(no subject)

[dangermousie]

I am sure anyone who is interested in the issue is already following the fallout over the Iranian election.

However, I found this article especially interesting because it deals with women's issues on the whole.

As you peruse the images coming out of Iran from all over, remember this: when you see a woman with a tunic above her knees, red fingernails, an extremely loose headscarf and a protest sign, try to look beyond the "pretty". Those things are also a symbol of what an Ahmadenijad regime would deny (and, in some cases, has denied) her the right to be.

Comments

[grace-om.livejournal.com]

Many years ago, when we lived in England, an Iranian lady worked for me for awhile. Interesting lady, not such a great worker, but anyway... I'll never forget her telling me she had left after the revolution, "Because I don't really care about politics or religion, but NO ONE was going to tell me what to wear!" Like so many things, it's all about the right to have a choice.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Of course, that IS politics. And religion.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

That's so interesting!

[om-shakti.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this link! Shared it a few places :)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

It was a very interesting read.

[kabutar.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the same regime uses the same religious principles to explain why they WON'T go after WMDs with their nuclear program (not sure if you've seen Ahmadinijad talk about this, but he basically said it's against Islamic principles because of side effects, killing of civilians, etc). Bit of a catch-22 really... :\

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Theoretically speaking, any regime that claims any sort of an ethical underpinning would claim to be against nukes because of civilian casualties. I don't think even Kim Jong Il would come out and say he will enjoy bombing little kids in Seoul.

The problem with most regimes is that they can always try to justify it by saying they didn't want to and feel bad about casualties but they had to protect themselves from annihilation; they did not want to but were pushed to it - this is where it's bad to have a paranoid/isolated country to have nukes because they have a persecution complex and might choose to strike first before they will be obliterated themselves, or so they believe.

Of course, to prevent such isolated countries from nukes, they usually get sanctions, thus isolating them further and making them more paranoid and the vicious circle goes on and on

[kabutar.livejournal.com]

You've definitely got a point there - I didn't think of it that way. The only counter I'd point out is that KJII already *has* his nuclear weapons - he can say whatever he wants about not wanting to kill babies, but the fact remains that he has them so it would really just be crocodile tears. Iran doesn't *have* nuclear weapons though - they're just being accused of wanting them, and this is one of their reasons for denying the accusation. You're definitely right in that they can say anything, but I do think the fact that they don't have anything *yet* makes a big difference.

BTW I deleted the other post lol - sorry, I should have let you know before, but I figured there was no point in keeping it around since I'd already said it all in a previous post lol.

Mango tea can comfort anyone.

[(Anonymous)]

I've been lurking around this journal since I was 14. I am now 17. But besides telling you that you write lovely, eloquent reviews of dramas I have now watched (I even own The Legend with really bad Engrish subtitles), I'm so grateful and glad that you decided to post a bit about Iran.

My mother emigrated 30 years ago from Iran. I still my have grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins there, and we haven't heard from any of them in the last week. Ayatollah Khamenei has announced that only the protesters will be responsible for any possible bloodshed and it is disgusting on several inhumane levels.

I just wanted to thank you for posting. It's strange to type this, but that means a lot.