Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:
I would take my shoes off and wear the guest slippers in Japan, not show the bottom of your feet or eat with your left hand in Saudi Arabia... why not this?

Again, it's specifically because of the poor track record of treatment of women and women rights in Islamic countries, thus requiring by law to wear it is seen as representing that oppression.

It's one thing to follow the customs of a certain nation out of politeness and to avoid making a fuss, it's another to don cultural clothing that someone feels represents a specific oppression.

Likewise if an event has a dress code I don't think many people would object, but when it's a dress code imposed by the *law* of the actual *country* and that law is rooted in treating women as lesser beings, expect people to start objecting.

 Talizvar wrote:
Being given a first name as "Nazi" is just attention getting no matter how you look at it.

If one would have to worry with names that it doesn't offend anybody EVER anywhere in the world...Bejezus what a work. There's certain Finnish last name that basically means "idiot" in another country. Fun fun fun.

Also when was that first name came into being in that country? Before or after 2nd world war? If it's been common name there before that then why should they give it up because of some idiots? That means surrendering up to the donkey-caves from 30's...Should Japan change symbol for temples that is same as nazi's used? Despite it being thousands of years old symbol of peace? Why let nazi's win in anything?

tneva82 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Being given a first name as "Nazi" is just attention getting no matter how you look at it.

If one would have to worry with names that it doesn't offend anybody EVER anywhere in the world...Bejezus what a work. There's certain Finnish last name that basically means "idiot" in another country. Fun fun fun.

Also when was that first name came into being in that country? Before or after 2nd world war? If it's been common name there before that then why should they give it up because of some idiots? That means surrendering up to the donkey-caves from 30's...Should Japan change symbol for temples that is same as nazi's used? Despite it being thousands of years old symbol of peace? Why let nazi's win in anything?

Well, I mean...it's not like anyone's trying to rock the Ralph these days...

Funny how specific lines are quoted and addressed without the other things pointed out.

@AllSeeingSkink: Yep, I think the bit I said about "Iran has many issues" and better to participate and have the discussion rather than boycott covered it. I seem to remember people got really upset when a newly minted Mountie wanted to wear his turban rather than the hat for his uniform... it was like he was breaking a law or something. Look a little harder at this "law" treating women as "lesser beings". It runs a rather close parallel with the topless debate that "oppresses women" so take that how you will. It is an interpretation made of the Koran of what constitutes "modesty" and it would be absolutely wonderful if their priests could look at that again.

@tneva82: I have a friend where she was given the name "Brandy" and had many of those with poor impulse control ask if that was her stage name...
Sometimes parents suffer from poor impulse control and trying to make our kids special. I think I named mine after Dan Fielding from Night Court but I digress.
The context is that the parent knew fully well what they were doing calling their kid "Nazi" or were incredibly stupid and did no research. Oddly, my focus was more "what were they thinking?" and "How odd." than some "OMG it is that Germany / Hitler / WW2 / Holocaust thing.". When I was growing up I used to throw around calling a person a "Nazi" when I thought they were too regimented and oppressive (had no real idea of the true origin). Called a German guy that once (did not know) and got straightened out. Look at Seinfeld and the "Soup Nazi" skit: it is at least a name that is not exactly associated as a good thing.

 Talizvar wrote:
Look a little harder at this "law" treating women as "lesser beings".

Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, what I was trying to intimate was while the law is in and of itself not a big deal, many people see it as representative of wider issues of equality and oppression in the middle east (and Iran isn't the worst country for it).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Look a little harder at this "law" treating women as "lesser beings".

Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, what I was trying to intimate was while the law is in and of itself not a big deal, many people see it as representative of wider issues of equality and oppression in the middle east (and Iran isn't the worst country for it).

But how much of that is western prejudice and how much is reality is another thing...For example:

The most surprising development for me was the clear impression that, contrary to American belief, women in the Islamic Republic were better off in many respects than they were under the Pahlavi regime. Moreover, their condition has continued to improve. Women have always had a strong role in Iranian life. Their prominent and often decisive participation in public political movements has been especially noteworthy. Brave and often ruthlessly pragmatic, women have been more than willing to take to the streets in a good public cause throughout modern Iranian history. The Islamic Republic has made a special point of emphasizing women's equality in education, employment, and politics as a matter of national pride. Although women have served in the Iranian legislature and as government ministers since the 1950s, there are more women in the current parliament than ever served under the Pahlavi regime. Iranian women may actually be in the vanguard in the Islamic World. As their progress becomes better known, they are sure to inspire others to pursue their dreams. The New Islamic Woman is a reality, and will undoubtedly be a force to reckon with in the future.
— William O. Beeman (2005)

And things don't get changed overnight and are hardly changed by throwing tantrums. Things are already changing there so why not support that change rather than keep trying to drive wedge between west and middle east even further?

Literacy has gone up to almost 98% in 15-24 age group, first marriage age is going up(guess they will face in future problem that countries seems to hit at certain point where population starts to shrink without immigrants...) etc.

Western media is good one at painting them as big villains but frankly I wouldn't take anything media tells at face value until I can verify it with own experiences.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Look a little harder at this "law" treating women as "lesser beings".

Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, what I was trying to intimate was while the law is in and of itself not a big deal, many people see it as representative of wider issues of equality and oppression in the middle east (and Iran isn't the worst country for it).

I think I took more "affront" to the words "that law is rooted in treating women as lesser beings".
The Koran specifically states about dressing in a modest way which applies to both sexes (it stated this for both together with no extra if-then bits... do not make me look it up and quote...).
What added to the "fun" was an "interpretation" becoming official that hair being considered a sexual object on women thus in need of being covered.
The burqa is an even more strict interpretation of the same.
I figure the real issue is the men are probably enforcing these rules so it is of course more lenient toward them.
I am surprised they are not required to wear shirts that cover the biceps and abs. for those very same reasons.

At least in the English translation it seems to be giving guidance that your 13 year old daughter going out for the evening should expose less skin than on a facecloth rather than the clothes having less material than a face cloth...

Joking aside, like always, the more extreme elements of any church like to take things farther just to be sure: it is the word of God after all.