This story makes me smile.
An Iranian cleric said he was beaten by a woman in the northern province of Semnan after giving her a warning for being “badly covered,” the state-run Mehr news agency reported.
Good. Here’s more:
Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti said he encountered the woman in the street while on his way to the mosque in the town of Shahmirzad, and asked her to cover herself up, to which she replied “you, cover your eyes,” according to Mehr. The cleric repeated his warning, which he said prompted her to insult and push him.
“I fell on my back on the floor,” Beheshti said in the report. “I don’t know what happened after that, all I could feel was the kicks of this woman who was insulting me and attacking me.” …
Beheshti said he was hospitalized for three days. The Iranian cleric said it was his religious duty to apply the principle of “commanding right and forbidding wrong,” and that he would continue to do so even after living through what he called “the worst day of my life.”
I’m not usually one to endorse violence, but you go girl.
58 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Mr Ed
September 24, 2012 at 10:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And it was her right to apply boot to the head.
nigelTheBold, Venomous Demonic Hater
September 24, 2012 at 10:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t condone the violence, but I hope this statement is an indication of changes.
Marcus Ranum
September 24, 2012 at 10:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Got that? He had “the worst day of his life” in return for her having what had to be “the best day of her life” – It’s a good thing her face was covered because if they can identify her, she’ll pay dearly.
Abby Normal
September 24, 2012 at 10:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
When the oppressed stand up to their oppressor it does tend to lend a sense of righteousness to the violence. It’s somewhat like a swift smack upon the head for people who still say, “you go girl.” Technically it’s probably wrong. But it feels so right.
cry4turtles
September 24, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
She gave the asshole a taste of what he was fixin’ to give her. Preemptive. I second, “You go girl!”
Chiroptera
September 24, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
cry4turtles, #5: She gave the asshole a taste of what he was fixin’ to give her.
Yes, if not directly himself, then throught the agency of the state (or perhaps through mob violence).
fifthdentist
September 24, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So I’m guessing he thinks the women and girls they bury up to the neck and stone to death are having GOOD days?
Marcus Ranum
September 24, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Technically it’s probably wrong. But it feels so right.
The true root of all moral systems is retaliation. That’s why religious ‘moral systems’ create elaborate (and over the top) visions of punishment in the afterlife. What really makes humans treat eachother relatively decently in the real world is fear of retaliation in the here and now.
“You go, girl” is not an appropriate response, in this situation. “That’s a good start” is.
jws1
September 24, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not one who thinks that violence is always wrong. This woman didn’t go far enough – he should be spending the next several months remembering his name and how to walk again.
Kengi
September 24, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What? Is this some sort of experiment where Ed Brayton and PZ advocate violence just to see how many of their readers are lemmings who will blindly support any view they put forth?
Abby Normal
September 24, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Can you describe your attacker?”
“It was a woman dressed in a nondescript black robe.”
“Anything else age, body type, hair style, distinctive features like a mole or scar?”
“She had brown eyes.”
“We’ll get right on that sir.”
jasonfailes
September 24, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is the inevitable result of oppressing half your population but, at the same time, dressing them like ninjas.
Oh, anonymity!
blf
September 24, 2012 at 10:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Keep in my it’s the faerie-botherer who says he was hosptialized yadda yadda. And is the only one involved in the alleged incident who is quoted.
Having said that, a blog on RFE/RL claims this sort of incident isn’t unknown, and that this particular incident is being investigated as “public beating”.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 11:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi wrote…
It’s nice being able to hold onto your high-minded ideals when you’re not the one living under oppression. Perhaps the oppressed of the world would get swifter justice if they just wrote sternly worded letters instead of rising up in revolution?
For the record, I cheered on the actions of the woman well before Brayton or Myers wrote about it. If she was in Canada, for example, it would have been a different story. But she’s not. She’s in Iran where she has to live every day under fundamentalist Islamic oppression. Good for her.
Raging Bee
September 24, 2012 at 11:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi: yes, we do tend to advocate — or at least accept — violence as a response to criminal assault or other attempt to intimidate or oppress innocent people. Hey, at least Ed wasn’t mindlessly prattling about “Second Amendment solutions.”
beezlebubby
September 24, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi, I’m not saying you’re a moron, but you sure SOUND like a moron. Your concern is duly noted. And mocked.
Raging Bee
September 24, 2012 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is the inevitable result of oppressing half your population but, at the same time, dressing them like ninjas.
jasonfailes wins the thread!
On a more serious note, incidents like this remind us why it is important to avoid going to war with Iran if possible, and to discourage Israel from attacking them: the Iranians seem to truly want to get out from under the yoke of corupt backward theocracy, and they have enough social cohesion and understanding of democracy to make a plausible go at it — provided they have no war that the mullahs can use as an excuse to stifle all internal dissent. If a large stable country like Iran can move toward greater freedom at home, that will be good for the entire region, and good for US interests as well.
Bronze Dog
September 24, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I would have preferred non-violent forms of resistance, but I’m willing to forgive.
Of course, that’s taking the account at face value and out of the regional context. I have no reason to trust it. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of rape cases over there start with a man telling the woman to cover up so that they can relieve themselves of responsibility for their actions and make the rape her fault.
John Phillips, FCD
September 24, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee #17, QFT
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, but the question is then whether the cleric– who it seems was functioning more as a scold than an actual threat– should be held responsible for the entirety of that oppression rather than (or in addition to) his own individual behavior. Much as I would like every person who views it as his or her responsibility to “warn” women to dress more modestly so as to abide by religious codes to have cause to fear a similar beating, I can’t say that this one was justified. The irony, of course, being in the fact that I would totally consider it justified if the cleric had been trying to physically punish her, but the people in a position to try and physically enforce dress codes and other religious behavioral standards for women are typically not the kind of people those women could turn around and beat up.
marcus
September 24, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Fuck him. He got what he deserved.
marcus
September 24, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
re;21 To elucidate. I’ll worry about the women that are raped, abused and murdered everyday by assholes like this one or the people he helps empower. Fuck him very much.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 24, 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
True, but recently he’s been mindlessly prattling about the First Amendment. In the case of The Innocence of Muslims, all responsibility for violence is attributed by Ed and most commenters here and elsewhere on FtB to those actually carrying it out, none to those (in that case, deliberately and strategically) provoking it. Now, suddenly, violence is a laudable response to provocation.
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In Ed and the commenters’ (that would be a fun band name) defense; speech insulting someone’s religion made by someone on the other side of the world is not quite the same as speech made by someone standing in front of you telling you how to dress, in a culture that enforces his beliefs.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen wrote…
From our point of view it may not appear to be justified, but again, we don’t live with this sort of thing every day. I doubt she planned it, it sounds like she just snapped and took it out on a tool of her oppression.
The fact of the matter is that he is complicit in her oppression, so it’s not like he’s innocent, even if he didn’t lay a hand on her.
Kengi
September 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Gretchen
So, it would be OK for a Muslim to beat up a Christian who was telling them to dress more like an American, or telling them they couldn’t build a Mosque, so long as they were face-to-face in the United States?
Good to know!
@Tabby Lavalamp:
“The fact of the matter is that he is complicit in her oppression, so it’s not like he’s innocent, even if he didn’t lay a hand on her.”
Hmm… Where have I heard that excuse before? Could it be from extremists who excuse their attacks on all Americans or even all people from western cultures?
@Tabby Lavalamp
That’s the only reasonable argument I’ve seen in favor of such violence so far. As described, however, this was not a battle in the middle of a civil uprising to overthrow a totalitarian government. In fact, if such violent reactions became the norm, it would do nothing by play into the hands of those very oppressors you wish to see lose power.
@Raging Bee
At least you are honest about it. I prefer non-violent solutions whenever possible. I never was a big fan of frontier justice, but I understand the viewpoint of those in favor of it.
slc1
September 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As far as I’m concerned, she would be justified if she had broken his fucken back.
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 12:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I completely agree, Tabby. It’s just…well, I guess you can’t really have a tiny bit of justice. Not if you’re talking about the actions of an oppressed individual against an individual who is a member of the oppressor class, even if he’s in the act of oppressing at the time. It provokes a satisfying feeling of revenge, no doubt, but “justice” isn’t the word for that.
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi said:
I already said that this woman’s act was not justified. You can waste your time building more strawmen if you like, but it’s not as though I wasn’t clear.
Didaktylos
September 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Islamic clerics are like snakes and expect women to be like mice – but Allah help the snake that can’t tell the difference between a mouse and a mongoose …
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi wrote a lot of bad arguments, but let’s look at them anyway…
Do Muslims currently face oppression every day in the United States? They do experience hatred and discrimination, but are you seriously equating their day-to-day lives with that of women in Iran?
Except here is the thing… He was actively engaged in oppressing her! It’s not like she attacked some random man who was walking on the street. She attacked a man who took it upon himself to dictate to her how she should be dressed.
Not every revolution starts with an instantaneous mass uprising. And even if this doesn’t spark a revolution, sometimes for some individual people enough is enough.
I prefer non-violent solutions whenever possible as well. However, I live in Canada so while I’m affected by a patriarchy, I’ve got a whole hell of a lot of rights not afforded to a woman in Iran and am no subjected to the same stifling day-to-day oppression she is forced to live under. It would take a whole hell of a lot of blind privilege for me to tell her how she should react to that situation.
marcus
September 24, 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@31 Tabby Lavalamp I was going to respond with pretty much the same arguments, a lot of false equivalence on Kengi’s part I think, but you did so much better.
slc1
September 24, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In related news, it appears that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is is down on gays as he is on Jews and women.
http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/iran-s-president-ahmadinejad-thinks-education-reform-will-end-homosexuality?directory=100011
Kengi
September 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, what level of hatred and discrimination is required before a violent reaction should be lauded instead of vilified? When should a person turn the other cheek instead of demanding an eye for an eye? “Do Muslims currently face oppression every day in the United States?” As with most minorities, the answer is yes, but it’s easy to dismiss their oppression when we aren’t the ones being oppressed. Some of your privilege showing?
I was responding to the argument “The fact of the matter is that he is complicit in her oppression, so it’s not like he’s innocent, even if he didn’t lay a hand on her.” How does one define “complicity” in such situations? Does paying my taxes make me complicit in the torture of Muslims by America? If so, I also am “actively engaged” in oppression. I don’t agree with this argument, but was simply pointing out the fact that you were using this argument to justify violence against another person. The same argument used by terrorists.
This is just another lame excuse for violence against other people. I can understand and empathize with the violent reaction to oppression while still not lauding such behavior. If in the same situation I almost certainly would have, long ago, reacted with violence. That still doesn’t mean it was the best solution, nor one which should be promoted except in the most extreme situations.
I’m not telling her how she should react. I’m criticizing Ed Brayton (and others here) for applauding a violent reaction in this situation.
I would have shown this as an example of just how bad it is living under such oppression that it drove a women to such a violent reaction. I wouldn’t endorse the violence nor encourage such violent reactions.
It’s one thing to empathize with the violent actions of an oppressed woman. It’s quite another to praise and promote such actions.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sigh. Kengi wrote…
I’m not dismissing their oppression. I’m saying it’s not at the same level. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I live in a patriarchy? If there was ever a situation where Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment would actually make sense in highlighting differences, this would be it.
Seriously?!?! He told her how she should be dressed! HE FELT IT WAS HIS DUTY!
How is that NOT complicit?!?
Is it so important for you to be right that you’d rather just ignore the details of the story?
“The same argument used by terrorists.” Pure and utter bullshit.
Is it a lame excuse for violence, or would have long ago reacted with violence in the same situation? Or are you saying you will grab onto lame excuses for violence?
Yes. It’s much better to tut tut.
Kengi
September 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Gretchen: I was fine with your position in #20, but took exception to your argument in #24. Is it really an unimaginable straw man to think that “speech made by someone standing in front of you telling you how to dress [or other similar nonsense], in a culture that enforces his beliefs” isn’t something that happens here as well?
I’m disturbed by the fact that a woman in Iran felt she was forced into a violent reaction. I’m also disturbed by reactions such as “Fuck him. He got what he deserved”, “you go girl” and “she would be justified if she had broken his fucken back” while other rush in to defend such reactions.
How much different are we from those we were so recently admonished for their own violence?
Nick Gotts was right when he commented “Now, suddenly, violence is a laudable response to provocation.”
Kengi
September 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, it’s different. You, however, don’t seem to see your privilege in claiming that the oppression of Muslims in America isn’t bad enough for a violent reaction while simultaneously praising violent reactions for other oppressed people. I asked you to define the point at which the oppression is bad enough to cross that line, not for a reiteration that the oppression is different.
It is complicit. I never said it wasn’t. The terrorists who use your argument also see complicity in those they attack. That’s the point!
Honestly, you can’t Google “justify terrorism” and not see that argument used over and over. What’s bullshit is your rejection that it’s the same argument.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive statements. I would have reacted with violence in the same situation and it’s a lame excuse for violence. I’m just willing to admit I would have lost my temper in the heat of the moment by using a lame excuse. That makes me human, but it doesn’t make my violence laudable.
Abby Normal
September 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think Gretchen @28 hit the nail on the head. This incident has reminded me of an event when I was about 20 years old. I rode a bike to and from work in those days. On a regular basis there was this young guy, a stranger to me, who would yell, “Fag!” or some other homophobic slur whenever he saw me. I have no idea how he knew. Perhaps I have a limp wristed biking style. But for some reason it really got under my skin. I’d always been a non-violent type. Let it roll off you like water off a ducks back, I would tell myself, Just let assholes be assholes. Those phrase were a well-worn mantra for me.
Then one day, for no reason in particular, I’d just had it. He shouted, I jumped of my bike and decked him. I slammed him against a car and choked him with my forearm as I berated him for his months of verbal attacks. When I finished I threw him to the ground, gasping. I rode off while he now shouted threats to sue. If he had, justice would have awarded him compensation, and rightly so. What I did was wrong. But from a personal perspective I can’t bring myself to regret it. I know in my head he was just some dumb kid spouting off. But in my heart he was one with all those others who had attacked me all my life, physically and verbally.
Standing up to that did me a world of good. It was empowering. What’s more, it was effective. He never bothered me again. From a personal perspective it helped me to grow into a stronger person, one who has never since resorted to violence except in response to actual physical danger. But from a social perspective I must condemn it as unjustified. My feelings about this Iranian woman are similar. What she did was both morally wrong and personally inspiring.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Where there is no legal recourse. How’s that for a point when the oppression is bad enough to cross that line? The people actively trying to oppress Muslims in the US keep bumping up against the law and the US constitution.
You can keep bringing up terrorists all you want. While they are a real and serious threat, and don’t see them as the boogieman that makes any argument that can be snowballed into one that they’d make a bad argument. Terrorists want to make the world into what they think would be a better place. Oh no! We can’t make the world a better place now, because terrorists want to do it too (even though our definitions of “a better place” vary)!
It’s irrelevant what arguments terrorists make because it’s possible to use a legitimate argument (people can be complicit in oppression) and be wrong in how that argument is used (which people are complicit in that oppression).
No. What’s bullshit saying terrorists use a particular argument, so that argument is forever tainted and can no longer be used for anything ever again.
You mean in the second sentence where I asked, “Or are you saying you will grab onto lame excuses for violence?”
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kengi said:
I wonder if you’re even aware that you lend support to this woman’s oppression by comparing her violent reaction to someone perpetuating it to those of people who were not fucking oppressed.
Before you get all disturbed, maybe you should consider for a moment whether these expressions of support for this woman are really about enthusiastic endorsement of her actions, or sympathy for her position. It seems to me that your lack of the latter causes your assumption of the former.
Wes
September 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t condone violence unless it’s in self defense. If she really beat him up just because she didn’t like what he said, that’s wrong. I commend her for standing up for her rights in an environment where doing so might put her in danger, but she didn’t do it in the right way. Nonviolent resistance is the best way to address oppression.
However, as other commenters have noted, we’re only getting the Imam’s side of the story here. He might be conveniently leaving out the part where he started the fight by grabbing her arm or slapping her or spitting on her (I’ve seen instances where stuff like that has happened). If that’s the case, then she was entirely within her rights to hit him in self defense. But we’ll probably never hear her side of the story, since if she’s got any brains and values her future well being she’ll do her best to stay anonymous.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 24, 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, I’d say:
is unambiguous and enthusiastic endorsement.
baal
September 24, 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
SCL1 @ #27 and more of you seem to think the only bad thing about beating up the cleric is that he was able to leave the hospital just a few days later. You all need to check yourselves. Violence is not a good choice. I’m somewhat pleased you all are being a little more honest these days and saying that you find your jollies in violence (in situations absent consent).
You folks doing the cheer leading for violence – do you really want to argue that it’s ok? Consider if the oppressors thought that violence was the right solution for people you disagree with (hrm, we actually have that in Iran and the same people don’t approve of it…). Would you be ok with me physically laying into you if I found your verbal impositions intolerable? Would I have to make a list of our respective privileges and get it blessed before I have license to just start kicking? Where do you pro-violence people draw the line?
Thank you Kengi for fighting the hard fight and to Abby Normal for having some nuance. FWIW, my bullies (1-2 every time i moved every 1-2 year as a kid) never left me alone until I pounded them. It wasn’t my first choice on how to solve the problem even back then.
@SCL1, apologies for singling you out – You weren’t the only one getting confused.
Tabby Lavalamp
September 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here is a list of revolutions and rebellions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
Please feel free to go through it and tut tut every one that had or has violence and explain to us how they could have all done it better. The slave rebellion led by Sparticus? The Celts rising up against the Romans? The American revolution? Libya against Qhadafi? Syria today? At the risk of being accused of Godwinning, how about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?
Is violence only okay if there is an immediate threat of death?
“Consider if the oppressors thought that violence was the right solution for people you disagree with…”
WOW. Because that’s EXACTLY THE SAME THING as lashing out against oppression!
eoraptor013
September 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Didaktylos @30
New internets for you.
Gretchen
September 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I just looked at PZ’s blog to find where he had written about this same incident and praised the woman who beat up the cleric after he ordered her to cover up. I couldn’t find it. I only found a post about a woman who punched a man after he groped her, which PZ pronounced “spot on.”
Is that what you were talking about, Kengi? Praising a woman who hit a man for sexually assaulting her? Because if you have a problem with that and find it an appropriate occsion to express sanctimonious shock at the bloodthirstiness displayed, I think disturbing reaction here is yours.
lofgren
September 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The oppressors DO think that violence is the right solution for people who disagree with them. That’s how they get to be oppressors.
Comparing this incident to anything that has happened in the US since the Civil Rights act dramatically misses the mark. (I certainly would not argue that all violence in the US in the name of civil rights was unjustified just because of the Civil Rights Act, only that it becomes much more difficult to make sweeping generalizations.)
When a Muslim cleric tells a woman to cover herself in Iran, he’s not just expressing his opinion. He’s threatening her life.
marcus
September 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@47 lofgren This. Every once in a while sometimes, some where, some asshole gets what he deserves. It may not be justice but it was not unwarranted. To read larger sociological issues into it is a mistake IMHFO. I think Didaktylos @30 put best and most succinctly.
“Oppress me motherfucker? Not today.” Roger that.
No One
September 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Saudi Woman in a mall being harassed by religious police, lets them have an ear-full:
No One
September 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Trigger warning!
What the Iranian religious Police did to a woman:
Abby Normal
September 25, 2012 at 12:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
lofgren @47
It didn’t occur to me think of it in that light when I shared my little story. But I see where you’re coming from. I started from my conclusion and worked backward to find a place where I related. The intention was to empathize rather than draw equivalence. I was just saying, this is why I find her defiance so satisfying. Thanks for the reality check.
Raging Bee
September 25, 2012 at 8:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I prefer non-violent solutions whenever possible.
So do I — but in Iran, it’s common for women to be physically harassed, and even beaten, by ignorant thugs when they refuse to dress and behave “properly.” The cleric’s demand that she cover herself wasn’t just obnoxious — it carried a clear and present danger of violence against the woman, and the woman had good reason to fight back, based on the observed behavior of mullahs like him dating back to the fall of the Shah. Beating up on a cleric may not have been the wisest response here, but it was at least morally justifiable.
Raging Bee
September 25, 2012 at 8:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the best US-based analogy might be a white man confronting a black man on a public street and demanding he go back to “where he belongs.” Maybe the black man could politely stand his ground, or maybe he’d feel threatened — in a place he has every legal right to be, mind you — and decide to teach the cracker a lesson, so as to deter any more threats to his freedom of movement.
Raging Bee
September 25, 2012 at 8:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No One: Always nice to see a fake religious cop getting a talking-to by real cops (guess there’s nothing in the Koran saying men can’t bare arms, eh?). The real SA cops have been quietly cracking down on the muttawas, if only to protect their own turf.
lofgren
September 25, 2012 at 9:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In 1913.
That’s what’s missing from all of these analogies – imminent fear of death. Or rape. Or imprisonment. Or a savage beating. And the knowledge that the civil authorities not only won’t help you, they’ll join in.
Telling this woman that violence is never justified is no different from telling her to cover herself or die, something she has heard every minute of every day since 1978.
Abby Normal
September 25, 2012 at 9:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you think that’s true then you have no idea what it’s like being as a queer in the rural Midwest during the 70s. Rape, torture, beatings by police, the ever-present threat of imprisonment or death, these are not abstract concepts to me. I’ve had personal experience with all those things. I don’t pretend it’s a perfect parallel to the experiences of an Iranian woman. You were right to point that out. But you shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming real oppression hasn’t existed in the US recently.
lofgren
September 25, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It would require willful denial for me to say that such things did not occur. In fact I specifically said in my earlier comment that some violence in response to non-violent attacks or socially-sanctioned violence is warranted, and one of the first examples that came to me was the Stonewall riots.
My earlier comment was intended primarily for Kengi and a few other commenters who seem to have failed to appreciate that Iran is NOT the US. I think that your assessment of your own experience is accurate – personally empowering, but not strictly-speaking just or proper. That’s because you gave no indication that you were in fear for yourself at the time. You had the opportunity to extricate yourself from the situation peacefully, and you live in a country where non-violent, legal, and more long-term approaches to social change have a proven track record. Had this man assaulted you, you could have sought legal recourse against him. Would you, as a member of a less privileged class, had a more difficult time getting redress than he would against you? Yes, almost certainly. But even in the 1970s progress was evident in that area, and as I already noted the question is moot because you yourself indicated you were not in fear of him.
Contrast that with the situation of women in Iran. The track record of peaceful social progress in Iran can generously be called “spotty” at best, and the woman has no means of extricating herself from that world unless she flees the country, assuming that option was even available. It’s not unheard of (or even uncommon) for a comment like this to be followed up on by a visit from the police there. Had the cleric decided to make himself properly understood through violence, he would have done so with the full support of the conservative regime that controls the entire country.
My intention was not to judge you or anybody else who has been victimized in this country. Only to put the cleric’s comment in the proper context. He was not merely some asshole on the street who hurled abuse at this woman, as some have tried to frame this. He is only the visible tip of her oppression, and there is no end to its depths. Sure, in this specific case it appears that the woman could have walked away. But she doesn’t have the protection of a national movement advocating her rights, or a safe place to hide herself until the moment has passed, or decades of history indicating the effectiveness of peaceful protest, or a nation of supporters who would be appalled and motivated to action by her story, or even a legal authority that pretends to care about her rights. She could have walked away, but she had nowhere to walk to.
As grim as the world must have appeared to a gay person in the midwest in the 1970s, the situation for women in Iran is at least as horrifying, and the options for effective non-violent resistance even less available.
Bronze Dog
September 25, 2012 at 2:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To cover my perspective a bit more: The power of threats is often in their uncertainty. Rapists have a variety of ways to approach their target while maintaining some form of plausible deniability or other means of being safe from the consequences. I also imagine a lot of scoldings turn into physical abuse with little chance of a victim being able to predict which ones are going which way.
Even assuming the cleric’s account is accurate and he only intended a scolding, I can see how his actions can be perceived as threatening. The woman in question isn’t psychic. Intention isn’t magically broadcast with clarity. The worst realistic interpretation of the events I can imagine at the moment is that she got a false positive while determining if the cleric was threatening. Arguably, the risk of a false positive was better than the risk of a false negative in those particular circumstances.
The arguable poetic justice is that the cleric’s obsession with covering and thus victim-blaming contributed in part to the cultural context which gave that woman a rational reason to feel threatened and to violently react to that perceived threat.
Kalex's Tome » Damn | Kalex's Tome
September 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] A Tiny Bit of Justice in Iran This story makes me smile. An Iranian cleric said he was beaten by a woman in the northern province of Semnan after giving her a warning for being “badly covered,” the state-run Mehr news agency reported. [...]