[toomanybeersies]

Because I am a man, I am allowed to be topless outside in NYC. I wouldn't if I was a woman.

The hijab worn in Iran is a lot less restrictive than the hijab worn in a lost of other Muslim countries. I would join in the outrage if the chess players were forced to wear a niqab, but requiring people to wear a loose headscarf is hardly oppression of the worst degree.

[x1798DE]

Not a particularly good example, women can be topless in NYC: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/24/434315957/...

[gonvaled]

Which is exactly why as many women as men are going topless in NYC, right?

I could be misguided and maybe women have less tendency of going topless. Do you have any studies at hand?

[x1798DE]

No one said it's popular, just that it's not illegal.

[gonvaled]

And I am saying that because it is legal it does not mean it is accepted. You don't have the weight of the state, but the weight of society.

[toomanybeersies]

My mistake. I had vague memories that it was illegal in NYC.

Substitute NYC for a city in the USA where it's illegal for women to go topless.

[philoye]

> Because I am a man, I am allowed to be topless outside in NYC. I wouldn't if I was a woman.

Actually, it is legal for women to be topless in New York: https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I92_0160.htm

[arcanus]

> hardly oppression of the worst degree.

The symbolism is what is important. A government that tells you what to dress will certainly not stop with benign restrictions.

[toomanybeersies]

But all governments tell you how to dress in some form or another (or there's strongly ingrained beliefs that are de facto law), and it's usually different for men and women.

The question then, is where do we draw the line?

[candiodari]

How about the rule that if you change religion, you get executed ? That one applies in Iran, doesn't it ? What does that say about muslim tolerance - in Iran and elsewhere ?