Google 1970s Iran vs now. It’s an interesting contrast of how quickly societies can change; and some would argue, not towards the future but backwards.
In Iran it was Project 79.
Well, here I don’t see feminists promoting hijab as ultimate feminism. I wonder why…
Some people lack baincells to understand hijab or not hijab is matter of choice
Everyone in Iran just so happened to choose hijab, right?
NO.
It’s ironic Christian nationalists hate Muslims and Sharia law, yet are doing everything they can to emulate the worst parts of Islamic theocratic rulers
Because it’s ultimately about control. They’ve found it through their method and don’t like the others see like it.
They hate them because they’re the rival gang.
“how could they have let this happen!”
-people in a country where people are making it happen
But, it can’t happen here, right?
RIGHT?
Here is the 30 second ad that runs in NC. It is real.
meanwhile, the sensible choice https://youtu.be/eH3-AaCaT1Y
i’m honestly kind of surprised someone like robinson became the pick for GOP. for one, he’s ridiculously extreme even for this state. for another, there are still a lot of people in NC who simply won’t vote for a black person regardless. i think stein has a decent chance of winning, given how cooper got reelected even though the state went for trump
Holy shit, that’s nuts. For people in the US like me who were unaware of who this Mark Robinson guy is, stop scrolling and read this article. Absolutely wild lol. And he can be a governor?! 😬
Maybe I should start reading the Handmaid’s Tale to get an idea of where our country is going…
Also, if you know any Iranians, they don’t wear hijab in the house there.
So yes, this photo would still be possible.
(And of course I am strongly against the theocracy in Iran)
one of my closest friends in high school had an iranian mom. mom and sister never wore hijabs, though only in the states. when they visited iran they did. but at the end of they day, they’re people just like anyone else who has fanatical religious psychos trying to control everything
America helped
The beginning
U.S. and British intelligence agencies help elements in the Iranian military overthrow Iran’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq. This follows Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Britain-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which led London to impose an oil embargo on Iran. The coup brings back to power the Western-friendly monarchy, headed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Deeply unpopular among much of the population, the shah relies on U.S. support to remain in power until his overthrow in 1979.
america also helped the taliban come to power. twice. but they don’t like to talk about that
Yup, they didnt work with the Shah because he was secular. The US doesn’t care if your religious or not, as long as you oppose communism and related policies (including national control of your own resources instead of letting foreign companies own them).
she cute
Next time, don’t depose a democratically elected president at the behest British Petroleum, just because said president is too left wing and would rather like to keep his country’s oil wealth.
Also, don’t install an unpopular monarch in that left wing president’s place.
Finally, don’t continue to support said monarch such that his unpopularity inspires a fundamentalist counterrevolution.
Fun fact: Iran was one of the Middle East’s first democracies. Turns out UK and US don’t care about democracy, just money.
Oil in the form of the Dollar
Add in some having your settler colonial entity in the region be best buddies with that monarch, help train his intelligence and army, which then made tens of thousands of people “disappear”.
Bonus points for then framing it, as the counterrevolution being motivated by antisemitism, instead of hating the supporters of their former opressor.
You should also remember to put this in context. This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in Iran at that time was educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thing and the hijab was common.
The CIA-backed coup and the Shah’s evil government sowed the seeds for the Islamic revolution but those seeds had some seriously fertile soil in which to grow.
This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in
Iran at that timewas educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thingand the hijab was common.Damn, that sounds pretty familiar as a USAian.
The second part of the person you responded to works too. Just replace US with Russia.
Not to mention it appears to be in a private home where all the public appearance laws aren’t applied.
There are better photos of women in public from the time that demonstrate the societal shift better.
I honestly thought that was Lana Del Rey before I read the description.
Of course it could be taken today. It looks like it’s taken inside a private home. The clothing laws concern public places.
M.O.R.O.N.
Shut up.
Why? He’s right. According to Quran, in the privacy of their own home women can wear whatever or even nothing.
Yes, to be specific, according to the Quran women can wear whatever in the presence of “mahram” (close relatives), meaning, parents, grandparents, kids and grandkids iirc.
In Iran, the mahram part is rarely enforced so in practice women can wear whatever inside private homes, no matter the relationship to those present.
Recently, women in Iran are pushing back against the Islamic clothing rules in public and step by step bending the rules. Now, what you actually need to wear vary wildly depending on exactly where in Iran you happen to be. In some parts, typically rich parts of bigger cities, it’s in practice tolerated to wear almost western-style clothing at the moment.
I’m tired of this kind of post, as it shows what a minority of society did in the 70’s, it also simplifies women rights issues in Iran to simply clothing. Although it is a prominent part, there’s much more to it. Things like that in court, a male witness is worth two female witnesses, and men inherit twice as much as women. Rape and sexual harassment is considered the fault of the women for dressing immodestly.
I’m pretty sure the list includes the husband, first and foremost.
But yes, totally agree with the rest. As someone from a somewhat Muslim country, when I see photos like this I just roll my eyes, because they don’t mean anything.
Ah yes, of course husband is included, I forgot the obvious one :) oh, and siblings should be included too.
Except in Alabama.
I exhaled uncontrollably.
You mean women are allowed to be naked at home?!? That’s absolutely insane. What if a woman was naked and a man tried to break in and rob her house? No, no, no, this will not do at all.
I suppose you stone the woman or something, easy.
Afghanistan in the 1970s was similarly culturally ascendent and relatively progressive.
See, e.g.,:
And then America Happened
The Soviets moreso than the US in the case of Afghanistan.
The country actually received substantial modernization aid from both, but eventually went through a series of coups that culminated in the Soviet invasion of the country and the rise of the mujaheddin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Barakzai_dynasty_and_British_wars
The US isn’t blameless in how the country turned out, but it’s a much less direct line than it is with Iran.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time. Also Afghanistan being pushed towards the Sovjets is a result of the US propping up Pakistan, which was proxy-warring against Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time.
“The current government of that time” was a communist regime that seized power after multiple successive coups and was deeply unpopular in much of the country. While your statement is technically true, it leaves out a massive amount of context.
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
That does get to the underlying point I was hinting at: imperialism is generally net harmful in all its flavors, whether that’s capitalist imperialism or communist imperialism.
Hey now, that was a cold war two-for-one.
This is a perfect example of society progressing backwards
It was a coup that installed the authoritarian government there. Aided by the CIA.
There’s a compilation album called Pomegranates - Persian Pop, Funk, Folk And Psych Of The 60s And 70s, and goddamn but does it make me want to see a '70s Iranian detective action movie with a fucking kickass soundtrack.
The Iranian elite here were never representative of the majority of Iranians.
(Sincere) are you implying that these pictures are the elite/upper class and the counter narrative is more the norm of the time?
Edit: nvm, other comments in the feed seem to add further context.
Nobody ever posts the “Here’s a teenage boy who has been beaten bloody by the Shah’s secret police” photo from the 1970s
Neither do we get the “Meet the PhD student who graduated without a penny of debt” from the 2020s.
But the sepia photograph of a hot girl in a short dress? Literally the only evidence we have that Iran even exists.
Nobody ever posts the “Here’s a teenage boy who has been beaten bloody by the Shah’s secret police” photo from the 1970s
Probably because the contrast is what makes it eye-catching, whereas “Secret police are the same in Iran now as they were in Iran in the 1970s” presents very little contrast.
Neither do we get the “Meet the PhD student who graduated without a penny of debt” from the 2020s.
… that’s the norm in most countries that don’t bear the abbreviation “USA”.
Probably because the contrast is what makes it eye-catching
So you agree it’s more about attention seeking than drawing a cogent argument?
… that’s the norm in most countries that don’t bear the abbreviation “USA”.
…is that not the point?
So you agree it’s more about attention seeking than drawing a cogent argument?
… it’s a post in a community about sharing historical photos. Of course it’s about sharing something rather than drawing any kind of argument.
…is that not the point?
… to make a comparison that makes only America look bad? If so, their previous example with SAVAK was ill-chosen.
Of course it’s about sharing something rather than drawing any kind of argument
Seems odd OP would make the comparison they did in the title, then.
… to make a comparison that makes only America look bad
It was part of a larger comment, not the only statement. Odd that any statement about the US is suddenly only about the US after its made…
Seems odd OP would make the comparison they did in the title, then.
“It seems odd they would share something interesting that contrasts with the current situation.”
Okay.
It was part of a larger comment, not the only statement. Odd that any statement about the US is suddenly only about the US after its made…
what
You know what, never mind. I don’t actually care enough to figure out what you’re saying.
No, the point is that things got much worse for women.
Second that student was a high ranking Muslim straight male. Because no one else is allowed to go to school.
So things are only ever black and white? Seems things were only great for a select few privileged people, it’s odd to make it seem otherwise. Might make someone misinformed.
Oh ok, then let me tell you that I’ve known a refugee from Iran. Or we could talk about the fact that they murder women for demanding rights.
You seem to be defending a theocracy that stole participation in the public sphere from half its population. Rethink your life
Nowhere do I see defending a theocracy, just showing that not everything is sunshine and roses just because something can be worse.
Then you need to look again.
I looked a bunch of times, but I hadn’t already made up my mind, so I never saw it.
Let me help you.
What would happen to her outside the city without the rich portion of the country?
Or look at the literacy rates. At the time of the revolution, so past when this photo was taken, less than 40% of Iranians could read and write. And let’s not mention The Celebration of the 2,500th Anniversary of the Founding of the Persian Empire by the Western puppet ruler, spending millions and millions on a tent city for foreign dignitaries in the desert plains, while his subjects were living in abject poverty without access to education or health care. Let’s just look at the mini skirt in the photo and wonder at the enlightenment of those days and the backwardness of today, when the literacy rate has more than doubled in 40 years for example. But they have hijab, therefore the society has obviously regressed. That’s the measure for how advanced a society is, the length of the skirts of the few who are well off.
Cool. Uganda also nearly doubled their literacy rates in the same period. As did India. As did Algeria. As did Morocco.
It’s almost like the increase in literacy is a function of the spread and adoption of modern technology, and not that the theocratic shitheads are better than the monarchist shitheads. But hey, I’m sure Iran’s current budget doesn’t go towards things that do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the people.
If so, then it’s just as inaccurate and ridiculous to say that Uganda, India, Algeria and Morocco have regressed in their development. What part of that do you consider controversial? Are you unwilling/unable to have a negative attitude towards the current regime, while also acknowledging that they’ve done more to develop the country than the Pahlavis ever did? There’s no contradiction at all in that in my view, those are just the facts. Iran has raised its HDI by +40% in the last 35 years, going from 0.577 in 1990 to almost 0.8 in 2018, with the international average for countries with high HDI being 0.75. Iran went from non-existent research output during the Shah’s reign to being number 15 in the World, placing 4th in Asia after India, Japan and South Korea. All of this happened within the framework of the “theocratic shitheads”, despite the existence of socially repressive laws, and not during the Shah’s time when the laws were more relaxed and all of the West supported his regime in any way possible. He was just uninterested in channeling that support into things beneficial to the people of Iran, and suffered the consequences of that by steering the country into revolution. So just comparing a picture of a woman in a miniskirt in the seventies to the mandatory hijab of today and concluding that the country has regressed in general seems like the most uncharitable and shallow analysis possible. It’s not helpful in understanding the World at all, and leads to foolish slogans like “they hate us for our freedom”, which in turn leads to disastrous decisions like the invasion of Iraq.
I don’t know why it should be so difficult to acknowledge that there are different degrees of bad, and the record suggests that the current “shitheads” are still far superior to the former. Nothing I wrote was meant to imply that the current regime doesn’t do a lot of bad stuff, there are no governments that don’t do bad stuff. To make sense of international politics at all, I think it’s essential to be able to compare different degrees of bad and grade on a curve. Just pointing and saying it’s all bad doesn’t seem like the best of ideas to me. But to each his own.
If so, then it’s just as inaccurate and ridiculous to say that Uganda, India, Algeria and Morocco have regressed in their development.
Fucking what.
More people are literate now than were under the monarchist OR communist governments of Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan more ‘advanced’ now under the Taliban? Christ’s sake.
All of this happened within the framework of the “theocratic shitheads”, despite the existence of socially repressive laws, and not during the Shah’s time when the laws were more relaxed and all of the West supported his regime in any way possible.
Oh, yes, as we all know, the policies of the Shah’s government definitely didn’t develop massive improvements in Iran’s economy, making a firm middle class which would later bite him in the ass.
So just comparing a picture of a woman in a miniskirt in the seventies to the mandatory hijab of today and concluding that the country has regressed in general seems like the most uncharitable and shallow analysis possible.
So your argument is, what, that a shared photo on a community about sharing photos isn’t a sourced and cited essay?
I don’t know why it should be so difficult to acknowledge that there are different degrees of bad, and the record suggests that the current “shitheads” are still far superior to the former. Nothing I wrote was meant to imply that the current regime doesn’t do a lot of bad stuff, there are no governments that don’t do bad stuff.
You’re fucking kidding me. You don’t see how “Their government is bad but all governments are bad” is some vile fucking apologia for a totalitarian government? If I said that about the Shah, would it be just as valid? Was SAVAK torturing people just “Well, yes, Iran under the Shah was bad, but all governments are bad”?
To make sense of international politics at all, I think it’s essential to be able to compare different degrees of bad and grade on a curve. Just pointing and saying it’s all bad doesn’t seem like the best of ideas to me. But to each his own.
Oh, cool, we’re grading countries relative to their circumstances? Cool!
Let’s compare women’s rights in Iran to… women’s rights in Iran. That sounds like a fair curve to grade women’s rights in Iran on to me.
Here’s a link based on data also from the UNDP, but from a couple years later and going back further. Except for a few years around that revolution, it looks like a pretty stable trend, which isn’t really damning or praising for the progress under either regime, imo.
This picture exists to sell the libs on how amazing the coup was the West did in Iran in 1953 called Operation Ajax. They overthrew the Iranian democratic government and install a liberal “king” as leader
It was a few liberal elites in the capital enjoying their riches by selling their country out.
The average population of Iran looked nothing like this image.
And also many of the forces participating in the revolution were quite democratic and even progressive. It’s just that Homeini and co gave them sort of a night of the long knives and created the theocracy.
They hate him because he spoke the truth.
