For those who associate the hijab with patriarchy in Islam, it's important to understand Iran's history. For many adults in their 50s and older today, the hijab is actually a symbol of protest. For most of the twentieth century under the two Pahlavi shahs, the hijab and other traditional Muslim garb were outlawed as a way to socially engineer a "modern, secular" Iran, something Ms. Moaveni misses when she claims the hijab was "optional" under the shahs. Reza Shah was a huge fan of Mustafa Kemal (aka Ataturk) who was the first to use authoritarian methods in order to impose a state-wide top down secularism. As a result of the shah's heavy handed policies, the protests which eventually led to the 1979 Iranian revolution included women reasserting their rights to wear hijab. To be sure, there are social/legal pressures to wear hijab in Iran today, but for many women, especially of an older generation, it stands not for "oppression" but for self-determination.
2
theocratic dictatorship rejects secular rule, however embraces select secular advantages, so as to advance itself?
1
I think that if a country decided to ban head scarf and the tournament was held there you would defend the choice of Muslim women to boycott.
I think that Nazi should speak in those therm: I don't want to be forced to wear it, i won't go.
Also doing so she point the attention at this law that is without a doubt oppressing women. She like everybody can choose her battle and the way to fight it, maybe is not the best way to fight it? Is her way.
Also one think is be requested to wear one before entering a sacred place (right) another to be requested to wear it all the time.
It's not important how "light" the scarf is, is the symbolic meaning the problem. I won't go on visiting a country that would required me to wear one, it is my right to decided so and the same is valid for Nazi
Sorry for my English
I think that Nazi should speak in those therm: I don't want to be forced to wear it, i won't go.
Also doing so she point the attention at this law that is without a doubt oppressing women. She like everybody can choose her battle and the way to fight it, maybe is not the best way to fight it? Is her way.
Also one think is be requested to wear one before entering a sacred place (right) another to be requested to wear it all the time.
It's not important how "light" the scarf is, is the symbolic meaning the problem. I won't go on visiting a country that would required me to wear one, it is my right to decided so and the same is valid for Nazi
Sorry for my English
5
Whether Iran demands that its women be veiled is outrageous enough but to impose its misogynistic dictates on foreign women participants in an international tournament is simply too much. If it offends the mullah to have women players participate unveiled, then don't host the international tournament. This isn't about advancing the rights of Iranian women, its about the dignity of non Iranians.
13
Are the "feminists" outraged by the headscarf requirement also outraged at other cultural sartorial requirements?
Are they similarly outraged that men really can't wear sundresses or strapy sandals to work in corporate America?
How do they feel about nudists? Should folks be allowed to prance about in their birthday suits next to them at Coney Island? How about on the subway? It's their right, no?
Different cultures expect people to dress differently.
When I visit a government official in Pashtunistan or India, I don't wear a tie. When I do the same in Washington, I most certainly do as it's pretty much a requirement, though during a DC summer it's more akin to torture than style.
I hate to sound like folks I don't generally agree with, but this headscarf brouhaha sounds like western cultural neo-colonialism, justified with heaping spoonfuls of cultural shortsightedness, arrogance, and a lack of self-awareness.
There are real gender issues in Iran, as in many other places. Clothing requirements do not strike me as hitting the top ten.
I suspect that many of these folks could use a passport and a plane ticket along with a big bag of humility. Maybe they would learn something. But probably not.
Are they similarly outraged that men really can't wear sundresses or strapy sandals to work in corporate America?
How do they feel about nudists? Should folks be allowed to prance about in their birthday suits next to them at Coney Island? How about on the subway? It's their right, no?
Different cultures expect people to dress differently.
When I visit a government official in Pashtunistan or India, I don't wear a tie. When I do the same in Washington, I most certainly do as it's pretty much a requirement, though during a DC summer it's more akin to torture than style.
I hate to sound like folks I don't generally agree with, but this headscarf brouhaha sounds like western cultural neo-colonialism, justified with heaping spoonfuls of cultural shortsightedness, arrogance, and a lack of self-awareness.
There are real gender issues in Iran, as in many other places. Clothing requirements do not strike me as hitting the top ten.
I suspect that many of these folks could use a passport and a plane ticket along with a big bag of humility. Maybe they would learn something. But probably not.
1
I have a suggestion based on 16 years of experience at the Linköping Red Cross helping high-school students with their homework. In recent years the largest group has consisted of students who came to Sweden from Somali. It happens that among the many different ethnicities representing Muslims here, the Somalis are almost as consistent bearers of the hijab as are Iranian women in Iran.
But with a difference. The Somali walaalo (Somali Sisters) are the most creative hijab artists I have ever known and it is clear beyond a doubt that the high-fashion hijab is a means of declaring an identity.
So if it were possible I would show all the potential contestants the works of art we see every day at the Red Cross and suggest they might find it of interest to try one of these. I suspect there is another catch and that is perhaps the Ayatollah has decreed that only a black hijab is permitted.
May I suggest that the citizens of a nation in which half of the potential voters support a man who is today revealed as capable of the most horrendous views of women one can imagine might think twice about preventing a one-off use of the hijab in Iran. I am one of those citizens.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
But with a difference. The Somali walaalo (Somali Sisters) are the most creative hijab artists I have ever known and it is clear beyond a doubt that the high-fashion hijab is a means of declaring an identity.
So if it were possible I would show all the potential contestants the works of art we see every day at the Red Cross and suggest they might find it of interest to try one of these. I suspect there is another catch and that is perhaps the Ayatollah has decreed that only a black hijab is permitted.
May I suggest that the citizens of a nation in which half of the potential voters support a man who is today revealed as capable of the most horrendous views of women one can imagine might think twice about preventing a one-off use of the hijab in Iran. I am one of those citizens.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
1
A simple solution. All the men should be forced to wear hijab if they want to participate in the tournament. Win win? Lose lose?
7
A woman participating in a competitive tournament should not be forced to wear a demoralizing costume because the games are being held in a backward country.
18
This is one backward part of the world. In many respects, these people are basically children adhering to a cartoonish playbook from long ago, it simply doesn't apply today, They need to smarten up.
5
Extremely disengenuous. The protest is against the mandatory requirement for all women, no matter what their national/ethnic/religious following, to dress in a way that very many women find objectionable and demeaning. Forcing someone to wear clothing that they have moral, political, religious, or moral objections to in order to participate in this match, or even enter the country, is a clear human rights violation. The criticism, and suspicious whisperings of "Islamophobia" that are designed to shut down the protests, deliberately avoids the facts of the case and glides right over the human rights of the contestants.
23
after reading this, I immediately went and signed the petition in favor of the boycott. thanks for the inspiration and the link
11
I completely support the author's views. If too many boycott, the games may be relocated to a different country, then Iranian female chess players lose a chance to show all of their fellow countrymen how they have a place on the international stage. It would actually be a step back in the advancement of women's rights in Iran.
2
Asking nonbelievers to adhere to the prescriptions of any cult is totalitarianism. It means Iran is not a free and open society, which is self evident. Capitulation to backwardness and oppression, which cannot possibly be under dispute by any thinking person, should be resisted by anyone with moral fiber. No matter how thin or light that scarf, it does not do service to the residents of Iran. I applaud anyone who wishes to resist this practice or bring attention to it.
10
A tolerance of intolerance is absolute the height of stupidity. If the law requires women to be covered, there is no defending it... Make one's own choice to participate, or not. Oppression of women under the guise of "beliefs" is still misogyny. I'm sorry that the author has been brainwashed, but independent thinkers recognize the patriarchal hatred of women for what it is.
13
Modesty is a legitimate concern. So it’s important to understand that the Quran doesn’t command that women wear body bags or face masks. Like men, women are commanded to dress “modestly”. .” While Muslim countries do have a long history of face- and body-veiling women, they also have a hundred-year history of naked-faced Muslim women who fought for their rights or whose Kings granted them the right to feel the sun on their faces, make eye contact with their students and teachers, perform surgery, sit in Parliaments, etc.
1
It's not just the West's view. Women should be able to wear or not wear whatever they want. This right is especially necessary to defend in conservative, paternalistic societies.
10
I think what the author is saying is that having a lot of women come to Iran to compete in a tournament like this will help bring a greater focus to the status of women. Therefore, attending the tournament is the better decision to make if we want to help women achieve equality as quickly as possible. Maybe the author is wrong about this as a tactic, and maybe a boycott would be more effective. Who knows
But what she is arguing for is that the best means of changing the law is to have events like this where, paradoxically, women submit to it.
If the author is correct (and I believe she is), then it's counterproductive to boycott.
boycotters should be aware of the paradox: the better way to change the requirement is for women
But what she is arguing for is that the best means of changing the law is to have events like this where, paradoxically, women submit to it.
If the author is correct (and I believe she is), then it's counterproductive to boycott.
boycotters should be aware of the paradox: the better way to change the requirement is for women
3
As an Iranian woman I do not want to cover my head. Hijab is not my choice. My mother was a teacher before 1979 Islamic revolution and she was not covering her head as well. She was a successful lady at that time like all of her friends. After revolution hijab has become mandatory for women in Iran. You can find very few women who choose by themselves. So this author and all of her interviewees and references are absolutely lying. We want freedom. We want to be respected in our own country. We appreciate those who are defending our rights. #UnionForFreedom
40
I support the simple protest of Ms. Paikidze. This is not about what Iranian women want, it is about her own refusal to be publicly humiliated by being forced to wear a head covering which has nothing to do with her own cultural or religious tradition. No man would stand for it. Neither should Ms. Paikidze. When Iranian women and female visitors to that country have a choice, we can start talking about "cultural considerations". Until then it is discrimination, pure and simple.
23
Some of the arguments made in the article are disingenuous. Chess is not a spectator sport and the only reasonable dress code should be the same as in any other country. To mandate a hijab, no matter how light, amounts to imposing a particular religion's dogma on everyone. This is no different from the demand by fanatic believers of cow's sacredness that beef-eating be banned universally.
13
A hundred or so years ago women from almost everywhere covered their heads outside the home, especially in houses of worship. Think of the scarves Orthodox Russian grandmas, the Catholics with a piece of lace above her curls, bright fabrics wrapping the head of a Nigerian woman, the Amish bonnet, the old Jewish headscarf, the new Orthodox Jewish wigs, the pillbox hat of Protestant Easter Sunday and the elaborate styles of A.M.E. traditions. And I almost forgot, the hijab.
Are they beautiful? Many would say so.
Why were they worn? The only common reason I am aware of is that Abrahamic (and perhaps other traditions) have taught that the status of man and woman are very different, beginning with creation. And that this difference makes it shameful for a woman to go about with her hair uncovered. That is the root, that women are not just different but somehow lesser beings that need to be covered up.
To ask today's modern woman, who may not believe in any God at all, to participate in this is ridiculous.
It is no small matter for any woman to gain her freedom from this dogma. It is also no small thing for her to maintain her freedom, and no one should ask her to do so.
Would we ask all of our Olympian to wear a hijab? Would we ask just the women to wear a hijab? Never.
Iran is not a proper place for this tournament if it imposes a religious dress code on any participant, period.
Are they beautiful? Many would say so.
Why were they worn? The only common reason I am aware of is that Abrahamic (and perhaps other traditions) have taught that the status of man and woman are very different, beginning with creation. And that this difference makes it shameful for a woman to go about with her hair uncovered. That is the root, that women are not just different but somehow lesser beings that need to be covered up.
To ask today's modern woman, who may not believe in any God at all, to participate in this is ridiculous.
It is no small matter for any woman to gain her freedom from this dogma. It is also no small thing for her to maintain her freedom, and no one should ask her to do so.
Would we ask all of our Olympian to wear a hijab? Would we ask just the women to wear a hijab? Never.
Iran is not a proper place for this tournament if it imposes a religious dress code on any participant, period.
21
I cannot understand the logic behind the argument that many of the young women who today are active in Iranian society - either working as professionals or studying - would not do so if there wasn't for the mandatory hijab requirement. Why should all the women in Iran be forced to adhere to the hijab just because some traditional families with very conservative views would do not permit their women to work/study outside of the home unless all the women of the country cover themselves? That makes no sense at all! Why should all the women in Iran have to suffer because some people are backwarded, narrow minded and fanatic? It makes more sense that those women who suffer from this backwarded fanaticism get organized and struggle for their right to live freely in the 21st century!
16
It's one thing if Iranian women don't want outsiders to advocate for them not wearing the hijab. It is quite another Got Iranians to say that outsiders must wear a hijab if they want to compete in a chess tournament in Iran. You can say it's a mark of modesty or a sign of respect for women but as long as the woman does not have any choice it is nothing more than a message from the dark ages that any Iranian man who sees a woman who is not covered simply won't be able to restrain himself from sexual assault. If these people want to participate in a global society, they need to assimilate modern global norms. One of the main precepts of modern culture is that men are not predators and that women should not have to protect themselves from unwanted, unrestrained attention. I am not against Muslims, but there is no question that Muslims need to assimilate into modern global culture, not vice versa.
17
This article made me angry. The author completely and utterly dismisses the view of the players whose choices are to do something they feel demeans them or not attend, and calls the discomfort with wearing the hijab "political". It is so much more than that. As a woman, there is no way I would EVER agree to wear a hijab, so I guess I would have had to stay home too.
23
Who decided to hold the tournament in Iran in the first place?
Have it in Iceland or some other neutral country like Switzerland or N.Z., permanently.
If the Olympics were held in Teheran, could one imagine the stringent ruling on what the participants could wear? No female athlete in her right mind would go.
This is no different. Cancel and relocate the venue. Did not the chess organization even possibly consider this outcome? Apparently not.
Have it in Iceland or some other neutral country like Switzerland or N.Z., permanently.
If the Olympics were held in Teheran, could one imagine the stringent ruling on what the participants could wear? No female athlete in her right mind would go.
This is no different. Cancel and relocate the venue. Did not the chess organization even possibly consider this outcome? Apparently not.
22
Why does a comments section have open whenever an opinion piece focuses on why people continue to adhere to antiquated religious practices in this enlightened day and age? Quite frankly why is this any of our business? Muslim women wear hijabs. Orthodox Jewish men wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls. Sikh men wear those huge turbans. There's nothing wrong with wearing traditional religious attire. Even those who aren't members of the dominant religion in a theocracy should follow the local custom out of respect even if they're there for a brief visit.( Even Hillary Clinton keeps her head covered when she visits a Muslim country.) Can anyone explain how wearing a hijab is going to have an adverse effect on a chess game? There are only two choices left --either the women competing in the chess tournament can go to Tehran knowing they'll have to wear a headscarf or move the championship to a neutral location.
On an unrelated topic I'll never forget when the NY Times reported on the time an Orthodox Jewish man didn't want to sit next to a strange woman who wasn't related to him on a flight from Israel to the United States for religious reasons. That story generated over 3000 angry comments alone. Times bloggers aren't very tolerant when it comes to religion that's for sure.
On an unrelated topic I'll never forget when the NY Times reported on the time an Orthodox Jewish man didn't want to sit next to a strange woman who wasn't related to him on a flight from Israel to the United States for religious reasons. That story generated over 3000 angry comments alone. Times bloggers aren't very tolerant when it comes to religion that's for sure.
2
Moaveni could have spared herself the trouble and simply written, "Wear what you're told." Total nonsense from start to finish, particularly this impressive bit of mind-reading on her part: "... a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice." As Bill Maher crudely but accurately put it, "'They like it'? That's what pimps say!"
9
A woman who doesn't want to compete while wearing an obligatory headscarf has everyrigjt to say 'No thanks.'
5
Are all female visitors to Iran required to wear the hijab?
2
I think these comments also missing the point. If you worry that your right as a woman will be violated by some law that makes you wear hijab, of course you are right. But you should know that this will be set back for Iranian women's hard fought progress despite government oppression and make this choice acknowledging this.
9
This is the stupidest article I have ever seen. I have few simple questions from this lady who obviously is comfortable with anti-human rules by radical Mullahs who said Hejab is a custom among Iranian women. Isn't it a religious requirement and isn't being forced upon women by Radical Mullahs in Iran? If a custom, how many Iranian women in the West follow this so-called custom? Weren't most women in traditional and even rural regions like in the North and in the South region of Pars states like Bakhtiari and Ghashghaie also forced to wear Hejab? I wish people like you who allow themselves to write articles of misinformation for great papers like NYT had some underestanding of realities. Prior to arrival of Darkness to Iran in 1979, 95% of women university students, did not wear the forced religious Hejab. Did they? Majority of women that I know support brave educated Nazi and her human right efforts against religion dictatorship like ISIS and IRI. If it wasn't for the people like you to advertise Mullahs views, and if it wasn't for the fear of arrest and rape by IRI barbaric secret services, I am
sure the women chess players in Iran would support her as well.
sure the women chess players in Iran would support her as well.
11
Nazi Paikidze is right in what she believes in women oppression. She needs to be heard and respected for her views she feels strongly about and not swept under the carpet, our western way of life without being imposed upon by Iran.
5
I'm a Muslim woman born in India and a former WSJ reporter. Full disclosure, I cowrote this piece at the Washington Post supporting Nazi Paikidze-Barnes: http://wapo.st/2e0IVGB
And this piece at NY Times opposing purity culture values of "hijab": http://nyti.ms/1QDCaWs
I accept differences of thought. I want to stand up for the brave women this oped attempts to shame.
The New York Times editorial page, espousing liberal values for women and girls, has failed its mission by publishing a piece that communicates several messages to women & girls:
1. Shut up.
2. Keep out.
3. Accept the "sartorial burden" of "hijab" because it amounts to only "a light head scarf and a modest outfit."
Ms. Paikidze-Barnes, is a professional chess champion. She sits for up to 8 hrs competing in 1 match. She doesn't cover her hair because that is how she is comfortable. She meets privately with her male coaches to develop strategy. It is unconscionable the NY Times, championing women's rights, tells this champion to accept unfair working conditions & a hostile work environment.
Ms. Moaveni didn't mention it directly but her oped took to task tactics of #MyStealthyFreedom, a campaign in which Iranian women post selfies without headscarves. Its campaigner, an Iranian & my coauthor, is a hero for Iranian women.
TY readers for showing me in your comments that you see through the attacks & support women's rights to choice & freedom. @AsraNomani
Pls sign Nazi's petition: http://chn.ge/2diAKAJ
And this piece at NY Times opposing purity culture values of "hijab": http://nyti.ms/1QDCaWs
I accept differences of thought. I want to stand up for the brave women this oped attempts to shame.
The New York Times editorial page, espousing liberal values for women and girls, has failed its mission by publishing a piece that communicates several messages to women & girls:
1. Shut up.
2. Keep out.
3. Accept the "sartorial burden" of "hijab" because it amounts to only "a light head scarf and a modest outfit."
Ms. Paikidze-Barnes, is a professional chess champion. She sits for up to 8 hrs competing in 1 match. She doesn't cover her hair because that is how she is comfortable. She meets privately with her male coaches to develop strategy. It is unconscionable the NY Times, championing women's rights, tells this champion to accept unfair working conditions & a hostile work environment.
Ms. Moaveni didn't mention it directly but her oped took to task tactics of #MyStealthyFreedom, a campaign in which Iranian women post selfies without headscarves. Its campaigner, an Iranian & my coauthor, is a hero for Iranian women.
TY readers for showing me in your comments that you see through the attacks & support women's rights to choice & freedom. @AsraNomani
Pls sign Nazi's petition: http://chn.ge/2diAKAJ
12
"While mandatory hijab certainly matters, it is for Iranian women to determine what level of priority to accord it."
Is she serious...? How can Iranian women determine anything for themselves when the theocracy and its repressive laws forcefully determine everything for them, leaving no room for them to even voice their opposition?
"But this kind of protest — outsiders who think they know best — is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want, and is at the heart of what’s worst about policing how Muslim women dress."
Who are you to decide what "most Iranian women want"? Have Iranian women been provided any genuine opportunity since 1979 to show what they really want? This boycott has nothing to do with "policing how Muslim women dress"!! This is about Iranian women being FORCED by the repressive theocratic state to wear clothes according to the dictations and oppressive laws of the theocracy! It's not a boycott of the hijab! It's a boycott of the MANDATORY/FORCED hijab! What a disappointment that someone who is generously paid to be a journalist can't make such a simple distinction! Ms. Azadeh Moaveni should move to Iran and be forced to wear the hijab on a daily basis before taking herself the liberty to talk about it as if it was just a tiny unimportant banana fly, while walking the streets of London - where she lives - entirely bareheaded!
"outsiders who think they know best"
One could easily think that she's describing herself...
Is she serious...? How can Iranian women determine anything for themselves when the theocracy and its repressive laws forcefully determine everything for them, leaving no room for them to even voice their opposition?
"But this kind of protest — outsiders who think they know best — is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want, and is at the heart of what’s worst about policing how Muslim women dress."
Who are you to decide what "most Iranian women want"? Have Iranian women been provided any genuine opportunity since 1979 to show what they really want? This boycott has nothing to do with "policing how Muslim women dress"!! This is about Iranian women being FORCED by the repressive theocratic state to wear clothes according to the dictations and oppressive laws of the theocracy! It's not a boycott of the hijab! It's a boycott of the MANDATORY/FORCED hijab! What a disappointment that someone who is generously paid to be a journalist can't make such a simple distinction! Ms. Azadeh Moaveni should move to Iran and be forced to wear the hijab on a daily basis before taking herself the liberty to talk about it as if it was just a tiny unimportant banana fly, while walking the streets of London - where she lives - entirely bareheaded!
"outsiders who think they know best"
One could easily think that she's describing herself...
8
Iran and the Sunni-Saudi Arabia, the two countries with opposing dogmas of Islam are the only Muslim countries that force women to cover themselves in public. What is interesting is that many young women in Iran defy the authorities, by posting photos online with their heads uncovered. They seek to relieve themselves of the "sartorial burden, by making it optional and lift its ban on women, who choose walk freely in the streets of Tehran without covering their hair.
In Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, women there accept their lot. In Turkey, the reason for the popularity of the ruling AKP party under Erdogan, is that women can now wear their headscarves, which were once banned. In the West conservative Muslim women insist on covering their heads, even if they meet hostility. What we are seeing is a struggle over Muslim identity.
Nazi Paikidze and others who want to boycott the Women's World Chess Championship in Iran next year, have the choice to protest against wearing the mandatory hijab. Female foreign dignitaries have to adhere to the customs and laws while visiting Iran.
In Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, women there accept their lot. In Turkey, the reason for the popularity of the ruling AKP party under Erdogan, is that women can now wear their headscarves, which were once banned. In the West conservative Muslim women insist on covering their heads, even if they meet hostility. What we are seeing is a struggle over Muslim identity.
Nazi Paikidze and others who want to boycott the Women's World Chess Championship in Iran next year, have the choice to protest against wearing the mandatory hijab. Female foreign dignitaries have to adhere to the customs and laws while visiting Iran.
8
None sense. This is the kind of attitude and justification that has brought oppression and disrespect to human rights especially women's. Enough with justification of medieval rules and oppressions. Respect for those who are boycotting the games. I suggest the author to take a look at what women did in Poland recently.women in Iran wouldn't endure so much oppression and humiliation for decades if it wasn't for the justifications of people like the author in the early days of Islamic revolution of Iran,
17
The hajib is worn to protect men from having sexual thoughts about women that don't belong to them. Likewise the Burka. Many but not all women who wear hijabs have their young daughters clitoris cut off to assure her future husband that she won't have sex with other men. I could not wear a hajib without feeling humiliated. Forcing any woman to wear symbols of subjugation In order to participate in public life is a violation of human rights and I support the boycott. I hope no foreigners visit Iran until they show respect for visitors human rights. Only Iranian women can fight for the lives they want. I just feel forcing foreign women to wear a hajib is a violation of their humAn rights.
From my limited knowledge of Islam I think that much of the koran is about monotheism, tolerance and cooperation. It purpose is to promote a civil society. I doubt that women's fashion choices are essential to Islam.
Boycott countries that require visitors to wear symbols of female subjugation!
From my limited knowledge of Islam I think that much of the koran is about monotheism, tolerance and cooperation. It purpose is to promote a civil society. I doubt that women's fashion choices are essential to Islam.
Boycott countries that require visitors to wear symbols of female subjugation!
19
It seems to me there should not be a law -- but I also don't think we can dismiss a woman's choice to wear a scarf as aberrant oppression.
Every morning I get up and feel obliged to make my hair look a certain way, to stare in a mirror and wonder if my pants are now too tight, making me look fat.
The last time I saw a woman in a hijab and loose fitting long dress, I couldn't help think of what a thing of freedom that just might be: to take these concerns of appearance off the table.
Feeling the need to primp and style is its own kind of oppression, not at all law, but still pressured by society's secular "religion." Maybe we should look in the mirror . . . or not.
Every morning I get up and feel obliged to make my hair look a certain way, to stare in a mirror and wonder if my pants are now too tight, making me look fat.
The last time I saw a woman in a hijab and loose fitting long dress, I couldn't help think of what a thing of freedom that just might be: to take these concerns of appearance off the table.
Feeling the need to primp and style is its own kind of oppression, not at all law, but still pressured by society's secular "religion." Maybe we should look in the mirror . . . or not.
3
Will anyone harass, arrest, beat or whip you because you chose, one day, to skip your "primp and style?" Get real.
6
Nazi Paikidze has every right to boycott the games on grounds that SHE does not wish to be forced to wear the hijab.
Maybe scolding her isn't the best way to make your point?
Maybe it smells like just one more person 'splaining what women should do, say, wear, behave....?
Maybe scolding her isn't the best way to make your point?
Maybe it smells like just one more person 'splaining what women should do, say, wear, behave....?
32
Will the Queen chess piece also be similarly clothed?
33
Oh please. If they were the Orthodox Jews or Evangelical Christians forcing women into this getup, you couldn't condemn them fast enough.
33
I'm sorry, but this discussion is asinine. Grow up Muslim men. Quit blaming women for your lack of self control. Fathers, teach your sons manners and maturity. Men, learn that you are not the center of the universe. There are many other kinds of people contributing equally and deserving of respect on this earth. They are no less or more human than you. Above all, grow up!
28
Hmm. This is kind of a bigoted argument. Here is a woman writing a piece about her opinion, and you blame men. You are countering Muslim prejudices with your own misandry. Give Ms. Moaveni the dignity to critique what she, herself, wrote, and stop matronizing the author.
1
If there were no laws against abortions and women decide to give birth to the unwanted baby anyway, that is a 'choice'. If there is a law that criminalises all abortions, giving birth is no longer a 'choice'.
The writer tells us that most Iranian women choose to wear the coverings, but that is just not true. Do French Muslims choose NOT to wear coverings? No, because if they do, the police are going to force them to take it off. That is not freedom, and the same applies to Iran, only on the opposite spectrum.
The writer tells us that most Iranian women choose to wear the coverings, but that is just not true. Do French Muslims choose NOT to wear coverings? No, because if they do, the police are going to force them to take it off. That is not freedom, and the same applies to Iran, only on the opposite spectrum.
10
So, when cities in France ban the burkini, the New York Times publishes multiple opinion pieces about how wrong the ban is. That Muslim women in France should be able to dress however they want. Fair enough. But when chess players object to being forced to wear the hijab in Iran, the New York Times publishes an opinion piece objecting to their boycott. An opinion piece that urges women to wear the headscarf and not worry about it.
Seems like the takeaway is the New York Times doesn't care about women's rights when it comes to Islam, and then the West needs to submit to its misogyny. That Islamic dress should be "respected" in the West, and that Western women should be forced to submit to Islamic dress in the Middle East. I mean, what else?
Seems like the takeaway is the New York Times doesn't care about women's rights when it comes to Islam, and then the West needs to submit to its misogyny. That Islamic dress should be "respected" in the West, and that Western women should be forced to submit to Islamic dress in the Middle East. I mean, what else?
45
Uh...dont you understand that very often the OPINION pieces are the opinions of the author,and not the NYT's editorial board? That sometimes, and thankfully, the NYT's allows others to express their freedom of opinions, even if it conflicts with the general views of the editorial board.
You know...its called freedom of the press.
The NYT's is not beholden to ONE point of view on its Opinions pages. They dont screen out all those that might conflict with previously published Op-eds.
This author is expressing the opinion/s of herself and many others in the Muslim community - not just that of the NYT's editorial board.
And we need to hear these voices, in the West, down in Texas, if we're to understand that there is no Muslim monolith. Not among its men, or its women.
You know...its called freedom of the press.
The NYT's is not beholden to ONE point of view on its Opinions pages. They dont screen out all those that might conflict with previously published Op-eds.
This author is expressing the opinion/s of herself and many others in the Muslim community - not just that of the NYT's editorial board.
And we need to hear these voices, in the West, down in Texas, if we're to understand that there is no Muslim monolith. Not among its men, or its women.
1
Well, Lilith, just because the NYT publishes an opinion piece does not mean they support it. Both the WSJ and Fox News have commentaries from opposing views. That doesn't mean that they have tacked left.
2
I support Nazi Paikidze's personal boycott of the games on the grounds that she does not want to wear a head scarf, which is a religious symbol in Iran.
Imagine if the Vatican insisted that anyone who visited had to wear a crucifix around their neck. Or Israel insisting that everyone must wear a yarmulke.
There is one thing to request modest dress, so as not to offend. It's another to ask people to wear another religion's symbols.
Imagine if the Vatican insisted that anyone who visited had to wear a crucifix around their neck. Or Israel insisting that everyone must wear a yarmulke.
There is one thing to request modest dress, so as not to offend. It's another to ask people to wear another religion's symbols.
30
Read the wonderful New Yorker piece about the fierce journalist Oriana Fallaci and her interview with Khomeni right after the revolution.
7
It is not a world-wide or 'Western' phenomenon that Muslims are asked to take off their scarves or other religious inspired/required wear in Christian or Jewish religious places of worship, or in 'Western' society.
It is a very small group of Europeans that ask/require this of Muslims, at this point in time.
Your article explains that the chess club is having a bit of a backlash regarding your compulsory dress code and wants the 'West' to understand you do not need outside support by way of a boycott because it may jeopardize the many freedoms you have fought bitterly for.
I am sure many people in the 'West' will be glad to support you by not supporting you.
Almost all of the mosques and sacred buildings of Muslims throughout the world require scarves for millions of foreign tourists or visitors, and the visitors don them with grace and understanding.
My suggestion? Discuss this curious and apparently dire matter with the chess club officials and the players who are instigating a boycott, not the whole of the 'West' and not in a NYT first page op-ed.
It is a very small group of Europeans that ask/require this of Muslims, at this point in time.
Your article explains that the chess club is having a bit of a backlash regarding your compulsory dress code and wants the 'West' to understand you do not need outside support by way of a boycott because it may jeopardize the many freedoms you have fought bitterly for.
I am sure many people in the 'West' will be glad to support you by not supporting you.
Almost all of the mosques and sacred buildings of Muslims throughout the world require scarves for millions of foreign tourists or visitors, and the visitors don them with grace and understanding.
My suggestion? Discuss this curious and apparently dire matter with the chess club officials and the players who are instigating a boycott, not the whole of the 'West' and not in a NYT first page op-ed.
3
I would retort that your accommodation of the Iranian regime and its dictates won't help Iranian women, either.
No female chess champions are protesting what the Iranian clerical-military dictatorship is attempting to foist upon them out of "worries of physical discomfort." How pathetic and offensive such a put-down! These women are protesting *precisely* because of "politics." They are opposed to a political system that believes it has the divine instruction of God to order what women must wear.
Just as people "vote with their feet," they also "vote with their dress." Pictures of educated women the likes of Ms. Moaveni taken in pre-revolutionary Iran, pre-Soviet Invasion Afghanistan, and even pre-Erogan Turkey will show perhaps 1 or 2 in 10 with some form of modest head covering. When given a choice, modern women wished to dress however they chose. When religious policing was relaxed under the Khatami years, Iranian women immediately pushed the boundaries, shedding chadors for chic headscarves, pushed as far back as possible to allow their salon-coiffed hair to show, and bedazzled with makeup and lipstick along with body-hugging Western attire from the neck down.
The notion that the Iranian government's ideology and (female only) dress codes can "empower" a single woman or girl is simply laughable.
No female chess champions are protesting what the Iranian clerical-military dictatorship is attempting to foist upon them out of "worries of physical discomfort." How pathetic and offensive such a put-down! These women are protesting *precisely* because of "politics." They are opposed to a political system that believes it has the divine instruction of God to order what women must wear.
Just as people "vote with their feet," they also "vote with their dress." Pictures of educated women the likes of Ms. Moaveni taken in pre-revolutionary Iran, pre-Soviet Invasion Afghanistan, and even pre-Erogan Turkey will show perhaps 1 or 2 in 10 with some form of modest head covering. When given a choice, modern women wished to dress however they chose. When religious policing was relaxed under the Khatami years, Iranian women immediately pushed the boundaries, shedding chadors for chic headscarves, pushed as far back as possible to allow their salon-coiffed hair to show, and bedazzled with makeup and lipstick along with body-hugging Western attire from the neck down.
The notion that the Iranian government's ideology and (female only) dress codes can "empower" a single woman or girl is simply laughable.
13
Is the author of this article a mind-reader?
8
Shameful ! Truly shameful piece by a woman who probably should know better than be yet another West-residing mouthpiece for the soft propaganda army of the regime in Iran. That's the tragedy. Shame on you Azadeh Maven and shame on New York Times for publishing it. Just compare this attitude to the reaction against the Burkini ban in France to see the disgusting but mind boggling double standard that is at play here.
15
To me, this article is one Iranian woman's perspective, and that is valuable. It shows that there is not an easy response to this issue because how women feel about covering depends on many factors -- their overall level of social freedom, and their personal goals in life. Perhaps due to women's status in Iran, I think Hejazipour feels that she would rather wear the scarf and get to do what she loves--and hopes others will too--rather that not wear it and miss out on pursuing her dreams and talents. It's hard to say what I would do in that situation. We each have one life and this is what this particular woman has to work with in hers, how she has chosen to live with it. I would like to see The Times publish an op-ed from an Iranian woman who holds a different view. Or from a woman in a much more oppressive society. Of course there are also many women who have and will risk their lives to stop covering. As with any struggle, we all pick and choose how we will adapt to our situation, or fight it. Muslim women are no different.
Women so often lose either way--punished no matter what, because we are meant to be the keepers of a culture/religion with our own bodies in a way men are not. If we forbid Muslim women from covering in public spaces, they suffer--from shame perhaps, or from retaliation from men or their communities. If we leave the issue alone, and don't speak up against forced covering, women may suffer for having no freedom at all.
Women so often lose either way--punished no matter what, because we are meant to be the keepers of a culture/religion with our own bodies in a way men are not. If we forbid Muslim women from covering in public spaces, they suffer--from shame perhaps, or from retaliation from men or their communities. If we leave the issue alone, and don't speak up against forced covering, women may suffer for having no freedom at all.
6
The author point - don't rock the boat, you'll make it worse! Just go along to get along. The author is not winning over anyone with that reasoning.
20
"As for players going abroad having to adopt a mode of dress that is foreign to them, it is perhaps useful to be clear about the sartorial burden: This isn’t about having to wear a burqa, but a light head scarf and a modest outfit."
It isn't about the "sartorial burden" Ms. Moaveni. It's about the symbolism. Nice try, though.
It isn't about the "sartorial burden" Ms. Moaveni. It's about the symbolism. Nice try, though.
25
As someone who has voluntarily visited countries which require a head scarf, I would like to say that "my choice" to visit is fundamentally different from staging a World Championship in such a country. This is probably the most important event these women can participate in, and this decision is effectively forcing these women to sacrifice their rights or miss out.
As a scientist, I can only say that if all women had to wear a hijab (even if only for a few days) in order to even be considered for the Nobel prize, I do hope that all hell would break loose.
Ms. Paikidze, thank you for standing up for our rights. Your courage is the example that young women need, no matter what their dreams and goals are.
As a scientist, I can only say that if all women had to wear a hijab (even if only for a few days) in order to even be considered for the Nobel prize, I do hope that all hell would break loose.
Ms. Paikidze, thank you for standing up for our rights. Your courage is the example that young women need, no matter what their dreams and goals are.
27
No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. If you want to wear a head scarf fine but a woman should not be forced to wear one if she doesn't want to. Anyone who thinks a woman should put up with these "inconveniences" has been oppressed for too long. Women who live in abusive relationships will do the same thing.
19
NYT never lets facts get in the way of its diversity credentials. Presenting the hijab as Islamic instead of the more correct Wahhabi-ist and Khomeini-ist does not do any service to women in Iran or anywhere else.
The final note: "All these girls and women who would not have left the house, hijab gave them a chance..." The hijab was neither the problem nor the solution. The problem was Khomeini-ism lack of respect for women. The solution is to present it as it really is.
The final note: "All these girls and women who would not have left the house, hijab gave them a chance..." The hijab was neither the problem nor the solution. The problem was Khomeini-ism lack of respect for women. The solution is to present it as it really is.
25
I want to be clear about this. I will not support any regime, political or social, religious or otherwise, which limits the rights of women. Equal all the way or no way that place or people will ever see a penny of my money. Got it?
I am sincerely tired of men thinking they know what a woman needs and should be. I will believe that Muslim women want to wear burkas and a girl wants be married at the age of 8 to a man 20 years older to her when I know that it is a man who wants to be wear a burka and a be married to a woman 20 years older than him when he is only 8 years old.
When men are not allowed to leave their homes without the company of an older adult female then I will consider that you are equal. When a husband decides to take yet another wife and is buried in the ground while the women of the village stone him to death, then I listens to these two-faced lies and consider the possibility that your country, your political system is not trying for force feed the rest of the world to your arcane and extremely unethical religious values.
Nope, not a penny. I understand your (man's) economy will suffer. I hope that the restriction will lead to halts business ties with the said country. Yes, your women will suffer but it is your fault they are suffering, not theirs. You bear the weight of this sin and Iran bears the sin. Stop trying to convert the rest of the world to your skewed religious values.
I am sincerely tired of men thinking they know what a woman needs and should be. I will believe that Muslim women want to wear burkas and a girl wants be married at the age of 8 to a man 20 years older to her when I know that it is a man who wants to be wear a burka and a be married to a woman 20 years older than him when he is only 8 years old.
When men are not allowed to leave their homes without the company of an older adult female then I will consider that you are equal. When a husband decides to take yet another wife and is buried in the ground while the women of the village stone him to death, then I listens to these two-faced lies and consider the possibility that your country, your political system is not trying for force feed the rest of the world to your arcane and extremely unethical religious values.
Nope, not a penny. I understand your (man's) economy will suffer. I hope that the restriction will lead to halts business ties with the said country. Yes, your women will suffer but it is your fault they are suffering, not theirs. You bear the weight of this sin and Iran bears the sin. Stop trying to convert the rest of the world to your skewed religious values.
12
Hypocrisy at its finest, Iran or Saudi Arabia (and other islamic countries with similar laws) should stop forcing women to wear hijabs/burqas, not the other way around. Women can wear whatever they want, but it cannot be forced by the law. And until that day, the international competitions can not be organized in these countries.
7
Ms. Moaveni appears to think the boycott is solely about the rights of Iranian women. It’s actually about women’s rights more broadly, including the rights of foreign visitors.
There’s a good reason why the U.S. State Department warns of the risks of travel to Iran. The shocking thing isn’t that there’s a proposed boycott, it’s that the World Chess Federation ever considered a tournament in Iran in the first place, since doing so violates its own principles and puts foreign participants at risk: according to the petition the Federation “rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of sex.” (F.01(1)(2))”
The petition’s proposed solutions seem eminently commonsensical:
“We propose two solutions:
• Change the venue or postpone the competition until another organizer is found to host the championship in a “no conflict” venue.
• Require that wearing a hijab be optional and guarantee no discrimination based on gender, nationality, or any other human rights as pointed out in the FIDE handbook (listed above).”
I would never travel to Iran because it’s dangerous. If anyone wants to call that decision on my part a “boycott” I have no objection.
There’s a good reason why the U.S. State Department warns of the risks of travel to Iran. The shocking thing isn’t that there’s a proposed boycott, it’s that the World Chess Federation ever considered a tournament in Iran in the first place, since doing so violates its own principles and puts foreign participants at risk: according to the petition the Federation “rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of sex.” (F.01(1)(2))”
The petition’s proposed solutions seem eminently commonsensical:
“We propose two solutions:
• Change the venue or postpone the competition until another organizer is found to host the championship in a “no conflict” venue.
• Require that wearing a hijab be optional and guarantee no discrimination based on gender, nationality, or any other human rights as pointed out in the FIDE handbook (listed above).”
I would never travel to Iran because it’s dangerous. If anyone wants to call that decision on my part a “boycott” I have no objection.
11
Aside from all the political arguments, it seems to me that being forced to play chess in an unfamiliar and uncomfortable garment would interfere in the non-Iranian women's ability to play chess. I know my concentration would be affected if I had to wear something that I wasn't accustomed to wearing on my head.
3
This is different from - opposite to, really - the French burkini ban. There, the Powers That Be are trying to force women to not wear Islamic clothing. Here, The Powers That Be are trying to force women to wear Islamic clothing
In both cases, The Powers That Be are wrong and women who want the freedom to dress as they choose are right. The simple shorthand for sorting these things out is, side with those who have no power.
In both cases, The Powers That Be are wrong and women who want the freedom to dress as they choose are right. The simple shorthand for sorting these things out is, side with those who have no power.
1
It's not a boycott if nobody cares.
First of all, it's chess.
Second of all, I think some players are more concerned about religious doctrine being imposed on them as outsiders, not what Iranian women do. Iranian women can do as they please.
First of all, it's chess.
Second of all, I think some players are more concerned about religious doctrine being imposed on them as outsiders, not what Iranian women do. Iranian women can do as they please.
3
Iranian women don't have a "choice" in the matter of dressing - they exploit sometimes lax enforcement of draconian rules, which nevertheless can be enforced and frequently are, with violence. To legitimize this kind of gender oppresssion and to present it as "cultural issue" that foreign women have to comply with, is an open betrayal of basic liberal values. Just out of curiousity - will Israeli female players be able to play in Iran? Don't answer.
9
When in Rome would be fine if it translated into a two way street. When in Western countries, no head scarf and a semi normal swimming costume for swimming.
Did a female write this essay? I have no sympathy and PS it's chess it's not church or should I say mosque.
Did a female write this essay? I have no sympathy and PS it's chess it's not church or should I say mosque.
6
If the West can't finally figure out that it isn't helping women anywhere if it doesn't finally find the spine to hold cultures with medieval views accountable for those views, it won't matter much?
If Iran has the right to insist women cover their heads there, then the West has a right to insist that those symbols of sexual control and the not to subtle implication that good male behavior is predicated on female modesty.
Helping women get ahead in chess may be a nice idea, but making the values of the West clear on attitudes toward women is much more important.
Cultures that are too relativistic and insecure to make their values clear are ripe for replacement, as Europe is finding out very late in the day.
If Iran has the right to insist women cover their heads there, then the West has a right to insist that those symbols of sexual control and the not to subtle implication that good male behavior is predicated on female modesty.
Helping women get ahead in chess may be a nice idea, but making the values of the West clear on attitudes toward women is much more important.
Cultures that are too relativistic and insecure to make their values clear are ripe for replacement, as Europe is finding out very late in the day.
8
"...Iranian women shouldn’t have to do this, so we’ll make a stink...Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice..."
No woman should have to do this. That is the point. Notice that on hot summers days Muslim men walk around in tee shirts and shorts, while the women cover themselves head to foot.
And as far as what has been "customary in Iran for centuries"? How is the Muslim Middle East doing? It has been filled with violence and chaos for more than 1000 years and has gotten worse, not better.
Spare us the excuses and rationalizations for the misogyny at the heart of every fundamentalist religion, of which Islam is the absolute worst.
That Muslim women have been indoctrinated from birth to believe this is their "choice" is laughable, as if the beatings and rapes of women who did not is just a weird coincidence.
No woman should have to do this. That is the point. Notice that on hot summers days Muslim men walk around in tee shirts and shorts, while the women cover themselves head to foot.
And as far as what has been "customary in Iran for centuries"? How is the Muslim Middle East doing? It has been filled with violence and chaos for more than 1000 years and has gotten worse, not better.
Spare us the excuses and rationalizations for the misogyny at the heart of every fundamentalist religion, of which Islam is the absolute worst.
That Muslim women have been indoctrinated from birth to believe this is their "choice" is laughable, as if the beatings and rapes of women who did not is just a weird coincidence.
12
It sounds so noble to start a boycott for all of oppressed Iranian womankind, but maybe the women who don't want to wear the hijab when they compete aren't really thinking about Iranian women at all but rather their own self-respect. If they turn up in Iran in the hijab they're acknowledging that these misogynistic goons have power over them. Given everything they must have had to go through to get to the point where they are competing in such a tournament, why would they want to cede that territory to anyone?
7
This is a gigantic straw-woman argument. Why should an American woman be forced to wear a head scarf in order to compete in a world championship? It's ridiculous on its face.
11
It's a good thing all of these American and Western readers of the Times are so much more knowledgeable about what is good or bad with this situation. I mean, what wouild a woman who has lived in America and Iran know?
1
Ms. Moaveni's article is a testament to and exemplary of the aloofness and insularity of Muslims in the world today. Fine, women traveling to Iran and some Middle Eastern countries must wear head scarf. However, when Muslim women travel to the West such as Europe and the United States of America, why wouldn't they take off their head scarfs and follow their the local "culture"? The same can be said as Ms. Moaveni remarked, what is the big deal with removing the head scarfs when in a foreign country? When such issues are raised, Islamophobia and racism are invariably invoked to silent all discussion.
It is imperative for Muslims to understand that the West is generally tolerant of all religions. To label people as Islamophobic or racist, when they merely seek legitimate discussion, understanding, and accommodation, is counter-productive, thus leading to the kind of Trumpist politics we experience today.
It is imperative for Muslims to understand that the West is generally tolerant of all religions. To label people as Islamophobic or racist, when they merely seek legitimate discussion, understanding, and accommodation, is counter-productive, thus leading to the kind of Trumpist politics we experience today.
6
The idea that women need to cover up and men do not is straight out discriminatory. I do not of course believe in burkini bans since that is also a discriminatory policy. People have lost the meaning of what fighting for freedom means and those on the right and left, who continually try to force us on what to believe and how to behave is exactly the problem.
5
Ms. Paikidze's courageous stand isn't against the Iranian females, it's about standing up for her cultural and religious values.
The FIDE should've known better. It's a shame that non-Muslims will have to play in a place where they're forced to obey Islamic religious laws.
The FIDE should've known better. It's a shame that non-Muslims will have to play in a place where they're forced to obey Islamic religious laws.
4
I think at its deepest core this argument is about whether humans have choice based on their own chosen values and way they see the world, or does some male group who claim some special connection with God (which can never be put to test or fully revealed) determine our choices. In the West, we have had these battles over the pitfalls of a theocracy. Islam has an understanding of connection to the divine being centered in the heart and in how we treat one another. But for some people outward displays seem important (any deep read of great spiritual books I think indicates that the Divine really does not care about this kind of thing). Modern Islam in some places in the world (mostly the Middle East) has not had this "reformation" that connects with the deeper truths and the religious leaders in Iran know this. This is a battle line for them and people paying attention recognize this. They want to continue to use religious authority to hold on to political and economic power. We shouldn't be surprised and the author need to get real.
3
“All these girls and women who would not have left the house, hijab gave them a chance to study, to progress, to become involved in all kinds of activities, from laboratories to business to academia,”
Yes, because if they left without the hijab, the opportunities would be closed to them.
Yes, because if they left without the hijab, the opportunities would be closed to them.
5
The author can say what she wishes concerning the desire of Iranian women to wear the headscarf, Hijab, but women coming to the country to participate in an international event should not be expected to abide by this. It is far more than a sartorial convention, it is a powerful symbol of a faith, an acceptance and a submission that a woman from abroad - and why not in the country despite the author's outlandish claim (how can she know?) that most Iranian women are comfortable with this...Are most Americans are comfortable with the pledge of allegiance?... though it shocks many foreigners. This obligation will shock many non-Iranian women. It isn't just not wearing short skirts in mosques or bare arms in churches, there is no justification for the host of an INTERNATIONAL event obliging visitors to follow their dress code ...Gens una sumus...
6
How can the Chess tournament even be held in Iran, where women can't compete equally (with women AND men) and have to wear a head covering to boot? No Thanks. Bring on the boycott! I would hope all the players( men and women) would boycott this clearly sexist behavior..
13
It is not the hijab they are protesting, but the mandatory requirement of wearing it. It is ridiculous to require it. It is exactly like the middle ages where religion was spread by the sword. The players are right in boycotting this medieval country.
14
Wow, talk about looking for a silver lining. Slavery was customary in this country for over a century. So does that mean tradition should be the most important thing we value?
You're talking about hijab allowing women to the leave the house. I think the rest of us are wondering why you want to forbid women from leaving the house if they don't have a hijab.
Honestly, this is not that different from telling women in this country that they can't have an abortion because they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves...
You're talking about hijab allowing women to the leave the house. I think the rest of us are wondering why you want to forbid women from leaving the house if they don't have a hijab.
Honestly, this is not that different from telling women in this country that they can't have an abortion because they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves...
5
I think you have missed the point. Entirely. You can wear the hijab if you want. Or if, as a citizen of Iran, you must by law. I will never wear one, and if your men, government or religion think that they will make my decisions for me, there is a rude awakening ahead. This has less than nothing to do with helping Iranian women. I fully expect that Iranian women have the intelligence and wherewithal to help themselves. It has everything to do with my body, my choice. Always.
8
On a meta-level, Ms. Moaveni, obviously intelligent, makes such an equally obviously specious argument, as the many commentators here detail, that one has to wonder if indeed these forced dress and behaviors, repeated and over time, do not fog one's critical reasoning.
10
everyone here caping up to defend women's rights and the protesters is really missing the author's point. Are you not reading the Iranian women and chess players' quotes? They are trying to warn us that the protests may do more harm then good. That we don't understand the circumstances in Iran and the gradual (yet certain) progress women are making there as well as they do. That having this high profile tournament in Iran would mean more to the women there in terms of women's rights then would protesting and potentially losing the event. These women are the ones experiencing life in Iran. When making decisions that will impact their world, the protesters should value what these women have to say. As for us bystanders, why don't we listen as well. I'm thankful I read this piece and gained a new perspective.
5
The progress, or lack of it, of Iranian women should not depend on the forced adoption of a demeaning religious symbol of submission on other women. Iranian women need to get it done themselves. If, of course, they want to; there must be a certain comfort in slavery.
3
There are cultures where the custom is for women to be bare-breasted--not a good practice for the streets of New York. It's better to respect the customs and laws of the place you travel to.
3
The women in Iran don't have a choice whether to wear the hijab or not. The rulers of Iran are trying to extend that lack of choice onto visitors to their country. Iran (and other Muslim countries) can't have it both ways: If France can't compel Muslim women not to wear a burkini, then the Iranians can't tell women who aren't Muslim to wear a headscarf.
Also, it's not fair of Ms. Moaveni to put the burden of guilt on the women who are protesting. To say that they are damaging the incremental progress of Iranian women is not right. Put the blame where it belongs. The clerics, and those who support them, are the ones denying Iranian women the choices they want in life, not those who are protesting.
Also, it's not fair of Ms. Moaveni to put the burden of guilt on the women who are protesting. To say that they are damaging the incremental progress of Iranian women is not right. Put the blame where it belongs. The clerics, and those who support them, are the ones denying Iranian women the choices they want in life, not those who are protesting.
7
I heartily approve of these highly commendable Muslim laws that force all men to wear the hijab in order to protect Muslim modesty by covering their sexually provocative male hair. Everyone knows that immodest young men deliberately flout their disgusting sexuality by showing off their attractive crewcuts, flattops, pompadours, ducktails, Donald Trump orange-tinted comb overs, and soccer-player Mohawks. Preservation of good Muslim modesty obviously justifies forcing all men to cover up this hair-based, overt sexuality by wearing a simple, attractive head scarf, subject to criminal penalties if they don’t.
What self-respecting man could possibly object to laws requiring him to wear a truly fetching, brightly-flowered, chintz headscarf embellished with lovely camellia blossoms – as long as that law is done in the name of a perfectly sincere desire to protect religious values? Besides, what could possibly look more fetching that a flowing, pink headscarf gently waving in the breeze as a manly-looking Iranian soccer player races to score a game-winning goal?
Oh, wait. You say it’s only women who must obey this law? Oops. Never mind.
What self-respecting man could possibly object to laws requiring him to wear a truly fetching, brightly-flowered, chintz headscarf embellished with lovely camellia blossoms – as long as that law is done in the name of a perfectly sincere desire to protect religious values? Besides, what could possibly look more fetching that a flowing, pink headscarf gently waving in the breeze as a manly-looking Iranian soccer player races to score a game-winning goal?
Oh, wait. You say it’s only women who must obey this law? Oops. Never mind.
7
An excellent article over all, and a very important perspective for us all to read. One correction I'd like to offer: Happily, Iranian women are not "singular in the Middle East for participating in public life at the highest levels." Israel has always has women at the highest levels of government, military, civil service, the judiciary, TV & radio service, etc. Perhaps this will one day lay the foundation of a more peaceful Middle East. I do believe the better women are treated, the better life is for everyone.
5
So, to be clear, women from outside Iran who deem forced wearing of the hijab to be oppressive and subjugative -- a perfectly reasonable view -- have an obligation to nonetheless submit because that's what's best for the women of Iran?
12
Do the author and the professor she quotes have any idea how they sound? "Thanks to hijab, Iranian women can participate in public life!" Mirabile dictu! That proves exactly that hijab is mandatory. That argument is horribly tin-eared.
9
Another apologist for misogynistic Islamic ideology; just what we need! Why aren't Muslim men required to wear hijabs instead of Muslim women?
11
"Outfits that 30 years ago would have been inconceivable" but 40 years ago were commonplace.
A violent religious dictatorship is forcing international chess players to submit to male domination. A boycott is the only reasonable response.
A violent religious dictatorship is forcing international chess players to submit to male domination. A boycott is the only reasonable response.
10
Iran deserves to host the chess championship in the same way that North Carolina deserves to host an NCAA event. That is, they don't.
31
Well said.
If I were a female chess player I would not attend either. If the chess game took place here in the US, they would expect us to tolerate their way of dressing. Translation: force us to put up with it. In Iran they need to tolerate as well, when we visit, our Western way of life, They won't, I won't go. Period. You don't like it? Too bad. Stay isolated. It's your problem.
41
The decision whether or not to cover one's head should be made by individual women. Anything else is oppression.
16
Just as I was fine with France enforcing a burkini ban if and it was in accord with French laws and norms, I'm fine with Iran requiring visitors to dress in a certain way. (I'd just add that they then have the right to decide to stay home if they don't want to dress that way.)
35
At least you're consistent. I'm also consistent. I'm NOT fine with either. The state has no right to dictate to the individual what to wear. But the boycott IS their right to stay home, which this article is complaining about.
So if an Iranian was playing in the US, it would be ok with you if they were forbidden to wear a hijab because it wasn't an American custom?
3
Why should any woman forfeit her right to play an international chess tournament so the sexists who run Iran can enforce an unwanted dress code on her?
4
If French Muslim women should have the right to wear the burkini on the beach - and I believe they should - then nunMuslim women should have the right to not wear the hijab in Iran. Iranian men should learn to look away perhaps.
38
Absolutely. Now see what happens to you in Iran when you protest on the street for this right as opposed to those ignorant new born muslimas in the west not only getting away with this new age tired muslim revival strategies, born out of total ignorance, but using our free western speech to invoke their right to wear something not only hideous esthetically, but one of the reasons most Islamic people fled their own societies seeking freedom from the very thing they now are trying to advocate in the west. It's total hypocrisy and our liberals think it's so cute.
2
Just out of curiosity, must the "Queen" on the board don a headscarf too?
52
touche!
3
Boycott Iran, boycott the hijab, boycott this nonsense. Their is only one thing to be in favor of...the liberation of Iranian women from the oppression of Iranian men. End of story.
28
The New York Times speaks out for women's rights most of the times, except when it comes to Islam. This article does indeed miss the point. Trying to downplay the forced wearing of the hijab by saying it's only a light head scarf is infuriating.
It's what it symbolizes that is the problem.
That light headscarf is FORCED on women as a symbol of modesty, so men don't lose it when they see a woman. It is a warped symbol of a sick honor system. I'm glad women chess players are balking at the idea of being forced into a hijab.
To the New York Times: Stop pretending like you care about women's rights if you can't see clearly on this issue.
It's what it symbolizes that is the problem.
That light headscarf is FORCED on women as a symbol of modesty, so men don't lose it when they see a woman. It is a warped symbol of a sick honor system. I'm glad women chess players are balking at the idea of being forced into a hijab.
To the New York Times: Stop pretending like you care about women's rights if you can't see clearly on this issue.
110
It's not an article. It's an opinion piece, and it has no bearing on the NY Times position on women's rights.
2
The hijab are burka are FORCED on Muslim women as a symbol of modesty, but it is actually because they are terrified of Muslim men.
Not all men. Muslim men.
Are Muslims sure this is the message they want to send to the world?
Not all men. Muslim men.
Are Muslims sure this is the message they want to send to the world?
4
This is not the opinion of the New York Times, it is the opinion of a contributor to the New York Times. It must be hard for some people to understand the difference, but the New York Times allows people with different opinions to express them.
Just think how the typical progressive NY Times reader would respond to someone saying, "outsiders need to keep their noses out of it" when talking about the role of the woman in Western Christian marriage. The shrill cries of misogynist would deafen even those plagued with the hardest of hearing. One concept defines the modern leftist; cognitive dissonance. They celebrate the empowerment of women and reject any religious ideas, Western religions only, that seem to oppress women while renaming silent on how Islam forces women to dress/live in the name of cultural tolerance. I guess for many feminist its empowerment for me, not for thee...if the thee lives in the Middle East.
24
I think you don't know what you're talking about. There are plenty of progressives who view the repression of women in ultra-conservative religions through the same lens -- similar strains of misogyny run through Mormon polygamous cults, ultra-Orthodox Jews who ban women from higher education, and forms of Islam that condones honor killings and female genital mutilation. It may be a matter of degree, but the gist is the same: women are lesser beings. BTW, that "cognitive dissonance" stone will do a lot of damage, thrown as it is from a conservative glass house.
2
I agree with your point, except please don't ascribe it to the entire left. I am a liberal woman. People with those views you are describing are the regressive left, not true liberals. I have recently come to realize that the NYTimes are FULL of regressive leftists. I am a *real* liberal, and I am outraged by the apologists for oppression of women in Muslim majority countries.
3
The contributor states: "a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice". How can she possibly know that?
73
You don't think 50.1% of women in a Muslim nation wear them by choice; NOW how can you possibly think that?
1
And even if she's right about that, it's still an admission that there are women in Iran who do not and would not wear the head scarf by choice, so what about them?
"Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first, but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort." I will never travel to a country where I would be expected to cover my head. My discomfort would be emotional, intellectual, psychic, spiritual, AND political.
75
Would you travel to a country where you are forced to wear a shirt to enter restaurants? Why is that less of a nightmare? Neither covering impacts your ability to eat food.
2
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. As a now reformed know-it-all, it helped remind that I know very little.
8
Have you ever considered that the headscarf is a symbol of Islamic expression?
French schoolgirls may be driven to private academies (where they will probably not experience as Frenchified an education as in a public school) for wearing the headscarf. I abhor state religions personally, but let's not presume no woman wants to wear a scarf. The outsider perspective of "I know what's best for you, dear," may be well -intentioned, but it is fundamentally patronizing and therefore offensive. There are no easy answers here. Each chess contestant must answer or herself, but not for others.
French schoolgirls may be driven to private academies (where they will probably not experience as Frenchified an education as in a public school) for wearing the headscarf. I abhor state religions personally, but let's not presume no woman wants to wear a scarf. The outsider perspective of "I know what's best for you, dear," may be well -intentioned, but it is fundamentally patronizing and therefore offensive. There are no easy answers here. Each chess contestant must answer or herself, but not for others.
11
should say "for herself,"
No one is presuming no women "want" to wear a scarf. And I'm not interested in telling any individual woman "what's best for you, dear". I'm trying to see that the boundaries are clear in the West on attitudes toward women. How about FGM? That's a cultural expression, too. Should we allow that? If Iran had insisted on the full burka, would that have been all right with you, too?
I don't care whether some Iranian woman wants to wear a scarf. But trying to divorce the headscarf, the burka, and the niqab from their real symbolism is specious. This is about control and restraint of female sexuality, of which hair is an ancient symbol.
Don't kid yourself. The boycott is absolutely on target. If female Iranian chess players don't like it - tell them to defy their government and bring about change, not ask the West to cringe and collude.
I don't care whether some Iranian woman wants to wear a scarf. But trying to divorce the headscarf, the burka, and the niqab from their real symbolism is specious. This is about control and restraint of female sexuality, of which hair is an ancient symbol.
Don't kid yourself. The boycott is absolutely on target. If female Iranian chess players don't like it - tell them to defy their government and bring about change, not ask the West to cringe and collude.
9
Have you ever considered that the headscarf is a symbol of Islamic oppression?
Or did you not notice that the men are not veiled?
Or did you not notice that the men are not veiled?
6
I don't understand why anyone is surprised that some women would boycott an event because of a dress code that they find offensive. Didn't any women, Muslim or otherwise, shun Olympic beach volleyball in the past when wearing a bikini was mandatory? I don't see the difference here. If an international organization wants full participation, it needs to choose a venue and set rules that all of its members are comfortable with.
54
Because it is forced by religious dictatorship and it is anti human right. That is why. You guys are mixing Arabs and Iranian. They are two totally distinct culture. Almost non Iranian women wear Hejab in the West because they are not forced and their bikinis are much nicer than most you have seen. Go to South of France or beaches of California. There are 009 of them.
The difference is that the volleyball game is a sports event that one can choose to not participate in... Iran on the other hand is a country, and the millions of women living there have no say in the oppressive laws of the theocracy... They HAVE to wear the hijab on a daily basis... It's easy to refrain participating in a sports event... It's not easy to refrain from living in your own society!
here's the hypocrisy all around...but hey, I live in NYC
She shouldn't care if they wear a Hijab or a yarmulke, or a stetson hat,
and they shouldn't force her to wear anything.
Therein is the real problem!
Its not like they are holding the event in a mosque, temple, or church!
She has every right to not participate if forced to dress a certain way....what if it was in Vatican city and the made everyone wear a cross?
She shouldn't care if they wear a Hijab or a yarmulke, or a stetson hat,
and they shouldn't force her to wear anything.
Therein is the real problem!
Its not like they are holding the event in a mosque, temple, or church!
She has every right to not participate if forced to dress a certain way....what if it was in Vatican city and the made everyone wear a cross?
42
Once upon a time one had to have one's shoulders covered entering a Caothlic church in Italy -- you could still wear a tight t-shirt and a mini-skirt!! Once upon a time in the lat e60s certain hotels would not let women wear slacks in the lobby but inis were OK... Stupid is....
1
What is the difference between a) the NCAA taking a championship away from a NC site because of its "bathroom law" and 2) the chess federation removing the championship from Iran because of it hijab requirement?
27
One major difference is that Ms. Moaveni claimed that Iran's restrictive policies (including its dress code for women) were already loosening, thus implying that outside influence wasn't needed. HB2 went in the opposite direction.
2
I understand different countries have different customs fair enough. But forcing others to follow it is where it all starts.
You love your pleated suit .. good for you .. I love my jeans and Tshirt. My options either to skip the "black tie" dinner or wear it as requested in the invite.
It will definitely cause discomfort on the host but they squarely knew when they invited me to a black tie dinner.
Similarly if others do not like Hijab .. they are skipping the international chess meet .. whats the politics in here ?
You love your pleated suit .. good for you .. I love my jeans and Tshirt. My options either to skip the "black tie" dinner or wear it as requested in the invite.
It will definitely cause discomfort on the host but they squarely knew when they invited me to a black tie dinner.
Similarly if others do not like Hijab .. they are skipping the international chess meet .. whats the politics in here ?
11
Nazi (How did she get a name like that?) could have easily gone and simply not worn the head scarf. No one would have bothered her. She's not Muslim or Iranian.
She would probably lose the matches anyway.
She would probably lose the matches anyway.
3
A quick glance at Wikipedia could have told you that she's named for her grandmother. It's a perfectly normal name in Georgia.
2
Yes you do get bothered. You are very wrong on this.
Uh, NO, not true. Iran has said that the participants are required to wear the hijab. She probably would be arrested - or worse - if she didn't wear it or took it off.
The continued refusals by Iranian athletes to engage with Israeli athletes (in contravention of basic Olympic rules) disqualifies them from being indignant over this issue.
35
Let's substitute 'Women's World Cup' for 'Women's World Chess Championship' and see how well that goes over.
Better still, let's put Hope Solo back on the team and try to force her to wear a hijab. Yes, that would definitely go well.
Better still, let's put Hope Solo back on the team and try to force her to wear a hijab. Yes, that would definitely go well.
16
Let's substitute Shirt for Hijab. What's the difference?
1
If outsiders don't want to attend the Iranian Hijab Chess Match, that's their problem. If Iranian don't like that, that's their problem.
11
They're not outsiders. They are professionals who are being treated differently solely on the basis of gender. That's sexism plain and simple and it should be roundly condemned.
5
No matter how you choose to look at it - a hajib is a symbol ... no ... even worse, it is a physical tool used to oppress and control women. It is a fabric version of chains & shackles. End of discussion. They should not be tolerated in public. A hajib IS a hate crime perpetrated against the women wearing them and the women who must witness them wearing one.
20
Iran shouldn't be allowed to compete in international sporting competitions, let alone host them. Their conduct in the Rio Olympics (such forcing athletes to fake injuries rather than face an Israeli opponent) was a disgrace and certainly the antithesis of sportsmanship. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQbHQja7gtk
15
"Some international players are saying they don’t want to wear head scarves, but they seem to be making this statement for Iranian women, too: Iranian women shouldn’t have to do this, so we’ll make a stink. But this kind of protest — outsiders who think they know best — is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want, and is at the heart of what’s worst about policing how Muslim women dress."
This paragraph is so confused, not sure where to begin. .."They seem.."? How? "..know best.." Really? (just for entertainment, is it possible to know what Iranian women want?) "..is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want" - what do Iranian women want? "Policing how Muslim women dress"!!!! Just wow....do you see the irony?
I sympathize with all muslim women, who live as second class citizens everywhere where Islam is the law, and perhaps Iranian women have it not as bad as others, and perhaps it's even moving in the right direction for them, but to disingenuously smear a proposition that a dress code imposed on women in the name of medieval religion is degrading and should be resisted by everyone with clear notions of freedom and elementary gender equality is pathetic.
This paragraph is so confused, not sure where to begin. .."They seem.."? How? "..know best.." Really? (just for entertainment, is it possible to know what Iranian women want?) "..is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want" - what do Iranian women want? "Policing how Muslim women dress"!!!! Just wow....do you see the irony?
I sympathize with all muslim women, who live as second class citizens everywhere where Islam is the law, and perhaps Iranian women have it not as bad as others, and perhaps it's even moving in the right direction for them, but to disingenuously smear a proposition that a dress code imposed on women in the name of medieval religion is degrading and should be resisted by everyone with clear notions of freedom and elementary gender equality is pathetic.
19
The author conveniently notes and dismisses in one sentence the fact that ALL women must wear head scarves at the tournament in Iran. Not just Iranians. Not just Muslims. ALL WOMEN. This is not outsiders telling Iran what to do. This is Iran telling the rest of the world what to do, and that should be protested all day every day.
51
Thank you. This seems to have escaped the foggy gaze of the apologists.
The tournament absolutely should be boycotted. Islam, and Iran, can join the West in the 21 century or stay home and sulk.
The tournament absolutely should be boycotted. Islam, and Iran, can join the West in the 21 century or stay home and sulk.
5
Anyone who actually believes in Islam is already beyond help. To believe in Sharia law and Islam's tenet of "Death To Infidels" is not someone you should help. Rather it is someone you eradicate if you want to preserve Western values and beliefs. So let female Muslim Chess Masters play in full Ninja attire if they want. Modern, civilized Western female Chess Masters should stay home and be thankful they are not Muslims.
9
This sort of story is a non-story, if only for the twin facts that 1. it relates to religious belief and b. it also relates to women's clothing. It is not a political story, or a human rights story. If you are not Muslim or Iranian, why get worked up about what religious beliefs or national laws compel women to wear? P.S. Unless you're a busybody. Then cavil all you want about how wrong EVERYTHING is with ANYTHING that is outside your sphere, or realm of competence. And then don't be surprised if intelligent people ignore you.
2
@ Hugh
Thanks for letting the world know that men have NO problem with women being forced to cover themselves head to toe under threat of violence and even death and that this could not possibly be a "human rights story", as it is only about females.
You have a lot of male company here who also agree this is no biggie.
Next up: Muslim women actually choose to have their genitals mutilated and Western men shrug.
Thanks for letting the world know that men have NO problem with women being forced to cover themselves head to toe under threat of violence and even death and that this could not possibly be a "human rights story", as it is only about females.
You have a lot of male company here who also agree this is no biggie.
Next up: Muslim women actually choose to have their genitals mutilated and Western men shrug.
3
I care A LOT because I am a woman. I am an outspoken woman, used to working in a male dominated field. I thank my lucky stars often that I was born in the US, because had I been born in a middle eastern country, I would be dead today, as millions of women have been killed for standing up for their rights over the centuries.
I don't see how anyone who cares one iota about his fellow man (or woman as the case may be) can call this a non-story.
I don't see how anyone who cares one iota about his fellow man (or woman as the case may be) can call this a non-story.
1
"Most blacks don't even WANT to drink at the same water fountains!"
See? That's you. That's what you sound like.
See? That's you. That's what you sound like.
52
It seems there will be no women's chess tourney in Iran. Or in Saudi Arabia. Or in France. ... Of course, it's best to hold every event in the USA, where no laws prevent anyone from doing literally whatever they want. We're so welcoming! ... Just be sure to stand during the Star Spangled Banner, and cross your heart for good measure. ... Also, please speak English. ... And don't take our jobs. ...
6
I have not stood for the national anthem in the US and not crossed my heart. You are confused if you think that is not allowed here. People may gripe at you, but it is allowed.
1
How about a see through hijab made of cellophane or the like?
2
I fully agree with Ms. Moaveni as wearing a "Head Scarf" is NOT a Big Deal as many Tourists travelling to Iran have found out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXz3BmOZ0Y
JUST to point out that Head Scarf is NOT an Islamic Dress Code, as it is an Iranic Dress Code that goes back some 3,000 years, some 1500 years before Islam, and that the Christian Women also wore Head Scarves up to the 20th Century (Miss Nazi Paikidze should see her Grandmother's pictures).
AND here is how a New Yorker felt about wearing Head Scarf!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty7vvav2gQ0
IT would be a great shame if the event is cancelled as it would be a "Monumental Missed Opportunity To advance The Cause Of Iranian Women".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXz3BmOZ0Y
JUST to point out that Head Scarf is NOT an Islamic Dress Code, as it is an Iranic Dress Code that goes back some 3,000 years, some 1500 years before Islam, and that the Christian Women also wore Head Scarves up to the 20th Century (Miss Nazi Paikidze should see her Grandmother's pictures).
AND here is how a New Yorker felt about wearing Head Scarf!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty7vvav2gQ0
IT would be a great shame if the event is cancelled as it would be a "Monumental Missed Opportunity To advance The Cause Of Iranian Women".
5
Go look at portraits of western women... They may have worns scarves in the winter, but they did not continually wear scarves. I remember a time when women in Iran and turkey did not cover their heads. Do not cite history when you haven't done your research.
2
@ Adam Smith
Wearing a "Head Scarf" is NOT a Big Deal as many FEMALE Tourists travelling to Iran have found out.
Thanks for confirming that many men have NO problem with this whatsoever.
Wearing a "Head Scarf" is NOT a Big Deal as many FEMALE Tourists travelling to Iran have found out.
Thanks for confirming that many men have NO problem with this whatsoever.
1
In many cases, its not by choice these women are forced to wear head scarves and hijabs. Its the religious police made up of mostly men that force women. Apparently, the Quran doesn't say anywhere that you have to cover up. it only says men and women need to dress modestly.
Much ado about nothing. Nazi Paikidze doesn't want to go, nobody forces her to go. Anybody who objects to the dress code should be free to stay home. Anybody who wants to play should be free to go play.
6
Why should she be denied professional opportunities if she declines to adhere to sexist Muslim dress laws?
3
How Islamic-phobic civilized Westerners can be. Seriously, so what if Muslim women want to cover up in Burkas, have you ever seen some of them? I would wear blindfolds myself. Now you know why Muslim men can detonate suicide vests, they want to be frolicking with 72 virgins than come home to their wives.
I personally don't care how they want to dress. To tell you the truth, I don't care if Muslim societies force them to dress a certain way either. Just don't bring the latter over to THIS country, where it has no place whatsoever.
14
Just watched Joe Biden with rolled up sleeves begging Pennsylvania's next generation not to wake up, the day after not voting for Hillary. A very audible response when he acknowledged that there were some who aren't "crazy" about her, no kidding. "Crazy" seems to be on everyone's mind who is helping Hillary, even Bill is using it. I'll tell you readers what is crazy is the subliminal message "Your Boycott [Bernistas] Won't Help [American] Women." Excellent work, keep it on the front!
So if a country said participants should have to play topless, women should agree in order to play???
17
Not a bad idea. At least it would bring some interest to a rather staid activity.
2
Oh, New York Times. I'm waiting for articles written by women who aren't happy in being forced to wear those uncomfortable garments. Why aren't you willing to give them a platform.
30
To answer your question: the TIMES editorial board has been pushing the wonders of Islam for months. It has a thing about "cultural imperialism" - and if it has to sell out women's rights and labor rights to support that view, it will.
5
I'm waiting, too.
2
Quit telling women what to do! Simple as that. Its like saying all men must wear turbans because we said so. Give it a frigging rest.
21
It is Iran that is telling women what to do: ALL women who want to participate, not just Iranian women. That is just the point. You seem to have missed it.
I would be curious as to how these women would react to regulations that prohibit the wearing of any headdress?
14
Outrage, of course!
Because, you see, women should be able to wear whatever they want as a human right.
You Sir, on the other hand, must leave. A jacket and tie is required for this discussion.
Because, you see, women should be able to wear whatever they want as a human right.
You Sir, on the other hand, must leave. A jacket and tie is required for this discussion.
Just to be clear, Azadeh, it's the law in Iran that women wear the headscarf. So how on earth would you know that Iranian women wear it by choice? I have a friend, a recent immigrant from Iran to the US. I asked her once what would happen if she went out and about on the streets in Iran bareheaded. She looked shocked and frightened, and said that she would be arrested by the police.
Abolish the law that says that women must wear the scarf, then get back to us. Then, while you are at it, teach the women who continue to wear it about Stockholm Syndrome--not to mention the literary character, Uncle Tom.
Abolish the law that says that women must wear the scarf, then get back to us. Then, while you are at it, teach the women who continue to wear it about Stockholm Syndrome--not to mention the literary character, Uncle Tom.
33
I don't see any reason for any women who don't want to wear any head covering to do so. Iran can either accept that or not allow those women to play. If they do that it will make any "wins" they have be seen as less. Is that what Iran will choose?
15
So, if the chess tournament were being held in a country that required women by law to wear bikinis, would Azadeh Moaveni be willing to go and conform to their standards?
What if the law in that country required that men dress in burqas at all time while in public, would male Iranian chess players be willing to go and conform to the requirements of that law?
Of course not. Don't be silly. The affected parties in both cases would be outraged. "Modesty" in dress is almost always about controlling women and their sexuality. Nothing burns me up like seeing a woman in 95 degree heat wearing a black shroud, while her husband strolls around in shorts and a polo shirt, just as free and easy as the day he was born. It's religious and cultural oppression, pure and simple. We ought to be calling it by it's true name.
What if the law in that country required that men dress in burqas at all time while in public, would male Iranian chess players be willing to go and conform to the requirements of that law?
Of course not. Don't be silly. The affected parties in both cases would be outraged. "Modesty" in dress is almost always about controlling women and their sexuality. Nothing burns me up like seeing a woman in 95 degree heat wearing a black shroud, while her husband strolls around in shorts and a polo shirt, just as free and easy as the day he was born. It's religious and cultural oppression, pure and simple. We ought to be calling it by it's true name.
80
You are so, right
10
The NY times seems to be promoting Islam lately as if they bought stock options in it. I don't get it. So scared of Trump but so happy to welcome that backward indoctrination as if it's no big deal.
3
In some cultures, some of them in South America and South-Saharan Africa, women who have already gone through puberty and thus developed breasts do not need to cover their torsos. How likely do you think it is that a woman from one such culture would be allowed to go bare-breasted if the Championship were held in Miami, FL?
5
I don't think a man would be allowed to play topless either, though. This is not a matter of fitting into the culture -- it is submitting women to one set of rules, men to another.
8
Probably. But a man would likely not be allowed to play in a skirt that is not a kilt. So-called Western dress code also differentiates according to rather binary gender constructs.
1
That may be fine in Iran, but it isn't in the West and those competitors who do not wish to comply with Iranian mores should have the option to boycott if they wish to. The hijab has become a weapon in the west. Islamic groups insist that westerners embrace this display of "modesty", indeed demand that we like it. But it is a root a form of control, and demeaning. Anytime I see someone in the west wearing one, I can't help but think what a pathetic, weak person. Just as the author of this article insists that visitors to Iran temporarily adopt its women's dress code, the same goes the other way for those coming to the west. I have less and less sympathy and respect for all things Islam everyday because of such dress code stupidity and dogma.
20
"But this kind of protest — outsiders who think they know best — is exactly the opposite of what most Iranian women want, and is at the heart of what’s worst about policing how Muslim women dress"
No one is policing how Muslim women dress here - Muslim's are policing how non-Muslim women dress. How this obvious logic can be twisted baffles me. No one would protest if a female Muslim grandmaster wore a headscarf in a chess championship in a secular country. The issue is entirely about forcing non-Muslim women to subjugate themselves to chauvinistic Islamic customs in an international competition.
No one is policing how Muslim women dress here - Muslim's are policing how non-Muslim women dress. How this obvious logic can be twisted baffles me. No one would protest if a female Muslim grandmaster wore a headscarf in a chess championship in a secular country. The issue is entirely about forcing non-Muslim women to subjugate themselves to chauvinistic Islamic customs in an international competition.
32
Why should a woman visiting from a foreign country be compelled to cover her head? Does the reach of Iranian theocrats extend so far that they can control all women?
12
Yes.
And that a Muslim woman defends this is disheartening.
And that a Muslim woman defends this is disheartening.
1
Oh please, putting any blame upon westerners about any restrictions put upon Muslim women by Muslim men is ridiculous.
Let's star by outlawing Sharia laws here, ban the headscarves right now. And any other bee keeper's outfits women are required to wear today, as if they're still living in biblical times. Like out of some Hollywood Ten Commandments movie.
These people and their barbaric religiousity is backpedaling and we're saying it's all OK? Sure, go back and live in the stone ages if you want but please don't bring us down there with you. Complete with all of the backward, harsh, misogynistic treatment towards women/girls. Evolve. Assimilate. Also leave the rest of the civilized countries that you insist we change for you, for whatever reason your god is supposedly telling you to do. I get angry when I see women wearing this garb in public in America and I'll tell you why. If you want to see what our future involves, with now just a 1% Muslim population, go to London or Paris or Germany or Sweden or Austria. For being such a small minority here today they certainly are making way too much noise. It is not OK. Swimming, bicycling or chess whatever, let women wear whatever the heck they want. Anyone who supports or makes excuses for this clothing is against progress and equal rights for women, period.
Let's star by outlawing Sharia laws here, ban the headscarves right now. And any other bee keeper's outfits women are required to wear today, as if they're still living in biblical times. Like out of some Hollywood Ten Commandments movie.
These people and their barbaric religiousity is backpedaling and we're saying it's all OK? Sure, go back and live in the stone ages if you want but please don't bring us down there with you. Complete with all of the backward, harsh, misogynistic treatment towards women/girls. Evolve. Assimilate. Also leave the rest of the civilized countries that you insist we change for you, for whatever reason your god is supposedly telling you to do. I get angry when I see women wearing this garb in public in America and I'll tell you why. If you want to see what our future involves, with now just a 1% Muslim population, go to London or Paris or Germany or Sweden or Austria. For being such a small minority here today they certainly are making way too much noise. It is not OK. Swimming, bicycling or chess whatever, let women wear whatever the heck they want. Anyone who supports or makes excuses for this clothing is against progress and equal rights for women, period.
11
Nobody is asking for a prohibition of the hijab. All they are asking for is that nobody be forced to wear it, within or outside Iran. This is not about the dignity of Iranian women who might willingly wear it, but about the dignity of all others who simply do not want to. Sorry, but you are dead wrong.
19
Why not video conference the event? Have the non-hijab wearing women in a Western country and have the women who are comfortable with a hijab in Iran. Very simple.
1
Azadeh Moaveni writes "Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice."
How on earth would Azadeh know this? I have a friend, a fairly recent immigrant to the US from Iran. She tells me that it is the law in Iran that women wear the scarf. I asked her what would happen if she went out and about on the streets one day bareheaded. With a look of shock and fear on her face, she told me that she would be arrested by the police.
Seriously, Azadeh? A majority of women wear it by choice? How on earth would you know that?? And even if the law were abolished tomorrow, and many women continued to wear the scarf, well, have you heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Or Uncle Tom? Look up to those two references, please.
How on earth would Azadeh know this? I have a friend, a fairly recent immigrant to the US from Iran. She tells me that it is the law in Iran that women wear the scarf. I asked her what would happen if she went out and about on the streets one day bareheaded. With a look of shock and fear on her face, she told me that she would be arrested by the police.
Seriously, Azadeh? A majority of women wear it by choice? How on earth would you know that?? And even if the law were abolished tomorrow, and many women continued to wear the scarf, well, have you heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Or Uncle Tom? Look up to those two references, please.
12
thank you for you incredible article, yes we have to let our people to change from inside and from bottom up. we (Iranians) are seeing the change everyday not just in the clothes of our women but also in their thoughts. And instead of boycotting this competition, isn't better to come to Iran and interact with Iranian women to see what they really want and what they are really doing? And if Iranian women are fighting then you can support them by being beside them...
By boycotting and shouting from outside Iran you are just making the situation worse for them by provoking the hardliners reaction not just to the fighting against mandatory Hijab from within (that the most of time overlook) but to the cacophony from without (that they really have ears for them).
you are sometimes highlighting some laws and clerical adjudications that they (cleric) them self had forgotten and by doing so reminded them that they have to be implemented again (such as the ban of riding bicycle by women in public that we were forgetting that exists until you reminded us).
please try to be a real supporter of Iranian women not just a person who want to have some more fame...
By boycotting and shouting from outside Iran you are just making the situation worse for them by provoking the hardliners reaction not just to the fighting against mandatory Hijab from within (that the most of time overlook) but to the cacophony from without (that they really have ears for them).
you are sometimes highlighting some laws and clerical adjudications that they (cleric) them self had forgotten and by doing so reminded them that they have to be implemented again (such as the ban of riding bicycle by women in public that we were forgetting that exists until you reminded us).
please try to be a real supporter of Iranian women not just a person who want to have some more fame...
1
thank you for you incredible article, yes we have to let our people to change from inside and from bottom up. we (Iranians) are seeing the change everyday not just in the clothes of our women but also in their thoughts. And instead of boycotting this competition, isn't better to come to Iran and interact with Iranian women to see what they really want and what they are really doing? And if Iranian women are fighting then you can support them by being beside them...
By boycotting and shouting from outside Iran you are just making the situation worse for them by provoking the hardliners reaction not just to the fighting against mandatory Hijab from within (that they most of time overlook) but to the cacophony from without (that they really have ears for them).
you are sometimes highlighting some laws and clerical adjudications that they (cleric) them self had forgotten and by doing so reminded them that they have to be implemented again (such as the ban of riding bicycle by women in public that we were forgetting that exists until you reminded us).
please try to be a real supporter of Iranian women not just a person who want to have some more fame...
By boycotting and shouting from outside Iran you are just making the situation worse for them by provoking the hardliners reaction not just to the fighting against mandatory Hijab from within (that they most of time overlook) but to the cacophony from without (that they really have ears for them).
you are sometimes highlighting some laws and clerical adjudications that they (cleric) them self had forgotten and by doing so reminded them that they have to be implemented again (such as the ban of riding bicycle by women in public that we were forgetting that exists until you reminded us).
please try to be a real supporter of Iranian women not just a person who want to have some more fame...
5
What would happen if women from other countries attended this tournament but steadfastly refused to wear a hijab, even though they were otherwise modestly dressed? Would they even be allowed out of the airport? Would they be deported?
Please consider the fact that these women who are boycotting are standing up for their rights. They may want to support Iranian women but not if it means giving up the rights they currently have to wear what they want.
And neither the world chess foundation nor the Iranian government has the right to expect them to accept the dress code.
And neither the world chess foundation nor the Iranian government has the right to expect them to accept the dress code.
1
You've missed the point. It's not about Iranian women, as much as Muslims obsess about themselves as the center of the universe. It's about free women who are forced to wear a demeaning sign of submission to Islam in order to participate in a non-religious competition.
3
It stops being an issue for only Iranian women when non-Iranians are being forced to wear one. It's absurd and hypocritical for Muslim women to whine about the burkini bans and then shrug when such dress codes are imposed on women who aren't Muslim in majority Muslim nations.
26
Is there a single sexist Muslim practice we're allowed to criticize? It's not just that the women are forced into them. It's that the men aren't.
36
Bingo. When "The Economist" publishes an article suggesting that the West should perhaps consider accepting a nicely "modified" and of course medically "safe" form of FGM, you know the West has taken cultural relativism to the edge of the abyss.
The UK saw 6,000 cases of FGM effects in its hospitals last year, 18 of which had taken place on UK soil. Not one arrest was made.
This apologist wincing is absurd. The headscarf belongs to the same long tradition of control and restraint of women as footbinding, married women's coifs in medieval Europe, nuns having their hair shorn and then covered, FGM, the wigs insisted upon by Orthodox Jews for married women, etc. Call it what it is and stop mincing about in fear of your own cultural shadow.
The UK saw 6,000 cases of FGM effects in its hospitals last year, 18 of which had taken place on UK soil. Not one arrest was made.
This apologist wincing is absurd. The headscarf belongs to the same long tradition of control and restraint of women as footbinding, married women's coifs in medieval Europe, nuns having their hair shorn and then covered, FGM, the wigs insisted upon by Orthodox Jews for married women, etc. Call it what it is and stop mincing about in fear of your own cultural shadow.
6
Precisely! I would have no problem with this if men were required to dress this way as well.
1
In the West, people - including female chess players - can choose to boycott an event for any reason they want to, Ms. Moaveni. If it hurts the feelings of the Iranians, that's just too bad. Besides, how is it I know that Iranians would be loudly refusing to participate in any tournament that were to be held in Israel or the US?
12
It's ok to sell cheeseburgers to the Chinese, but not play chess with the Iranians ?
I think we checkmate ourselves with such hypocrisy.
I think we checkmate ourselves with such hypocrisy.
1
.... what the heck are you talking about? What does on have to do with the other?
Come back to us when men have to wear restricting garments under threat of violence.
Until then, no one is interested in listening to men defend the subjugation of women, as is their habit.
Until then, no one is interested in listening to men defend the subjugation of women, as is their habit.
1
Nothing like missing the point. Its fine for non-Iranians to play Iranians. Just don't make them wear head scarves.
A HIJAB is a symbol of repression and it immensely offends me. It is sad that Iranian women and women in other muslim countries are not respected and have little freedom. When the freedom is curtailed then you cannot think freely and objectively, as evident from this article.
Not sure what the World Chess Federation was thinking at the first place when they decide to host the tournament in Iran.
Not sure what the World Chess Federation was thinking at the first place when they decide to host the tournament in Iran.
20
The writer is based in UK and from her Twitter page appears not to wear a head scarf.
7
Please note the World Chess Federation does see fit to segregate women's and men's championship tournaments.
2
As a young girl (many years ago) I remember a boy telling me I would HAVE to change my name when I got married. I replied "then I won't get married". This HAVE TO aspect of wearing a scarf is what I object to. No patriarchal society is going to make me wear a scarf. If I was visiting Iran and that was the only way I could enter Iran then I simply wouldn't enter the country for ANY reason. Why? Because my right to dress the way I, an adult woman choses to present myself is being dictated by men as if I was a child who needs guidance and protection. So for the average foreign woman, I would think it is about NOT being dictated to over clothing or anything else by men.
15
If Iranian women all want to wear head scarves, why is there a law requiring them to?
15
How would the writer feel if the tournament was held in the US and every participant was required to each pork? Ms. Moaveni and most of her supporters would be outraged.
3
I find the comments on this article far more interesting than the article itself. The consensus of commentators seems to be "what right does a sovereign nation have in enacting laws of its choosing"? The American hubris displayed in the comments is appalling. The author of the article, an Iranian-American is immediately written off by a gang of White Americans that think they know what foreign countries need better than the people that live there. Step back and challenge yourselves by considering that your American notion of what should and shouldn't be in places you have never experienced just may be wrong.
Iran is welcome to require whatever it wants of visitors. I don't see why that obligates Western chess players to follow suit, if they want to play for the World Championship.
3
I think the bulk of the comments have to do with freedom to choose. And forcing women who don't have the same beliefs to wear a Hijab (a symbol of the Muslim religion) in order to participate in an important chess event is the issue.
9
/a gang of White Americans/
Race has nothing to do with it, so stop it already with the white (excuse me, "White") shaming.
Race has nothing to do with it, so stop it already with the white (excuse me, "White") shaming.
/a light head scarf/
Solution: take an ordinary scarf and trim it to hanky size. Bobby pin in one hand, scarf in the other, attach scarf to top of head. Win the championship and start a new fashion trend at the same time.
Solution: take an ordinary scarf and trim it to hanky size. Bobby pin in one hand, scarf in the other, attach scarf to top of head. Win the championship and start a new fashion trend at the same time.
1
A very small manacle is still a manacle.
If Iran wants women from all over to participate, then they need to respect these women's rights to show their own hair. Pure and simple. If wearing the hijab predates the Islamic revolution of 1979, that's fine. But it shouldn't be forced on non-Muslim women.
14
In other words, the burning eyed mullahs who constitute the Supreme Council in Iran know better what is "appropriate" for women from the west than do those women themselves. I am among many who have no problem with Muslim women wearing a Hijab anywhere, if they (not their husband, brother, or local Imam) so choose but I do have a problem with non-muslim women being forced to don a scarf to keep their evil old loose hair from exciting frenzies of sexual energy among men watching the chess match!
14
It's understandable if Muslim women choose to wear clothing required by their religion, but Ms. Paikidze is not Musliim. Requiring all women, even non-Muslims, to wear religious clothing is what seems offensive to me. It would be like requiring Muslim women who visit the US to put aside their hijabs and instead wear a cross, or some other symbol of a religion that is not their own. I can understand requiring modest dress, but the Iranian government needs to acknowledge that Islam is not the only religion in the world, no matter how much they may wish it so. If Ms. Paikidze does not want to wear the hijab, she has every right to say so and stay home from the games.
22
@Math Professor: South Africa during apartheid was on my mind, too, when I read this article. Another example would be the burkini ban in France, where the NYT brought article after article condemning France. Sounds a lot like interfering in an internal matter, too - no?
Why is it that liberals - and I consider myself to be one, too - are always quick to condemn a secular country for a perceived wrongdoing, but tiptoe around a theocratic country like Iran? When have we tacitly agreed to apply a different standard to the latter?
Why is it that liberals - and I consider myself to be one, too - are always quick to condemn a secular country for a perceived wrongdoing, but tiptoe around a theocratic country like Iran? When have we tacitly agreed to apply a different standard to the latter?
10
Would an Iranian woman be OK playing in a tournament in which all participants are required to wear a mini-skirt and tank top? My guess is no.
For a non-religious person, being forced to wear religious garb may be just as uncomfortable as being forced to wear revealing clothes. If you reflect on this analogy, you may understand how players like Ms. Paikidze feel like.
For a non-religious person, being forced to wear religious garb may be just as uncomfortable as being forced to wear revealing clothes. If you reflect on this analogy, you may understand how players like Ms. Paikidze feel like.
23
Why are people getting their knickers in such a twist ?
I am an American citizens with ancestors who arrived in this country in 1639.
I also am an American citizen who is post chemotherapy & am bald.
I would welcome the chance to wear hijab; wigs get hot, itchy & uncomfortable.
Kudos to the girls/women who play chess well & their singular focus.
Let's focus not on trivia but on the important aspects of life.
I am an American citizens with ancestors who arrived in this country in 1639.
I also am an American citizen who is post chemotherapy & am bald.
I would welcome the chance to wear hijab; wigs get hot, itchy & uncomfortable.
Kudos to the girls/women who play chess well & their singular focus.
Let's focus not on trivia but on the important aspects of life.
1
So wear a bag on your head if you like. No-one is stopping you. More importantly, no one is forcing you, which is a point you have entirely missed.
21
Isn't the bigger issue that the woman are not competing against men in chess. This is so sexist that no one is even noticing.
7
There is also an open championship where men and women compete together. The purpose of this tournament is to support women's chess and help women players develop their skills.
1
Why is it Americans have no problem with Amish women wearing modest dresses, yet go ballistic when Muslim women follow suit? Nuns and Orthodox women cover their hair without cries of oppression, yet the Muslim hijab drives us crazy. I recently visited Iran, and yes, I had to wear a head scarf. Luckily, it did not prevent me from interacting with Iranians of all ages and backgrounds. I only wish more Americans would go see for themselves.
1
Because when you go to an Amish farm no one is forcing you to wear the same type of clothing. And certainly no one would attack or assault you for failing to do so which would happen in Iran.
We have no problems with the dress habits of the Amish, nor with nuns or Orthodox women, because they don't force their modesty rules on us. Live and let live works pretty well.
1
Oh please Americans would go ballistic if they were told they had to dress like the Amish!
2
I'm not a Muslim so why should I be forced to wear a hijab in Iran just because I'm a female? I would find it humiliating. We allow Muslim women to wear hijabs in our country when we don't wear them. Why shouldn't they allow us equal respect when we visit Iran?
To say that we should comply because we don't want to antagonize the Iranian leaders who are giving women a few crumbs of rights is like Rosa Parks saying that if she politely sat still someone one day might let her move towards the front of the bus.
To say that we should comply because we don't want to antagonize the Iranian leaders who are giving women a few crumbs of rights is like Rosa Parks saying that if she politely sat still someone one day might let her move towards the front of the bus.
33
What a horrible backward state where women have to be told what they can and can not wear. You'd think after the Olympic Committee (finally) removed the bikini uniform mandate from beach volleyball that we'd seen the last of this sort of nonsense.
13
In recent days, media started to publish articles that are all written by biased writers who tend justify this cruelty. Women need freedom of choice and boycotting the championship doesn't harm the Iranian athletes' position. It only may change the host and will send the government the message that they have no authority to decide about women dresses around the world. I think NewYork Times has to ask a writer to write from the other side too. As an Iranian woman , I am sick of reading the articles or listening to debates that all done by Hassan Rohani's pros which are few in population, but have a great access to international media! I wonder why?
19
No. This goes beyond dressing modestly. It's about forcing a symbol of your religion on nonbelievers. It's the opposite of what being a host should be about.
5
This person should be ashamed to be expressing this viewpoint. Why cant the author instead say Persians should be more tolerant and respecting of other cultures. Respect is two-way street. I wont respect you if you don't respect me.
2
I've had my fill of this muslim sophistry about their hijabs, and beards and allah prayers ten times a day Their backward, eleventh century ignorance has become very tiresome. It would be a great help to me if I didn't have to read The Times' "fair and balanced" reporting of these people and their religion anymore.
6
Why in the world would the World Chess Federation choose Iran, a major sponsor of world terrorism, with a nasty habit of kidnapping and holding hostage Western visitors to its country, to host their event? Hijabi oppression aside, choosing Iran as a host is akin to choosing North Korea as a host.
7
The Iranian women are welcome to wear hijab; or a full burqa for that matter, as they play. The expectation that Western players should do likewise is the issue. Whether the boycott will help or hinder the position of Iranian women is irrelevant to the outrage that FIDE (the World Chess Federation) would put competitors in this position.They deserve the embarrassment of a half-empty tournament (although our representative, Ms. Paikidze, is a long-shot to do well).
5
If incremental change has been shown to work, and the Iranian women see it as the best step forward, why would we oppose them?
Simple solution: If you want to play in this tournament, wear a head scarf and go. If you don't want to wear a head scarf, don't go. To make this a boycott is definitely a political statement. Note all the organizations that withdrew from visiting states that passed anti gay laws; any individual that wanted to visit, did.
The issue is not what will help Iranian women. The issue is forcing non-Iranian women to wear the head scarf. What if they hosted the Olympics - would all women swimmers have to wear a Burkini? Just outrageous that the Iranian government thinks it should force their Islamic dress code on foreigners. If they can't follow the standard rules everyone else follows in the rest of the world when they are hosting competitions, then they shouldn't host them. If Islam is so great and women are mostly voluntarily wearing head scarves then the Iranian government shouldn't be so insecure about it. So a Jewish woman who wants to come there to compete would have to wear a hijab? Ridiculous.
7
It is shameful that the NYT is not only too cowardly to speak out about the subjugation and enslavement of women in Iran, but actually complicit in that enslavement. Winking at it as a cultural difference. The only person with the courage to stand up to injustice and say something was this woman and you criticized her for it.
This author is being complicit in enslavement of women and treating them like property. "Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries." Perhaps, but is what they said about slavery too. That does not make it right.
I imagine a NYT headline during slavery saying "Your Boycott of Cotton Won't Help African Americans". Having the opportunity to speak out against enslavement and control of one person by another would the NYT instead decides to criticize the one person trying to do what they can to make a difference by standing up to injustice, and saying it is not acceptable.
And about that final cultural lecturing comment, "Outsiders may think they speak for Iranian women. “But they don’t."" Would the slavery era NYT have gone out and found a slave who they could quote as saying that, "White people opposed to slavery may thing they speak for African American slaves, but they don't.?" Despicable.
This author is being complicit in enslavement of women and treating them like property. "Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries." Perhaps, but is what they said about slavery too. That does not make it right.
I imagine a NYT headline during slavery saying "Your Boycott of Cotton Won't Help African Americans". Having the opportunity to speak out against enslavement and control of one person by another would the NYT instead decides to criticize the one person trying to do what they can to make a difference by standing up to injustice, and saying it is not acceptable.
And about that final cultural lecturing comment, "Outsiders may think they speak for Iranian women. “But they don’t."" Would the slavery era NYT have gone out and found a slave who they could quote as saying that, "White people opposed to slavery may thing they speak for African American slaves, but they don't.?" Despicable.
12
I was privileged to spend 18 days as an American tourist in Iran last winter. Yes, I had to wear a head scarf, which felt strange at first. I was still singled out as a foreigner, and when Iranians learned I was American, I was invariable invited to a tea house and soon surrounded by Iranians of all ages and professions. They were eager to simply talk to an American, share stories about relatives abroad (ie, the woman in Shiraz who had a son at the University of Chicago and a daughter earning a PhD at MIT) and dispel our many myths about Iran. In these settings, the hijab is not a hinderance.
1
How nice for you. However, the competitors in the chess tournament are not there to enjoy teahouses and Instagram-friendly dinner parties.
1
You chose to wear the headscarf. Nazi chooses not to. Nobody has the right to tell her that she must.
1
If Iranian or any other women care to wear a hijab, that's their right. But to insist that other women participating in an international chess competition, especially foreign or non-Muslim women who attend, must also wear a hijab is absurd. For this author to confuse the two strikes me as a classic case of "I can't hear you". I support the boycott.
7
But what of our own laws around covering up? For example, in places where women are not allowed to be topless.... If one of those spots were hosting a tournament and a woman accustomed to being able to bear her nipples decided to join, would we not make her cover up too?
2
I'm not clear what Ms. Moaveni thought her article would accomplish, since few readers of the NY Times will be unaware that compulsory hijab for all women is a recent innovation in Iranian history, and forcing non-Muslims to wear hijab has never been a religious doctrine in Islam, nor has it been the practice of Iran. Trying to put lipstick on this recent fundamentalist innovation, as if it were somehow an ancient cultural practice that outsiders are interfering with, isn't going to fly (nor will the false implication that Iran is currently moving from an ancient modesty towards potential future freedom of dress, when in fact Iran -- like much of the Islamic world -- is doing exactly the opposite, collapsing into rigid new clothing controls that never existed previously). Iran's experiment with enforcing the compulsory Islamification of all female modesty standards is the legitimate subject of protest. It's not consistent with Islamic history, it's not consistent with Iranian history, it's not consistent with modern views on human freedom and decency. It's an oppressive recent development, and such be treated as such.
22
Here's the message again, because it's not getting through. No non-Muslim cares about Islamic theology -- whether the headbag is mandatory or not (the Koran and the hadith and over a thousand years of Islamic "jurisprudence" says it is), whether it's cultural, what ancient pictures of bagged women you have, however much Muslimahs love it. The message here is that free women should not be forced to adopt a signifier of abject, humiliating submission to a hostile religion in order to participate in an international competition.
1
No--Iranian women will have to help themselves if they object to being forced to wear the hijab.
But women who don't wear a hijab should not be forced to adopt some faux standard of modesty because an international competition is being held in Iran.
Maybe no one before Nazi had the guts to refuse to go along.
I come from a faith tradition whose extreme fringe demands women cover their hair. My great-grandpa, who was a very religious man, didn't believe that was part of faith and wouldn't let my great-grandma cut or cover her hair to satisfy convention, because he loved her beauty and saw no reason for her to hide or diminish it.
I later observed, for a time, Islam, and can attest from personal experience that there is a wide divergence in how women's modesty or appropriate public appearance is interpreted by the faithful. One sect's obligatory hijab is another sect's irrational misinterpretation of scripture.
Step by step? Iran has seen a massive leap backwards from the time when Tehran vied with Beirut for title of "Paris of the Middle East."
But--you do what you want. Nazi is doing what she wants to do, and no one need join her boycott if they choose not to, and no one is parachuting into Iran with the intent of ripping as many hijabs off of Iranian heads as they can.
But women who don't wear a hijab should not be forced to adopt some faux standard of modesty because an international competition is being held in Iran.
Maybe no one before Nazi had the guts to refuse to go along.
I come from a faith tradition whose extreme fringe demands women cover their hair. My great-grandpa, who was a very religious man, didn't believe that was part of faith and wouldn't let my great-grandma cut or cover her hair to satisfy convention, because he loved her beauty and saw no reason for her to hide or diminish it.
I later observed, for a time, Islam, and can attest from personal experience that there is a wide divergence in how women's modesty or appropriate public appearance is interpreted by the faithful. One sect's obligatory hijab is another sect's irrational misinterpretation of scripture.
Step by step? Iran has seen a massive leap backwards from the time when Tehran vied with Beirut for title of "Paris of the Middle East."
But--you do what you want. Nazi is doing what she wants to do, and no one need join her boycott if they choose not to, and no one is parachuting into Iran with the intent of ripping as many hijabs off of Iranian heads as they can.
4
When Cyrus invaded what is now Turkey, Persian women wanted to switch from their veils to the white ones worn there.
In Shakespeare's day, married women in England wore headscarves.
More than a religion which did not exist in Cyrus's Persia or Shakespeare's England may determine sartorial norms.
In Shakespeare's day, married women in England wore headscarves.
More than a religion which did not exist in Cyrus's Persia or Shakespeare's England may determine sartorial norms.
Iran's decision to force all female participants to wear a hijab is yet another example of cultural supremacism. Those who oppose this requirement have the option of either not attending or showing up, taking off their assigned hijab and suffering the consequences (which at a minimum, one might imagine, would be deportation and at worst imorisonment for spreading corruption, which, although absurdly vague by Westrrn criminal law standards, is a capital offense). I don't blame these women for choosing the former option to make their point.
Remember when Iranian President Rouhani visited Italy, and the response was to box up the Classical statues lest their nudity offend him? Italy suffered deserved international embarrassment as a result. And, of course, no one owned up to ordering the statuary cover-up.
When President Rouhani then visited France and demanded a "no alcohol for anybody" state dinner, French President Hollande canceled the event rather than submit to something that traduced French customs.
This chess championship dress requirement is just another illustration of how autocratic theocracies operate. Push back would seem a prudent response to protect our own ideals.
Remember when Iranian President Rouhani visited Italy, and the response was to box up the Classical statues lest their nudity offend him? Italy suffered deserved international embarrassment as a result. And, of course, no one owned up to ordering the statuary cover-up.
When President Rouhani then visited France and demanded a "no alcohol for anybody" state dinner, French President Hollande canceled the event rather than submit to something that traduced French customs.
This chess championship dress requirement is just another illustration of how autocratic theocracies operate. Push back would seem a prudent response to protect our own ideals.
12
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries...."
Funny. When I searched the internet for historical photos of Iranian women, I found lots of pictures of women without scarves on their heads from about 1910 or so on. There were lots of women at the beach wearing stylish swimsuits, too.
Maybe veiling was customary in Iran before 1910, but so what? Trepanning was common for centuries in Europe. Should we re-start gouging holes in people's heads to release evil spirits, because it was a custom in 1510?
Veiling in Iran didn't start up again until the Ayatollah came along, which puts the practice squarely in the domain of religiosity. How would Ms. Moaveni feel if she went to a beach in secular France and was told she had to wear a skimpy swimsuit?
Oh wait. We went through that already and there was an outcry over laws forcing women to dress in a certain way.
Hmm. So it's okay for Muslim countries to tell Western women how to dress, but it's not okay for Western countries to tell Muslim women how to dress? Nice double standard, that.
This issue is about control --- specifically, about religious leaders controlling women. I completely support Ms. Paikidze and others who say, "Nope, you can't control me."
Funny. When I searched the internet for historical photos of Iranian women, I found lots of pictures of women without scarves on their heads from about 1910 or so on. There were lots of women at the beach wearing stylish swimsuits, too.
Maybe veiling was customary in Iran before 1910, but so what? Trepanning was common for centuries in Europe. Should we re-start gouging holes in people's heads to release evil spirits, because it was a custom in 1510?
Veiling in Iran didn't start up again until the Ayatollah came along, which puts the practice squarely in the domain of religiosity. How would Ms. Moaveni feel if she went to a beach in secular France and was told she had to wear a skimpy swimsuit?
Oh wait. We went through that already and there was an outcry over laws forcing women to dress in a certain way.
Hmm. So it's okay for Muslim countries to tell Western women how to dress, but it's not okay for Western countries to tell Muslim women how to dress? Nice double standard, that.
This issue is about control --- specifically, about religious leaders controlling women. I completely support Ms. Paikidze and others who say, "Nope, you can't control me."
16
All I could think about, as I read Azadeh Moaveni's plea for people not to boycott the Women's World Chess Championship games in Iran, is that she sounded like a battered wife begging the police not to make her abusive husband angrier than he already was.
If the World Chess Federation decides not to hold the Women's Championship games in Iran, the price will largely be paid by the Iranian women chess players, who have worked hard to advance Muslim women in their sport. And yet, if nothing is done, international women will be forced to submit to the same demeaning control that the Iranian women are subject to. Either way, it is women who pay the price for the controlling behavior of powerful men.
Why does this make me think of the United States vice-presidential candidates discussing whether women should be allowed to have abortions?
If the World Chess Federation decides not to hold the Women's Championship games in Iran, the price will largely be paid by the Iranian women chess players, who have worked hard to advance Muslim women in their sport. And yet, if nothing is done, international women will be forced to submit to the same demeaning control that the Iranian women are subject to. Either way, it is women who pay the price for the controlling behavior of powerful men.
Why does this make me think of the United States vice-presidential candidates discussing whether women should be allowed to have abortions?
10
Well said. Thank you.
Forcing women to wear religious costume, whether they are members of the religion or not, is oppressive. Iran has no right to oppress its own citizens, and it certainly has no right to oppress women visiting from other countries. If they want to participate in international sport they must observe international norms. One of those norms is that you can't make women dress up in funny outfits because your men folk are scared of seeing their secondary sexual characteristics.
8
The mandatory head scarf is a violation of basic human rights because such a rule is imposed only upon the women and not the men. It is discrimination plain and simple and it should never be tolerated. Part of freedom is the right to clothe oneself. It is fundamental to human existence. Any religion that dictates how a woman must dress under pain of brutal punishment can never be called a great world religion. The politically correct are afraid to say this, but there I said it. The NY Times will probably not print it proving my point. Forcing women to dress against their will is an affront to their dignity and can never be tolerated by freedom loving people. This tournament must be boycotted.
22
Well said.
2
I think most people who decided to boycott just didn't want to be forced to wear a hijab (which is totally understandable), regardless of the fact that a lot of Iranian women wear it willingly.
3
Willingly, Clement?. You have to be joking. It's illegal to decline to wear it. It means JAIL and it has other far-reaching consequences. Wake up, mister.
1
Let's be honest. There's little an average American can do to affect foreign issues. Too many uncontrollable variables.
I read the summary of this article on page one: "Outsiders may think they know best about policing how Muslim women dress. They don’t." I thought, wow, that's a loaded way of putting it. Let's see if outsiders are really "policing" Iranian women. And from the article, it turns out -- no. They're not. The Iranian government is policing them. They are dictating not only to Iranian women, but any other woman who comes to play chess. Whether they like it or not. Apparently to the writer, left is right and up is down -- it's opposite day! Moaveni could find work with those folks who come up with PR names that are at cross purposes to reality -- like calling something "the Patriot Act." Really, the illogic is headspinning -- as if someone wrote an article about civil rights in the 1960s and said that the freedom riders were outsiders who came to "police" black Americans.
8
Ironically, Ms. Paikidze is exercising her own right to boycott the event in Iran, because no one should be allowed to dictate what *she* (or any other non-Iranian woman) wears. Furthermore, Ms. Paikidze has directly stated in an Instagram post that she has "received the most support and gratitude from the people of Iran, who are facing this situation every day."
I also cannot even begin to imagine the outcry of racism if a chess championship in, say, France, specified a rule that no woman competing should be allowed to wear a hijab, because it's against their cultural standards. But apparently, any opinion held by a non-Muslim person on the misogynistic practices of these countries is an oppressive "diktat".
I also cannot even begin to imagine the outcry of racism if a chess championship in, say, France, specified a rule that no woman competing should be allowed to wear a hijab, because it's against their cultural standards. But apparently, any opinion held by a non-Muslim person on the misogynistic practices of these countries is an oppressive "diktat".
9
Women should not have to wear head scarves for the sole reason that it is not their culture to do so.
5
Women should not subjugate themselves to Medieval laws enforced by misogynistic governments.
7
No one has to associate with practices they find abhorrent - the chess player is not responsible for Iranian women's rights.
4
Just out of curiosity, why do we have separate women's and men's chess competitions? Are female grandmasters too good or are male grandmasters too good or is one sex afraid of being trounced by the other?
3
Uh, men made the rules in this gig. Ask them.
The American/European narrative regarding hijabs, burqas, and burkinis seems straight out of "The White Man's Burden". At least people're using fancier condescending words for "savages" and "natives", I guess?
1
Much like a previous article from a couple months ago defending the burkini, this one fails to bring any relevant new arguments to defend Islam's women oppression.
All religions have equally devastating effects on humanity and women in particular but, sadly, it is not possible to convince or have productive conversations with people who believe unconditionally in lies and fairy tales.
If you were indoctrinated since birth to be ashamed of your bodies and to be "modest", you will obviously "choose" to wear 10 layers of clothing regardless of whether it is mandatory or not. Still, you didn't make that choice. It was made for you by random opportunistic men thousands of years ago.
All religions have equally devastating effects on humanity and women in particular but, sadly, it is not possible to convince or have productive conversations with people who believe unconditionally in lies and fairy tales.
If you were indoctrinated since birth to be ashamed of your bodies and to be "modest", you will obviously "choose" to wear 10 layers of clothing regardless of whether it is mandatory or not. Still, you didn't make that choice. It was made for you by random opportunistic men thousands of years ago.
4
I would not want to sit at the board at a Chess tournament with the United States Flag at my side wearing what I would have to, especially in Iran, see as a symbol of religious and sexist oppression, and a clear symbol of Islam itself.
Further, after many cases where someone was held in Iran without justification, I would not want to travel to Iran at all and I would recommend others do not.
So for me, like other posting here, the question would not be "is this good for Iranian women" but is this good for women period.
I could understand the disappointment of Iranian women if the tournament is moved or degraded.
However, I think they are wrong if they don't see the forced dress code as a key issue. Often when I hear about someone becoming more Muslim, they or their family's women adopt the head cover.
I wish the Iranian women well, but support the boycott. I signed the petition and hope you do.
Further, after many cases where someone was held in Iran without justification, I would not want to travel to Iran at all and I would recommend others do not.
So for me, like other posting here, the question would not be "is this good for Iranian women" but is this good for women period.
I could understand the disappointment of Iranian women if the tournament is moved or degraded.
However, I think they are wrong if they don't see the forced dress code as a key issue. Often when I hear about someone becoming more Muslim, they or their family's women adopt the head cover.
I wish the Iranian women well, but support the boycott. I signed the petition and hope you do.
6
Why is it that every time I hear someone arguing against a law or a boycott directed against headscarves I'm told that this isn't what's best for women in headscarves? Isn't it enough that the women involved in this boycott refuse to participate in an event held in a country where they would be obliged to wear headscarves? Are we really supposed to believe that this is nothing more than a misguided, sanctimonious defense of repressed peoples? Can't we believe that people are simply and quite reasonably disgusted at the thought of being required to wear a headscarf? For that matter, is it really so unreasonable to not want to travel to places like Iran (or Qatar) in the first place? Why should they be accused of trying to "speak for Iranian women?" For that matter, why shouldn't westerners use women's rights as a tool to humiliate and pressure Iranian conservatives? Shouldn't they be humiliated by their behavior?
I agree that the boycotters can't speak for Iranian women. I'm not convinced that's the sole issue here.
I agree that the boycotters can't speak for Iranian women. I'm not convinced that's the sole issue here.
4
It's women playing chess. As Hillary said, "What difference at this point does it make."
1
it seems the writer misses the point entirely. the fact that a majority of women would choose to wear the veil whether or not it is mandated by the state doesn't change the fact that a woman's right to choose whether to wear a veil or not is circumscribed by the state. when a symbol of piety and devotion is forcibly legislated then it's very meaning is demeaned and obscured by politics.
9
This is such nonsense. The first nonsense is the law itself, which discriminates against women in Iran, and is an appaling violation gof human rights. The fact that some Iranian think that it is fine to do so, doesnt take away from this fact. Certainly the citizen of another country visiting should be forced to change personal beliefs or cultural practice because of their sexual gender/identity, race, ethnicity, country of origin, or religion -- period. INternational associations should reconsider holding meetings or events in Iran, or any country which infringes on human rights of people -- if not on principle, certainly to safeguard the human rights of their members.
The second nonsense is that protesting the law by so called "outsiders" doesnt help Iranian women, and that in fact, being diplomatic, somehow accomodating the law is what really do the trick and liberalize Iran. This is akin to blaming the victim for the crime. Iranian women who take this view are "Uncle Toms" trying to protect themselves from the anger of the mullahs, or worse, giveing comfort to those who oppress women, and sabotaging the efforts of those Iranian women who are bravely standing against sexit discriminatory, persecutory powers in IRan
The second nonsense is that protesting the law by so called "outsiders" doesnt help Iranian women, and that in fact, being diplomatic, somehow accomodating the law is what really do the trick and liberalize Iran. This is akin to blaming the victim for the crime. Iranian women who take this view are "Uncle Toms" trying to protect themselves from the anger of the mullahs, or worse, giveing comfort to those who oppress women, and sabotaging the efforts of those Iranian women who are bravely standing against sexit discriminatory, persecutory powers in IRan
7
My first reaction was, OK I'd be willing to be forced to wear a head scarf in your country if you'd be willing to be forced to take it off in my country (luckily my country doesn't have such a law). But once that knee-jerk reaction quieted I had to ask myself, would I be willing to do something philosophically uncomfortable to advance women's rights in a part of the world that has oppressed women forever, sometimes savagely? That seems to be part of the author's request; if you really want to help advance women's rights, do something that will actually help. Attending the chess tournament in Iran will help, even though being forced to wear the hijab is repressive to Western women. If my answer is no I won't help my sisters in the way they ask to be helped, can I still call myself a feminist?
If not, can I still call myself a feminist?
If not, can I still call myself a feminist?
3
It's always fun to get a real picture of backward thinking from Iranians in the NYT. I wonder how long the Editorial board had to debate this battle of two favored nations (Women in General & Iran). If only Ms. Paikidze was transgender; boy would that caused some liberal heads to explode. The only thing missing is to somehow blame this disagreement on George W Bush or Donald Trump.
There was a time when we valued freedom, hard work and individual expression in this country. Now, we honor and give forum to the most oppressive regimes in the world. More evidence of the breakdown of the US under Obama.
There was a time when we valued freedom, hard work and individual expression in this country. Now, we honor and give forum to the most oppressive regimes in the world. More evidence of the breakdown of the US under Obama.
3
According to her Wikipedia page, the author, Azadeh Moaveni, was born in California in 1976. She was 3 when the Shah was overthrown and consequently has no memory of Iran before the rise of the ayatollahs. She makes some statements that reveal her lack of historical context.
"The players acknowledge that state dress codes are a challenge, but view them as part of the nation’s laws and a matter that must evolve domestically..."
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice..."
How can we know if it is "by choice", when the alternative is corporal punishment?
I encourage Azadeh to Google the phrase "Iran 1960s dress" and look at the images.
Pre-1979 Iran was a very liberal place, with a culture that embraced both Western and traditional social customs. This was violently eliminated by the ayatollahs, MEN who IMPOSED this restrictive form of dress on women, along with the mental cage of which it is such an appropriate symbol.
Yes, perhaps social change in Iran today will have to be incremental. However, it is important not to mis-characterize the origins of the current repressive social order.
That female foreign visitors should be required to wear the headscarf in order to participate in the tournament is as absurd as the requirement for Iranian women to wear them. I hope the event will be a failure and bring shame on Iran's leaders. But I doubt they are capable of feeling it.
"The players acknowledge that state dress codes are a challenge, but view them as part of the nation’s laws and a matter that must evolve domestically..."
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice..."
How can we know if it is "by choice", when the alternative is corporal punishment?
I encourage Azadeh to Google the phrase "Iran 1960s dress" and look at the images.
Pre-1979 Iran was a very liberal place, with a culture that embraced both Western and traditional social customs. This was violently eliminated by the ayatollahs, MEN who IMPOSED this restrictive form of dress on women, along with the mental cage of which it is such an appropriate symbol.
Yes, perhaps social change in Iran today will have to be incremental. However, it is important not to mis-characterize the origins of the current repressive social order.
That female foreign visitors should be required to wear the headscarf in order to participate in the tournament is as absurd as the requirement for Iranian women to wear them. I hope the event will be a failure and bring shame on Iran's leaders. But I doubt they are capable of feeling it.
14
Really, I wouldn't want to go to Iran for any reason if they required me to follow their repressive ( I would feel repressed) dress code.
Yes, boycott Iran for trying to impose their religious oppressive beliefs on others!
Yes, boycott Iran for trying to impose their religious oppressive beliefs on others!
5
I actually agree with everything she says, but the problem is she is only thinking from the perspectives of Iranians. Iranian women should feel free (pun intended) to pursue whatever strategy they want vis-a-vis hijab. And I think if anyone is framing the boycott as being fundamentally about the rights of Iranians, that's misguided. But as an Iranian-American, I don't think the boycott is about Iranians at all, it is about all the women from other countries who have to go through the humiliation of putting a scarf. If my daughter was in the chess team, I would fully support her decision to skip this competition because of this issue. And if the American chess federation punished her for it, or tried to force her to go otherwise, I'd be extremely angry. Iranians don't realize that the struggle against religious restrictions (abortion, gay marriage etc etc) is alive and real everywhere else, and by bowing down to it for the Iranian regime, women everywhere will jeopardize their own fights in their own countries.
13
There is a subtle political and cultural context here that the article as well as commentators have failed to notice. The ancestors of the Georgian-American chess champion calling for the boycott of the event in Teheran come from a homeland that was brutally invaded, fought off, succumbed to, and was occupied at times by various Muslim powers, including the Persian Empire. Georgia was on the front lines so to speak of the "encounter" with the Muslim world and paid dearly for its ultimately successful efforts to maintain its Christian religion, culture, and independence. Foreign women have a right to decide if they care to submit to Iranian dictates or not in this case and it's highly manipulative to accuse them of somehow trying to arrogantly "speak for" Iranian women. All too often so many in the West are very selective in their virtue signaling by being very accommodating or understanding of retrograde Muslim practices while being very hardline in calling for boycotts in other instances such as apartheid South Africa (or so-called "apartheid" Israel for that matter) or American states or municipalities that have passed anti-LGBTQ legislation.
5
What does veiling in Iran or the lack of it-have to do with non-Iranian women being asked to visit the country? They are not planning to settle there -so they do not need to adapt to local norms. This is not even a tourist trip. As accomplished professionals, they are simply objecting to being asked to work/perform in a setting that disrespects and visibly devalues them.
5
So where are all the American women boycotting events in American in places where it is illegal for only women to go topless, or to breastfeed their baby in public?
There is a federal law that protects the right for women to breastfeed their baby on any federal property. No state laws outright bans breastfeeding, but some states have better protection laws on the books than others. Last I checked, only Idaho didn't have any protection laws for breastfeeding mothers.
As to going topless, women protest that all the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/28/topless-protesters-womens-...
Also, no woman in the United States (nor most places in the worlds) will be legally beaten or put to death for publicly breastfeeding or going topless. Rarely would a woman even go to jail for going topless.
As to going topless, women protest that all the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/28/topless-protesters-womens-...
Also, no woman in the United States (nor most places in the worlds) will be legally beaten or put to death for publicly breastfeeding or going topless. Rarely would a woman even go to jail for going topless.
4
It's not just the head scarf. It's the fact that the men aren't being asked to wear one. We are not obligated to respect Islamic customs we find sexist and demeaning.
8
This issue is not about Iranian women. This issue is about accomplished, talented, and free non-Muslim women who are being forced to wear the smothering, binding, and dehumanizing religious costume of Muslims in order to participate in a high-level global competition.
Shame on the World Chess Federation for allowing this grotesque, appeasing humiliation of its women players to happen at all, and more power to the women who wish to demonstrate their dignity, agency, and freedom by refusing to play.
Shame on the World Chess Federation for allowing this grotesque, appeasing humiliation of its women players to happen at all, and more power to the women who wish to demonstrate their dignity, agency, and freedom by refusing to play.
10
Before Khomeni revolution Iranian women were not required to wear hijabs. Kurdish women traditionally did not wear hijabs covering their hair and neck, their dress was reminiscent of folk costumes in Europe. Why Western women have to obey ayatollahs, if they want to play chess in Iran? Probably because they may tempt men if they are older than 9 years (now permissible age of marriage in Iran).
7
The author might have a good point as far as how this might affect Iranian women, but then again, the others have the right to boycott on the ground that they don't have to put up with an imposition on what to wear. That said, to all those lecturing about freedom of clothing, or no-clothing in this case, remember that in some cultures all you need is something to veil your genitals, I think they can make the same argument about our demand that women hide their breasts in public (maybe for them, that is a form of male oppression), or the fact that you can't wear a swimsuit in certain venues.
1
I think the world needs to decide between 2 scenarios: either everyone gets to dress the way they want to dress no matter where they are in the world, in which case Iran should not force non-Muslim women to wear hijabs during the tournament, but the Western world also needs to stop banning hijabs and burkinis, or we should all obey the rules of the place we are in, in which case requiring hijab and banning burkinis is fine -- you just decide whether you will go to a place where you might feel uncomfortable with the dress code.
It is strange, though, how often these things involve how women dress - not men. Many Muslim men, for instance, have religious reasons for growing a beard -- but they do not try to impose that requirement on visiting Western men. I think, therefore, it's hard to argue that sexism is not involved in these things.
It is strange, though, how often these things involve how women dress - not men. Many Muslim men, for instance, have religious reasons for growing a beard -- but they do not try to impose that requirement on visiting Western men. I think, therefore, it's hard to argue that sexism is not involved in these things.
6
I reject this apologia for a repressive regime. I applaud international chess players who refuse to have a head scarf imposed upon them. Their boycott of the 2017 Women's World Chess Championship event is a suitable response.
14
As an American living in Muslim countries for nearly a decade, I found the arguments in this article made perfect sense. It seems that a lot of readers are simply imposing their views rather than truly listening to and respecting the views being represented in the article. Why must we be so judgmental? Can't we accept this different perspective at face value?
1
This has nothing to do with respect for Muslim culture. It has nothing to do with being judgemental.
This is all about Muslim culture having no respect for those they call infidels.
Muslims are entitled to their points of view, opinions, and customs. Nevertheless, when they force their customs on others, that is disrespectful. Moreover, the World Chess Federation shows it's disrespect by holding the championship in a country that forces their customs on those that want to compete.
International tournaments should not be held in countries that force their customs on those they invite to compete.
This is all about Muslim culture having no respect for those they call infidels.
Muslims are entitled to their points of view, opinions, and customs. Nevertheless, when they force their customs on others, that is disrespectful. Moreover, the World Chess Federation shows it's disrespect by holding the championship in a country that forces their customs on those that want to compete.
International tournaments should not be held in countries that force their customs on those they invite to compete.
8
Wearing a headscarf is an expression of religious belief for some Muslim women. Making a women who does not believe her head must be covered for religious reasons wear a headscarf is not right. But I suppose it is no different than asking non-Jewish men to wear a yarmulke when they attend a Jewish service, even if the man does not believe that an uncovered head is disrespectful to God. In both cases, the person is expected to conform out of courtesy and respect for their hosts. Years ago I wouldn't have seen the point of a boycott, but now I think the women should refuse to go or demand that the venue for the tournament be declared an international space in which women can choose to cover their heads or not.
4
The difference is if you don't wear a yarmulke you don't get dragged out and beaten in the public square.
4
Its also a completely different situation. The men here are attending a religious service where respect toward believers of that religion is appropriate and refusal to do so would meet only with a social response. I don't believe chess is a religion, that wearing scarves is part of chess culture and, here, any punishment would be legal, not social.
3
"The players acknowledge that state dress codes are a challenge, but view them as part of the nation’s laws and a matter that must evolve domestically, not by diktat from outside"
The same justification was given to maintaining Jim Crow in the South or Apartheid in South Africa.
The same justification was given to maintaining Jim Crow in the South or Apartheid in South Africa.
18
I don't want to travel to any country that requires with the force of law that I cover my hair and wear loose garb because the culture is male- or religiously-dominated. What happens if a woman who lives in a country that lacks a modesty dress legal code for women accidentally forgets her scarf, allows it to fall down or otherwise violates the law in some way? Will she be fined or imprisoned?
14
Always good to get another's perspective, but bottom line remains ... no member of society, regardless of gender, should be required to wear a certain covering or clothing. If that member wishes to do so, fine. But such a societal requirement is an outdated and soon-to-fail symbol of the past.
4
The egocentric nature of this opinion piece is surprising. Does the author actually think that a Western woman's refusal to wear a head scarf is really all about her? If the head scarf is forced upon a non-Muslim woman, then it is most certainly a symbol of oppression as it has no religious meaning to that woman at all. I think the problem here is a lack of empathy on the part of the Iranian woman.
14
There is a lot of criticism of the article here. As I read it, the author is simply explaining why the boycott, as well-intended as it is, may not be helpful to Iranian women. She makes some good points. Those pushing the boycott should consider whether they're doing it to make themselves feel better, or to help Iranian women. If the latter, then the author's remarks are worth considering. If the former, well, perhaps they should also reconsider.
1
You're right it's like telling slaves that they'd be happier with freedom when they are much happier being slaves.
6
Can the players skip the scarves if they can prove they have been subject to genital mutilation, or beatings by their husbands? Maybe it would be OK not to do the scarf as long as the participants can demonstrate having been subjected to at least one form of mysogynistic oppression.
7
Ms. Paikidze, unlike Iranian and other oppressed women, has a personal choice available to her. That she chooses to exercise it in the way she is doing is a step forward for women and a mark of courage for her..
The fact that men anywhere dictate dress codes to women is a slight to all humanity which should be opposed by reasonable people throughout the world.
Using the cover of religious belief to suppress women or any human being should indicate just how removed belief is from reason.
The fact that men anywhere dictate dress codes to women is a slight to all humanity which should be opposed by reasonable people throughout the world.
Using the cover of religious belief to suppress women or any human being should indicate just how removed belief is from reason.
9
This article is all mixed up and misguided. No one is presuming to tell Iranian women how to dress, at least I hope not. And any non-Iranian woman who does not want to be required to cover her hair, even with a light scarf, even if it allows her not to have to fuss with her hair, should not wear a hijab. If that means that particular woman can't play chess in Iran, so be it. Since the government finds that allowing Western women to play without a head scarf is threatening somehow, Western women can respect the government's wishes by staying home.
9
You are correct, they should stay home.
But every official in the World Chess Federation that approved holding the Championship in Iran should be expelled from the
Federation for violating the WCF guiding principles of non-discrimination.
But every official in the World Chess Federation that approved holding the Championship in Iran should be expelled from the
Federation for violating the WCF guiding principles of non-discrimination.
1
While we are at it, Azadeh, here are a couple more rules. Neither of them violate your yardstick for oppression ("Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first, but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort").
All of the men present need to wear full, head-to-toe burkas. It might feel awkward at first, but since many in Muslim societies seem to think that the female body will inflame uncontrollable male sexual passions (and yet they get things completely the wrong way around--if men can't control themselves, shouldn't THEY be the ones to stay home, not drive, wear heavy oppressive clothing, look only out of mesh screens that largely obstruct their view, etc.?), it will be to the benefit of all participating competitors. This way, people will just be able to focus on the chess.
All Iranian members will be required to wear placards acknowledging the reality of the Holocaust. This will cause no physical discomfort whatsoever, and will only serve to show respect to the competitors from other countries, who find Iranian delusions about the Holocaust as a fictitious event extremely offensive.
Presumably you wouldn't have a problem with those rules? No physical discomfort necessary to anyone!
All of the men present need to wear full, head-to-toe burkas. It might feel awkward at first, but since many in Muslim societies seem to think that the female body will inflame uncontrollable male sexual passions (and yet they get things completely the wrong way around--if men can't control themselves, shouldn't THEY be the ones to stay home, not drive, wear heavy oppressive clothing, look only out of mesh screens that largely obstruct their view, etc.?), it will be to the benefit of all participating competitors. This way, people will just be able to focus on the chess.
All Iranian members will be required to wear placards acknowledging the reality of the Holocaust. This will cause no physical discomfort whatsoever, and will only serve to show respect to the competitors from other countries, who find Iranian delusions about the Holocaust as a fictitious event extremely offensive.
Presumably you wouldn't have a problem with those rules? No physical discomfort necessary to anyone!
15
Agreed! I've always said, instead of women wearing burkas men should wear blinders.
2
I wouldn't want to be forced to wear a head covering, particularly in a competition where I would find it distracting and a reminder of my second-class treatment. The Iranian women may be able to put up with it--I would not. It's a boycott about my rights as a women. It has nothing to do with the Iranian women, I am sorry to say, who in my opinion are abdicating their rights.
13
If Iranian women wear the headscarf by choice, then what is the need for the state to deploy religious police to make sure they do?
It is the Iranian state, not Western chess players, who are the proponents of policing how Muslim women dress. Refusing to go along with the oppressive state regulations by boycotting the chess tournament, and urging other women to abandon this symbol of female subordination, are highly responsible actions.
It is the Iranian state, not Western chess players, who are the proponents of policing how Muslim women dress. Refusing to go along with the oppressive state regulations by boycotting the chess tournament, and urging other women to abandon this symbol of female subordination, are highly responsible actions.
10
Ms. Paikidze isn't trying to dictate what Iranian women should or should not wear, she is protesting when she herself would be required to wear. Not only is she well within her rights, she is probably doing very much the correct thing. It is her privilege to decide whether or not to participate in the tournament; personally, I think this form of protest will be helpful, not harmful.
To coin a cliche, more power to her.
To coin a cliche, more power to her.
14
This is not so much about Iranian women, as about imposing repressive standards on visitors to Iran, about the attempt to export customs that many modern Europeans and Americans consider to be a repudiation of the Enlightenment. If I, a male, were invited to a tournament in Iran, I would proudly wear a prominent Star of David.
10
"It is precisely this pushing of the boundaries by young people that has gradually changed the norms around hijab."
How naive. The Revolutionary Guards can tighten the noose anytime they wish. I grew up in Iran and know firsthand that the Guards rule the country and make tactical adjustments to the freedoms they allow the Iranian people without ever really acknowledging that any of the freedoms that they grant to the weary Iranian people are permanent.
The author should know that Iran has a high rate of female facial plastic surgery simply because that is the only thing that Iranian women are not forced to cover. When Iranian women stop having plastic surgeries by the hundreds of thousands, I will believe that there is a "relaxing of dress codes".
How naive. The Revolutionary Guards can tighten the noose anytime they wish. I grew up in Iran and know firsthand that the Guards rule the country and make tactical adjustments to the freedoms they allow the Iranian people without ever really acknowledging that any of the freedoms that they grant to the weary Iranian people are permanent.
The author should know that Iran has a high rate of female facial plastic surgery simply because that is the only thing that Iranian women are not forced to cover. When Iranian women stop having plastic surgeries by the hundreds of thousands, I will believe that there is a "relaxing of dress codes".
11
It always annoyed me to see our female ambassadors and journalists, when appearing in Muslim countries, wearing a headscarf.
To me it symbolizes acceptance of discriminatory treatment. Acceptance that males can dictate what females do.
It is oppression and it is wrong.
To me it symbolizes acceptance of discriminatory treatment. Acceptance that males can dictate what females do.
It is oppression and it is wrong.
9
I feel the entire premise of this article is incorrect. I read Nazi Paikidze's reasons for passing on the games in Iran, and they did not have to do with changing Iran's laws. She simply did not want to comply with a compulsory clothing requirement which is inherently sexist as only women must do it. She felt the chess federation never should have placed women chess players in the position of having to wear a certain outfit in order to participate.
11
This essay appears to be a stunning 180 degree turn from an essay that Azadeh Moaveni wrote 2 years ago:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/22/the-hijab-is-iran-s-mos...
"And while young Iranians have been remarkably inventive, transforming the required manteau and headscarf into highly individual fashion, what remains clear is that millions of women still chafe against the very principle of enforced veiling. ..."
"That is why the hejab, to them, is always much more than just the hejab. It is everything, the symbol of their virtue, their most cherished weapon of control, the thing they must impose in order to impose everything else. "
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/22/the-hijab-is-iran-s-mos...
"And while young Iranians have been remarkably inventive, transforming the required manteau and headscarf into highly individual fashion, what remains clear is that millions of women still chafe against the very principle of enforced veiling. ..."
"That is why the hejab, to them, is always much more than just the hejab. It is everything, the symbol of their virtue, their most cherished weapon of control, the thing they must impose in order to impose everything else. "
7
It is a perfectly appropriate response to boycott state sponsored misogyny and oppression. I'm surprised by the lack of outrage in the comments section. Of course some women would choose to wear the hijab as many did under the Shah, but that was by CHOICE. No reasonable person is disagreeing with the right to practice the custom, the problem is that its being forced by the government on its citizens as well as visitors.
Ms. Paikidze has seized the opportunity to say "NO", just as Muhammad Ali said "NO" to selective service during the Viet Nam era. In the spirit of the author's thesis, maybe that act by itself didn't end the war, but I would make a vociferous argument that it was one of many factors that contributed to US withdrawal.
I hope that many years from now, we can look back in hindsight and Ms. Paikidze's efforts will be seen as a contributing factor in ending state sponsored treatment of women as second class citizens in Iran, and elsewhere.
Ms. Paikidze has seized the opportunity to say "NO", just as Muhammad Ali said "NO" to selective service during the Viet Nam era. In the spirit of the author's thesis, maybe that act by itself didn't end the war, but I would make a vociferous argument that it was one of many factors that contributed to US withdrawal.
I hope that many years from now, we can look back in hindsight and Ms. Paikidze's efforts will be seen as a contributing factor in ending state sponsored treatment of women as second class citizens in Iran, and elsewhere.
7
First of all boycott's send a powerful message to a country when that country treats its citizens unfairly (like when we boycotted the Olympics in the USSR). Secondly, this is an international competition being hosted in a country that is notoriously hostile to women. This hostility is demonstrated in many ways including a woman needing her husband's permission to travel (see for example in Huffington Post: "Iranian Soccer Star’s Husband Denies Her Permission To Play Abroad") AND having to be covered head to foot to conform to Iran's Islamic notions of modesty ( which is really about men's ideas about women's bodies and sexuality).
Typically, if you don't like the norms of a particular country - you don't go there. However, this is an international competition and those wanting to compete are now required to subject themselves to Iran's archaic notions of gender inequality - in order to do so. There is something terribly wrong with that. A boycott seems like a very legitimate way to express that.
Typically, if you don't like the norms of a particular country - you don't go there. However, this is an international competition and those wanting to compete are now required to subject themselves to Iran's archaic notions of gender inequality - in order to do so. There is something terribly wrong with that. A boycott seems like a very legitimate way to express that.
11
There are plenty of political problems with the Islamic Republic, but requiring visitors to adhere to the law of the land is hardly outrageous, even if the law is. I assume everyone here who rails against Iran's requirement that visiting women wear headscarves likewise takes issue with the requirement that shoulders, and legs above the knee, be covered while visiting Vatican City. Or for that matter, that visitors to Singapore should refrain from littering.
1
At first I thought that this article was going to be about boycotting the competition because the Iranian women (only) would have to wear the scarf. (By law, by the way, not by choice. It's the law in the country. Make no mistake about it.) But then I realized that Azadeh was saying that all the female competitors would have to wear a scarf, simply because they are in Iran. Seriously?? To blazes with that. I hope every female chess player in the world boycotts this ridiculousness.
17
Ms. Azadeh Moaveni misses the point of this protest. The Western female chess players will be inconvenienced by mandatory headscarf they're not comfortable in and it will most certainly affect the quality of their game.
What would happen to the female chess player if the headscarf exposes some hair in the middle of a game? Will some overzealous religious policeman interrupt the game? Will she be physically abused like the Iranian females are?
Even to ask these questions shows how ridiculous the situation is and why the Westerners should avoid Iran like a plague.
What would happen to the female chess player if the headscarf exposes some hair in the middle of a game? Will some overzealous religious policeman interrupt the game? Will she be physically abused like the Iranian females are?
Even to ask these questions shows how ridiculous the situation is and why the Westerners should avoid Iran like a plague.
6
The author says that "but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort."
I would don't think that I have heard a single person suggest that physical discomfort is the issue. The women who do not want to wear a head scarf do not want to be told how to dress. They find the suggestion that their normal dress is immodest just too darn stimulating for men to deal with insulting. They are unwilling to submit.
Now whether such a refusal is the best strategy, and the most helpful action, for the women of Iran is a matter of judgment. But as an assertion of their own rights, they are the final arbiters of that. Just as Moaveni argues that outsiders should not claim to decide what is best for the women of Iran, she should not judge what is right for the women chess masters who are unwilling to have the Imams of Iran dictate their dress.
I would don't think that I have heard a single person suggest that physical discomfort is the issue. The women who do not want to wear a head scarf do not want to be told how to dress. They find the suggestion that their normal dress is immodest just too darn stimulating for men to deal with insulting. They are unwilling to submit.
Now whether such a refusal is the best strategy, and the most helpful action, for the women of Iran is a matter of judgment. But as an assertion of their own rights, they are the final arbiters of that. Just as Moaveni argues that outsiders should not claim to decide what is best for the women of Iran, she should not judge what is right for the women chess masters who are unwilling to have the Imams of Iran dictate their dress.
3
What hypocrites. Many religious people dress and behave very differently when at home rather than in public. I believe they are more natural, honest and real when at home. However, when in public they are forced to wear a costume. Iranian woman and many other women in highly religious countries love to wear make up at home but it's not allowed in the streets. How sad for them that they are forced into compliance and subservience in their male dominated worlds. It's about closed minded men controlling women and religion is their excuse to keep women down.
3
Ms. Moaveni's asserts that despite Iran having abandoned optional hijab wearing in the past, "that hijab has been essential to Iranian women’s broadening participation in society." She goes on with her specious reasoning to assert that "Most activists in Iran are more concerned with matters from women’s unemployment to domestic violence. While mandatory hijab certainly matters, it is for Iranian women to determine what level of priority to accord it."
Huh?? What kind of logic suggests that forcing women to embrace "modesty" represents a step forward? Or that Iranian women can prioritize the importance of the hijab without having the option to discard it? Not only for Iran's female citizens but for any female visiting the country. Talk about mental gymnastics! If the men of Iran are so frightened of women's freedom that they can't countenance their women even seeing western women's bare heads, something is seriously amiss.
And lest we forget, if I lived in Iran, this post alone would land me in jail or perhaps even cost me my life.
Regardless of the motivation for it, the boycott sends a powerful statement to the fundamentalists running that country: the rest of the world will not be forced to abide by the medieval religious beliefs of intolerant zealots who would couch their cruel domination of over half of their society as a quaint cultural norm that the rest of us just don't get. Ms. Moaveni might not get it, but we do and we refute it.
Huh?? What kind of logic suggests that forcing women to embrace "modesty" represents a step forward? Or that Iranian women can prioritize the importance of the hijab without having the option to discard it? Not only for Iran's female citizens but for any female visiting the country. Talk about mental gymnastics! If the men of Iran are so frightened of women's freedom that they can't countenance their women even seeing western women's bare heads, something is seriously amiss.
And lest we forget, if I lived in Iran, this post alone would land me in jail or perhaps even cost me my life.
Regardless of the motivation for it, the boycott sends a powerful statement to the fundamentalists running that country: the rest of the world will not be forced to abide by the medieval religious beliefs of intolerant zealots who would couch their cruel domination of over half of their society as a quaint cultural norm that the rest of us just don't get. Ms. Moaveni might not get it, but we do and we refute it.
7
I recently saw an Iranian film called 'Hair' about an female Iranian wrestling team that was prohibited from international competition because of the (western) International Federation rules that demand that the female participants have an open neck. In watching this, I was not only upset with the Iranian 'rule makers' but also the International federation in insisting that these women dress in a likewise rule-oriented way.
That, plus my feelings about the anti-burkini actions, make me wonder why everywhere there is oppression of women - east AND west. Why can't women just wear what they want - wherever. I am so sick of hearing of rules (mostly in place by men) dictating how people should dress.
That, plus my feelings about the anti-burkini actions, make me wonder why everywhere there is oppression of women - east AND west. Why can't women just wear what they want - wherever. I am so sick of hearing of rules (mostly in place by men) dictating how people should dress.
2
The issue of women's rights in the middle east is complicated. But this uproar over the hijab is just stupid. Last time I checked, I'm supposed to have my chest covered in public, while my husband is welcome to go out running with no shirt. But somehow I'm not feeling especially repressed by this, and there's been no uproar over this double standard. I find it hard to believe that anyone is actually protesting over having to throw a scarf over their head, when western woman are constantly and voluntarily donning similar accessories--every woman I work with must own upwards of twenty perfectly suitable hijabs that we happen to call scarves.
Let's all adapt a bit to local customs, even if they're imposed for the wrong reasons, remembering that one of the better ways to promote equality for women is to encourage international interaction and cross-cultural understanding. The road to progress is paved with small compromises along the way. A boycott make make the boycotter feel morally superior, but we have to ask ourselves if the moral superiority the gesture has earned us comes at the expense of long-term progress.
Let's all adapt a bit to local customs, even if they're imposed for the wrong reasons, remembering that one of the better ways to promote equality for women is to encourage international interaction and cross-cultural understanding. The road to progress is paved with small compromises along the way. A boycott make make the boycotter feel morally superior, but we have to ask ourselves if the moral superiority the gesture has earned us comes at the expense of long-term progress.
2
This article makes a poor argument. If a women in the US wished to play chess without a shirt she would receive very little support for it. How is expecting women to wear shirts different from expecting women to wear head-scarves? It only differs in the people who find the one acceptable and the other objectionable. It has no real impact on the game of chess either way. If chess players wish to boycott Iran because of its very poor record on women's right they should simply do that and not use the hijab as a pretext. This 'hijab' battle ends up making the very real difficulties women have in Iran seem to be only about clothing. If the issue is Iran's treatment of women then boycotters should boycott regardless of the dress code.
5
Because in this setting both men and women wear shirts.
1
"...she points to the athletic wear Iranian female athletes wore in the 2016 Olympic Games, outfits that 30 years ago would have been inconceivable."
And 10 years before that, those outfits would have been considered ridiculous and oppressive.
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice." Except when they had a choice.
The author just ignores (or is unaware of) the greater portion of the 20th Century in Iran. The revolution that overthrew the modernist regime wasn't chanting "Hurray for religious freedom!" as they bid goodbye to the Shah. They were chanting "Death to the West! Death to the East! Islamic Republic forever!"
And women's rights regressed significantly overnight.
It doesn't matter if the bullied recognize their own injustice. It doesn't matter if they consider it a priority. Because it is not just the plight of the bullied that the rest of us object to; the prosperity of the bully is just as worrisome.
And 10 years before that, those outfits would have been considered ridiculous and oppressive.
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice." Except when they had a choice.
The author just ignores (or is unaware of) the greater portion of the 20th Century in Iran. The revolution that overthrew the modernist regime wasn't chanting "Hurray for religious freedom!" as they bid goodbye to the Shah. They were chanting "Death to the West! Death to the East! Islamic Republic forever!"
And women's rights regressed significantly overnight.
It doesn't matter if the bullied recognize their own injustice. It doesn't matter if they consider it a priority. Because it is not just the plight of the bullied that the rest of us object to; the prosperity of the bully is just as worrisome.
6
I seem to be in the minority here, as 1) I am a long-time feminist and 2) I agree with the author. When I visited the Mea Shearim neighborhood in Jerusalem and the Muslim West Bank, I wore a long skirt and covered my arms below the elbow. When I had a temporary job many years ago working for a Hasidic company, I did the same. I dressed according to local custom in Indonesia as well, and was deeply offended by a couple of European tourists who decided to go nude on one of the local beaches. (BTW I was also deeply offended by the French police who stripped a woman of her hijab on a public beach.)
It's up to the local women to decide what their priorities are--whether they are going to protest over the headscarf or focus on jobs and domestic violence--and IMO we need to support their choices.
It's up to the local women to decide what their priorities are--whether they are going to protest over the headscarf or focus on jobs and domestic violence--and IMO we need to support their choices.
2
"Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first"
-->Not uncomfortable physically, but utterly intolerable mentally and emotionally to women who are not accustomed to having their mode of dress severely dictated.
I have no objection to Muslim women wearing what they like. Burqinis on the beach, hijab and modest dress in Olympic beach volleyball—rock on, ladies. Wear what you are comfortable with, and we should respect your right to do so.
But I will not wear what someone else's religion dictates.
I will not travel to a country where my existence as a woman limits my actions more than a man's. This is very sad for me, because the middle east has rich cultures and history, and I love history and I love learning about other cultures directly. But several countries are off my potential travel list until I can do so with respect on both sides for each others' cultural norms.
-->Not uncomfortable physically, but utterly intolerable mentally and emotionally to women who are not accustomed to having their mode of dress severely dictated.
I have no objection to Muslim women wearing what they like. Burqinis on the beach, hijab and modest dress in Olympic beach volleyball—rock on, ladies. Wear what you are comfortable with, and we should respect your right to do so.
But I will not wear what someone else's religion dictates.
I will not travel to a country where my existence as a woman limits my actions more than a man's. This is very sad for me, because the middle east has rich cultures and history, and I love history and I love learning about other cultures directly. But several countries are off my potential travel list until I can do so with respect on both sides for each others' cultural norms.
1
The most troubling part of Ms. Moaveni's article is her assumption that non-Iranian women being forced into a head cover is no big deal, calling it a "sartorial burden: This isn’t about having to wear a burqa, but a light head scarf and a modest outfit. Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first, but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort."
What she fails to realize is that most women in the 21st century don't even ascribe to 'modesty of hair' as any kind of virtue. All we know is that the idea of covering one's head in deference to 'modesty' is not only alien, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of us who never have worn a head scarf! Being forced to be uncomfortable against our will is never 'no bid deal'. Being forced to wear an archaic and dominating symbol of Iranian repression in order to attend an international tournament? Of course any reasonable woman would want to say, "hell no!"
What she fails to realize is that most women in the 21st century don't even ascribe to 'modesty of hair' as any kind of virtue. All we know is that the idea of covering one's head in deference to 'modesty' is not only alien, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of us who never have worn a head scarf! Being forced to be uncomfortable against our will is never 'no bid deal'. Being forced to wear an archaic and dominating symbol of Iranian repression in order to attend an international tournament? Of course any reasonable woman would want to say, "hell no!"
5
I seriously had to read this twice to make sure I understood how laughably bad this argument was.
Under this reasoning we should not have boycotted South Africa under apartheid, but rather told our black diplomats, athletes, and other representatives of our country to just comply with separate bathrooms, settings, etc because it was their culture after many years and we owed it to black South Africans, plus how much of a big deal was it anyways. Quite rightly, it would have been dismissed as ridiculous to suggest American citizens submit themselves to indignity in the name of "getting along."
Why is it different when women are involved? Is it that, like always, we are just expected to be uncomfortable in order for everybody else to "just get along?"
Under this reasoning we should not have boycotted South Africa under apartheid, but rather told our black diplomats, athletes, and other representatives of our country to just comply with separate bathrooms, settings, etc because it was their culture after many years and we owed it to black South Africans, plus how much of a big deal was it anyways. Quite rightly, it would have been dismissed as ridiculous to suggest American citizens submit themselves to indignity in the name of "getting along."
Why is it different when women are involved? Is it that, like always, we are just expected to be uncomfortable in order for everybody else to "just get along?"
9
Professor Moaveni:
With all due respect, the boycott is not about Iranian women, but women everywhere. It's about the choice of women to wear a bikini, burkini, hijab, or burqa, without the incessant calls of ubiquitous patriarchal societies to dictate the terms of modesty.
Your framework for conceptualizing this seems to rest in terms of women experiencing "awkwardness," or "physical discomfort," but you fail to consider the primary issue here: the psychological distress of women around the world who are constantly being told what to wear, how to wear it, and when it's appropriate to do so.
Anecdotally, this happened to my wife when were visiting the Duomo in Milan this past summer. Before being allowed entrance into the cathedral, there were multiple checkpoints, solely for the purpose of ensuring that women had covered their shoulders. Men's shoulder's were apparently not so salacious and were not inspected. The shorts and flip flops I was wearing were of no concern.
After the second checkpoint, my wife began to break down in tears. Over the course of our 10 year relationship, I have only seen her cry with this intensity a couple of times. You see, she is not prone to easily break down, but this is what had just happened, and it was not about only the shawl, but the chronic sexism she unfortunately experiences here in NYC on a daily basis, building to a crescendo. Luckily, we skipped the Duomo and instead discovered the Negroni Sbagliato.
With all due respect, the boycott is not about Iranian women, but women everywhere. It's about the choice of women to wear a bikini, burkini, hijab, or burqa, without the incessant calls of ubiquitous patriarchal societies to dictate the terms of modesty.
Your framework for conceptualizing this seems to rest in terms of women experiencing "awkwardness," or "physical discomfort," but you fail to consider the primary issue here: the psychological distress of women around the world who are constantly being told what to wear, how to wear it, and when it's appropriate to do so.
Anecdotally, this happened to my wife when were visiting the Duomo in Milan this past summer. Before being allowed entrance into the cathedral, there were multiple checkpoints, solely for the purpose of ensuring that women had covered their shoulders. Men's shoulder's were apparently not so salacious and were not inspected. The shorts and flip flops I was wearing were of no concern.
After the second checkpoint, my wife began to break down in tears. Over the course of our 10 year relationship, I have only seen her cry with this intensity a couple of times. You see, she is not prone to easily break down, but this is what had just happened, and it was not about only the shawl, but the chronic sexism she unfortunately experiences here in NYC on a daily basis, building to a crescendo. Luckily, we skipped the Duomo and instead discovered the Negroni Sbagliato.
4
The author misses the point. No visitor should be forced to wear a "head scarf" simply because this is the law of the land. Any visitor who believes such a law is an imposition on them, is perfectly within their rights to state that due to this restriction they will not be visiting. The argument by Ms. Moaveni misses the obvious point that a visitor whether or not they sympathize with local women may simply not want what they view as a restrictive cultural ordinance applied to them. In sum, it is one thing to have to obey a law that saws in country X all citizens drive on the left, it's something different to say that in country X one must wear a head scarf to conform to their view of moral decency. It should be noted that Catholic nuns wear their version of the hijab, however it would be perfectly within a woman's right to reject having to don similar headgear to visit Vatican City! Deciding whether or not I choose to wear a hijab should not be viewed as an endorsement or rejection of whether anyone else should wear one!
1
I realize this is a complex issue with many conflicting points of view. I am a feminist academic (Ph.D. in cultural anthropology) and I would like to point out that all cultures have dress codes, including the US. For instance, women would not play in a tournament here bare-chested. This is both custom and law, yet most people, women included, readily accept it. I agree with the writer that a little respect and perspective is needed.
2
Thank you for this comment and your understanding of the nuance involved in the issue. It's not as black and white as many commenters would like it to be.
1
the author appears to be residing inside of a bubble.
what she choses to wear is her business.
what she choses for other participants to wear is none of her business.
if another freely choses to dress as the author, fine.
if another freely choses to dress differently than the author, more power to the other.
it is likely that the FIDE will not change the geographical location for the 2017 Women's World Chess Championship games, as this organization is led and controlled by males.
the result may well be that these games will be unnecessarily diminished in their stature as it seems likely that some qualified participants will elect not to play in dress ware that, for them, is a symbol of prisoner's clothing.
the author does little here to persuade the nonbelievers that her country's laws are sacrosanct for everyone.
would that she could make an effort within Iran to create a specific location and safe-haven for all to take part.
everyone, in the end, will be forced to pay a price for such a level of localized selfishness.
sigh
2
I would have to say that Nazi Paikidze has a legitimate reason to boycott the championship if she is forced to wear a symbol of religious obedience while playing.
I also agree that holding the competition in a country that forces all women to wear symbols of religious obedience is counter to the principles of the World Chess Federation.
Paragraph 1.2 of the WCF Handbook states "...It rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of gender..."
Forcing a woman to wear a particular article of clothing is clearly discriminatory. It may even violate that woman's own religious beliefs.
For these reasons I believe that the World Chess Federation erred when it awarded the Championship Games to Iran.
Iranian woman would be free to attend the Championship if it were held in another country. They would also be free to wear the their garments of choice.
By holding the Championship in Iran, the World Chess Federation has tacitly approved the discrimination against woman that is practiced in that nation.
I also agree that holding the competition in a country that forces all women to wear symbols of religious obedience is counter to the principles of the World Chess Federation.
Paragraph 1.2 of the WCF Handbook states "...It rejects discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of gender..."
Forcing a woman to wear a particular article of clothing is clearly discriminatory. It may even violate that woman's own religious beliefs.
For these reasons I believe that the World Chess Federation erred when it awarded the Championship Games to Iran.
Iranian woman would be free to attend the Championship if it were held in another country. They would also be free to wear the their garments of choice.
By holding the Championship in Iran, the World Chess Federation has tacitly approved the discrimination against woman that is practiced in that nation.
12
I think if players from around the world wish to stay out of the championship because they don't want to be forced to wear a head scarf, that's fine, but they should simply state that their reason is that they don't want to wear one, not that they are refusing to do so on behalf of Iranian women. They might legitimately feel that it is just as wrong for foreigners to be required to wear head scarves as Iranians would feel it wrong if their women were required to wear saris when traveling to India.
Protesting on those grounds would be addressing the question of whether, and to what extent, national governments have the right to control the dress of non-citizens who travel there. The right of a sovereign nation to control the dress of its own citizens on its own soil is not in dispute, however much we may disagree with their rules. Pretending to speak for the benefit of Iranian women is misguided and inappropriate.
Protesting on those grounds would be addressing the question of whether, and to what extent, national governments have the right to control the dress of non-citizens who travel there. The right of a sovereign nation to control the dress of its own citizens on its own soil is not in dispute, however much we may disagree with their rules. Pretending to speak for the benefit of Iranian women is misguided and inappropriate.
3
Many people were excited when the first American was going to compete in the Olympics wearing a hijab, I was disturbed. Why be American if you are stifled by misogyny from the 12th or13th century? Sure there are misogynists in the US, look no further than the Republican presidential candidate, but that's not the point.
I am so pleased that Nazi Paikidze is refusing to go and be forced to wear a hijab. In similar manner, why were the Muslim women competing in beach volleyball in the Olympics not required to wear bikinis as was the standard? I don't think that would be right, just as it is not right to force a non-Muslim woman to wear a hijab to compete in her chosen area of competition.
If this event doesn't occur in Iran, so much the better. Perhaps eventually they will learn that most of the world has advanced 800 years.
I am so pleased that Nazi Paikidze is refusing to go and be forced to wear a hijab. In similar manner, why were the Muslim women competing in beach volleyball in the Olympics not required to wear bikinis as was the standard? I don't think that would be right, just as it is not right to force a non-Muslim woman to wear a hijab to compete in her chosen area of competition.
If this event doesn't occur in Iran, so much the better. Perhaps eventually they will learn that most of the world has advanced 800 years.
45
Many women did not wear bikinis, and they are no longer the standard outfit. Why should they be? Male players aren't in tight underpants style swimwear. Many female players appreciate the ability to choose to cover themselves to protect against the sun or cold weather. Also, given the fencer in question normally wears MORE clothing to fence than she does when in street attire, specifically, by covering her face with a shield to fence, I hardly think her hijab makes any difference to game play.
I am also not sure what makes wearing fewer clothes more modern, or head covering something from 800 years ago. Queen Elizabeth is often pictured when riding horses and strolling around on one of the estates, with a headscarf tied under her chin. Many people wear raincoats, even when it is not raining, that bear no small resemblance to the Iranian "manteau," which means "coat" in French. There were naked people 800 years ago, and people still cover themselves now. There is no stark divide, and people's differences are not nearly so vast as you suggest.
I am also not sure what makes wearing fewer clothes more modern, or head covering something from 800 years ago. Queen Elizabeth is often pictured when riding horses and strolling around on one of the estates, with a headscarf tied under her chin. Many people wear raincoats, even when it is not raining, that bear no small resemblance to the Iranian "manteau," which means "coat" in French. There were naked people 800 years ago, and people still cover themselves now. There is no stark divide, and people's differences are not nearly so vast as you suggest.
Raindrop, my point was to illustrate the obscenity of it, not specifically the outfit. Sigh.
The REQUIREMENT, not the use of a headscarf. For goodness sake in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Truly Scrumptious wore a scarf and hat in the open air car. A particular instance doesn't a rule make.
The REQUIREMENT, not the use of a headscarf. For goodness sake in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Truly Scrumptious wore a scarf and hat in the open air car. A particular instance doesn't a rule make.
1
Why not view having to cover your head for a few days as an excuse for not having to mess with your hair. Of course I've never had good hair, which has only gotten worse as I've grown older. I wear a banadana on days that I exercise, which is most. The colorful cloth squares are much better than my sweaty head.
5
Because some women see this demand for what it is -- a command that they comply with the demeaning gender strictures of a religion they don't subscribe to for an opportunity that has nothing to do with religion at all.
4
A bad hair-do day is your comparison to female repression and inequality?
Seriously?
Seriously?
5
"Why not view having to cover your head for a few days as an excuse for not having to mess with your hair. "
Because you have the choice of covering your head or not. They do not.
Because you have the choice of covering your head or not. They do not.
4
"a matter that must evolve domestically, not by diktat from outside."...It has been 800 years since the Middle Ages, so when is it going to evolve?
47
Not really! Only since 1980, after the Revolution. And you can thank Eisenhower, Churchill, Dulles brothers, CIA, MI-6, Nixon and Kissinger for that. If the government of Mossadegh weren't overthrown and the Shah re-instated, Iran would have been a very different country. The policy of US after the coup was to suppress any democratic movement, label intellectuals and educated folks as communists, imprison and execute them. It got worse in the seventies. Nixon/Kissinger's search and destroy policy for Iran and other countries (let's not for the other 9/11, the Nixon/Kissinger coup in Chile that killed many thousands more than the one in NYC, many of them the best and brightest of Chile) killed many university students, writers, democracy advocates. While leaving the religious class intact. What is more abhorring is pretending we played no role in any of it.
1
Strict dress codes for women in Iran have only been around for 40 years or so.
Which in itself makes Ms Moaveni's argument all the weaker.
Which in itself makes Ms Moaveni's argument all the weaker.
3
A boycott is the correct course of action here. I think it's sad and misogynistic that now in many traditionally Muslim countries women are forced by law to wear garments that must feel at least very uncomfortable. Women wrapped in virtual shrouds and men free to wear what they please. Frankly, I'm getting bored with all this politically correct talk and behavior.
Either a host country of an International event agrees to people wearing what they would at the event any where in the World (and I don't remember chess championships being famous for outrageous or scandalous clothing), or they can say good bye to hosting any International event.
Either a host country of an International event agrees to people wearing what they would at the event any where in the World (and I don't remember chess championships being famous for outrageous or scandalous clothing), or they can say good bye to hosting any International event.
97
Jan, you write, "Frankly, I'm getting bored with all this politically correct talk and behavior." Me too! I am sick to death of being told I need to respect all cultures equally, that all of their customs are valid and thus worthy of respect, etc. No I don't, and no they aren't. Women in Iran are required (by law) to wear a headscarf. This is because of the patriarchal religion, Islam, a religion designed by men for men, which holds that women (and not men) must cover themselves to show respect for their male patriarchal god, who apparently finds women's bodies offensive (otherwise, why would "modesty" mean covering up? To me, modesty means behaving without arrogance, not covering up parts of my body). Give me a break. Anyway, I don't respect any aspect of that one little bit, and I will not pretend to do so. Women everywhere need to speak out against oppression, and if that also means speaking out against and disrespecting (gasp!) the patriarchal religions that are associated with that oppression, then so be it.
4
You are quite welcome to remain in the 11th century, but don't judge those who refuse to be guided by fairy tales.
91
"As for players going abroad having to adopt a mode of dress that is foreign to them, it is perhaps useful to be clear about the sartorial burden: This isn’t about having to wear a burqa, but a light head scarf and a modest outfit. Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first, but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort."
This is a nonsensical argument. It isn't the burden of the requirement that is under argument, it is the requirement itself.
"Drinking at a different water fountain might seem awkward at first, but it seems the call for integrated fountains are driven more by politics than physical discomfort."
This is a nonsensical argument. It isn't the burden of the requirement that is under argument, it is the requirement itself.
"Drinking at a different water fountain might seem awkward at first, but it seems the call for integrated fountains are driven more by politics than physical discomfort."
200
The absolutely perfect comment. Thank you.
This op-ed misses the point relentlessly and thoroughly. Even if Iran has the 'right' to do this, the boycott is a an effective demonstration that contemporary global culture won't tolerate the imposition of this kind of cultural control, freighted with discrimination as it is...
83
In many, if not most, countries, women who walk around bare-breasted can be charged with indecent exposure, and in many countries women are asked to cover their shoulders in churches. I hear few objections to those practices, but what's the difference between covering breasts, shoulders, and heads? Most travellers try to respect local customs if they're not unduly onerous, but it seems when Islam is involved, respect goes out the window.
20
Seems to me it's more "No shirt, no shoes, no service."
Having women cover their head is pretty subservient. It's outdated and should not be required of someone not following a strict religious rule of their own accord.
Islam is not very popular right now for obvious reasons. Similar to the Japanese in the 1940s and 1950s. But I think that's beside the point.
Having women cover their head is pretty subservient. It's outdated and should not be required of someone not following a strict religious rule of their own accord.
Islam is not very popular right now for obvious reasons. Similar to the Japanese in the 1940s and 1950s. But I think that's beside the point.
3
Just because a law sounds the same to you, doesn't mean it is. Public indecency laws attempt to prevent lewd and lascivious behavior by some from being used to bully or coerce or embarrass more civilized and modest civilians. My guess though is that most men would support repealing any laws against women baring themselves. Covering shoulders has to do with being modest in the a place of reflection and religion in front of your god. The Islamic restrictions are intended to benefit the men's ownership of women by preventing women from showing themselves to other men. That way they cannot be swiped from other men's harems.
2
In many countries if men expose their genitals, they too will be charged with indecent exposure. People who want to subject themselves to orders from a religious organization are free to do so. But in this instance, a woman is being ordered to wear a piece of clothing which symbolizes an attitude which defines her as second class. The tournament is not being held in a religious institution. If you don't know the difference be tween covering breasts, shoulders, and heads, I cant't help you.
I would like to know exactly what sort of head covering the Western chess players will be forced to wear. Is it the kind pictured here, a tightly fitted scarf that covers the whole head except for the face? Or is it scarf that is loosely draped over the head, that reveals some of the hair and neck?
4
As Hillary so famously said, "what difference does it make?" The point is what the forced head-covering symbolizes; i.e., a quintessentially un-American, against freedom, equality and individual choice attitude, that is topped with no small amount of dominant aggression.
2
What's the difference? if you cannot see the person they are not there. By the way there arms are also covered as well as legs.
1
Does it matter if it's loose or tight? It's still a "modesty" covering.
1
This article is the perfect example of the cognitive dissonance of the left with respect to Islam. On one hand, Islam goes against everything the left stands for; on the other, Islam is anti-American and that seems to appeal to the left these days.
The only recourse is for writers to attempt to reverse the roles to make it seem like the boycotts are oppressing Iranian women. It is abundantly clear to everyone that Iran is attempting to force its culture on the international players, not the other way around.
The only recourse is for writers to attempt to reverse the roles to make it seem like the boycotts are oppressing Iranian women. It is abundantly clear to everyone that Iran is attempting to force its culture on the international players, not the other way around.
76
I am very left and very much for Nazi Paikidze's boycott.
Don't put words into the mouths or deeds onto those of us who are Liberal and Progressive. I for one am tired of hearing from the right in this manner.
Don't put words into the mouths or deeds onto those of us who are Liberal and Progressive. I for one am tired of hearing from the right in this manner.
17
Me, too, Joe.
I'm also tired of being lumped with all "libs" or "lefties," as if we speak with one voice and one mind.
I'm also tired of being lumped with all "libs" or "lefties," as if we speak with one voice and one mind.
1
I have no idea how this issue relates to cognitive dissonance of the 'left'. It may have something to do with this one misguided writer's cognitive dissonance, however.
1
" Wearing a head scarf can feel awkward at first, but it seems the calls for a boycott are driven more by politics than worries of physical discomfort."
It seems the author "knows best" what women feel when forced to wear a head scarf. When Muslims enter "Christian" countries they are NOT required to wear crosses or do anything that is traditionally Christian. And noone expects them to. However there is this double standard when "outsiders" come to Muslims countries.
I would ask the author not to speak for women about how they would feel to be forced to wear a scarf. It IS a big deal, and they should have a free choice to boycott the game, which they do. And they should not be shamed by the author because of that choice.
Women's rights are still fragile and the authors should celebrate their choice, not shame them for it.
It seems the author "knows best" what women feel when forced to wear a head scarf. When Muslims enter "Christian" countries they are NOT required to wear crosses or do anything that is traditionally Christian. And noone expects them to. However there is this double standard when "outsiders" come to Muslims countries.
I would ask the author not to speak for women about how they would feel to be forced to wear a scarf. It IS a big deal, and they should have a free choice to boycott the game, which they do. And they should not be shamed by the author because of that choice.
Women's rights are still fragile and the authors should celebrate their choice, not shame them for it.
205
You are so right! What goes for one, should go for all. Why should American women be forced to cover their heads over there, against their own culture, when those same Muslim women come to the U.S. and are not made to behave or dress in a manner consistent with our own culture? The double-standard involved here is quite impressive!
5
Christian country? If there were one now, it might well require visitors to wear crosses. Thanks God for secularism! That said, respecting the host country's tradition is definitely a sign of civilization. If that tradition is demeaning to women, however, it is also fair for others to boycott the event. Nobody can dictate that a country's government or religion respect its own people, but nobody should be forced to be complicit in its oppression of its own people, either.
1
The West needs to stay out. All we do is make things worse. When Iran wants to continue repression or not, let them decide for themselves.
12
With regard to military involvement I would agree with you that we need to keep out.
But if American women are considering competing, then I think we, as a nation, should consider taking a stand and boycotting the event.
Outside pressure such as that played a part in positive change such as the end of apartheid in South Africa. And though many Americans don't know or remember, strong vocal support from citizens of European countries helped strengthen the voices fighting for civil rights for blacks here in the USA during the 1950s and 60s.
There is a place for non-violent protest, boycotts, etc. They should not be misconstrued as akin to military intervention.
But if American women are considering competing, then I think we, as a nation, should consider taking a stand and boycotting the event.
Outside pressure such as that played a part in positive change such as the end of apartheid in South Africa. And though many Americans don't know or remember, strong vocal support from citizens of European countries helped strengthen the voices fighting for civil rights for blacks here in the USA during the 1950s and 60s.
There is a place for non-violent protest, boycotts, etc. They should not be misconstrued as akin to military intervention.
3
And if a woman wants to protest their medieval attitude toward women, let her decide for herself.
1
Sure. And that's what a boycott is--staying out.
3
Once again, a writer tries to whitewash this issue by making it sound as if "we outsiders" are telling Iranian women what to do.
No. The women participants know that all women participants will be forced to wear hijabs, and, by doing so, give tacit support to the Iranian government and priesthood forcing Iranian women to wear these garments.
Let's try an experiment. Rewrite this as "The Iranian government wants all Jewish players to wear a yellow star on their outfits. They see this as a mark of (cough, cough) deep respect for the Jewish players. What right do Jewish outsiders have to ask for a boycott of this event?" Would readers think that was a reasonable argument?
(Okay - perhaps a bad example: who knows if Iran would even let Jews play..)
I don't care if a woman wears a hijab or not - as long as it's her choice. (Be nice if she could drive a care without a male passenger, too.)
Until it is the woman's choice, this is a country that oppresses women and they shouldn't be allowed to host this tournament.
No. The women participants know that all women participants will be forced to wear hijabs, and, by doing so, give tacit support to the Iranian government and priesthood forcing Iranian women to wear these garments.
Let's try an experiment. Rewrite this as "The Iranian government wants all Jewish players to wear a yellow star on their outfits. They see this as a mark of (cough, cough) deep respect for the Jewish players. What right do Jewish outsiders have to ask for a boycott of this event?" Would readers think that was a reasonable argument?
(Okay - perhaps a bad example: who knows if Iran would even let Jews play..)
I don't care if a woman wears a hijab or not - as long as it's her choice. (Be nice if she could drive a care without a male passenger, too.)
Until it is the woman's choice, this is a country that oppresses women and they shouldn't be allowed to host this tournament.
152
In Iran, women can drive without a male passenger or permission and the only profession closed to women is the judiciary. When I was there last winter, I had the great opportunity to meet and talk to Iranians of all ages and backgrounds. And there is no single dress code for women; many wear fashionable head scarves that show several inches of hair along with leggings or jeans, high heels, and a tunic while others are fully veiled from head to toe. On some of the college campuses I visited, the young men and women mixed freely, and on others, the genders were more segregated. I urge you to go see for yourself--without hesitation, Iran is the most interesting country I've visited, and probably the friendliest and most helpful. Indeed, I've never felt safer just wandering in cities where I don't speak the language.
The Iranian government is not democratic, and the Quran doesn't mandate that non Muslims wear hijabs. But what is your reaction to French laws which seeks to ban face coverings or veils? Are the French now restricting the rights of people to dress as they want to? Your reference to Iranian antisemitism is interesting and ironic. Hitler, along with the tacit support of many Europeans, killed millions of Jewish people, and he largely succeeded in making the Jewish presence in Europe minimal. Undoubtedly, being Jewish in Iran is probably hard, but European anti Jewish feelings has no equal since 1933, the year Hitler gained power.
RWilsker, Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You're telling Iran, a sovereign nation, they it has no right in the modern world to make its own laws. In fact, your telling Iran that its legal system needs to copy yours because "'Merica". Get off your high horse and recognize that your country's sovereignty doesn't extend across the globe.
Again one of these pieces that represent the veil as an instrument of liberation. As alwas these pieces only report the opinions of women who, oppressed for generations, show the clear symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. Ms. Moaveni, why don't you interview the men, especially the clergy, who in the end dictate these rules and mete out punishments (shunning, flogging, lashes, stoning, beheadings) when they are not followed ? The fathers who kill their daughters ? You don't, because you are afraid and you know you can't change anything. In the end it is these men who will decide for you. You just give this discussion a pseudointellectual and pleasant face and serve them well.
53
Hijab and similar garb should not be donned because it is too frightening to the general public. One person's sacrifice in attire will benefit our collective society.
2
This commentary is so poorly reasoned I thought it was a satire. The author objects to the boycott because the "majority" of women in Iran wear the hijab voluntarily. Well, then, let the female players wear the hijab if they want; the purpose of the boycott, however, is to prevent Iran from forcing women to wear it. And the objection to the boycott based on the ground that the "outsiders think they know best" narrative hurts Iranian women sounds like the type of thing civil rights opponents used to say during the Civil Rights era: the South didn't want civil rights workers coming to their states during the 60s because they viewed them as "outsiders who think they know best." The boycott is awesome and should be front and center in civilized society's fight against radical Islam.
66
I think you've mistaken such boycotts. They're not just to "help" others; it's that we will not be subject to such restraints. In effect, our "boycott" is simply our refusal to "submit."
98
“All these girls and women who would not have left the house, hijab gave them a chance to study, to progress, to become involved in all kinds of activities, from laboratories to business to academia,” Professor Ettehadieh said. Outsiders may think they speak for Iranian women. “But they don’t.”
So the choice for Iranian women is to cover-up or live in isolation...and this is necessary because - ?
What is it about female independence that makes men so afraid?
So the choice for Iranian women is to cover-up or live in isolation...and this is necessary because - ?
What is it about female independence that makes men so afraid?
89
Or the female body.
Islamic dress codes = blaming women for men's sexual thoughts
Islamic dress codes = blaming women for men's sexual thoughts
5
Lack of control!
2
Boycott might be harmful, but what about civil disobedience? They can come over and break the taboo. Wouldn't be costly for a foreigner I suppose.
I wouldn't want to end up in an Iranian prison, having heard about their treatment of political prisoners. I don't believe their record on civil rights who make that a particularly good option.
1
A woman might be attacked, beaten or even killed going out in public without the required "modest" clothing.
1
Don't bet on that. Women who breaks the modesty code could be fined and imprisoned. The Iraqi government detained a Washington Post reporter with dual citizenship for more than 2 years for no better reason than they didn't like what he wrote. The World Chess Federation should not put women contestants from other countries in danger by holding a championship in a country where women do not have full civil rights, and where their customary dress--normal Western clothes--is against the law. Their compliance will appear as an endorsement. Nazi Paikidze is right--boycott.
2
The problem is with the World Chess Federation allowing Iran to host their tournament without having secured their agreement to allow competitors to dress as they choose (with allowance for requiring "modest" attire) - i.e, hijabs will not be required. If they couldn't get that agreement, they should refuse to allow the event to be in Iran.
I'm sure Iran was eager to have an event that would convey prestige and offered a lot of money to secure the right to host it - but we know they're bad people with excessively restrictive laws - no news there. The bad news is that the World Chess Federation was willing to kneel and sell out the competitors for a few bucks.
I'm sure Iran was eager to have an event that would convey prestige and offered a lot of money to secure the right to host it - but we know they're bad people with excessively restrictive laws - no news there. The bad news is that the World Chess Federation was willing to kneel and sell out the competitors for a few bucks.
30
Why is it that Iranians (and many other Muslim countries) are obsessed with making others respect their idiosyncrasies? When they go abroad-and even emigrate-do they respect the customs of where they are?
I haven't noticed it. If you want to host these events, you cater to the participants - not the other way around.
I haven't noticed it. If you want to host these events, you cater to the participants - not the other way around.
61
When a citizen of the UAE, visiting to obtain medical care at the Cleveland Clinic, was in a hotel lobby, someone called 911 and he was promptly thrown to the ground, which brought on physical collapse. His clothing -- a long white thobe, not unlike what the Pope wears -- was seen as foreign and dangerous. So, yes, some people do expect tourists to completely change their clothing when in the US and call the police when they do not.
I think the article makes the wrong rationale and spurious arguments. If Muslims in the west make the case that wearing the hijab or burqa is matter of their faith and they should be allowed to wear that, and covering up should not be viewed as a sign of gender repression. Those of us in the west or in other countries where women don't cover up, should not be forced to wear hijab's, burqas or other coverings as per Muslim country diktats. Women have a right to protest that. You can't have it both ways. It is downright hypocritical.
64
Viveka - East Lansing
As a fellow female, I respectfully disagree.
Growing up, I heard from a mother who had been a world traveler, suggesting, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".
I wouldn't mind donning hijab in the countries where that's the norm.
We're past the bra-burning of the 60's; let's make friends with people who live in different cultures.
We might learn something.
As a fellow female, I respectfully disagree.
Growing up, I heard from a mother who had been a world traveler, suggesting, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".
I wouldn't mind donning hijab in the countries where that's the norm.
We're past the bra-burning of the 60's; let's make friends with people who live in different cultures.
We might learn something.
1
I think she argues her case well but I still disagree. If we leave aside the feminist rhetoric, requiring the foreign chess players to wear the scarf is still cultural imposition. If Iran is not ready to recieve the female competitors "as they are," and respect their beliefs, then it might not be ready for this level of competition. That other players have not complained before is irrelevant. A western equivalent would be if the U.S. held an international chess competition and required Muslim women to REMOVE the hijab. Or to use an actual example, when towns in France and elsewhere banned the so-called "burkinis." I disagreed with that decision as well. If I've learned one thing is that, for people to get along, respect must be a two-way street.
69
A mandatory headscarf law is an act of oppression against the chess players. Why shouldn't they boycott when they themselves are the victims? If you do no concede that a headscarf is just a matter of physical discomfort for Iranian women, why would you make such a ridiculous claim for visitors? There is a rich irony in the claim that the victims of oppression should speak for themselves when the only real protest Ms. Paikidze is making here is a refusal to become a victim of oppression herself.
57
Force conformation to a headscarf requirement is degrading to the women partiicpating in the tournament and represents the willingness of the decent, secular world to bow to ignorance. We do not need to 'respect" superstition.
33
I cringed every time one of our female government representatives wore a head scarf. Get some"balls" ladies.
1
No, but you do need to respect the laws of countries that you choose to visit.
Funny, I was in Iran in 1971 and I saw hordes of women without the
hijab. Apparently Iran's "timeless tradition" wasn't flly functioning under the shah. I also saw transparent chadors.
hijab. Apparently Iran's "timeless tradition" wasn't flly functioning under the shah. I also saw transparent chadors.
147
Peter, that is the reason to boycott. Iran in the 1970s was much more liberal. It's been overrun by religious zealots making new rules that disempower women. As a woman chess player, I can assure you the world of chess competition is misogynist and stressful enough without the women being put down for their gender. The hijab rule has a psychological impact on Western women that may squash their performance. The hijab rule makes the competition not a true test of chess championship, but rather a game of who can compete in a hyper-religious environment while being told they should be ashamed of themselves. Stupid. The championship should be about the game of chess, not about the political games of a certain nation, gender or religion.
2
It doesn't contradicts what the article says, those out in public without hijab was not all tje population. Hijab despite the fact that I dont agree made huge number of conservative fdmilies to have their daughters, wife ... participaye in society as the article says. Besides you most probsbly visited Tehran or had limited exposure. As the uprosing for jhomeini in 1964 showed a large part of population was still conservatove nack then
Peter Heinegg - Schenectady
" in '71 hordes of women without hijab".
You should see them today, in a beautiful scarf usually falling off the back of the head & dressed in a "manteau", hardly un-revealing of the figure beneath.
" in '71 hordes of women without hijab".
You should see them today, in a beautiful scarf usually falling off the back of the head & dressed in a "manteau", hardly un-revealing of the figure beneath.
1
Perhaps the author has a point; outsiders shouldn't make arguments against the veil for anyone but themselves. That said, the progress of women's rights and the potential for women's opportunity in Iran is irrelevant to me insofar as it dictates my behavior. I support these women while at the same time acknowledging that I do not need to stand with them under a veil in order respect and honor their right to foment change precisely as they wish.
But Ms. Baniyaghoob, who was quoted saying that a boycott doesn't move the cause of Iranian women forward, is missing the point. A refusal to attend has nothing to do with the rights of Iranian woman, it has to do with the rights of the refuser.
I personally would not attend an international event in a country that forced me to cover my head or hair. I would happy dress modestly or conform to certain things out of respect for a host nation, but the headscarf is a religious symbol and I do not adhere to a religion. Freedom of and freedom from.
But Ms. Baniyaghoob, who was quoted saying that a boycott doesn't move the cause of Iranian women forward, is missing the point. A refusal to attend has nothing to do with the rights of Iranian woman, it has to do with the rights of the refuser.
I personally would not attend an international event in a country that forced me to cover my head or hair. I would happy dress modestly or conform to certain things out of respect for a host nation, but the headscarf is a religious symbol and I do not adhere to a religion. Freedom of and freedom from.
125
That is the point. Self refusal and not because of Iranian people. At the moment it is rule of the nation hosting the event so anyone who wants to participate hast to abide by the rule. On the other hand regardless of what you do it still will project as if you are pressuring the nation for its beliefs based on your own belief and from Iranian women perspective this bullying doesnt look good and a sign of another western hahemony on a religion, nation or culture. Overall despite your rigjt of refusal the outcome is not good and rather self centred!
1
And you could perfectly well choose not to attend if you wish to not follow the laws of another country.
1
Never should a chess player or any person be forced to wear a head scarf. These women are truly blind to what this means. I am signing on to that petition. It might be there ticket out of the house, but it is our passport to demeaning women.
36
I was under the impression that the boycott by many members had more to do with what they believe to be an attack on their individual freedoms, rather than some effort to stand with their Iranian sisters.
45
Dress code has been used by parts of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to oppress and control women and men. That said, I totally agree with the logic of this article, I think Ms. Moaveni articulates very good points here. If your goal in boycott is to help reduce the oppression of Iranian women, this is counter productive and will hurt not help their cause.
Brave Iranian women have been fighting this for a few decades now and made enormous progress, even if it's come gradually. There's still a long way to go, but if you compare the social status of women in Iran with other Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate, but glaring example), they're enjoying a lot more freedom and opportunities that they've earned through their own sacrifices. Go visit, talk to women and men there, and then decide how you can help.
Brave Iranian women have been fighting this for a few decades now and made enormous progress, even if it's come gradually. There's still a long way to go, but if you compare the social status of women in Iran with other Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate, but glaring example), they're enjoying a lot more freedom and opportunities that they've earned through their own sacrifices. Go visit, talk to women and men there, and then decide how you can help.
5
I support every woman's right to wear the clothes of her choice, but in Iran hijab is not a choice but mandated by the state. And the rule ironically devalues religious women - their choice means nothing when it is illegal to do otherwise.
The purpose of the protest is not to scold Iranian women for following the law, but to show Iranian leaders that such laws are unacceptable in the modern world. It is ridiculous to defend a country which is so obviously wrong in this respect, especially with the "it's no big deal" vibe which I get from this column. Yes I do think women's rights are a big deal, and I do think it's a big deal when women are not free to pick out their own clothes.
That is why I support the right of women in the West to wear a hijab, including at the beach or any place they want. And Westerners who call the hijab oppressive are often patronizing in their efforts to re-oppress by banning the garment. But that doesn't change the fact that Iran is an undeniable case of state-sanctioned women's oppression.
The purpose of the protest is not to scold Iranian women for following the law, but to show Iranian leaders that such laws are unacceptable in the modern world. It is ridiculous to defend a country which is so obviously wrong in this respect, especially with the "it's no big deal" vibe which I get from this column. Yes I do think women's rights are a big deal, and I do think it's a big deal when women are not free to pick out their own clothes.
That is why I support the right of women in the West to wear a hijab, including at the beach or any place they want. And Westerners who call the hijab oppressive are often patronizing in their efforts to re-oppress by banning the garment. But that doesn't change the fact that Iran is an undeniable case of state-sanctioned women's oppression.
17
Appease appease appease Moaveni's idea of fighting for women's rights is to wash the dishes even better, keep the house even cleaner, and cook even better meals lest the master beats her harder. Look at ALL the progress women have made in just 30 short years: "cloaks without buttons" This article is an embarrassing, p.c., "us" vs. "them" where "we" ought not offend "them" because they are too weak and abject but absolutely righteous. It amounts to saying 'if everybody just chills we'll all die soon and won't have to deal with it any more'
28
It is ironic that the argument made in support of the French ban on burkinis is now being made in support of the requirement that all women...Iranian and non-iranian, Muslim and non-Muslim...wear a hijab while in Iran. Both the French and the Iranians say this is an internal matter and not up to outsiders to decide. It seems hypocritical to support wearing a burkina on the Riviera while condemning those who do not wish to wear a hijab in Teheran.
30
nonsense. requiring participants to wear religious clothing not their own choosing should not be required. the dress of the participants should be at the sole discretion of the international chess authority and the participants.
as for the author's the "go-slow" arguments, those are the same arguments that were made in opposition to the anti-apartheid movement, the civil rights movements and countless other freedom movements. the proponents of glacial progress point to extremely modest gains, made over decades ans most of them for show only, as evidence that glacial progress works. nonsense!!!!!!!
as for the author's the "go-slow" arguments, those are the same arguments that were made in opposition to the anti-apartheid movement, the civil rights movements and countless other freedom movements. the proponents of glacial progress point to extremely modest gains, made over decades ans most of them for show only, as evidence that glacial progress works. nonsense!!!!!!!
35
Here's a thought exercise: change "hijab law in Iran" to "segregation in the 1950s Southern U.S." or to "apartheid in 1970s South Africa" and the arguments the author of this article makes sound just as plausible as reasons not to send the federal government to protect blacks against oppression in the South, or reasons not to boycott South Africa during the apartheid there.
Basically what the writer is saying is "whenever group X is oppressed, nosy outsiders who are upset about the oppression should never intervene or try to call attention to the oppression through a peaceful boycott, because the members of group X accept their oppression willingly, and only members of group X should be the ones who should protest against their own oppression. Any outside protests will only anger and humiliate the oppressors and give them excuses to make the oppression even worse." Does this ring true to you? If you think it's true in Iran, do you think it was true in other historical examples?
And consider this as well: the threat of major women chess players to boycott the championship in Iran was what goes this article written, and what got us all talking about the subject of the oppression of women in Iran, so even without the boycott taking place yet it has already changed the conversation and in so doing achieved a very worthy goal.
Basically what the writer is saying is "whenever group X is oppressed, nosy outsiders who are upset about the oppression should never intervene or try to call attention to the oppression through a peaceful boycott, because the members of group X accept their oppression willingly, and only members of group X should be the ones who should protest against their own oppression. Any outside protests will only anger and humiliate the oppressors and give them excuses to make the oppression even worse." Does this ring true to you? If you think it's true in Iran, do you think it was true in other historical examples?
And consider this as well: the threat of major women chess players to boycott the championship in Iran was what goes this article written, and what got us all talking about the subject of the oppression of women in Iran, so even without the boycott taking place yet it has already changed the conversation and in so doing achieved a very worthy goal.
64
Your analogy is appropriate and enlightening, but let's not call this author's "arguments" plausible. They are comical at best, and very very far from plausible.
5
Leila Ahmed of Women and Gender in Islam quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, "Their (women) mere presence in public was described as 'seditious'" and "they were required to don the Islamic hijab, covering them from top to toe and to return to the home". Ahmed explains that many of the current ideas of what a woman is and how she should be treated and seen occurred during the Abbasid era, 750-1258. Ahmed explains it was in the Abbasid era that "the words woman, and slave and object for sexual use came close to being indistinguishably fused." There is a campaign in Iran that compares women to rotten fruit when they are not veiled and candy that should be wrapped. Currently there is a fatwa against women riding bicycles in Iran. There are morality police that look for immodest dress. Let's not forget where this ideology to cover stems from, it is not just a piece of cloth. In Saudi Arabia in 2002 a fire spread in a girls school, and the morality police would not let the girls out with their headscarves. Their modesty was more important than their lives. So people who say get over it, I guess you should have told Rosa Parks to get over it, just sit in the back of the bus, it is not a big deal. Men who say it is not a big idea, why don't you put a veil on and wear it all the time. And if you don't you will be denied an education, your job, you freedom in the public space. What is the first thing that all forms of Wahhabism do - cover the women.
36
Whether the "Hijab" in Iran or the policies favored by religious Conservatives in the U.S., the principle is the same, the limitation of a women's agency. The specifics are obviously of different degrees, but the reality is the same. When you examine the practices of religious fundamentalists in every major religion, they are the mortal enemy of autonomy for women. The idea that contemporary women have to obey dictums that date from hundreds of years ago, ethically invalidates those religions.
25
If you look at "hijab" as a symbol of female suppression, which it is, then the argument would be academic. If you left it to the Iranian women, over 90% of them will not wear it which means that now they are being FORCED by a male dominated Theocracy. Resisting the enforcement of draconian religious laws and tradition must become paramount in any and all discussions, be it Civil Liberties or Chess Championship. Boycott is right thing to do.
87
how do you know that over 90% will not wear it? Do you have anything to back that up? The article clearly suggests otherwise, that a majority are wearing it by choice. I'm not defending the law mandating it, mind you, and you are right. But we should keep it in perspective. This is the least oppressive of the veiling options for muslim women.
4
augias84, what "choice" is it when there is no choice permitted based on gender? Another comment here points out that during the shah's reign, there were no scarfs or coverings on women. Don't you have access to photographs from that period? Women were free to decide, and they chose to not cover up. Period.
3
Where do you get the 90% figure?
I also think the article misses the point. What Iranian women wear in their own country is one thing, but forcing visitors from other countries to follow their religious rules is just wrong. When Muslim women competed in Olympic volleyball, they wore their traditional outfits -- they didn't adapt to western dress. Which is fine. Iran has no right to police the dress of chess players from other countries and cultures.
206
This argument makes sense -- countries should not try to police clothing decisions on religious grounds of foreigners who they are inviting to participate in a international competition. However, if you changed the names of the countries in this argument, then it could just as easily apply to the recent French laws (now being overturned by the national courts) banning the wearing of the Burkini in certain French municipalities. The point is that cultural symbolism have different narratives for different cultural groups, and can sometimes be contradictory (i.e. hijab and burkini represent symbols of women activating their freedom -- versus -- hijab and burkini represent symbols of the deactivation of freedom). Both could be right -- but it depends on the context. Dialogue and conversation might lead to meaningful steps forward. But in the meantime, accepting that people have different definitions of success (when one side sees the other's definition of success as failure) might be the hardest part.
Are the male players going to be forbidden to wear counter-revolutionary, anti-Islamic neckties?
10
Why should it help Iranian Women? This isn't about helping others, this is about setting boundaries for what one is ready to accept. Religion is sheer bigotry. Those who want to follow the cult are free to do so, those who do not want to should also be free to do so. No everything is a statement, no everything is politics.
42
Anyone who is familiar with the career of the great Bobby Fischer will recall how he was sensitive to even a fan blowing while he played. Imagine if he were forced to wear a head scarf while defending his title.
82
To be fair, Fisher was just plain nuts.
6
Bobby Fischer was not a woman...only women are required to wear headscarves in Iran
5
He was seriously mentally ill (nuts, in plain language).
1
I think the women in Iran are oppressed in many ways. I do not think an non-Iranian being told to wear a scarf while playing chess is a form of oppression. I didn't wear shorts while in the Peace Corps in Afghanistan and didn't see it as a form of oppression. The head scarf has become the symbol of seriously bad and, in my opinion, immoral gender relations but it really is just a scarf.
3
I agree that most people try to do like the Romans do, when in Rome. But in this case it is not "just a scarf". It means different things in different places, but inside Iran, putting on the scarf determines whether you are allowed to go outside, whether you are viewed as a moral person, whether you will be arrested by the state.
1
A Confederate flag and a KKK robe are really just pieces of cloth too, right?
1
Easy for you to say. You don't have to wear one.
1
I would assume that someone who enjoys chess and presumably plays a pretty good chess game would have a grasp of the fundamentals of sentential logic - alas - I was wrong.
There is not a sound argument here.
There is not a sound argument here.
33
Really disturbing article. Sad to see it here.
74
I'm glad to see it here, just to read the great comments.
1
Same old same old. Pick fights about sexy, symbolic issues.
So in the US we’re embroiled in a controversy about who gets to use which bathroom. Meanwhile, the male-female wage gap has hasn’t appreciably narrowed since the 1990s. And most women, the 2/3 who don’t have college degrees are still locked into the pink-collar sector: women’s representation in all blue collar jobs remains in low single digits. But we’ve won symbolically: Walmart wage slaves are called ‘associates’ and secretaries are called ‘administrative assistants’.
It’s an empirical question whether symbolic victories promote real, material change for the better. And doesn’t look to me like they have.
So in the US we’re embroiled in a controversy about who gets to use which bathroom. Meanwhile, the male-female wage gap has hasn’t appreciably narrowed since the 1990s. And most women, the 2/3 who don’t have college degrees are still locked into the pink-collar sector: women’s representation in all blue collar jobs remains in low single digits. But we’ve won symbolically: Walmart wage slaves are called ‘associates’ and secretaries are called ‘administrative assistants’.
It’s an empirical question whether symbolic victories promote real, material change for the better. And doesn’t look to me like they have.
14
Would you protest a beach-side restaurant that posted a sign, "No shirt, no shoes, no service?"
International women chess players, do women in Iran, and yourselves, a favor: Prove that you are above the pettiness of men. Go to Iran, wear scarves, play chess.
Chess players, of all people, should understand and appreciate that it's not the pieces you lose along the path to victory that determines the winner of the game, but the most effective strategy that produces a checkmate. Chess players, of all people, should think strategically.
International women chess players, do women in Iran, and yourselves, a favor: Prove that you are above the pettiness of men. Go to Iran, wear scarves, play chess.
Chess players, of all people, should understand and appreciate that it's not the pieces you lose along the path to victory that determines the winner of the game, but the most effective strategy that produces a checkmate. Chess players, of all people, should think strategically.
14
Prove that they are above the pettiness of men by doing exactly what a hoard of theocratic men want them to do? This boycott is not petty. It's a basic exercise of a personal freedom that you as a man have probably never feared being taken from you.
5
Better yet, perhaps all the international players, men and women, should appease this writer by wearing head scarves, eh?
3
If the beachside restaurant insisted only women wear shirt and shoes and men could come in shirtless and shoeless? Then yes, I would protest. It's one thing to have certain rules of dress. It's another to have them apply only to one group.
3
When in Rome....
I come from a "culture" where one must remove your shoes before entering the house. If you come over to my house, you must remove your shoes. and why are folks so obsessed with "modesty" in religion? Why aren't all these American chess players protesting Orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs or Amish women wearing bonnets?
I come from a "culture" where one must remove your shoes before entering the house. If you come over to my house, you must remove your shoes. and why are folks so obsessed with "modesty" in religion? Why aren't all these American chess players protesting Orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs or Amish women wearing bonnets?
12
Agree totally
(Not Mark) Do the orthodox Jewish women and Amish women force other women to wear their clothes?
15
Because they are being required to wear the headscarf themselves.
4
Here's a story in the New Yorker by a secular Turkish woman who returned to Turkey.
She found that the scarf was used by the religiously conservative majority to oppress the significant miniority of secular Turks like herself.
It's not voluntary. Men "warned" her that if she didn't wear the scarf, she could be raped.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/cover-story-personal-histor...
February 8 & 15, 2016 Issue
Cover Story: The head scarf, modern Turkey, and me.
By Elif Batuman
She found that the scarf was used by the religiously conservative majority to oppress the significant miniority of secular Turks like herself.
It's not voluntary. Men "warned" her that if she didn't wear the scarf, she could be raped.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/cover-story-personal-histor...
February 8 & 15, 2016 Issue
Cover Story: The head scarf, modern Turkey, and me.
By Elif Batuman
109
Personally I admire the Iranian women for the way they wear their headscarf.
The further they push it up and to the back, the greater their personal freedom, a simple indicator on how things are doing in Iran.
Currently the scarf in Tehran are mostly nearly on the top of their heads which I see as a good sign with regards to their personal freedom.
Good luck for further moving their scarf towards the back of their heads.
Seen from many recent visits to Iran, opening the country is a logical thing and one that can be expected as most Iranians are simply weary after decades of Islamic revolution.
Or, in the words of a government official who does not like to see her name in the media "It is a cycle of two generations that goes around the Persian Gulf and which makes change inevitable every time of comes around".
Let's hope for improvement towards women's rights this time...
The further they push it up and to the back, the greater their personal freedom, a simple indicator on how things are doing in Iran.
Currently the scarf in Tehran are mostly nearly on the top of their heads which I see as a good sign with regards to their personal freedom.
Good luck for further moving their scarf towards the back of their heads.
Seen from many recent visits to Iran, opening the country is a logical thing and one that can be expected as most Iranians are simply weary after decades of Islamic revolution.
Or, in the words of a government official who does not like to see her name in the media "It is a cycle of two generations that goes around the Persian Gulf and which makes change inevitable every time of comes around".
Let's hope for improvement towards women's rights this time...
6
Yeah, it is so cute! Isn't it? When some women wear their headscarves further back! Such rebels. They should be careful though, they could be asking for trouble from the Sharia Law police. Wow. When will Muslim women start burning these things? See the difference being in the US when women burn apparel they are recognized as equals. But in Muslim countries they would be jailed, raped, murdered. I wish these people would evolve into the 21st century.
3
It is obvious that you have neither understood what I was writing about nor that you, unlike me, have ever been to Iran or any other Muslim country.
So you also have no idea what you are talking about.
But at least you mastered the art of posting online.
So you also have no idea what you are talking about.
But at least you mastered the art of posting online.
The tournament should be boycotted because the Iranian government has tried to enforce its religious rules on women who are not of that religion. If they want to engage on an international stage they will have to learn, yes learn to be accommodating to others. It's time to stand up to these theocrats. Boycott away!
165
The Eastern traditions, that have endured for centuries, will continue to puzzle Westerners. We just don't get it.
Of course, it's find for Muslim women to wear head scarfs, regardless of whether it's mandated by the government, or a religious requirement.
Those visiting the countries which require women to wear head scarfs, should have to abide by those rules. If they have strong convictions against the rules, don't visit the country.
It's that simple - respect all people all of the time. You don't have to agree, or visit, or play chess.....just respect.
Of course, it's find for Muslim women to wear head scarfs, regardless of whether it's mandated by the government, or a religious requirement.
Those visiting the countries which require women to wear head scarfs, should have to abide by those rules. If they have strong convictions against the rules, don't visit the country.
It's that simple - respect all people all of the time. You don't have to agree, or visit, or play chess.....just respect.
6
Slavery was a tradition that endured for thousands of years. We do get it. It is politically correct to accept the oppression of women through the symbolism of dress. The slightest mistake in language in the United States, done without malice, is cause for people to be shunned and lose their jobs.
For some reason, we accept that 'religion' makes acceptable a culture of repression. That some women buy into 'faith' as an argument is similar to the long history of the oppressed being hoodwinked by their oppressors.
The acceptance of religious oppression as as a backlash to equally unacceptable Islamophobia does not mean the religious oppression should be celebrated as a valuable different cultural statement.
For some reason, we accept that 'religion' makes acceptable a culture of repression. That some women buy into 'faith' as an argument is similar to the long history of the oppressed being hoodwinked by their oppressors.
The acceptance of religious oppression as as a backlash to equally unacceptable Islamophobia does not mean the religious oppression should be celebrated as a valuable different cultural statement.
6
(Not Mark) Respect works both ways.
6
no it is not that simple
2
If women want to wear these get-ups in Muslim country, not that they have any choice, let them do so. It's a RELIGIOUS statement, I guess, that says God put men in charge. Nobody else needs to comply, and if Iran wants to host this tournament, they should be ready to accept a lot of normally dressed foreign women. Otherwise, they can give up the idea of being the center of attention for something that matters more than a religious dress code. Take it, or leave it.
175
As the saying goes, it is always important to choose one's battles carefully. A boycott to protest the brutalization of women would express solidarity with the people of Iran. But a decision to stay home because you reject the clothing requirements of the government, standards, moreover, which many Iranian women at least tolerate, may reflect personal distaste more than concern over the welfare of the people with whom you claim solidarity.
As Ms. Moaveni stresses, the key issue at stake is the government's willingness to permit women to compete in international events, a recognition of their independence that no clothing restriction could obscure. Time for a little common sense.
As Ms. Moaveni stresses, the key issue at stake is the government's willingness to permit women to compete in international events, a recognition of their independence that no clothing restriction could obscure. Time for a little common sense.
9
There is no common sense in sexism.
"She started an online petition to 'stop women’s oppression' and to challenge the chess federation’s decision."
That's the right thing to do in my opinion. How can these chess players stop women's oppression if they allow the Iranian theocrats to oppress them?
There is no excuse for forcing a woman, Muslim or not Muslim, to wear the ridiculous hijab. People who obey this insulting rule are part of the problem.
That's the right thing to do in my opinion. How can these chess players stop women's oppression if they allow the Iranian theocrats to oppress them?
There is no excuse for forcing a woman, Muslim or not Muslim, to wear the ridiculous hijab. People who obey this insulting rule are part of the problem.
123
I think this article misses the point completely. I do agree that the tournament should not be boycotted under the guise of protecting Iranian women's' rights. If Iranian women want to wear a head scarf or burqa, that's their issue. If they are being oppressed into doing so, again that's their problem. I do think it should be boycotted because no one should be forced to wear a head scarf. If Islam wants to oppress it's own people, that's fine. Don't oppress others. How would a muslim male feel if for a tournament in Israel they had to wear a prayer shawl or a Kippah? One might argue those are religious symbols and the head scarf is not. But the reality is the headscarf is not only a garment of "modesty". It has become synonymous with Islam, so it is an article of religion.
270
And I disagree with you. All women in Iran must wear hijabs and that, though respectful of Islam, is disrespectful of what should be the right of women who don't want to wear it regardless of its significance. If Ms Nazi is standing up for strongheld beliefs in support of freedom of choice, I am 100% in support of her. I do not want anyone being forced in the US to wear any clothes by law nor to have Catholic women have to wear hijabs in Iran.
Personally, I would never consent by choice to go to Iran, too much repression as is most of the middle east.
Personally, I would never consent by choice to go to Iran, too much repression as is most of the middle east.
I follow and am followed by several young women in Iran on Instagram. In all of their posts, they appear with the headscarf barely on their head or they're not wearing one at all.
I am an atheist who abhors organized religion and all the strange ceremonies and beliefs that go along with them. In MY perfect world, religion is banned globally and permitted only in the privacy of one's home (if at all).
How anyone can defend a government or culture or religion that DEMANDS women cover their head is beyond me (and common sense). Sure, many women "choose" to wear it. But perhaps this is due to centuries of brainwashing and male-dictated mandates.
Yes, the movement to discard these archaic beliefs and dictates must begin and occur organically in the places where they exist. And any change from outside forces must and should be rejected.
But to expect women who DON'T belong to that culture or share any of their backward beliefs to subscribe to a dress code that diminishes their personal freedom is ridiculous.
I am an atheist who abhors organized religion and all the strange ceremonies and beliefs that go along with them. In MY perfect world, religion is banned globally and permitted only in the privacy of one's home (if at all).
How anyone can defend a government or culture or religion that DEMANDS women cover their head is beyond me (and common sense). Sure, many women "choose" to wear it. But perhaps this is due to centuries of brainwashing and male-dictated mandates.
Yes, the movement to discard these archaic beliefs and dictates must begin and occur organically in the places where they exist. And any change from outside forces must and should be rejected.
But to expect women who DON'T belong to that culture or share any of their backward beliefs to subscribe to a dress code that diminishes their personal freedom is ridiculous.
142
"In MY perfect world, religion is banned globally and permitted only in the privacy of one's home (if at all)."
How would you enforce your "ban" in your "perfect world"?
How would you enforce your "ban" in your "perfect world"?
6
Nothing to enforce. Historical houses of worship can be memorialized as museums and others re-purposed as learning centers or housing. Of course, people can "pray" to themselves. Just no organized, large-scale religion.
3
well, thankfully for the vast majority of the world's population, we don't live in your perfect world.
2
Wearing a veil or any other article of clothing by choice is one thing, making someone wear it or not is something else entirely, particularly a visitor to your home or country.
228
This isn't about Iranian woman. If the woman chess champion does not want to wear a hijab because she feels it oppresses women, then that's all there is to it. Let's be clear about what the problem is here. The hijab is not a "custom". It's the LAW. And that means women there HAVE to wear it. Their wishes are irrelevant. How is that not anti-women?
If the hijab was merely a custom, I'm sure she would have no problem attending. She might even wear it! But when it's a LAW, that means she's deprived of choice. And why would anyone voluntarily give up their choice?
If the hijab was merely a custom, I'm sure she would have no problem attending. She might even wear it! But when it's a LAW, that means she's deprived of choice. And why would anyone voluntarily give up their choice?
362
What about laws in the U.S. or India where men can go without a shirt but women must cover their breasts? How are those not anti-women?
In New York City, by the way, it is perfectly legal for women to be topless in public, whether at a park or on the streets of Manhattan.
In New York City, by the way, it is perfectly legal for women to be topless in public, whether at a park or on the streets of Manhattan.
1
"Veiling has been customary in Iran for centuries, and a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice."
Choice is the keyword. Making chess competitors and other Iranian women wear scarves by law is as wrong as burkini ban and shaming by the French.
Choice is the keyword. Making chess competitors and other Iranian women wear scarves by law is as wrong as burkini ban and shaming by the French.
87
"a majority of Iranian women, regardless of the law, wear the head scarf by choice."....How do you know?
10
Head scarves are highly unpopular among a large portion of the Iranian population, but until the laws are changed local customs have to be obeyed.
The amount of publicity generated by this chess event suggests misguided priorities by the world media. There really are far more important matters to discuss, such as Mrs. Clinton's 30,000 emails that have been hacked by Wikileaks and confirm her sending of weapons to ISIS and to Islamic Jihadists in order to topple Assad.
While the media are focussing their attention on Islamic fashion, Islamic extremists are plotting another wave of death and destruction, and they don't care whether the victims wear headscarves or not.
The amount of publicity generated by this chess event suggests misguided priorities by the world media. There really are far more important matters to discuss, such as Mrs. Clinton's 30,000 emails that have been hacked by Wikileaks and confirm her sending of weapons to ISIS and to Islamic Jihadists in order to topple Assad.
While the media are focussing their attention on Islamic fashion, Islamic extremists are plotting another wave of death and destruction, and they don't care whether the victims wear headscarves or not.
7
I agree there are far more important issues. Like the refusal of the Iranian govt. to recognize the state of Israel. Which has zero to do with the Palestinian issue, but everything to do with regarding Jews as second class, dhimmi, and that dhimmi have "no right" to a country of their own, let alone to be considered on par with everyone else.
12
Let's see, local customs like FGM, child marriage, honor killings?
13
Well, Rosalie, since you mention the dhimmi I believe it's only right to mention the Goy who have no rights according to the Babylonian Talmud.
And, by the way, your comment about recognition of Israel is plain wrong, a myth perpetrated by the media and the Hasbara: Iran's religious leader Khamenei has repeated endlessly that Iran will recognize the State of Israel whenever the Palestinians do. So isn't a 2-State solution well overdue?
And, by the way, your comment about recognition of Israel is plain wrong, a myth perpetrated by the media and the Hasbara: Iran's religious leader Khamenei has repeated endlessly that Iran will recognize the State of Israel whenever the Palestinians do. So isn't a 2-State solution well overdue?
1
I think it's what the hijab symbolizes to many women that makes its use/required wearing so objectionable. It reminds me of the way I see Hasidic men and women dressed: almost every part of their bodies are covered, men have the payos, women wear wigs, some activities are segregated by sex.
I grew up in America seeing women wear bikinis, men wearing skimpy bathing suits, bare midriffs even when we were in high school, mini-skirts, etc. I'm accustomed to dressing very lightly when it's hot. I cannot imagine wearing a hijab, a burkah, or anything else that would restrict my freedom of movement or field of vision in any way. But that's my culture and if I had to go to any athletic or academic event in a country that asked me to cover up I would provided that when they came to America they followed our way of dressing to some degree.
My issues are more with the way women in many countries are marginalized, treated like subhumans, or expected to be more virtuous than the men and suffer accordingly. Dress is one issue but poor treatment or being reduced to less than the status of a beast of burden is much worse.
I grew up in America seeing women wear bikinis, men wearing skimpy bathing suits, bare midriffs even when we were in high school, mini-skirts, etc. I'm accustomed to dressing very lightly when it's hot. I cannot imagine wearing a hijab, a burkah, or anything else that would restrict my freedom of movement or field of vision in any way. But that's my culture and if I had to go to any athletic or academic event in a country that asked me to cover up I would provided that when they came to America they followed our way of dressing to some degree.
My issues are more with the way women in many countries are marginalized, treated like subhumans, or expected to be more virtuous than the men and suffer accordingly. Dress is one issue but poor treatment or being reduced to less than the status of a beast of burden is much worse.
27