Playboy has a cool — and complete work-safe — photo essay on Iran’s “Lipstick Revolution,” which is apparently “making sexy political.” From Playboy:
The Iranian people are experiencing one of the most widespread civil unrests in recent times, and women play an essential role, first as voters and now as demonstrators. For them, protesting Iran’s current regime goes beyond rallies and marches—it’s also about displaying their centuries-old legacy as voluptuaries. Up until 1980, when the Ayatollah Khomeini forced them to trade Chanel for chadors, Persian women were regarded as among the most lovely and stylish in the world. Since then the country’s bizarre theocracy has made simple pleasures like wearing makeup or showing off hair grounds for imprisonment (or far worse). Here we salute Persian women as they fight for freedom—and femininity—once again.
Read — or view — the rest on your own.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
The comment below the photo is an interesting statement on what life is really like in Iran, I think.
Yes, indeed “Lorne”. That is not a joke at all. For a small sample of what happens to women (or anybody who happens to go against the Islamic gangsters in the Iranian Government), read this story about a Iranian scholar:
http://www.iranian.com/Azad/2006/December/Memoir/index.html
Uh-oh.
Backlash by “Iranians” who’ve spent the better part of their lives enjoying the (ahem) sensuous depravity of the West and never want to go back bitterly whining about what? Peacock Fever? Farsi Fever? in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Interesting that you should post this given that it appears that Neda pretty much became the symbol of the movement yesterday. If you haven’t seen the footage, check out cnn and wait 5 minutes – or see the unpixilated version up on youtube and everywhere else, if you have the stomach for it; it is worth reading the description original poster provided as well. I think once this gets widely distributed in Iran, it will be curtains for Ahmadinejad.
I read that her name means voice or a call in farsi; I don’t know if this is the case, but it is, it would be strangely (and sadly) fitting.
If the Republicans can yield to the superior ambassadorship of President Obama, this can prove a goodopportunity for young Iranians to foster a more positive opinion and sense of commonality with America. But America needs to exhibit sensitivity to Iranian culture first, rather than aggressive posturing that only reinforces America’s poor record in Iran, which, unfortunately, is all the Republicans seem capable of.
Young Iranians are highly educated (the only thing the theocracy got right is education) and severely underemployed, and clearly looking to redefine Iranian culture. But Westerners must not be simplistic enough to believe that this somehow equates to pro-Westernism or anti-theocracy or absolves the West for their anti-democratic actions in the past.
There is a fine line to walk in the evolution of Iranian society, and the meddling of an outside former aggressor who appears to be coopting Iranian misfortune for its own aggressive ends will backfire mightily.
Additionally, the theocracy and, more importantly, the Revolutionary Guard, which yields the real power, cannot be displaced by public opinion; the regime will not change. Change will be a long, drawn-out process.
The most the West can do is to tred the thin line carefully, and be seen as sensitive and supporting. This will go the furthest in helping the situation along and best serves the interest of the people of Iran and the fostering of a more mutually beneficial relationship with the West.
Any nation that demeans its women is treading on thin ice. Women may well choose to appear to demean themselves but ultimately they will prevail over the men. This can be seen in both the US and Korea, where women clearly yield more power over men than men would like to acknowledge.
It is just done differently in different countries due to differences in culture and history. In the US it is accomplished primarily through political, legal and cultural activism, whereas in Korea, it is done mostly through manipulation. The extent to which Korean women manage to fool Korean men with their wiles (ie. egyo) has always amazed me. While American women use feminism, Korean women rely more on femininity, bordering on infantilism which preys on masculine insecurity.
In both societies, this has led to a rather unhealthy bifurcation which I believe is best ameliorated by the achievement of de facto equality. Men shouldn’t want to be manipulated, as in Korea, or intimidated, as in the US. And women shouldn’t want to compromise their humanity to best men. Equality, properly legislated and enforced is the best policy for all concerned.
Many Republicans, desperate for an issue, are still pushing a policy of intervention, which is fine with me because I don’t get the impression the public is buying it. What I don’t like is that the news media continue asking the question “What should Obama do about Iran?” (primarily, I believe, because they aren’t getting enough information out of Iran to report on, so they need to kill time with chatter). The answer is, he is doing it.
I like the fact that Facebook and Twitter – two platforms I had believed useless up to this point – have apparently proved helpful to the Iranians in organizing their protests.
I’m with you just about everything you said Mizar5, but I’m betting regime change may come sooner than you think. I wouldn’t have thought so even a few days ago, but this has escalated from matter of vote fraud to a full on revolution – Iranians are now calling for Khamenei’s head as well as Ahmadinejad’s. The majority of Iran’s population is very young. They are highly energized, technologically savvy and now they have a martyr. I read earlier this morning that protesters have begun putting up posters of Neda around the Tehran and that there was a direct attack on Basij Headquarters yesterday. If the strikes Mousavi is supposedly trying to organize (a better strategy than the protests) move forward, I can’t see the government holding out very long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmOJRqNyB5E
“If the Republicans can yield to the superior ambassadorship of President Obama …”
Great post(s) Mizar, but back in the real world wars always get started in times like this, when the “loyal” Republican opposition is calling a Democratic president a coward for hesitating to invade or bomb some other country, and the Democratic president (Truman, Johnson, et al.) decides it’s politically expedient to kill a million or so people rather than be called a coward.
As opposed to Republican wars, which are always good and just and a great success (see: Iraq).
Don’t forget about the 16 yo girl executed in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateqeh_Rajabi
And I fucking hate Republicans. They’re either really stupid- just awfully, insanely ignorant and stupid- or shamelessly sophistical. The educated Republicans are basically the equivalent of a used car-saleman with words. Ever read some commenters here defending Palin’s intelligence? Fucking Christ. Get some common sense and a fucking soul.
I think there are 12-step programs for that. I took one several years ago and managed to get my ideological rage in check. Now I think Dems are just wankers (excepting Dems who read this blog, of course). Fewer ulcer problems this way.
You’re going to have to excuse me, but which Republicans are calling for intervention in Iran? It seems the focus of Republican criticism of Obama’s handling of Iran is they’d like to see him use those oratory skills for which he’s famous. I think the suspicion of many of us awfully, insanely ignorant and stupid and/or shamelessly sophistical people is that the Obama administration views the protests in Iran as a headache that will make the White House goal of engagement with Iran politically difficult.
The Lipstick Revolution girl in that Playboy picture looks exactly like Neda!
Some Repubs are pushing for intervention in this situation? Never heard that one before. I think the general feeling amongst Repubs is likely closer to what Robert mentions, many of them want Obama to stand up and say something. I myself am not sure what is best in this situation, as the regime will call any action, including words, intervention, so I think it must be a tough call for Obama (hey, some of us stupid, though educated right-wing republican evil neo-con used car salesmen actually give Obama some credit occasionally, unlike the left with Bush).
I’m not so optimistic for this ‘revolution’, though. After all, the guys with the guns have a huge advantage. I remember that the ‘velvet revolution’ in Czechoslovakia and the one in Hungary didn’t end up too nicely. I seriously fear for the lives of the protesters.
“and the Democratic president (Truman, Johnson, et al.) decides it’s politically expedient to kill a million or so people rather than be called a coward.”
Thanks for the ridiculous history lesson. Truman went to war so as not to be called a coward?!? Johnson, too?!?
O has said something (McCain gave him credit for that today, btw) and he needn’t say much more. The U.S. can’t be perceived as having a hand in this uprising if it is going to maintain traction – and it will, because he won’t.
The GOPs (Grumpy Old People; I like that one) aren’t calling Obama an appeaser?
Check out this nice summary of recent events from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/06/18/neocons_iran/
“Appeaser” was the very same word the McCarthy-era GOPs used to goad Truman deeper and deeper into Korea (see the late David Halberstam’s The Coldest Winter) and later GOPs used to goad a much less reluctant Johnson much deeper into Vee-yet-nay-am. TIME Magazine, that bastion of America’s much complained of yet seldom seen “liberal media,” more or less called Eisenhower a pussy for refusing to invade Laos in the 1950′s. Good ol’ Ike just laughed at them; but Dems — particularly new Dem presidents, with the usual chorus of corporate media nitwits shouting that Dems are always seen (by whom exactly, we’re never told) as “weak on defense” — don’t have the political luxury of laughing, as Ike did. (Not that that’s any excuse.)
On the other hand, going all in as Clinton did, working with NATO to stop a genocide at the cost of like zero U.S. lives, is far worse. Distracting, as it did, from the serious business of “the loyal opposition” inquiring into blow jobs and whatnot. Whatever.
I’m not bitter.
Looks like I’ll have to consign another commenter to the wjk dustbin.
Sorry, I don’t buy it that any president is going to act because people call him weak or a coward. No one got to be president by being weak. We’re talking about strong, forceful, powerful personalities, especially Johnson and certainly Truman, as well. Truman and Johnson had a whole range of reasons for doing what they did and being afraid of being called a coward is not a serious reason for acting as they did.
The McCarthy era republicans were certainly not as all-powerful as liberals like to claim (and Truman hated them-including Nixon, why would he listen to them?It’s like saying Obama is being forced to do what the extremists on the right are demanding. Obama’s going to do what he thinks is right, in accordance with his own agenda, just as all presidents, including Bush did). There was plenty of opposition even within the Republican Party to McCarthy’s means and ways (including Nixon, who though he was a member of HUAC in the early days, eventually worked hard behind the scenes to get rid of McCarthy who became more and more of a liabiliy as he went further and further over the edge).
What kind of president would actually invade a country because someone called them ‘pussy’? What does that say about the character of these presidents?
Current Yahoo headline:
“GOP calls Obama timid as he seeks footing on Iran.”
I guess timid is more helpful than appeaser. Or weak indecisive cowardly commie sympathizer. It’s certainly better than the IslamofascistcommieHitlerStalinMaoX they were using last week.
Oh, and to the question which Republicans have been pushing for “intervention”, check out
Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley’s comments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101030.html
And then there is Richard Lugar
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNCVP0v525wWnF57oHItxKqmFFpwD98V3A4O1
So no, no explicit mention of military intervention (which I didn’t say, btw). Meeting with Iran “even though there are protests in Tehran”, as Lugar proposes, would be perceived as U.S. intervention, and that, as I have said, would benefit neither the U.S. nor Iran at this time.
“What kind of president would actually invade a country because someone called them ‘pussy’? What does that say about the character of these presidents?”
Not much, I’ll certainly grant you that. On the other hand, look what happened to the one Dem who did, finally, eventually, stand up to the military-industrial media complex? That is to say, JFK, who had decided in late 1963 to quit Vietnam, but was killed before he could make it so.
Snow’s anaysis is naive. Bush-Cheney did whatever the hell they wanted, true; but all others, including Bush Sr. have acted with at least some decent regard for the opinions of mankind. (Even including, on occasion, the opinions of the opposing political party.)
#11
Political debates aside, wtf is wrong with you?
R.I.P, Neda.
Here’s hoping that in your tragic death you become Iran’s Park Jong-cheol and Lee Han -yeol.
A link to Playboy and discussion ends up mostly being about politics–what is the Hole turning into? Chicks in photos 1 & 5 are fine. Nice lips on #3.
And Obama is saying the right words. Bush would have totally screwed this one up.
“On the other hand, look what happened to the one Dem who did, finally, eventually, stand up to the military-industrial media complex? That is to say, JFK, who had decided in late 1963 to quit Vietnam, but was killed before he could make it so.”
Oh, oh, WeikuBoy, I sure hope you’re not one of those truther conspiracy theorists.
The situation is indeed evolving a lot faster than anyone projected. The grass has taken root as Iranians are fast becoming fed up with the leadership and leadership structure. Still, for change to take hold, the militia needs to to turn around. Let’s keep our eyes on them.
There are a number of forces in Iran. There are the so-called Revolutionary Guards, the regular Army, the volunteer paramilitary Basiji, and the National Police. We haven’t seen much of the Revolutionary Guard, the Army, or the National Police. The Basiji — basically unemployed Iranian rednecks looking for a fight — seem to have had their ranks bolstered by Palestinian rent-a-thugs from Hamas. Persian-speaking Iranians resent being bashed by Arabic-speaking “animals” from their state’s client terrorist organizations. Since the Basiji and the National Police are the forces expected to suppress the protestors side-by-side, I am looking for the break to come from the National Police. But don’t forget the intelligence agencies:
Read this account of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution in the New York Times. It’s thrilling.
Look for events in Iran to break very much the same way.
“Oh, WeikuBoy, I hope you’re not one of those truther conspiracy theorists”.
I don’t know what that means, but it sounds bad. So I’m gonna go with no. But do I think Oliver Stone was closer to the truth than the Warren Commission. Yes. Was there really an “incident” in the Gulf of Tonkin? No. Did Bush-Cheney really believe there were WMD? No. And was it really a coincidence that Iraq happens to sit atop the world’s second largest oil reserves? Sure.
Meanwhile, it’s become apparent that whereas We the People thoroughly rejected Bush-Cheney, Obama is very far from rejecting many of their policies, whose authors have had a score to settle with Iran for thirty years now. Especially with know-nothing hacks who had zero political future two weeks ago now calling him “timid” (which in America is worse than “IslamoFascistSocialist”).
“Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.” Heh, indeed.
From the Guardian:
“The authorities have banned a memorial service for Neda Soltani, the young woman whose death was captured on YouTube and who has come to symbolize the rebellion.
A scheduled memorial service for Soltani at the Niloofar mosque, in central Tehran’s Abbas Abad district, has been barred in case it turns into a rallying point for the opposition.
Reports suggest her body was only handed over to her family by the authorities on condition that she was buried immediately.
All other mosques in Tehran have also been forbidden from staging services in her memory.”
No one in the united states can get to be president these days unless you’ve been noticed and groomed by the money that owns the system. Left and right are irrelevant. Don’t count on a fair, middle class based government until after the next revolution. Couple of hundred years at least. Founding father ideals are dead, if they ever existed.
You must log in to post a comment.