Iranian government #fundie

Iranian government #fundie dailyrecord.co.uk

HARDLINE Iranian style police have ordered a ban on the mullet haircut.

The chop has come in a government crackdown on "decadent Western cuts".

The mullet - short at the front and long at the back - has been outlawed along with ponytails and even some variations of the common spike.

But a new catalogue of approved styles has given the go-ahead to the Elvis-style quiff.

Jaleh Khodaya, who organised a government-approved hairdressing show in Tehran, said: "The proposed styles are inspired by Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law."

Cops regularly arrest men with elaborate hair cuts or the wrong kind of trousers on.

They can be hauled off to a police station where their locks will be quickly shorn into an acceptable shape.

Serial hair offenders risk stiff fines, while barber shops catering to Western fashions are shut.

Dictating public behaviour and enforcing a strict dress code - especially for women - have long been a part of Iranian policy.

Earlier this year, a cleric said women who wear revealing clothes cause natural disasters.

Keeping dogs for pets has also been slammed. One ayatollah said: "There are people in the West who love their dogs more than their wives and children."

109 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Whilst the other rulings & measures are simply not on, as for this:

"HARDLINE Iranian style police have ordered a ban on the mullet haircut.

The chop has come in a government crackdown on "decadent Western cuts".

The mullet - short at the front and long at the back - has been outlawed"

For once I completely agree with MyMood ImMadInTheHead & his mullah bumchums. I certainly cheered when my (now former) MP John Prescott did this:

to a mulleted cunt several years ago. And every redneck with one in the Bible Belt etc should be herded together, put in a razor-wire
paddock, and nuked from orbit, just to be sure.

[/Aliens]

@#1179402

"Earlier this year, a cleric said women who wear revealing clothes cause natural disasters.

The "boobquake" experiment proved that one wrong."

I'm just surprised they didn't blame it on gays:

'The ancient Romans believed that buggery caused earthquakes'

-John Sessions, "QI"

old comment by breakerslion

As late as the 1950's, women were kicked out of college classes for wearing blue jeans here in the US. This can be used as a benchmark to determine how far behind the curve this kind of behavior is.

To rephrase the Dilbert line, "Alice, you're killing us with that outfit." ... "Ahmed, you're killing us with your haircut!"

Any comment on the Mohawk?

Where was the edict on "wrong pants" in the 1970's, when the US was enjoying the Plaid Golf Monstrosity fad? They might have shamed our conservative cheese balls into wearing something that didn't aggravate one's hangover.

Okay, I'm out.

PS to the Scots. Just to be clear: Plaid kilts, excellent. Plaid tartan, just fine. Plaid shirt, okay for some settings. Plaid pants, just wrong.

old comment by AmericaNeedsALeftHand

I know all these comments about "good for them" are jokes but seriously comments like that promote classism.

The mullet is associated with the "trailer trash" stereotype which is a negative stereotype about low income rural people. The entire trailer trash stereotype is used by the bourgeoisie to degrade and demonize the poor and anything associated in the public mind with poor people so people don't care as much about poverty and the middle class will be more likely to side with the rich(in spite of the fact that most of what we call the middle class is part of the proletariat along with the poor(because they have the same relationship to the means of production i.e. as workers instead of owners), just being paid more money).

This is not deliberate, instead the rich justify their wealth and power to themselves partly by stigmatizing anything popular with or seen as popular with the lower classes (this is why gin was illegal in Britain for part of the 1800s while other just as strong liquors weren't, gin was considered for poor people), and since the rich control the media they put their attitudes about the poor and things they think are for the poor in there.

Not that there aren't people out there who fit the trailer trash stereotype but I've visited trailer parks before and so far every home has been clean and the people were very normal.

old comment by Orion

LoL Mullets.

EDIT: @AmericaNeedsALeftHand: Marxian ideas about relationships to the means of production are no longer valid means of class distinction, move on to institutional economics.

Consider that CEO's, the most highly paid people in the world, are proletarians by Marxian definitions. They work FOR the means of production for a wage, not a profit. The shareholders are the ones who own the means of production and earn profit, but a majority of shareholders are middle class. The upper class are a mixture of highly paid professionals (proletarians) and good investors (bourgeoisie). So clearly the Marxian class definition fails to separate "us" from "them" in any useful way.

old comment by AmericaNeedsALeftHand

@ Orion,

It has become more complicated but that doesn't mean the classes don't really exist.

What matters is the primary source of income and whether it is mostly derived from your own labor or the labor of others.

So CEOs are bourgeois because:
1. Generally they have large amounts of money in stock in the first place.
2. They're in charge. They have wide latitude to delegate decision-making if it becomes too burdensome while still keeping their own wages high. People who are in charge naturally will give more weight towards raising their own wages and salaries than their employees. (This was also the major flaw with the Soviet Union. Since the party instead of the workers were given the power and control they consistently voted themselves better wages(contrary to popular belief 'communist' states did not pay people equally just closer to equal) and better privileges.)

As a result CEOs, board of directors, etc. consistently make way more than the actual product of their labor. They may spend little time doing actual work and delegate most fact-finding to secretaries and advisors and still keep their own wages extraordinarily high.

Regardless, my point still stands. "Taste" is subjective but these beliefs that one look is more tasteful than another doesn't form in a vaccuum. The rich have more access to prestige and media and whoever has control there has the most control over what is promoted as being "tasteful/cool/sophisticated/..." or "Terrible/awful/ugly/...".

Also I'm a major revisionist. I don't think socialism is inevitable to follow right away from capitalism. Its just as possible a new privileged class in a new kind of system will take over if we're not careful. But I'll delve into that some other time.