
The American chess champion challenging Iran’s hijab fetish - dfc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/05/the-american-chess-champion-challenging-irans-hijab-fetish/
======
hackuser
Step back and think of how much time and attention here in the West is
invested in this article of clothing. Nations make laws about it; journalists
write articles daily, it seems. Either many people in the West have a fetish
with it or it's become much more than clothing; it's a symbol.

In large part it's a symbol for fear of a religion, Islam. The clothing is
alien to most people who read the Washington Post, a symbol to them of a
religion that's alien to them. It's an excellent representation of fear of the
unknown (which is exactly what the _terror_ ists, lacking the resources to
achieve their goals any other way, want to create: _Terror_ , fear, to drive
their targets to create large-scale conflicts that the terrorists cannot
create themselves and otherwise nobody in any religion would want.)

Social norms and rules exist everywhere for clothing, especially for women.
Women in the west must cover their breasts, an absurdity in some other
cultures (I vaguely recall an interview with women in one non-western culture,
who laughed and asked, 'are men there babies? they are so obsessed with
breasts?'). In the workplace, at houses of worship, and other serious places
women must cover more of their bodies - bikinis generally are frowned upon!
Other countries are more strict: In India, the strong custom, if not rule, is
for women to cover themselves from the neck to the wrists to ankles (except in
movies and ads, which are like the West). Other religions have rules too: Many
orthodox Jewish sects required women to be fully covered, including something
on their heads. And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair
game for everyone else's opinions. (And there are rules for men to, but far
less attention to them.)

Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.

EDIT: Some minor edits

~~~
LoSboccacc
western culture is the only one that tend to respect foreign customs, while
the reverse situation to happen is very rare.

and there is a reason for that.

~~~
Cyph0n
Let me give you an example of how much some countries revere the West, to the
point of obsession.

Saudi Aramco is the largest oil company in the world. It's base of operations
is in Dhahran, a city in the eastern region of KSA. Aramco employs a ton of
foreigners and of course want their employees to be as comfortable as
possible. But this is difficult to do given KSA's strict culture. So what do
they do? They build their employees an American-style suburban town outside of
Dhahran proper, with its own schools, supermarkets, theatres, and so on. Women
are allowed to drive within the town, and can wear whatever they want. The
town is basically outside the jurisdiction of the Saudi religious police.

This is just one example. Go to Dubai and you'll see similar things.
Foreigners are sometimes respected at the expense of other Arabs or Asians,
and it can become discriminatory in some instances.

So next time you throw around such accusations, please think about it first.

~~~
icebraining
That sounds like an investment in recruitment, like an SV startup having free
sodas. It doesn't necessarily imply respect, only business sense and a fairly
"flexible" approach to laws and customs.

~~~
Cyph0n
Like an SV company offering free sodas? Really dude?

~~~
icebraining
I'm not saying the changes aren't profound, just that they might as well be
made out of respect or out of a need for hiring people they can't find
locally.

~~~
Cyph0n
There is an abundance of talent in the Middle East, not to mention Middle
Easterners working abroad because of lack of opportunity back home. Look, I've
lived in the UAE for 14 years, and I can tell you that this is what's
happening. It may sound counter intuitive, but that's how it is.

The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in fact
they're the biggest ass kissers out there.

~~~
icebraining
If they had local talent available, why go through the expense of building a
whole new town? I mean, respect alone doesn't justify burning money like that.

 _The media loves to portray Gulf countries as haters of the West, when in
fact they 're the biggest ass kissers out there._

I don't know what media you're referring to, but I'd say that around here,
Gulf countries are more likely to be represented as lackeys of US imperialism,
and also as a place where our soccer players and managers go to make money
(for example, the new manager of Al-Fujairah is my compatriot).

~~~
Cyph0n
Because of their obssession with the West - not respect, obssession - which is
the point I've been trying to make.

Well, I sometimes browse through the headlines and comments on /r/worldnews,
which I think gives a good idea of what Americans think of current world
issues.

Hah, Fujairah is a nice little town. Long time since I passed by as it's kind
of out of the way of everything else.

------
eganist
And in the end, it won't make a difference for one remarkably simple reason:

Iranian _leadership_ is ideologically driven. They're committed to maintaining
their theocracy because they're genuinely convinced it's their right from God
to control women.

(Distinguishing leadership from people because the Iranian people tend to be
much more pro-western.)

~~~
0xFFC
As Iranian , I must say, you are so naive if you think people who holds the
power in Iran genuinely believe in something. They are professional
politicians. They know what are they doing, and they don't give fuck about
Islam. Just search and look how they treated with traditional religious people
in Iran (religious people who believes power and religion should be separate).

Actually this new generation of politicians (I mean Khomeini and after him)
they are pretty good in changing old rules when they realize they are in
losing side of the battle and not changing that rule will hurt they public
figure in long run. Let me give you an instance, there is fuck load of hadith
about chess itself being dirtier than alcohol (which punishment for it is
death they catch you drunk 3 time), which in my opinion pretty absurd, like
rest of religious beliefs. But Khomeini realized people will ask in long run
what is dirty about chess ? And because it is so obvious that it is absurd,
they changed the rule around 25 years ago.

My point is there is distance between something like hijab, alcohol, betting
and something like chess. The idiots (mullahs) can justify (and they are aware
of this fact) hijab for simple ordinary rural people (which is their only base
in country other than people who earn money from this corrupt regime), but
they cannot justify that even for naive people in rural area what is wrong
about chess.

lets be honest, they don't give fuck about some bunch -not all of them, really
small portion, I say it from my experience, right now I am student in Iran and
I do regularly visit many universities in country- of student in university
who shout and fight back for their rights, they would suppress them like
lollipop if they try really hurt regime in any serious manner. If pressure
become serious they would drop hijab rule in a day.

They may show to you they are 100% firm about their beliefs, but believe me
when they realize just 1% danger (serious threat to regime nature, they don't
give fuck about some chess championship tournament, what would happen?
Tournament will cancel ? I bet the actual power in Iran would even be more
happy if tournament gets cancelled), they would change their most basic rule
if they can find a way to justify themselves to their supporters.

~~~
eganist
Also as an Iranian (which means nothing in the grand scheme of this
conversation, which is precisely why I'm invoking my ethnic background), I
stand by my statement because in the end, a religious commitment to an idea--
see what I did there?--can help a person rationalize something completely
backwards.

If you believe you have power by God's hand or by the hand of any other deity,
you will justify keeping it through whatever means necessary because the
circuitry involved in decision-making is not the same circuitry involved in
reason.

~~~
0xFFC
I do agree with your point. I believe there is nothing contrary about our
points.

My point was the rulers in Iran don't give fuck about any ideology and they
are trying hard to use religious leverage in their benefits.

But if I understood your point correctly, I do 100% agree. Believe in
something as dangerous as God , will give people illusion (they will justify
in their mind) of controling of other people. Because at the very end they
think they are better than others.

Update : I think there is no way to know which analysis is correct. Because at
the very end in both analysis regime will do whatever they can to keep power.
The only way to find out is to go through their mind. Which we cannot. In both
analysis regime will do whatever they can.

In my case they don't believe in any ideology just because of the power(they
changed so many rules in Islam and they will change).

In your case (if I understand correctly) they will try every thing because
their religion gave them permission to do everything to keep power.

If I should give specific answer, I would not say you are wrong. I would just
say there is no way to find out.

~~~
eganist
> Believe in something as dangerous as God , will give people illusion (they
> will justify in their mind) of controling of other people. Because at the
> very end they think they are better than others.

:)

Edit:

> If I should give specific answer, I would not say you are wrong. I would
> just say there is no way to find out.

I agree with this as well. We're all speculating, and in the end, it all
manifests the same way.

------
truth_sentinell
What you need to understand here is that wearing a hijab or niqab is often not
completely "her choice". Therefore it's seem as some form of opression.

First of all,I'm not sure if Islam says is mandatory, but not all religious
folks go with it side by side.

For rational people, is not a secret that women are below men in most
religions, specially Islam. I personally think these clothes are another
shenanigan the patriarchs that wrote the Quran, used to "protect" their women
(one has several), from other men. Same with the celibacy thing.

So, even though women say they choose to wear it, IMHO, this is just the
Stockholm syndrome. The reality is that women raised on Islam families suffer
a lot of pressure, because in their irrational tradition, the family has to
decide the live of the woman. If the woman reveals against this, there is one
common consequence: Disinheritance, your family will not longer treat you as a
member, etc. Sure, there are religious families more tolerable, but that's not
often the case.

And there's an even worst consequence a woman can face if she reveals against
family traditions: Honor killing.

So, having those consequences in mind when "choosing" to wear or not a hijab,
is not choosing at all.

~~~
hackuser
This sounds very speculative, but maybe not. Do you have some experience or
expertise, or can you point to some things you've read?

------
bilbo0s
Not sure how this affects Iran that much at all. I mean it won't affect the
people or the government. The Tournament will go on happily without this
player's participation. In my own opinion, a better response would be to hold
the tournament in a place other than Iran. I'm not sure why that isn't the
route that was chosen for protest ?

~~~
hackuser
> a better response would be to hold the tournament in a place other than Iran

If the standard for moving the tournament because some people object to the
local sartorial rules, they will never find a location. Someone will always
find objection. Potentially every culture in the world is participating; they
can't avoid some cultural adjustment for everyone.

~~~
Chris2048
It's not some people, it's some player. And it's not "cultural adjustment" as
if all morality is relative - this player is right, and can argue so on the
basis of societal equality rather than on the existence of a grandiose deity.

~~~
hackuser
You may be right that it rises above the typical issues in such situations.
Certainly I personally agree that women should wear what they want. So, does
it rise to that level?

I'm hesitant to go into someone else's home and tell them what is good for
them; it's often ignorant (what do I know?), arrogant and becomes another kind
of oppression with a long history, from missionaries to colonialists to aid
workers to militaries 'freeing' other nations. Imagine Chinese players in the
U.S. protesting racial prejudice - it would not be welcome and would be
counterproductive.[0] Note that nobody has asked what Iranians think about it
(AFAIK). I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose. Of
course, the world is complex, my preference is not always an option and
sometimes you have to take a stand. Is this one of those times?

In such an ideologically charged environment, using such a loaded symbol which
many people use to demonize all Muslims, I don't think this is a good choice.
Whatever the player's intent, it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred
and oppression of Muslims. It may satisfy the choir, so to speak, but I think
it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps.

Will the same player also insist on wearing a hajib at a tournament in a
location in Europe where it's banned? Then I would support it; it would make a
point for women's rights while fighting against anti-Muslim discrimination.[0]
Other than that, there are plenty of ways for that player to protest
oppression in Iran and elsewhere.

[0] To be clear, oppression in the U.S. and Europe isn't at a comparable level
to Iran and other non-free countries.

~~~
Chris2048
> I'm hesitant to go into someone else's home and tell them what is good for
> them

What about a home consisting of a parent that abuses their children?
"Missionaries, colonialists, aid workers and soldiers" sometime did free
people; maybe we should focus on improving the success rate?

> Imagine Chinese players in the U.S. protesting racial prejudice

Actually, I think the liberal US media praise any racial protest. The question
would be could the players back up their claims, given how much _the US_ cares
about racial justice.

> I'd rather give people in Iran the freedom to do what they choose.

this sounds nice, but over-tolerance is self defeating when you start
tolerating intolerance. The question isn't about the freedom to wear a piece
of clothing, its about the freedom to impose this requirements on others with
aggressive theistic, non democratic derived authority.

> it will encourage ignorant stereotypes, hatred and oppression of Muslims ...
> it will harm more people, and Muslim women, than it helps

I not sure if this is true. You can let sleeping dogs lie, and you can ignore
the problem too. I also think the crimes "Islamophobia" pales in comparison to
the ills of Islam, the latter is a greater problem, not the former.

> Will the same player also insist on wearing a hijab at a tournament in a
> location in Europe where it's banned?

Depends on what her beliefs are. Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form
of oppression, but as a way of combating it. Litter laws are a way of saying
that the right to clean streets are more important that the right to litter.
Hijab-bans are a way of saying reducing implicit religious oppression of women
is more important than the right to religious expression. Any law or ban can
be seen as "oppression", but only by looking at the context can we tell.

Do any of the hijab-banning western countries also ban Muslims, mosques, or
other Islamic religious practice? If their goal was to discriminate against
Muslims, why not do those things too, why just hijabs?

In contrast, Are the countries that require women to wear hijabs doing so out
of respect for religious freedom? Don't mandatory hijab laws highlight the
oppression, imposed on non-Muslim women too, and inform the reason for anti-
hijab laws in non-Muslim countries exist?

~~~
hackuser
You seem to overlook the points where I agreed with you, and then make the
same arguments yourself.

Except when you make up strawmen and then criticize these imaginary people
(see my other comment about liberals).

> the ills of Islam

The moment someone stereotypes everyone in a religion, they're wrong 99.9% of
the time. Same with stereotyping 'liberals' (see my other comment). What if
almost all people are individuals with their own ideas, just getting through
their days, like you and people you actually know, and not ideological symbols
and warriors?

I'm pretty sure the problem is the sterotypers and haters in every religion -
it's the wise against the prejudiced, not one religion against another.

> Most people don't consider hijab-bans a form of oppression, but as a way of
> combating it

I don't think most people agree. Also, the majority generally agrees about
oppression - otherwise it wouldn't happen. Lots of southerners supported
slavery and then segregation.

Anyway, the strawmen and stereotypes aren't anything I can learn from, and
I've got to go.

~~~
Chris2048
> You seem to overlook..

Can you elaborate? what points, what arguments, what strawmen.

> the strawmen and stereotypes aren't anything I can learn from, and I've got
> to go.

straw-man this, stereotype that - you avoided responding to anything specific.

You don't learn anything in an echo chamber - in this case you might learn
that you're wrong.

------
return0
Why did FIDE choose iran to host the competition and did they at least try to
make sure there is an exception to this (absolutely reasonable) request?

~~~
Scarblac
Iran was the only country to enter a bid, and no.

------
dal2101
If you don't want to play by the house rules, leave. Quit whining or finding
reasons to justify your actions.

1\. Iran is a guest requesting to host the event, in this case, they should
keep it neutral.

2\. However, if this is Iran's games and they are the house master, then
invitees respect theirs.

If you're in another man's house jolly well respect him and his rules. If you
don't like it leave, no one's stopping you.

I don't like shoes to be worn in my house, if you don't wish to respect it,
leave.

Every sovereign nation has the right to their own set of beliefs, you don't
have to like it but when you're in their country, respect it. It's their home.

Disclaimer: I grew up with people of different religions and races and even
served the army alongside them. Respect and tolerance goes a long way.

~~~
hospes
The FIDE statutes and International Olympic Committee code of ethics are very
clear on not allowing discrimination on sexual and religious matters. FIDE is
an International Organization, If they do not respect FIDE's code, they should
not apply for organizing FIDE's competitions.

------
electriclove
Good for her, I fully support her!

------
angmarsbane
If the women are required to wear the hijab to compete than why don't the male
chess players wear the hijab as well?

I imagine wearing something so contrary to what a player normally wears could
affect performance.

Other sports have uniform requirements so if the competition has to be held in
this location and one set of players have to wear a specific uniform, in this
case the hijab, then they should require all players, gender be damned, to
wear the hijab.

------
mrpopo
This is an awful position, and I absolutely urge people to read the linked
article, that was wrongly/partially cited:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-
wom...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/boycott-of-womens-world-
chess-championship-iran-tehran)

EDIT: it seems my point does not come across.

I will cite the american chess champion: "I will NOT wear a hijab and support
women’s oppression." Women's oppression in Iran is not just about the hijab.
It's about women not being able to do what they want. This boycott is going to
have strong, negative, repercussions on women sportsmanship in Iran, which is
what the Iranian chessmaster said in my linked article.

~~~
jessaustin
This reminds me of the mental contortions that e.g. USA Southerners used to
perform while attempting to justify slavery. You are so ideologically
committed to hijabery that you can't comprehend a simple statement of personal
preference. You may disagree with Paikidze-Barnes (and most people) about the
significance and the effects of the hijab. But given her beliefs, surely any
reasonable person can understand why she would choose not to travel to a place
that would require her to betray those beliefs?

~~~
ZoF
Yes, those American southerners who are trying to justify slavery....

Are you delusional, talking to sub 1/10th of a percent of the population, or
referencing 100s of years ago when blacks sold other blacks as slaves?

No rational human in today's world tries to justify slavery. Inb4 you point to
a small subsect of white nationalists while ignoring the small subsect of
black nationalists entirely.

American southerners, black and white, aren't the mindless bigots you're
painting them as.

~~~
jessaustin
I'm an American Southerner, but unlike you I read and comprehend both English
and history.

I _love_ that you regurgitate trivialities such as "blacks sold other blacks
as slaves". Tell us more! What else have you read in _Remembering Better Times
Quarterly_? Perhaps next you'll suggest that some former slaves had some
difficulties as sharecroppers?

~~~
ZoF
So, option three, referencing 100s of years ago.

Ok. Fair reference I suppose, if a bit odd.

Your implication that I'm a stupid racist is noted and honestly was expected.

Curious if you have any further reference regarding my inability to
read/comprehend English/history or if it was just baseless ad hominem? I feel
I should be more well versed in my moral/intellectual inadequacy.

~~~
jessaustin
Is there some other way to read "blacks sold other blacks as slaves"? How
could that statement, even if it were true, possibly be relevant to this
conversation?

How many "confederate" flags do you own?

------
samfisher83
For all this outrage why doesn't another country step up and host this
tournament?

------
neo2006
a US citizen do not agree with a law in Iran and will not travel to Iran
because of that, ok it'here right and I agree with here, now why the
Washington post is writing an article about it? You tell me to help Iran women
cause? Why waiting until a us women protest to think about Iran oppressed
women. Or is it fine if Iran have a dérogation for the us women but keep
oppressing the local women,who cares!! right?!!

That article is an exemple of the US media and politics definition of freedom,
it's only for us people everywhere in the world, all others we don't care
about you ...unless you have some oil for us!!

------
calibraxis
Context: The Washington Post is from the militant nation which overthrew
Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, and installed the brutal Shah:
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat))

In any vaguely functioning ethical calculus, forcing every single person into
a dress code is nothing compared to murdering hundreds of thousands of people
right next door to Iran (Iraq).

No need to focus on what people in another country are doing. Focus on solving
one's own barbarism. Leave others in peace to finally rebuild their stolen
freedoms.

