[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists.
---
[Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you think promoting that women cover up for “modesty” is respectful to women?
Edited to add: I noticed you implied that the hijab is “Muslim culture” but there are many Muslim women who don’t wear hijab. Some Muslims dispute that it’s even a requirement of their faith.
> Do you think promoting that women cover up for “modesty” is respectful to women?
If it's forced upon them, culturally, legally, or simply physically, then yes, I absolutely agree it's unacceptable, a violation of basic human rights and dignity, and it should be stopped.
But if some women *want* to wear the hijab, I will not oppose it, and neither should you. It's not about "promoting" anything, it's about letting women choose their own way of dressing, and expressing themselves or their beliefs of their own free will, and more largely freedom to practice one's religion as one chooses, as long as no one is hurt. By the same token we all oppose the Iranian State forcing women (or anyone else, for that matter) to wear certain pieces of clothing, we also should oppose the State forcing them *not* to wear one if they so wish.
The question of "wearing a hijab" concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab. Full stop.
I agree with most of what you said and of course, it’s not okay to insult people because of their clothing.
I support a woman’s freedom to choose. I also believe that in order for that choice to truly be free, it needs to be free from fear/coercion.
If we were talking about a simple fashion accessory, I wouldn’t have much else to add but the hijab has inextricably been linked to ideology about women’s “modesty” (historically and presently) throughout the world. Such ideology has been used to justify forcing a lot of women under the hijab. So, I think it’s important to engage in critical thinking and challenge such toxic ideas, specifically because of their long and painful history of being shamelessly promoted. This is not in conflict with respecting people’s autonomy over their own bodies.
I believe the women who are *still* forced to wear the hijab around the world today are the truly voiceless, so I disagree with the part where you said, “the question of ‘wearing the hijab’ concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab.”
The question of ‘wearing the hijab’ also concerns all the women who *don’t* choose to wear it but are forced to, to this day. They not small in number either.
>and neither should you.
Are we still talking about freedom of choice? :-)
> I believe the women who are *still* forced to wear the hijab around the world today are the truly voiceless, I disagree with the part where you said, “the question of ‘wearing the hijab’ concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab.”
You seem to have either misunderstood, or missed the point of the sentence you quoted, because the women "forced to wear the hijab today" were already included within the starting paragraph, as acknowledged victims. Women being forced to wear the hijab, today, is an unacceptable situation - at a base level, they don't *actively wish* to wear the hijab, thus they should not be forced to.
The rest of the comment, including the above-quoted sentence, was a guideline for a state of affairs in which the rights of women *would* be respected. As such, it didn't concern the coerced women currently existing, as their suffering is presupposed to be something which should be corrected in order for this ideal state of affairs to come about. All of this was solely concerning the instance where wearing the hijab is not something enforced upon the people, which is already the goal when it comes to dealing with oppressive theocratic states such as Iran, and thus didn't require me reiterating it.
In other words: *for a society to respect the rights of women,* the only people that should be concerned with "wearing the hijab" are those who are making the free choice to do so, with full consent.
As I've already stated, it is unacceptable to force anyone to wear anything, specifically for theocratic purposes. In fact, I took great care to say, verbatim:
"If it's forced upon them, culturally, legally, or simply physically, then yes, I absolutely agree it's unacceptable, a violation of basic human rights and dignity, and it should be stopped."
This was the starting thesis within my comment. The postulate that their lack of choice is intolerable was taken into account. Hence, I did not mention this aspect within my "those that actively wish to wear the hijab", because the idea of consent is presupposed, via the use of "actively wish". Women being forced to wear the hijab, today, is an unacceptable situation. When, therefore, I state that "wearing the hijab only concerns those who actively wish it", you may not have realized this, but it's actually just a rephrasing of what you've already said - it's a statement that opposes the Islamic State's idea that every woman should wear a hijab regardless of whether they wish for it or not, and it opposes more generally the Islamic State being concerned with whether they wear their hijab or not.
Again, I'm talking in the case where people are free to follow Islam, or not, and in that case they should be free to wear the hijab, or not. I'm only - *only* - talking about societies that don't enforce the hijab, and where willing women might want to. Which, you'll notice, your original comment did *not* mention, unlike mine which very clearly prefaced my opinion with a caveat about coercing women into wearing the hijab.
If you support a woman's freedom to choose, then you agree with the idea that the choice of wearing the hijab ultimately (and, to reiterate, and insist, this is in a society where the hijab is not forced upon anyone) comes down to her, and more generally to those that wish to wear it.
> The question of ‘wearing the hijab’ also concerns all the women who *don’t* choose to wear it but are forced to, to this day. They not small in number either.
Again, nowhere have I disagreed with this, and I'm not sure why you seem to be taking the position that I have.
I'm ultimately not contradicting you. I'm only bringing nuance to the idea that "promoting" the hijab is necessarily a bad thing depending on what you mean by it. For instance, "promoting" could simply mean "promoting the exercise of one's religion in a consensual manner" - so, in the sense of interpreting religious texts as requiring the hijab, and sharing that belief with willing participants who genuinely want to practice Islam. If it's a good faith effort to practice Islam, with consenting women, I don't see anything wrong with it, and the State should not intervene in women's clothing choice, hijab or not. If it's forced upon them, by the State or some other entity (e.g. a traditionalist family that forces its daughters - and sons - to adopt Islam, and that one could call "abusive"), then yes, something should be done to stop it.
> Are we still talking about freedom of choice? :-)
I suppose you're being facetious given the emoticon, but the unsaid implication there was "if you respect the rights of women", of course. Nowhere was there some idea that it should be illegal for you to hold an opinion opposite of mine, the "should" is entirely a moral judgement.
This person looks familiar, I think someone connected to NIAC
But I am sure photo is photoshopped. No way any person would wear IRGC logo in the public especially airport when IRGC is a terror org in the US
These photos look suspicious . IRGC is a terrorist organization based on USA's laws and these three person having fun with this symbol in usa , I really don't know what is going on there
You either have freedom of speech or you have censorship. There is no in-between. You have to take the good with the bad. If you're bothered by freedom of speech, look away or move to a country that will protect you from evil speech or symbols.
**یک نفر این عکس ها را امروز در فرودگاه JFK در نیویورک گرفته است. به لوگو روی لباس هایش توجه کنید**
---
_I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
😂 99% of pisslamic republic's mullah families are living in Europe, USA and Canada
Aren't they considered terrorist? Absolutely not. They're living the life..
Was this in an area before customs clearance? Like she just has a stop over before a final destination? I highly doubt an IRGC official would be allowed in the US.
[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists. --- [Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tell the IRGC bitch to wear her hair condom
Yeah wtf betch
Mikhad lokht beshe!!!?!
Don’t disrespect the muslim culture. These evil things have just used the religion as a cover for their psycho acts just like ISIS did
Yeah bro islam came to iran so hecking peacefully wifh flowers and stuff
Don’t tell us what to do little dictator
Do you think promoting that women cover up for “modesty” is respectful to women? Edited to add: I noticed you implied that the hijab is “Muslim culture” but there are many Muslim women who don’t wear hijab. Some Muslims dispute that it’s even a requirement of their faith.
> Do you think promoting that women cover up for “modesty” is respectful to women? If it's forced upon them, culturally, legally, or simply physically, then yes, I absolutely agree it's unacceptable, a violation of basic human rights and dignity, and it should be stopped. But if some women *want* to wear the hijab, I will not oppose it, and neither should you. It's not about "promoting" anything, it's about letting women choose their own way of dressing, and expressing themselves or their beliefs of their own free will, and more largely freedom to practice one's religion as one chooses, as long as no one is hurt. By the same token we all oppose the Iranian State forcing women (or anyone else, for that matter) to wear certain pieces of clothing, we also should oppose the State forcing them *not* to wear one if they so wish. The question of "wearing a hijab" concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab. Full stop.
I agree with most of what you said and of course, it’s not okay to insult people because of their clothing. I support a woman’s freedom to choose. I also believe that in order for that choice to truly be free, it needs to be free from fear/coercion. If we were talking about a simple fashion accessory, I wouldn’t have much else to add but the hijab has inextricably been linked to ideology about women’s “modesty” (historically and presently) throughout the world. Such ideology has been used to justify forcing a lot of women under the hijab. So, I think it’s important to engage in critical thinking and challenge such toxic ideas, specifically because of their long and painful history of being shamelessly promoted. This is not in conflict with respecting people’s autonomy over their own bodies. I believe the women who are *still* forced to wear the hijab around the world today are the truly voiceless, so I disagree with the part where you said, “the question of ‘wearing the hijab’ concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab.” The question of ‘wearing the hijab’ also concerns all the women who *don’t* choose to wear it but are forced to, to this day. They not small in number either. >and neither should you. Are we still talking about freedom of choice? :-)
> I believe the women who are *still* forced to wear the hijab around the world today are the truly voiceless, I disagree with the part where you said, “the question of ‘wearing the hijab’ concerns one group, and one group only: those that actively wish to wear a hijab.” You seem to have either misunderstood, or missed the point of the sentence you quoted, because the women "forced to wear the hijab today" were already included within the starting paragraph, as acknowledged victims. Women being forced to wear the hijab, today, is an unacceptable situation - at a base level, they don't *actively wish* to wear the hijab, thus they should not be forced to. The rest of the comment, including the above-quoted sentence, was a guideline for a state of affairs in which the rights of women *would* be respected. As such, it didn't concern the coerced women currently existing, as their suffering is presupposed to be something which should be corrected in order for this ideal state of affairs to come about. All of this was solely concerning the instance where wearing the hijab is not something enforced upon the people, which is already the goal when it comes to dealing with oppressive theocratic states such as Iran, and thus didn't require me reiterating it. In other words: *for a society to respect the rights of women,* the only people that should be concerned with "wearing the hijab" are those who are making the free choice to do so, with full consent. As I've already stated, it is unacceptable to force anyone to wear anything, specifically for theocratic purposes. In fact, I took great care to say, verbatim: "If it's forced upon them, culturally, legally, or simply physically, then yes, I absolutely agree it's unacceptable, a violation of basic human rights and dignity, and it should be stopped." This was the starting thesis within my comment. The postulate that their lack of choice is intolerable was taken into account. Hence, I did not mention this aspect within my "those that actively wish to wear the hijab", because the idea of consent is presupposed, via the use of "actively wish". Women being forced to wear the hijab, today, is an unacceptable situation. When, therefore, I state that "wearing the hijab only concerns those who actively wish it", you may not have realized this, but it's actually just a rephrasing of what you've already said - it's a statement that opposes the Islamic State's idea that every woman should wear a hijab regardless of whether they wish for it or not, and it opposes more generally the Islamic State being concerned with whether they wear their hijab or not. Again, I'm talking in the case where people are free to follow Islam, or not, and in that case they should be free to wear the hijab, or not. I'm only - *only* - talking about societies that don't enforce the hijab, and where willing women might want to. Which, you'll notice, your original comment did *not* mention, unlike mine which very clearly prefaced my opinion with a caveat about coercing women into wearing the hijab. If you support a woman's freedom to choose, then you agree with the idea that the choice of wearing the hijab ultimately (and, to reiterate, and insist, this is in a society where the hijab is not forced upon anyone) comes down to her, and more generally to those that wish to wear it. > The question of ‘wearing the hijab’ also concerns all the women who *don’t* choose to wear it but are forced to, to this day. They not small in number either. Again, nowhere have I disagreed with this, and I'm not sure why you seem to be taking the position that I have. I'm ultimately not contradicting you. I'm only bringing nuance to the idea that "promoting" the hijab is necessarily a bad thing depending on what you mean by it. For instance, "promoting" could simply mean "promoting the exercise of one's religion in a consensual manner" - so, in the sense of interpreting religious texts as requiring the hijab, and sharing that belief with willing participants who genuinely want to practice Islam. If it's a good faith effort to practice Islam, with consenting women, I don't see anything wrong with it, and the State should not intervene in women's clothing choice, hijab or not. If it's forced upon them, by the State or some other entity (e.g. a traditionalist family that forces its daughters - and sons - to adopt Islam, and that one could call "abusive"), then yes, something should be done to stop it. > Are we still talking about freedom of choice? :-) I suppose you're being facetious given the emoticon, but the unsaid implication there was "if you respect the rights of women", of course. Nowhere was there some idea that it should be illegal for you to hold an opinion opposite of mine, the "should" is entirely a moral judgement.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I wasn’t being facetious either, just trying to add a bit of levity with that last bit (I guess it was a flop).
For anyone wondering that is the IRCG (a.k.a. Sepah) logo...
Damn that garbage
It’s actually insane how they’re so confident to wear that stuff in public.
Anyone know who that is?
Enhance!!
[ok, well let’s get a good look at you](https://youtu.be/Vxq9yj2pVWk)
Zoom in on the reflection on the pro-regime rally guy's bald head, it points to a mirror that has a reflection..
And this is why I love Reddit.
yes, a [parastoo](https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%87_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%DB%8C)
This person looks familiar, I think someone connected to NIAC But I am sure photo is photoshopped. No way any person would wear IRGC logo in the public especially airport when IRGC is a terror org in the US
What does the logo symbolize?
IRGC
Why isn't her hair covered?
These photos look suspicious . IRGC is a terrorist organization based on USA's laws and these three person having fun with this symbol in usa , I really don't know what is going on there
It's covered freedom of speech. Basically as long as she isn't commiting crimes, she can wear and say whatever she wants.
Yes I think you right I saw Nazism symbol too using in USA
[удалено]
Never.
You either have freedom of speech or you have censorship. There is no in-between. You have to take the good with the bad. If you're bothered by freedom of speech, look away or move to a country that will protect you from evil speech or symbols.
Ya, seems a bit sus. Would actual IRGC members have this symbol on their clothes while traveling internationally?
**یک نفر این عکس ها را امروز در فرودگاه JFK در نیویورک گرفته است. به لوگو روی لباس هایش توجه کنید** --- _I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
The photographer should have reported to the police
How did this terrorist get a visa to come to US ????
😂 99% of pisslamic republic's mullah families are living in Europe, USA and Canada Aren't they considered terrorist? Absolutely not. They're living the life..
Fuckin terrorists
Might not know the symbols meaning, just thinks its something cool
\>The new Asian tattoo
Was this in an area before customs clearance? Like she just has a stop over before a final destination? I highly doubt an IRGC official would be allowed in the US.
WTF ? who is she ?
I don’t know guys but this doesn’t pass the smell test.
based