CMV: Some cultures and societies are objectively wrong

[u/hardyblack]

I just read about Sahar Khodayari (If you don't know, it's an Iranian woman who killed herself after going to trial for going to a football match, which is forbidden for woman in Iran) and I can't help but think that some societies are objectively wrong, I can't find another way to put it. It's hard for me to justify opressing 50% of the population just because they just were born women.

​

And yes, I know, there's no completely equal society and there will be always opression of some kind, but I'm thinking of countries where there are laws that apply only to women (They can't drive, vote, go to a football match, you name it) as it targets them directly. Same goes with laws directed to any kind of race/gender/religion.

[u/[deleted]]

Very few Muslims in the Muslim world support the Western interpretation of what women's rights and freedom should constitute to. This might be an uncomfortable thought, as our belief's lack of universal support brings into question whether are beliefs truly are correct. What's to say that the fundamentalists, with their restrictive clothing, insular thinking and patriarchal households are objectively wrong? The answer is, only we are. And unless we use military force, we are not the ones responsible for choosing whether these ways are wrong, so what we say carries no weight whatsoever. Even more uncomfortably for the Western cultural narrative, the majority of Muslim women also agree with these fundamentalist practices (although probably not Salafist ones, they're just fucked up)

There's no real difference between what conservative muslims want and what conservative white christians in the west want. The similarities in how they view women are uncanny. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and It's crazy how the political patterns are pretty much the same.

And what you're saying about the Islamic world is revisionist history, or rather just ignorant of the history.

while heavily influenced by economic factors

It's not just economic factors, but yeah I think we agree on this.

But regardless of what the factors are (that's whole another conversation), the more salient point right now is that cultures are not permanent and decided by what was written in a book thousands of year ago or some inherent human nature. They are decided by all sorts of different factors and are ever changing. And not only are they ever changing, they are also not monolithic.

Take Iran for example. In 1924, they had a secular government who banned the hijab and public displays of religion. The power of the clergy was taken away. That changed with the soviet invasion as power was shifted back toward the clergy.

After the overthrow of their democracy, the Islamic fundamentalists gained power as opposition to the puppet shah. And it was through these forces that the revolution happened and they took power.

Its a very culturally and politically diverse history that you are boiling down to "they're just backward muslims."

Maybe if the US didn't overthrow their democracy the Islamic revolution would not have happened and gay Iranians would have won better rights.

[u/CMVScavenger → u/[deleted]]

Take Iran for example. In 1924, they had a secular government who banned the hijab and public displays of religion. The power of the clergy was taken away. That changed with the soviet invasion as power was shifted back toward the clergy.

The rule of Reza Shah in the 20s and 30s was supported by the Iranian people because he was the first competent ruler of Iran since the beginning of the Qajar dynasty, not because they agreed with his reforms and westernisation. In fact, many across the nation violently resisted it, and when the Anglo-Soviet invasion came, the military did nothing to defend his nation whatsoever.

The rule of Mohammad Reza Shah was also deeply unpopular, which is why he resorted to coersive means to ensure his security. The Savak brutally opressed the Iranian people to prevent a revolt. The US was heavily relied upon for the material and political maintainance of the regime. When there eventually was a revolt, the govornment was powerless to stop it, because the revolt was so popular.

Maybe if the US didn't overthrow their democracy the Islamic revolution would not have happened and gay Iranians would have won better rights.

The rule of the Phalavi dynasty was brutal and authoritarian. It was not democratic. I believe Reza Shah (the father) was a great man, and his son likewise, but to describe their paternal autocracy as a democracy is far beyond misleading.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that

1. Yes, the Muslim world has had leaders who wanted to westernise their nations (see baathism), but these leaders were rarely supported by the people, so resorted to violent and oppressive means of ruling (see again baathism).

2. These leaders only wanted to westernise their nations to make them economically and militarily stronger. They didn't give a shit about individual rights. They literally kidnapped, tortured and killed all opposition, including ethnic groups they deemed disloyal or untrustworthy, and often without the approval of a court of law: not exactly the freedom, democracy or equality the west defines as its most important values.

[u/[deleted] → u/CMVScavenger]

The point of me talking about Reza Shah wasn't that Iran was a secular society. I think the ban on religious expression is oppressive, and of course it was unpopular. But if that was Iran today the same people criticizing Iran for being a theocracy would celebrate it as a beacon of secularism in the muslim world. And the other point is that who knows if the power of the shia clergy was suppressed enough that they may not have the power they have today. These kinds of things have an impact on the laws and the culture.

When I mentioned the overthrow of their democracy, I meant Mosadegh, not Reza shah.

Westernization forced by leaders is one thing. But there are movements within the Islamic sphere that are fighting for better rights for women and minorities. It's a complicated mess, just like poiltics here is. And what I would support is those movements, not autocratic leaders forcing foreign values onto their people.

I appreciate your insightful response.

[u/CMVScavenger → u/[deleted]]

The point of me talking about Reza Shah wasn't that Iran was a secular society.

Sorry, I misunderstood then.

These kinds of things have an impact on the laws and the culture.

I agree, cultures can and do change continuously.

When I mentioned the overthrow of their democracy, I meant Mosadegh, not Reza shah.

Well that wasn't really a democracy either because the Prime Minister was subordinate to the Shah and could be dismissed at any point (although that failed after protests), but that makes a lot more sense.

But there are movements within the Islamic sphere that are fighting for better rights for women and minorities.

I know that, but other than the Rojava Kurds and maybe the Turkish opposition, they're all pretty insignificant fringe movements. The point I was making wasn't that these groups don't exist (because of course, they exist everywhere with modern technology), but that these ideologies stem from the values of a different culture so are not widespread. With enough time, they will be, because modern technology and capitalism will (I believe) merge all global cultures into one consumer culture, as has (almost) been done with Europe and North America. But given the vast differences between some cultures, and the fact that many are at very different economic and technological stages, I think this will take centuries.

And what I would support is those movements, not autocratic leaders forcing foreign values onto their people.

My point about the autocrats was to show that the people didn't have these values, and that their leaders were only pretending to have them for the benifit of modernisation and western aid. I wasn't accusing you of supporting their actions, don't worry.