Iran and Headveiling

[ohio jones]

I'm referring to the ban on traditional clothing and requiring Western clothing.

I haven't found evidence that any sort of required Western clothing was more revealing than the traditional clothing, particularly not to the degree that it could be called "partial nakedness".

This was the core of the controversy. People had traditional clothing that is roughly analogous to what typical plain Anabaptists would consider adequately covered. But to advance in society one had to adopt modern fashions.

Advancing in society is optional, not required. Even so, normal Western clothing in 1936-1941, the time frame of Kashf-e hijab, would generally be considered adequately covered.

[JohnH]

I haven't found evidence that any sort of required Western clothing was more revealing than the traditional clothing, particularly not to the degree that it could be called "partial nakedness".

This was the core of the controversy. People had traditional clothing that is roughly analogous to what typical plain Anabaptists would consider adequately covered. But to advance in society one had to adopt modern fashions.

Advancing in society is optional, not required. Even so, normal Western clothing in 1936-1941, the time frame of Kashf-e hijab, would generally be considered adequately covered.

Traditional clothing was explicitly not allowed under the Shah, resigning it to essentially rural areas or poor ghettoes.

And yes, I consider Western attire to be “partial nakedness”. I realise most people who aren’t plain Anabaptists will disagree with me on this, but we can see in the present era what Western attire indeed evolved into.

[ohio jones]

Calling the suits and ties and bowler hats of 1936 Tehran "partial nakedness" because people in 2026 Walmart are wearing wifebeaters and shorts is ... one way of looking at it, I guess.

[JohnH]

Calling the suits and ties and bowler hats of 1936 Tehran "partial nakedness" because people in 2026 Walmart are wearing wifebeaters and shorts is ... one way of looking at it, I guess.

I'm referring more to what happened in the 1970s, which were the conditions that led to a popular revolution. The policies put in place in the 1936 era became permanent.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I haven't found evidence that any sort of required Western clothing was more revealing than the traditional clothing, particularly not to the degree that it could be called "partial nakedness".

This was the core of the controversy. People had traditional clothing that is roughly analogous to what typical plain Anabaptists would consider adequately covered. But to advance in society one had to adopt modern fashions.

Advancing in society is optional, not required. Even so, normal Western clothing in 1936-1941, the time frame of Kashf-e hijab, would generally be considered adequately covered.

Which looks like this:


Which might just pass in non-cape dress requiring circles.

[ken_sylvania]

This was the core of the controversy. People had traditional clothing that is roughly analogous to what typical plain Anabaptists would consider adequately covered. But to advance in society one had to adopt modern fashions.

Advancing in society is optional, not required. Even so, normal Western clothing in 1936-1941, the time frame of Kashf-e hijab, would generally be considered adequately covered.

Which looks like this:


Which might just pass in non-cape dress requiring circles.

Oh Horrors! Some of them have their elbows showing!

[Judas Maccabeus]

Calling the suits and ties and bowler hats of 1936 Tehran "partial nakedness" because people in 2026 Walmart are wearing wifebeaters and shorts is ... one way of looking at it, I guess.

I'm referring more to what happened in the 1970s, which were the conditions that led to a popular revolution. The policies put in place in the 1936 era became permanent.

I suspect you put the cart before the horse here. From what I've been told, it was not so much a reaction against western fashion, but a reaction against the politics and actions of the Shaw, which was supported by us. Wearing Chador what is a form of protest against the Shah and his policies.The fashion revolt against western clothing was secondary, and actually caught a lot of Iranians by surprise. Many expected the provisional government led by Bakhtiar to become the permanent government, the whole idea of an Islamic republic did not come about until Ruhollah Khomeini had been there for a while, some of the voters did not even know what an Islamic Republic would be when they voted for it. I suspect you had buyers remorse.

I know a decent number of Iranians, having been in healthcare. They basically seemed to fall into two camps. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, and the ones that got out in later years. The ones that got out in later years are the ones that were most surprised by the tightening restrictions that happened after the Islamic Republic was proclaimed. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, basically wanted no part of Ruhollah Khomeini or anything that had to do with him, and tend to be a little bit nostalgic for pre-revolutionary Iran.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Advancing in society is optional, not required. Even so, normal Western clothing in 1936-1941, the time frame of Kashf-e hijab, would generally be considered adequately covered.

Which looks like this:


Which might just pass in non-cape dress requiring circles.

Oh Horrors! Some of them have their elbows showing!

For a fact, 1915 typical day dress meets the standards of our non cape dress requiring church.

[JohnH]

I know a decent number of Iranians, having been in healthcare. They basically seemed to fall into two camps. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, and the ones that got out in later years. The ones that got out in later years are the ones that were most surprised by the tightening restrictions that happened after the Islamic Republic was proclaimed. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, basically wanted no part of Ruhollah Khomeini or anything that had to do with him, and tend to be a little bit nostalgic for pre-revolutionary Iran.

I have known a fair number of Persians as well, almost all who exited the country right as the revolution was going on. One thing in common was just how much hatred they had for the new regime, since it had basically ruined their / their family's lives, and they had a strong desire to return home but it was looking like that was never going to be possible.

Interestingly they were mostly secular, or else very, very nominally Muslim.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I know a decent number of Iranians, having been in healthcare. They basically seemed to fall into two camps. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, and the ones that got out in later years. The ones that got out in later years are the ones that were most surprised by the tightening restrictions that happened after the Islamic Republic was proclaimed. The ones that got out immediately after the revolution, basically wanted no part of Ruhollah Khomeini or anything that had to do with him, and tend to be a little bit nostalgic for pre-revolutionary Iran.

I have known a fair number of Persians as well, almost all who exited the country right as the revolution was going on. One thing in common was just how much hatred they had for the new regime, since it had basically ruined their / their family's lives, and they had a strong desire to return home but it was looking like that was never going to be possible.

Interestingly they were mostly secular, or else very, very nominally Muslim.

I didn't say any of them liked the new regime, I said that they didn't like the new regime for very different reasons.