Iran bans the mullet hairstyle; Is Europe just as bad?

Eliot Rosewater

Iran has banned the mullet hairstyle in a bid to curb the growing Western cultural influence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/06/iran-bans-the-mullet

I had a good scoff when my friend brought up, but at same the time (rather conveniently) Sky News was showing a report about the French lower house banning the burka. And I thought "what's the difference?"

Both moves are sparked by the same desire: to cut out the influence of "undesirable" cultures. And both do the exact same thing: restrict the liberty of individuals to achieve that aim. Obviously there's a difference of scale here, and while that is important, the motive is frighteningly similar.

This story about the mullet has been circulated as some kind of joke. Do us "advanced" Europeans need to take a hard look at ourselves before criticising and laughing at authoritative moves such as this in the Middle-East? What is the difference between the mullet ban and the burka ban?

Gravy Fanatic

I wish baldness could be made illegal, i'm sick of lookin at those fellas that look like big red sunburnt eggs with arms attached. But its genetics so what can you do. Sure Europe is getting shocking bad, if not as bad as the middle east when you think about it.

Dr. Baltar

It really boils down to one question: Should religious belief/culture be given extra rights & protection than non-religious belief/culture?

Personally, I think not.
If I were a member of a Motorcycle Sub Culture, I certainly would not be allowed walk into the local Bank of Ireland wearing my helmet.

However, if I were a Burqa wearing muslim women I think I would.

The solution the French Burqa controversy for me is simple really; rather than having an outright banning of the Burqa or the Biker Helmet, a shopkeeper or bank teller should simply have the right to tell someone with a Biker Helmet/Burqa/Hoodie or giant sunglasses to leave the premises.

This way, our Muslim friends can walk down the street wearing whatever clothes they wish, while those intimidated by the Burqa have the right to refuse service by the Burqa wearer.

Well at least the arguments for banning the burka made a bit of sense. The concealment of identity, and the oppressive nature of the garment are just not compatible with western ideals.

Mullets on the other hand...?

Eliot Rosewater

Jeez lads, there's posts disappearing all over the place; what is this, Iran?

Let's not pretend that this burka ban is motivated by anything other than culture. Most other motives would require similar restrictions on helmets.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Well at least the arguments for banning the burka made a bit of sense. The concealment of identity, and the oppressive nature of the garment are just not compatible with western ideals.

And the mullet isn't compatible with Islamic ideals, either.

Dr. Baltar

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Well at least the arguments for banning the burka made a bit of sense. The concealment of identity, and the oppressive nature of the garment are just not compatible with western ideals.

Mullets on the other hand...?

Personally, I think I should have the right to wear a mullet and a burqa.
However, should you be offended or intimidated by that mullet and/or Burqa you should have the right to refuse me entry into your local shop or your house.
Simple as that.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And the mullet isn't compatible with Islamic ideals, either.

Really? Why not?

Eliot Rosewater

In fairness folks, this thread is not about the merits, or otherwise, of either ban. It's about the differences between them, and whether Europeans have a right to scoff at individuals in Iran getting their liberties stripped when we may be doing the thing same here.

Eliot Rosewater

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Really? Why not?

I don't know why, but according to the Iran government that is so.

I don't know why covering ones face is incompatible with Western ideals, but according to the French government that is so.

I don't know why a whole society has to accept these prevailing ideals, and why an individual can't simply live life the way they want to (with all the usual caveats, of course).

Dr. Baltar

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't know why, but according to the Iran government that is so.

I don't know why covering ones face is incompatible with Western ideals, but according to the French government that is so.

I don't know why a whole society has to accept these prevailing ideals, and why an individual can't simply live life the way they want to (with all the usual caveats, of course).

And that right there is my argument against both of these bannings. Why not ban hoodies also? They're intimidating! Helmets are intimidating!
These bans are removing the rights of people to where whatever dress they wish.

BlaasForRafa

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Iran has banned the mullet hairstyle in a bid to curb the growing Western cultural influence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/06/iran-bans-the-mullet

I had a good scoff when my friend brought up, but at same the time (rather conveniently) Sky News was showing a report about the French lower house banning the burka. And I thought "what's the difference?"

Both moves are sparked by the same desire: to cut out the influence of "undesirable" cultures. And both do the exact same thing: restrict the liberty of individuals to achieve that aim. Obviously there's a difference of scale here, and while that is important, the motive is frighteningly similar.

This story about the mullet has been circulated as some kind of joke. Do us "advanced" Europeans need to take a hard look at ourselves before criticising and laughing at authoritative moves such as this in the Middle-East? What is the difference between the mullet ban and the burka ban?

I think theres a false equivalence in your post. The mullet is just a hairstyle whereas the burqa is a way of oppressing women. Apologists for islamists try to say that the burqa and niqab are a part of certain countries culture when clearly it is pure misogyny aimed at making women second class citizens.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think theres a false equivalence in your post. The mullet is just a hairstyle whereas the burqa is a way of oppressing women. Apologists for islamists try to say that the burqa and niqab are a part of certain countries culture when clearly it is pure misogyny aimed at making women second class citizens.

I certainly don't see a false equivalence here. If you ban the burqa you take away the liberty of an individual to choose that dress - and whether you consider that dress as misogyny is something of a personal choice.

I'd say myself that the burqa certainly represents a culture that treats women as second class citizens - but if women were considered superior in Arabic cultures, but required by religion to wear the burqa as male Sikhs are to wear the turban, then the burqa would no longer be a symbol of misogyny but of superiority.

Therefore there is nothing inherently misogynistic about the burqa itself (although it's certainly silly, as many religious requirements are) - so what exactly are the French banning? Are they banning the cultural treatment of women as second class citizens, or banning something they have chosen as a particular symbol of it without addressing the problem behind it? Are they simply sweeping the issue under the rug (or other concealing cloth of choice)?

If you take our culture - we have certain cultural symbols of the feminine role, such as impractical long hair, high heels, ear piercings, etc - all of which emphasise the fact that the value of a woman is her looks. Is that not exactly the same kind of symbol of second-class citizenship? Should those not be banned if that's really the rationale behind the burqa ban?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dr. Baltar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think theres a false equivalence in your post. The mullet is just a hairstyle whereas the burqa is a way of oppressing women. Apologists for islamists try to say that the burqa and niqab are a part of certain countries culture when clearly it is pure misogyny aimed at making women second class citizens.

In that case we should also ban people from wearing shirts with cannabis leaves on them because they all take part in illegal drug taking.

Furthermore, people who wear leather jackets and have long hair are obviously bikers and do not care for the environment. We should ban that dress too to encourage environmentalism.

People who wear Che Guevara shirts are obviously evil communists bent on creating a Stalinist Regime.....

I could go on and on.

The state has no right in my opinion to tell me or you what I can and cannot wear. However, Michael the shopkeeper certainly has a right to keep me out of his shop if he feels threatened by my attire.

silverharp

the motor bike helmet argument is a red herring. the simple compromise would be to allow property owners to ban whatever head gear they want so if a bank decide that the burka can be used for criminal or fraudulent purposes then they should be allowed decline entry to the premises.
Any attempt at banning the burka in any public place is simply a crass attempt at social engineering. Also prove to me that somewhere where these laws are introduced that some women will not be allowed out of the house or some other unintedned consequence?

conorhal

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Iran has banned the mullet hairstyle in a bid to curb the growing Western cultural influence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/06/iran-bans-the-mullet

I had a good scoff when my friend brought up, but at same the time (rather conveniently) Sky News was showing a report about the French lower house banning the burka. And I thought "what's the difference?"

If you can't see the difference, I despair!

One is about banning individuality, the other is about banning enforced repressive conformity.

conorhal

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Well at least the arguments for banning the burka made a bit of sense. The concealment of identity, and the oppressive nature of the garment are just not compatible with western ideals.

Mullets on the other hand...?

Grounds of good taste? That at least I could respect....;)

djpbarry

conorhal wrote: »

If you can't see the difference, I despair!

One is about banning individuality, the other is about banning enforced repressive conformity.

If a burqa-wearing woman truly is being repressed, then the burqa itself is the least of her problems and banning it will do little to address the underlying problem.

Frank Grimes

conorhal wrote: »

If you can't see the difference, I despair!

One is about banning individuality, the other is about banning enforced repressive conformity.

They're both about a state trying to enforce conformity. It doesn't matter who is doing the enforcing, neither ban is 'better' than the other.

Cuddlesworth

As a motorbike rider I have been asked to remove my helmet many times. I can't pump gas with it on, or enter into banks or shops with it. And this has been said directly to me and signs are up on doors etc.

Would you feel comfortable asking a women wearing a burqa to do the same for fear of being accused of religious persecution? Possible lawsuit afterwards?

Pace2008

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And the mullet isn't compatible with Islamic ideals, either.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Really? Why not?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't know why, but according to the Iran government that is so.

Some hairstyles are considered "un-Islamic" and forbidden by Islamic theocracies.

The mullet is a western hairstyle and apparently, Muslims are not allowed sport the hairstyles of westerners or "kaafir."

There are many such hairstyles, some of which come under the heading of qaza’ – such as the “Marines” haircut, which is forbidden for two reasons, the fact that it is a kind of qaza’ and the fact that it is an imitation of the kuffaar. Some of them do not involve qaza’ but they are styles that belong to the kuffaar, such as making some of the hair stand up and letting the rest hang down, and so on.
This also includes every hairstyle that belongs to the kaafirs or immoral people, because it is not permissible for a Muslim to resemble them in that, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.”

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/3364


This isn't the first case of this nature either:

Iran shuts 'Western' barber shops

wes

I don't see much of a difference for the most part. Both bans are based on foreign culture being bad basically.

Now, in the case of the Burqa, there are security concerns with banks etc, but that wouldn't need a ban of anykind, as you could simply allow banks to make people id themselves as condition for entry. Any security concerns are easily handled with an out right ban, and as such the ban doesn't have anything to do with security.