FIFA screws over iranian female athletes

[Thanas]

Neither is "allowing them to play with state-dictated wear will galvanize reform" a strong argument.

Really?
So publicly visible, pretty independent women playing a traditionally male sport does nothing to enhance their cause?
Or do you think that public visibility of minorities has no impact on their causes?

I will suspect it has a pretty little effect. Iran has already got strong female role models, who, unlike the football team, do not bent to the will of the mullahs. You might even have heard of them.

Yes, the team on it's own won't make a dent into Iranian patriarchy. But they can certainly be a source for both positive rolemodels and strong spokeswomen. But i suppose having those is totally unimportant.

Tell me, precisely what message does it send to young women if the football team is willing to compromise their ideals? Doesn't it send a conformist message?

But apparently to you, the mere act of having them play in regime-sponsored activities shows that the regime is wrong.

[Big Phil]

FIFA isn't in the business of only allowing teams to play if it will trigger social reform in the team's home country. There do not need to be strong political arguments for allowing a national team to play football; that's the default condition. There need to be strong arguments against allowing a team, to play to justify banning them.

"Their uniforms are unsafe" can be a strong argument; "their uniforms display political symbolism we dislike even though we can't explain how it will actually cause problems" is not.

That wasn't FIFA's reasoning... that's a counter to the bullshit red herring argument that "FIFA is misogynist and should have let the women play to encourage political reform" argument that was initially put forth.

[TheHammer]

Neither is "allowing them to play with state-dictated wear will galvanize reform" a strong argument.

Really?
So publicly visible, pretty independent women playing a traditionally male sport does nothing to enhance their cause?
Or do you think that public visibility of minorities has no impact on their causes?

I will suspect it has a pretty little effect. Iran has already got strong female role models, who, unlike the football team, do not bent to the will of the mullahs. You might even have heard of them.

Yes, the team on it's own won't make a dent into Iranian patriarchy. But they can certainly be a source for both positive rolemodels and strong spokeswomen. But i suppose having those is totally unimportant.

Tell me, precisely what message does it send to young women if the football team is willing to compromise their ideals? Doesn't it send a conformist message?

But apparently to you, the mere act of having them play in regime-sponsored activities shows that the regime is wrong.

Don't underestimate the role sports can play in societal progress. You know, I can't help but think about the symmetry here to Jackie Robinson breaking baseball's color barrier. The breaking of the barrier itself was significant, but Jackie still suffered much of the segregation and racisim prevalent in those days. Thus his willing participation despite such treatment might well have seemed "comformist". It wasn't perfect, but it was a first step in the right direction. Having a highly visible popular black figure out there did do a lot for the civil rights movement.

You mention that there are women in Iran who refuse to bow to the Mullahs. Much the same could be said about black Civil rights leaders of Robinson's era. While they were knocking on the front door asking for civil rights, the breaking of the color barrier helped make acceptance of that easier. A subtle means of moving civil rights down a path of less resistance. When you find yourself cheering someone on as they lead your favorite team to victory you view them differently. Such persons tend to get a new found respect.

The failure to allow the Iranian women play soccer is a missed opportunity. I'm sure the idea of them playing soccer at all is probably an affront to more traditional elements of Iranian society, and no doubt are happy by the fact that they won't be. It wasn't a sweeping overnight change, but the fact that Iran fielded a team at all would seem to indicate a movement in the right direction. And no doubt their matches would have been televised in Iran, giving many people there a view of the outside world they might not otherwise get. Now, rather than cheering on their country women they will instead dig in their heels much the same way FIFA has over this issue.

[Big Phil]

Don't underestimate the role sports can play in societal progress. You know, I can't help but think about the symmetry here to Jackie Robinson breaking baseball's color barrier. The breaking of the barrier itself was significant, but Jackie still suffered much of the segregation and racisim prevalent in those days. Thus his willing participation despite such treatment might well have seemed "comformist". It wasn't perfect, but it was a first step in the right direction. Having a highly visible popular black figure out there did do a lot for the civil rights movement.

You mention that there are women in Iran who refuse to bow to the Mullahs. Much the same could be said about black Civil rights leaders of Robinson's era. While they were knocking on the front door asking for civil rights, the breaking of the color barrier helped make acceptance of that easier. A subtle means of moving civil rights down a path of less resistance. When you find yourself cheering someone on as they lead your favorite team to victory you view them differently. Such persons tend to get a new found respect.

The failure to allow the Iranian women play soccer is a missed opportunity. I'm sure the idea of them playing soccer at all is probably an affront to more traditional elements of Iranian society, and no doubt are happy by the fact that they won't be. It wasn't a sweeping overnight change, but the fact that Iran fielded a team at all would seem to indicate a movement in the right direction. And no doubt their matches would have been televised in Iran, giving many people there a view of the outside world they might not otherwise get. Now, rather than cheering on their country women they will instead dig in their heels much the same way FIFA has over this issue.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with you. It would be great to have the Iranian women playing soccer - it was great that the US played (and got walloped by) Iran in the 1998 World Cup and the players themselves got along great - but FIFA's job is not to promote democracy, civil rights, etc. FIFA takes great pains to remains neutral and outside of politics, and the your stated desire to have FIFA embed itself in international politics is not a good idea.

[Simon_Jester]

No one's asking them to get involved in the politics of the thing. But the politics of the thing make it an exceptionally great pity when they refuse to flex on the issue of uniforms and thus effectively guarantee that Iranian women won't be allowed to play football by their government.

This ruling causes harm out of proportion to any positive effect it would have.

[Big Phil]

No one's asking them to get involved in the politics of the thing. But the politics of the thing make it an exceptionally great pity when they refuse to flex on the issue of uniforms and thus effectively guarantee that Iranian women won't be allowed to play football by their government.

This ruling causes harm out of proportion to any positive effect it would have.

In other words, you're asking them to get involved in politics.

[TheHammer]

Don't underestimate the role sports can play in societal progress. You know, I can't help but think about the symmetry here to Jackie Robinson breaking baseball's color barrier. The breaking of the barrier itself was significant, but Jackie still suffered much of the segregation and racisim prevalent in those days. Thus his willing participation despite such treatment might well have seemed "comformist". It wasn't perfect, but it was a first step in the right direction. Having a highly visible popular black figure out there did do a lot for the civil rights movement.

You mention that there are women in Iran who refuse to bow to the Mullahs. Much the same could be said about black Civil rights leaders of Robinson's era. While they were knocking on the front door asking for civil rights, the breaking of the color barrier helped make acceptance of that easier. A subtle means of moving civil rights down a path of less resistance. When you find yourself cheering someone on as they lead your favorite team to victory you view them differently. Such persons tend to get a new found respect.

The failure to allow the Iranian women play soccer is a missed opportunity. I'm sure the idea of them playing soccer at all is probably an affront to more traditional elements of Iranian society, and no doubt are happy by the fact that they won't be. It wasn't a sweeping overnight change, but the fact that Iran fielded a team at all would seem to indicate a movement in the right direction. And no doubt their matches would have been televised in Iran, giving many people there a view of the outside world they might not otherwise get. Now, rather than cheering on their country women they will instead dig in their heels much the same way FIFA has over this issue.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with you. It would be great to have the Iranian women playing soccer - it was great that the US played (and got walloped by) Iran in the 1998 World Cup and the players themselves got along great - but FIFA's job is not to promote democracy, civil rights, etc. FIFA takes great pains to remains neutral and outside of politics, and the your stated desire to have FIFA embed itself in international politics is not a good idea.

I think that's where you get it wrong. You seem to equate "politics" with "furthering the cause of human rights". Clearly they are not one and the same.

As for "FIFA's Job", lets see what they have to say about it:

OUR PROMISE

For the Game. For the World.

The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights. FIFA now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.

Only with the unwavering dedication of every FIFA team member, every member association and every business partner can football in all its forms contribute to achieving FIFA's goals at a high level by protecting standards, encouraging competition and promoting solidarity in the world game.

For the Game. For the World.

OUR MISSION

'Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future'.

Played by millions around the world, football is the heart and soul of FIFA and as the guardian of this most cherished game, we have a great responsibility. This responsibility does not end with organising the FIFA World Cup™ and the various other world cup competitions; it extends to safeguarding the Laws of the Game, developing the game around the world and to bringing hope to those less privileged. This is what we believe is the very essence of fair play and solidarity.

We see it as our mission to contribute towards building a better future for the world by using the power and popularity of football. This mission gives meaning and direction to each and every activity that FIFA is involved in - football being an integrated part of our society.

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/mission.html

I bolded the last line. But I trust that I really didn't need to add any emphasis to make my point...

[salm]

Tell me, precisely what message does it send to young women if the football team is willing to compromise their ideals? Doesn't it send a conformist message?

But apparently to you, the mere act of having them play in regime-sponsored activities shows that the regime is wrong.

How do you know that they are compromising their ideals. A lot of women want to wear a head scarf.

[Thanas]

Tell me, precisely what message does it send to young women if the football team is willing to compromise their ideals? Doesn't it send a conformist message?

But apparently to you, the mere act of having them play in regime-sponsored activities shows that the regime is wrong.

How do you know that they are compromising their ideals. A lot of women want to wear a head scarf.

You are right, I did not think about that. In a way though, this is even worse - if they are not, then it is not going to help Iranian women anyway as they may just be poster girls for "appropriate" female clothing.

[salm]

Tell me, precisely what message does it send to young women if the football team is willing to compromise their ideals? Doesn't it send a conformist message?

But apparently to you, the mere act of having them play in regime-sponsored activities shows that the regime is wrong.

How do you know that they are compromising their ideals. A lot of women want to wear a head scarf.

You are right, I did not think about that. In a way though, this is even worse - if they are not, then it is not going to help Iranian women anyway as they may just be poster girls for "appropriate" female clothing.

They could also be poster girls for successful, independent women. Who, among other things, happen to wear a headscarf.

There are stupid dress codes all over the world.
Business people are forced to wear suits and ties for example. Are successful and visible business men therefore nothing more than poster boys for "appropriate" clothing?

[Thanas]

They could also be poster girls for successful, independent women. Who, among other things, happen to wear a headscarf.

They could, or they could not. The hijab was purposefully introduced by the Iranian revolution to oppress women. I really cannot see how it can be "just" an accessory in that context.

[salm]

I guess it depends on how these women are perceived by their audience then. I could imagine that something like the headscarf is so common in Iran that most people living there won´t even notice it and instead just see the person who has accomplished playing in the national team.

Just like a suit won´t attract your attention when you walk into a bank.

[Thanas]

I guess it depends on how these women are perceived by their audience then. I could imagine that something like the headscarf is so common in Iran that most people living there won´t even notice it and instead just see the person who has accomplished playing in the national team.

Maybe. On the other hand, people who oppose the regime make a point of not wearing it as often as they can, or some do not wear it at all out of protest.

[Serafina]

Keep in mind that these women don't have another choice. They most likely can't say that they won't wear the headscarf without being kicked out of the team. So even if they would want to make that point, they can't make it without loosing the way they want to make that point.