up and cast protest votes.

    And another thing. Just because somebody is from the working class (in any country) does not mean they are universal angels, and whatever they exhale is divine. Remember that the European fascists’ most numerous support-base was among the working classes. And the American leftists should be well familiar with the phenomenon known as ‘Reagan Democrats’; i.e., white working class people who voted against their class interest.

  40. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Just to get back to the headscarf and Muslim women, I’m getting sick and tired of Western MSM’s obsession with primarily putting up images of women instead of other Muslims whenever they do stories about Muslims anywhere. And they use different women for different purposes. For stories about the “liberation” and “democracy” in the Muslim world, or about gender related atrocities committed by Muslims they like to put up pictures of young Muslim women, whether covered or uncovered. No pictures of older women there; the message implied is “poor young Muslim women being forced to cover, not having the freedom to live like Western women, don’t you want to “save” her?” The only time I see them using pictures of older Muslim women (read: grandmotherly types or even women who like they’re married with lots of children) I see them using is when they have some random religious/cultural stories about Muslims. It’s too late to save older women after all and look how they miserable they come out looking we should “save” the poor younger women from that fate/sarcasm! I hardly see them using pictures of men in this fashion (they don’t even use as many pictures of clean shaven men as they do of young Muslim women to talk about promoting hypocrisy… oh I’m sorry “democracy”). Men are not meant to be felt “sorry” for and “saved”. It’s first of all condescending and of course racist for them to believe that the West is capable of “saving” anyone (shades of colonial rhetoric there). And of course it’s sexist of them to think that women need to be saved. Like others have mentioned earlier just because the Iranian women here are wearing their scarves loosely doesn’t imply that they’re waiting for “shining white knights in armor” to come to their rescue. They have the ability to think for themselves and decide how they want their socieities to function ( and I doubt many Iranians, men and women, want their countries to be destabilized by revolution, seeing all the instability and chaos plaguing Iraq and Afghanistan).

    Here’s another interesting analysis about the geopolitical implications of what’s happening in Iran right now:

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03.html

  41. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Rchoudh.

    Spot on, and I also see more than a bit of covert sexualization of Middle Eastern, Arab and Muslim women.

    Since 9/11 the West has discovered the Muslim world, low and behold, the women are not ugly, fat and dirty. Hence Western media and photographers looking to find young good looking Muslim women to sell their articles.

    Nevermind the silent narrative that the best loooking of the lot are usual those who seem to be more “Western” and hence modern.

  42. Joseph wrote:

    Turns out Ahmadinejad has a pretty rational attitude re: the veil.

    Alireza Doostdar writes, on Juan Cole:

    “Ahmadinejad himself, often to the chagrin of people in his own party and other right-wing groups, has been an outspoken critic of moves to regulate hijab, including the recent police moves to station policewomen in Tehran to instruct women with “bad” hijab to fix their scarves. Both before and after his election, he has said repeatedly that he thinks it is misguided to point at women whenever the issue of “corruption” comes up, and additionally that hijab is no where nearly as important an issue in this country as economic corruption and social injustice (I have both video and text references if you’re interested). I am very critical of Ahmadinejad on many issues, but his stance on hijab and regulating dress is not one of them.”

    http://tinyurl.com/kw8va5

  43. Elena Perez wrote:

    Thank you so much for this, it really informed the piece I just wrote for the California NOW blog, Western Media Narratives of Women in the Iranian Demonstrations: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/06/western-media-women-iranian-demonstrations.html

  44. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Hmm…it appears I forgot to give the other mods the heads up on this thread.

    As I said before, we’re not going in on if the elections were rigged or not. I’ll open a new thread next week. Until then, this thread is officially closed.