Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

No, they should not.

So then why should the chosen representatives of a country cover themselves up if demanded by another country on their visit? Why should they follow discriminatory laws?

 

[FyreWulff]

I think it is hilarious that the bigots who complain about "you should respect the traditions of the native country" are loosing their shit over this.

a chance to shit on women and minorities overrides everything else in the conservative brain.

see also: cops

 

[Riposte]

Reminds me of this old story, although it's set in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-Saudi-Arabia-by-not-wearing-headscarf.html

 

[gutter_trash]

feminism should never take a knee towards religious misogyny

 

[kmax]

Some context as to why Sweden are doing this.

Sweden in pole position in Iran with bus deal

Swedish truck maker Scania has signed an agreement to deliver 1,350 buses to Iran where Prime Minister Stefan Lofven visited with his largest business team to the country ever.

Lofven and Scania CEO Henrik Henriksson oversaw the signing of an agreement in principle with Iran's Shahr-e Atiyeh investment company and the province of Isfahan on Sunday.

Under the deal, Scania is about to supply Isfahan with 350 buses and four other major Iranian cities with 1,000 more units, providing them with sustainable transport solutions.

The first of these new buses will be in operation at the end of 2017, the truck marker said in a press release. Shahr-e Atiyeh will provide financing for 1000 of the buses.

Iran is one of Scania's top ten global markets. The company has been in operation in the country since 2000 through Oghab Afshan, a privately-owned partner and distributor of buses.

"Together with our partners, we have a strong presence in Iran with comprehensive industrial operations and an extensive service network," Henriksson said on Sunday.

”We look forward to developing this market even further to provide the best services and sustainable transport solutions to our customers," he added.

Unlike Volvo, Renault, and Daimler, Scania did not halt its operations in Iran when the country was slapped with Western sanctions in 2011.

”We stood by our customers," said Henriksson who has visited Iran seven times in the past year as the company plans to expand local operations.

According to Henriksson, Scania was able to continue its activities in Iran with the necessary approvals only by ”maintaining open books with all relevant authorities."

Now that the truck maker's global competitors are returning to Iran, Scania is in pole position in both the truck and bus market segments in Iran, controlling 64% and 37% of the respective market share.

Link

As usual, these things don't happen in a vacuum, and it usually boils down to business. We don't hear countries like the U.S make a fuss about the terrible human rights abuses done by one of the worst offenders in the entire world, Saudi Arabia. Why is that? Business. The creation of jobs, the opportunity to have a stable relationship which fosters a healthy economical relationship between two nations always supersedes any human rights violation that certain countries are involved in, as we clearly can observe. Taking a hard stance towards an important business partner is just an unrealistic scenario when money and job prospects are on the table, no matter how terrible the country they're dealing with might be. These guys are politicians first and foremost, and they are held accountable to produce positive results to their own country.

It's a sad state of affairs when you have to sink low as this to do business and have a healthy economical relationship, but that is the reality of situation, and Sweden is far from the only country to do stuff like this.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

As other have pointed out.

When Iranians visit other countries they don't shake hands with female officials.

And? Could that just mean Iran has poor diplomats? It wouldn't exactly be particularly surprising.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Bunch of men criticizing women for not being feminist enough.

By your implication, everything a woman does is perfectly feminist and absolutely cannot harm the empowerment of women in society, and whatever a man thinks is immediately inferior to any given woman's opinion because apparently a man can't make more sense about a feminist issue than any woman can.

There is legitimate discussion to be had here about whether this was the correct move to take (in terms of feminism especially) or not, and being a man does not invalidate anyone's opinion; especially seeing as there are many people arguing for the favour of both sides. It's also a discussion about diplomacy, international policy, and ethics; and at the very least those are topics that do not warrant in any way that men should be excluded from discussion due to their gender. Not to mention that none of the opinions in this thread are of the nature that there'd be no woman agreeing with them.

"Society favors men more than women, so men cannot criticize women over feminism" is like saying "If America declared war against China tomorrow, American civilians shouldn't be able to criticize it because they're not in the army."

Would you tell a man who thinks that Women For Trump is an anti-feminist movement his opinion is invalid just because of being a man?

On topic:
I would have personally admired a stance that refused to compromise on sexist policy; however, I do see the practical benefits of sucking it up and so I don't have a definite stance on this issue overall.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

By your implication, everything a woman does is perfectly feminist and absolutely cannot harm the empowerment of women in society, and whatever a man thinks is immediately inferior to any given woman's opinion because apparently a man can't make more sense about a feminist issue than any woman can.

Nope. By my implication trying to decry these women as contradictory to feminism is ignoring them as individuals and the pressures placed on them by their career. They are seeking an audience in a foreign culture in hopes of inspiring future growth and hopefully progress. That sometimes means making temporary sacrifices. Them deciding to wear a scarf was with a long term goal in mind and they are not hurting feminism by making that choice.

Men don't have to deal with any of this because men are universally respected.

 

[MUnited83]

As other have pointed out.

When Iranians visit other countries they don't shake hands with female officials.

Mostly because not shaking hands is not a crime in other countries, and the other countries are more interested on doing the deals than Iran is. Sucks, but that's diplomacy for you. Sweden wants this deal, and so they compromise to get it, as it has been done as long diplomacy has been a thing in human history.

 

[APF]

So then why should the chosen representatives of a country cover themselves up if demanded by another country on their visit?

Because they care about the diplomatic results they're seeking and don't feel they have enough leverage to flout local laws and customs.

 

[chillybright]

Nope. By my implication trying to decry these women as contradictory to feminism is ignoring them as individuals and the pressures placed on them by their career. They are seeking an audience in a foreign culture in hopes of inspiring future growth and hopefully progress. That sometimes means making temporary sacrifices. Them deciding to wear a scarf was with a long term goal in mind and they are not hurting feminism by making that choice.

Men don't have to deal with any of this because men are universally respected.

Lmao as posted above this is about all dat money.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

I think it is hilarious that the bigots who complain about "you should respect the traditions of the native country" are loosing their shit over this.

basically...

 

[Kin5290]

Nothing wrong with conforming to a countries demands, but considering this is their outspoken policy



It's really not that great of a look.

Hillary Clinton's state department put a lot of money into feminist causes (like promoting female financial independence in developing countries).

She'd still wear a hijab when meeting with diplomats from conservative Muslim countries because diplomacy isn't about needlessly antagonizing the other party to make a pointless stand.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Cant expect every civilization to accept western civilian.

You wanna visit about nation you respect their customs. If you don't agree don't go.

 

[Madness]

If they want to do it, more power to them. But we can be free to criticize them. If tomorrow Japan required only women to bow to men, and women diplomats and dignitaries visit and do that, you wouldn't criticize it?

By complying with repressive rules and religious dogma you give power to them. And then you'll have the people who have been indoctrinated and raised to believe they need to wear hijiabs and niqabs and burkas to be virtuous say it is liberating and their choice. But when your choice has been secretly conditioned into you to accept from childhood, of course you will think that. It is why religious dogma rarely changes. Any feminist who strives for equality, who doesn't see a regressive ideology that affects one group and not the other is never for real equality. So more power to the Swedish government, but let's be real, Iran needs Sweden more than Sweden needs Iran. Sweden soft power is worth more in the world than Iran soft power. Imagine what a statement it woul make to force the ayatollahs and imams and clerics to meet with women who were not forced to wear headscarves. In Iran, a hijab is compulsory, not voluntary since the Revolution.

 

[Luxorek]

Cant expect every civilization to accept western civilian.

You wanna visit about nation you respect their customs. If you don't agree don't go.

Respect the customs of a regime that hangs homosexuals and tells women what to wear?

 

[Kin5290]

If they want to do it, more power to them. But we can be free to criticize them. If tomorrow Japan required only women to bow to men, and women diplomats and dignitaries visit and do that, you wouldn't criticize it?

By complying with repressive rules and religious dogma you give power to them. And then you'll have the people who have been indoctrinated and raised to believe they need to wear hijiabs and niqabs and burkas to be virtuous say it is liberating and their choice. But when your choice has been secretly conditioned into you to accept from childhood, of course you will think that. It is why religious dogma rarely changes. Any feminist who strives for equality, who doesn't see a regressive ideology that affects one group and not the other is never for real equality. So more power to the Swedish government, but let's be real, Iran needs Sweden more than Sweden needs Iran. Sweden soft power is worth more in the world than Iran soft power. Imagine what a statement it woul make to force the ayatollahs and imams and clerics to meet with women who were not forced to wear headscarves. In Iran, a hijab is compulsory, not voluntary since the Revolution.

This is stupid. A diplomatic mission is no place to spit in the face of your host's cultural norms. And refusing to wear a hijab won't send any positive message, it would just mark you as a disrespectful foreigner, and a disrespectful white foreigner no less.

It's like with wearing shorts or a tank top into a cathedral: needlessly antagonistic and ultimately pointless.

 

[ant_]

This is stupid. A diplomatic mission is no place to spit in the face of your host's cultural norms. And refusing to wear a hijab won't send any positive message, it would just mark you as a disrespectful foreigner, and a disrespectful white foreigner no less.

It's like with wearing shorts or a tank top into a cathedral: needlessly antagonistic and ultimately pointless.

It is nothing like the example you listed. It's a law targeted towards women that does not treat them as equals in society.

I'm fine being antagonistic towards this. It's not pointless. It makes a statement that we don't support that shit.

 

[Luxorek]

And refusing to wear a hijab won't send any positive message, it would just mark you as a disrespectful foreigner, and a disrespectful white foreigner no less.

It's like with wearing shorts or a tank top into a cathedral: needlessly antagonistic and ultimately pointless.

Everything about this post is stupid. Are you for real?

Did you just compare refusal to comply with 'cultural' demands of an opressive islamic regime to wearing shorts in a cathedral? Wha...what?

Here is the juice. Unlike the women of Iran who are forced to wear hijab foreign female diplomats have no such obligation. Michelle Obama didn't wear a veil in Saudi Arabia - it's a choice.

Stop making this about 'respecting' traditions and educate yourself on pre-revolution Iran. I did not expect so many apologists on a left leaning forum like this.

 

[Madness]

This is stupid. A diplomatic mission is no place to spit in the face of your host's cultural norms. And refusing to wear a hijab won't send any positive message, it would just mark you as a disrespectful foreigner, and a disrespectful white foreigner no less.

It's like with wearing shorts or a tank top into a cathedral: needlessly antagonistic and ultimately pointless.

What? Diplomacy is the first and only safe way to challenge repressive regimes. It will send a message to any woman in Iran you don't have to live in fear or be held back as well as signal to women around the world, equality means full equality. Only you would equate it as disrespectful whitey foreigner spitting on their host nation. Most sane minded individuals would see it as free women diplomats from a less repressive society challenging a repressive theocracy.

They are free to do it, we are free to criticize. Guarantee the world would be on the side of the Sweden women diplomats rather than the fanatical and repressive ayatallahs clerics, they wouldn't say oh look its western imperialism. There is no obligation on anyone to continue draconian norms. They used to burn widows with their husbands bodies in India before the British came. There was widespread anger when the Brits banned it, would you have said they should have obeyed the cultural norms?

 

[black_13]

This seems way more overblown than it should be. What's wrong with abiding by the customs of the country your visiting too?

And women have it far worse in Saudi Arabia and nobody is really complaining about their deals. In Iran there are more women in universities than men. They can actually drive and work. None of which is legal in SA.

 

[skullmuffins]

Here is the juice. Unlike the women of Iran who are forced to wear hijab foreign female diplomats have no such obligation. Michelle Obama didn't wear a veil in Saudi Arabia - it's a choice.

Saudi Arabia does not legally require foreign women to cover their hair. Iran does. It's not the same thing.

In fact, from one of the articles linked in the OP,

Speaking to Expressen, Linde said she had not wanted to wear a headscarf. ”But it is law in Iran that women must wear the veil. One can hardly come here and break the laws," she explained.
...
Linde told Aftonbladet that she will ”of course" not be wearing a veil when she visits Saudi Arabia next month.

 

[APF]

There's a history of western female delegates not wearing head coverings in Saudi Arabia, whereas there's a history of it being a complete shitshow when tried (purposefully or not) in Iran. If you're on a diplomatic mission and care about actually seeing people and taking meetings, you don't break their laws. If you care more about making a political statement in solidarity with ideas you find abhorrent, that's fine--just don't confuse the two. The purpose of your visit will be entirely about challenging that law and nothing else. And I'm not saying it wouldn't likely be useful: activists in-country might find that show of solidarity invigorating to their cause (much like if, say, a foreign diplomat refused to shake trump's hand). But in the meantime your mission is a bust.

 

[Fugu]

Not surprising really. The left can be pretty disgusting with regards to what they will and will not coddle. It wasn't too long ago that some on the left were victim blaming cartoonists.

People in this thread are victim blaming the women involved. They were put between a rock and a hard place -- either wear the veil or accept likely career implications -- and are being told they weren't feminist enough.

It's all fine and dandy to be an ideologue but someone's got to put food on the table.

 

[ant_]

People in this thread are victim blaming the women involved. They were put between a rock and a hard place -- either wear the veil or accept likely career implications -- and are being told they weren't feminist enough.

It's all fine and dandy to be an ideologue but someone's got to put food on the table.

How exactly are the Swedish government officials "victims"? What are you on about? They aren't victims. This is criticism. They are public figures and represent the Swedish government. They're going to get criticized when one of their main political ideals is feminism & they work with a country that treats women like a second-class citizens. I don't doubt that they remain feminists and hold the ideas of feminism. But I will criticize their involvement with Iran. Just as I criticize American involvement with Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

[zaccheus]

I think getting outraged over this is a misuse of energy. It's simply an ironic observation. Throughout history diplomats adopting and respecting the customs of another culture, which were much less in line with the moral standards of today, was very common place.

 

[ant_]

I think getting outraged over this is a misuse of energy. It's simply an ironic observation. Throughout history diplomats adopting and respecting the customs of another culture, which were much less in line with the moral standards of today, was very common place.

Except we live in 2017, where female equality is now rightly considered a basic civil right. Standards of history have no place here.

 

[ramuh]

Money speaks louder than ideals I suppose. Quite disappointed with the Swedish government.

 

[Micael]

How exactly are the Swedish government officials "victims"? What are you on about? They aren't victims. This is criticism. They are public figures and represent the Swedish government. They're going to get criticized when one of their main political ideals is feminism & they work with a country that treats women like a second-class citizens. I don't doubt that they remain feminists and hold the ideas of feminism. But I will criticize their involvement with Iran. Just as I criticize American involvement with Saudi Arabia, etc.

Did they go against feminism in Sweden? Because I'm pretty sure they ran for office in Sweden not Iran, to assume they are going to strive to bring equality in all countries is at best pretty naive, their job is first and foremost to help the country of Sweden and its people, now you may or may not believe that wearing the hijab in Iran doesn't help with that, but I'm pretty sure they did, and as such they wore it to help the country they were elected to which once again is Sweden.
I mean to put things in another way if they had run on a platform of financial responsibility (or what ever), would you have blame them for making a deal with a country that is financially irresponsible even if that deal helped Sweden financially?

P.S. I didn't follow their campaign (not from Sweden), so if they run on a platform of global feminism then I am clearly wrong.

 

[orochi91]

Law of the land.

They don't really have a choice in the matter, unfortunately.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Because they care about the diplomatic results they're seeking and don't feel they have enough leverage to flout local laws and customs.

Everyone knows that. I'm asking why we should just accept this without some criticism.

We constantly criticize countries for dealing with shady governments. So I don't see why this specific criticism is now met with resistance and seen as some strange thing, like we shouldn't talk about it or condemn these things.

 

[Staf]

I'm a Swede and i find this distasteful.

 

[Goodlife]

Long story short: some public baths in Sweden have separate times for women and men, most of them only a day or two a week. Some have had this arrangement since forever, others instated it recently. For the latter group, they typically argue that it's because some women feel uncomfortable being half naked around men or don't feel safe. This particularly applies to Muslim immigrant women, and the baths want to accomodate them, while also giving the option to native women who might share the same opinion.

The Swedish alt-right, however, either claims that it's proof of the breakdown in Swedish secularism, takeovers by Muslims and/or an attempt to cover up that Swedish women are no longer safe from sexual assaults by immigrant men in the baths.

Kind of reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_CKEgO3Fm4

 

[830920]

Apart from the hypocrisy of doing this while claiming to have a feministic foreign policy I don't see how this is a big deal. It's obviously a business trip, would have been dumb to be disrespectful.

 

[Supermanisdead]

lol, yall want people to be pointlessly antagonistic? diplomacy means compromise.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

They're following EU's lead though:

Btw., Saudi Arabia doesn't care apparently:

/lol at this:

Theocratic Government vs Plain Monarchy

 

[openrob]

I think this is a pretty sticky wicket and I would be extremely hesitant, as an uncompromising feminist, to make any bold statements about this.

I see the argument that this is a poor medium for protest and that probably the only thing that the women involved not acquiescing to their policy would accomplish is a souring of relationships. I also see the argument that this is a stupid, sexist policy that deserves to be protested, and more importantly that the women in the delegation absolutely should not be forced to submit to a sexist policy. Adding extra complication is that it also doesn't make sense to decry these women for choosing to cover themselves (if they did so choose; I don't know) because that means you're saying that they can't wear headscarves even if they want to due to it it presenting the image that they, and the delegate at large, are alright with a fundamentally sexist policy. As has been pointed out by the larger debate on... women's clothing, telling someone they can't wear something because oppresses them is, in itself, oppressive.

I'm inclined to say that the only thing that matters here is how the women involved felt.

I agreed with you up until the last sentence. I'm can't really articulate why right now though. I think that the geopolitical relations are a tad more important. If they didn't want to wear the thing, and felt uneasy about it, should have picked an easier job.

Doesn't matter how you felt if you did your job well. If the purpose of the visit, and the relation with the country was less important than protesting, then fair enough, but it may not have been.

 

[Log4Girlz]

They don't seem too happy.

 

[HMD]

Reminds me of this old story, although it's set in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-Saudi-Arabia-by-not-wearing-headscarf.html

Except this is quite literally fake news, a 1500 tweets hashtag is not "outrage", and a lot of statements in that article are flat out false.

 

[TatteredHat]

That's a shame, I feel bad for the women in Iran. Bowing to regressive concepts of inequality is never going to lead to some sort of magical path towards civil progress, it tends to just do the opposite. Iran's ideals are being legitimized and fortified by the west respecting them.

And Saudi-Arabia has completely different laws regarding foreign tourists/diplomats, going there without a headscarf is not a controversy.

 

[sensi97]

To clarify, in this photo, they're in Berlin.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7082983.stm

German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomes members of the delegation of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah during the Saudi monarch's visit to Berlin.

 

[GhostWriter24]

Let these women do whatever the fuck they want. Christ.

Stop worrying about what they wear on their head and rather the influence they have on your goddamned country,

 

[Camp Freddie]

I think that if they sacrificed a major trade deal on the altar of feminist purity then they'd get even more criticism from the people whose jobs depend on their diplomats being diplomatic. "Scania announce job loses due to feminist posturing" would we an even worse headline.

People mansplaining how some women should be more feminist is fucking disgusting. I'm sure it's easy to be a perfect feminist from behind your keyboard, just as long as you keep pornhub.com in a private-mode window. Meanwhile these women have to make practical choices on how to fight a system that's stacked against them.

Maybe male diplomats should insist on wearing a chador when they next go to Iran, if it's now necessary for diplomats to show solidarity with Iranian women. But no, men could go in their suits and get a trade deal and no one would give a fuck.

 

[Fugu]

How exactly are the Swedish government officials "victims"? What are you on about? They aren't victims. This is criticism. They are public figures and represent the Swedish government. They're going to get criticized when one of their main political ideals is feminism & they work with a country that treats women like a second-class citizens. I don't doubt that they remain feminists and hold the ideas of feminism. But I will criticize their involvement with Iran. Just as I criticize American involvement with Saudi Arabia, etc.

They are victims of a discriminatory policy. A man in this situation needs not be concerned with his choice of clothing being construed as supporting (or rebuking) Iranian gender politics. A woman in this situation has no good choice; they are put in an uncomfortable position because they are women. Therefore, they are victims.

I agreed with you up until the last sentence. I'm can't really articulate why right now though. I think that the geopolitical relations are a tad more important. If they didn't want to wear the thing, and felt uneasy about it, should have picked an easier job.

Doesn't matter how you felt if you did your job well. If the purpose of the visit, and the relation with the country was less important than protesting, then fair enough, but it may not have been.

The main problem that I can see with your line of thinking is that the "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" argument doesn't get to the root of the real problem here, which is that this is a problem that the women in the delegation faced but the men didn't. Furthermore, the women were basically left with no good options.

Any narrative that's going to discuss this from a feminist perspective needs to look at the bigger picture here. These women were screwed no matter what they did (while at the same time the men in the delegation were entirely unscrutinized), and that's really what we need to be talking about.

 

[Back-In-Black]

The criticism is fair. They aren't Muslim and they are elected diplomats. Sure it was their own choice to smooth over their visit, but it was also a weak move.

Wearing a scarf as a religious practice is one thing. Being intimidated into wearing them is bullshit. They shouldn't have to alter their appearance to appease them.

I'm gonna have to agree here. When Saudi royalty come to the West they aren't forced to change their garb into traditional Western apparel. If in the realm of diplomacy the other country is so lacking in respect to allow you to keep your traditional custom wear while in their country then perhaps there are some basic things you need to iron out before you start discussing things like human rights and national security.

 

[TTOOLL]

Yeah, that's diplomacy, it's normal. But it's always funny to see women and leftist defending Islam in the West.
Remember that video about women in France not leaving home because their husbands won't allow it?
Is that what they want for everybody here?

 

[Fred-87]

Long story short: some public baths in Sweden have separate times for women and men, most of them only a day or two a week. Some have had this arrangement since forever, others instated it recently. For the latter group, they typically argue that it's because some women feel uncomfortable being half naked around men or don't feel safe. This particularly applies to Muslim immigrant women, and the baths want to accomodate them, while also giving the option to native women who might share the same opinion.

The Swedish alt-right, however, either claims that it's proof of the breakdown in Swedish secularism, takeovers by Muslims and/or an attempt to cover up that Swedish women are no longer safe from sexual assaults by immigrant men in the baths.

pffft whats wrong with that. If its 1 day per week? In Holland this is same for a long long time. I consider it same as 1 day family day. Sometimes you just have to accomedate to different wishes.

Also what is wrong with dressing like the country you visit expects of you? You can argue if the headscarve is oppresive or not. But that is another topic. In some countries it is expected man (and woman) dont show legs.. So when i visit such a country i wont wear shorts out of respect. Or in orthodox church a woman is supposed to cover her hear when entering the church. If i was a woman i would do that.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Ridiculous non-issue. It's a trade delegation, not a civil rights protest. You don't carry out a trade delegation by flaunting the local laws in a very obvious way. The choices are: either abide by the local laws or don't go at all.

 

[PdotMichael]

I think it is hilarious that the bigots who complain about "you should respect the traditions of the native country" are loosing their shit over this.

Because some cultures and customs are better than other ones.

I'm sure you don't want to go that route further.

 

[Paganmoon]

Sweden's delegation, 4 men, 6 women. On the Iranian side, 11 men.

I think just being there with 6 women as representatives for Sweden is a very good feministic statement on it's own. Also, wearing their headscarves so loosely is another.