Fewer choices is not the same thing as no choice. And again, you are preemptively excusing her actions by assuming mitigating circumstances that may or may not exist. I’m willing to recognize that there may be circumstances that make this propagandist’s hypocrisy less egregious, but I’m not willing to assume it and excuse her behavior.
(and not for nothing, but you still haven’t answered my earlier question)
But the comparisons some are making are with American politicians. It’s apple and oranges. I don’t even think the comparision to Sean Hannity is particular fair, given that he has choices that this woman does not. Yes, she has some choices, but we actually don’t KNOW all her available choices or the reasons she makes for her career.
Fair enough. For those keeping track of this, you mean this one:
I think that yes, you’re open to criticism. But I do think it’s important to note that the circumstances do matter and shouldn’t be ignored.
The circumstances shouldn’t be ignored, and they shouldn’t be presumed.
You’re right that we don’t KNOW all her available choices or the reasons she chooses to advance backward theocratic propaganda that harms women, but we do KNOW that she does it, and is also able to have a nice vacation in Switzerland where she is able to have a beer and enjoy the sun. I do not think we should ignore what we do know, nor should we be unwilling to criticize actions which make the world a worse place.
That’s a fair point, but at the same time she is actively perpetuating the ideology, culture, and system. If she was any thing else and dressed and abstained one way in Iran, and another way abroad, no one would fault her.
Though one could also read that tweet that the reason she acted the way she did was because the norms in her vacation spot were the problem - forcing her to blend in, vs being observant.
That’s probably the reason we aren’t talking about the other women with fewer choices but instead are lambasting a well heeled hypocrite. This discussion isn’t about the fact that many women in her country are living in fragile circumstances but rather it’s a discussion about a person with wealth, influence, and the power of the media at her disposal who encourages her countrywomen to continue to live in subservience in direct contradiction to how she chooses to live and does so in exchange for the wealth, power, and influence which allows her to vacation in Switzerland, drink beer, and wear nothing on her head.
Apologies if this has been addressed upthread, but does her personal moral culpability, or lack of it, really bear on the legitimacy of exposing her hypocrisy (for want of a better word) as a tactic of resistance?
People end up on the wrong side of conflicts for all sorts of reasons, not least plain happenstance. It’s unfortunate. But that doesn’t make the fight itself wrong.
Do you mean to say that their conservatives promote unrealistic standards of public behavior while they are privately able to indulge in acts they would condemn in others?
How weird their conservatives are. So unlike our conservatives. /s
it’s not hers, personally. It’s a series of tubes, you see.
“50 kinds of breakfast cereal with different names, whose ingredients all read exactly the same”
Yes, I do.
No one said the fight was wrong, but that not everyone can or wants to be “freedom fighters.”
What about women who like her because she seems to share their world view about modesty?
Wouldn’t one derive from the other? Obviously people who oppose the regime have less freedom of movement. How much importance should we put of the freedom of movement for her and HER FAMILY (Likely her extended family) be in judging this situation?
I believe that’s a discussion entirely removed from the current topic. However, you will find women in the U.S. who support Trump, in the U.K. who support May, and women in Russia who support Putin. That being the case, I think there is an argument to be made that no matter your situation, you will always find both men and women who have nationalistic, jingoistic, or fundamentalist views which run contrary to their own best interests.
That’s the same issue over and over again: Is it ok to actively support an oppressive regime I don’t believe in in order to improve my situation and the situation of my family? I say no.
This is a really gross thing to do and you should take it down.
No matter who she is, if she risks reprisals — from her employer, the legal system, or just web vigilantes — simply for being a woman, then fueling those reprisals is a nasty thing to do.
Even if it’s under the guise of exposing her hypocrisy, encouraging the online mobbing of a woman is, at best, pretty hypocritical in sanctioning misogyny as long as one is selective about one’s victims.
How so? I think her possibly popular support among Iranian women (which means that she’s slightly more than just a propaganda mouthpiece) is relevant. That being said, we don’t know that either way, so perhaps you’re right.
Getting back to @Katryn question above, what do you think the reaction is going to be by the people who employ her? That’s she’s going to get a pass or that she’s going to be punished?
Her gender is nearly totally irrelevant here, apart from the hair-covering bit.
What kind of mobbing does a national news presenter who makes “a big deal about how important it is for women to obey an Islamic dress code” in Iran, encourage?
You may mistake this as someone picking on her for ‘falling’, but it’ sthe other way around. The mockery is for ever posturing as someone above it.
It’s not really her fault, nobody in such an artificial system can be perfect. But lets not go witn any conversation predicated on her not playing an active role in the very thing you’re expressing concern that she might now be victimized by - the machine of which she is a most visible moving part.
Of course the latter almost certainly derives from the former, which is why her hypocrisy and complicity in the regime’s aims is open to criticism. She’s clearly obtaining significant benefit from her job peddling propaganda for backward theocrats.
And it is simply not accurate to paint this as a dilemma between being an active participant in the propaganda and “opposing” the regime. She is not being criticized for failing to join a resistance cell, my friend.
Well she will get punished. Which I take no joy in. But the basic lesson is again: Don’t take money for publicly espousing positions you don’t really hold. Especially not in service of people who will have you whipped if you make a false step.
Right. The whole discussion presumes women are oppressed and disenfranchised in her country, but the fact that she is a woman is beside the point.
It would be hypocritical if Boing Boing had a history of only calling out the hypocrisy of public figures who were women or Muslims, but I believe a read through the thousands of posts on this site will show that’s not the case.
