13 replies to this topic

[Hannibal]

[baradar_jackson]

I've made VOA haraam on myself. What's going on here? Can you summarize the clip?

Edited by baradar_jackson, 21 March 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[hameedeh]

baradar_jackson, on 21 March 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

I've made VOA haraam on myself. What's going on here? Can you summarize the clip?

baradar, you know that I don't know farsi. I can listen and understand a few words here and there. That VOA host is interviewing her (the clip is edited to cut out a lot of their chit chat) and he gets her to take off her scarf. She pulls it down onto her shoulders and then he insists that she take it all off. So she removes it from her body and folds it up and puts it on her lap, but she is not smiling. I think he bullied her into taking it off. Then the next scene is a very grainy film of a person being arrested and the VOA guy says it is because of hijab. Honestly, the film is so bad that I could not tell if it was a man with long hair or a woman who was being arrested and VOA guy is shouting about hijab. Ugh

baradar_jackson said:

I've made VOA haraam on myself.

Good on you. Stick to your vow.

[Hannibal]

baradar_jackson, on 21 March 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

I've made VOA haraam on myself. What's going on here? Can you summarize the clip?

She's now the ex-wife of an Iranian official. She used to wear chador and all. She thought by leaving the country, taking off her hijab (and exposing her flabs to the world) and talking against Iran she would become rich and famous. So far it all backfired, her husband (Mohajer) divorced her, she's now living alone with her daughter and she's not rich and famous (the irreligious sellouts don't take her seriously as you can see on Parazit). She had these delusional ideas about returning to Iran all powerful and all, but she's realized she can't do that anymore.

There is a video on youtube about her story:

hameedeh, on 21 March 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

baradar, you know that I don't know farsi. I can listen and understand a few words here and there. That VOA host is interviewing her (the clip is edited to cut out a lot of their chit chat) and he gets her to take off her scarf. She pulls it down onto her shoulders and then he insists that she take it all off. So she removes it from her body and folds it up and puts it on her lap, but she is not smiling. I think he bullied her into taking it off. Then the next scene is a very grainy film of a person being arrested and the VOA guy says it is because of hijab. Honestly, the film is so bad that I could not tell if it was a man with long hair or a woman who was being arrested and VOA guy is shouting about hijab. Ugh



Good on you. Stick to your vow.

You should learn Persian (if you are Iranian). I didn't know it either back when I was younger (being raised in the West etc.). But with right effort I can read and understand it fluently with absolutely no problem (in addition to speaking and writing of course).

[baradar_jackson]

Well I watched the clip.

The host (Parazit Williams or whatever his name is), asks her why she is wearing a headscarf in front of the camera, when he had seen her before in the studio and in the street, without a headscarf. She says she wanted to make a point about freedom of dress or something. He tells her to take it off. She takes it off partially, then he tells her to take it off fully and she does.

Then the maker of the video shows another clip from Parazit, where he criticizes the police in Iran for how they were detaining a woman and did not show any regard for avoiding physical contact, or preserving her hijab (which had fallen off). This was a sarcastic denunciation: i.e. he wanted to say "Oh look, these guys talk about preservation of hijab and modesty but look at how little they actually care about this things."

Parazit's host is the spawn of shaytan himself.

[md. ammar ali]

shaytan

[ShiaBen]

She needs a psychiatrist. She looks extremely confused.

[ImAli]

She wasn't even wearing it right in the first place....

[Wahdat]

boohoo so she doesnt want to wear hijab. so what? big deal!!! she is taking herself very seriously i see. Foucault said that where there is power there is resistance. When hijab is forced then there is bound to be resistance against it. or a fortune cookie would say- force it and it will become unattractive.

[Noah-]

hameedeh, on 21 March 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

baradar, you know that I don't know farsi.

  Really?


Back on topic: That was really childish.
Anyhow, she wants to tell that, it is a woman's choice to wear Hijjab or to not and the government or men should not enforce the Hijjab.... but then at the same time she removes her Hijjab when a man is telling her to do so for some political show of VOA

Lastly, do these people ever say anything against those who impose the 'Hijjab Ban' on people... especially the so called secular countries like Azerbaijan, Turkey, France and etccc?

[Hannibal]

Wahdat, on 22 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

boohoo so she doesnt want to wear hijab. so what? big deal!!! she is taking herself very seriously i see. Foucault said that where there is power there is resistance. When hijab is forced then there is bound to be resistance against it. or a fortune cookie would say- force it and it will become unattractive.

Foucault also says there is no space in which relations of power don't exist. Please don't take him out of context.

[Wahdat]

Hannibal, on 24 March 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

Foucault also says there is no space in which relations of power don't exist. Please don't take him out of context.

Power and resistance in society is like action and reaction in physics. What is the correct context then. Enlighten me....please.
While you are at it, could you please elaborate your take of the quoted part? Is there any space where relations of power dont exist?
Thank you.

[Hannibal]

Wahdat, on 24 March 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Power and resistance in society is like action and reaction in physics. What is the correct context then. Enlighten me....please.
While you are at it, could you please elaborate your take of the quoted part? Is there any space where relations of power dont exist?
Thank you.

It is because you are making it seem like "power" here (in terms of hijab) is some isolated event. Foucault argues that power relations saturate everything and every space and they don't merely function through repression. In other words, they are multi-linear and multi-leveled. So although there is a structure of power in terms of enforced hijab, there are also other relations of power (which are much much more powerful) that shape the perceptions and hence behavior of people like Fariba Mohajer. These kinds of relations - which are based on neo-colonial discourses  -  are more dangerous because they are more hidden and more ingrained (i.e. they come in the shape of media, educational institutions, etc. etc.) than just some external, visible force as it is in the case of mandatory hijab. In other words, these relations of power don't function through repression, but instead they function through stimulation where they exert themselves through the production of knowledge and desire. In fact, if we are to look at it more deeply, hijab itself stands in the lower spectrum of the power relation given that it is always trying to define itself in relation to some perceived absolute (i.e. Western discourse on modesty).

I suggest you take a look at the following passage taken from Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977 by Foucault:


“Power would be a fragile thing if its only function were to repress, if it worked only through the mode of censorship, exclusion, blockage and repression, in the manner of a great Superego, exercising itself only in a negative way. If, on the contrary, power is strong this is because, as we are beginning to realise, it produces effects at the level of desire – and also at the level of knowledge. Far from preventing knowledge, power produces it. If it has been possible to constitute a knowledge of the body, this has been by way of an ensemble of military and educational disciplines…why the notion of repression which mechanisms of power are generally reduced to strikes me as very inadequate and possibly dangerous” (p. 59).

[Wahdat]

Hannibal, on 24 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

It is because you are making it seem like "power" here (in terms of hijab) is some isolated event. Foucault argues that power relations saturate everything and every space and they don't merely function through repression. In other words, they are multi-linear and multi-leveled. So although there is a structure of power in terms of enforced hijab, there are also other relations of power (which are much much more powerful) that shape the perceptions and hence behavior of people like Fariba Mohajer. These kinds of relations - which are based on neo-colonial discourses  -  are more dangerous because they are more hidden and more ingrained (i.e. they come in the shape of media, educational institutions, etc. etc.) than just some external, visible force as it is in the case of mandatory hijab. In other words, these relations of power don't function through repression, but instead they function through stimulation where they exert themselves through the production of knowledge and desire. In fact, if we are to look at it more deeply, hijab itself stands in the lower spectrum of the power relation given that it is always trying to define itself in relation to some perceived absolute (i.e. Western discourse on modesty).

I suggest you take a look at the following passage taken from Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977 by Foucault:


“Power would be a fragile thing if its only function were to repress, if it worked only through the mode of censorship, exclusion, blockage and repression, in the manner of a great Superego, exercising itself only in a negative way. If, on the contrary, power is strong this is because, as we are beginning to realise, it produces effects at the level of desire – and also at the level of knowledge. Far from preventing knowledge, power produces it. If it has been possible to constitute a knowledge of the body, this has been by way of an ensemble of military and educational disciplines…why the notion of repression which mechanisms of power are generally reduced to strikes me as very inadequate and possibly dangerous” (p. 59).

Its always a treat to read Foucalt. When we see US's/West's/Enemy's approach as a Strong or Powerful use of power, by the very same logic, wouldnt IRI's enforcing of hijab be as a Fragile use of power? So when Strong is better than Fragile in terms of achieving objectives, dont you think that Iran puts itself on the loosing track? Thats my point. This particular case or that of Miss Farhani's and the likes puts Foucalt on the right as usual.
Reality of the matter is that at the end of the day those who want to observe hijab will do so regardless of state requirement as is the case with the entire world where observing hijab is not a requirement by the state. And those who dont want to wear hijab but are forced to, will make a mockery of the concept. A more prudent way of promoting hijab would be inviting people to it as opposed to forcing it.