Thursday
Mar112010
Iran: Gender Issues and the Green Movement
Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 13:28 
A quick follow-up to the Washington hearing. I mis-handled a question from Maria Rohaly about gender issues yesterday. (She has rightly hauled me up on this.) I took her question as one specifically on the hijab --- primarily because that issue is so often used in Western press to represent women's concerns and because it had come up in conversations on my trips to Iran), thus missing the opportunity to say this:Video: “Iran at a Crossroads” Conference (10 March)
The Latest from Iran (11 March): Marathon
The Green Movement is not a single movement for rights; optimally, it should be a political intersection for all of those movements. Earlier this week, coinciding with International Women's Day, women activists in Iran pointed to issues regarding the family, marriage, division of property, and economic rights. Just as the opposition faces the challenge of putting forth the concerns of the labour movement, so it must engage with these concerns.
No doubt there will be the question of the dynamic of this engagement and the current opposition calls for electoral reform and remedy of post-election abuses. In one case this weekend, Iranian female journalists declared that their first priority was the release of women detainees.
Those decisions, amongst others, are for the movement inside Iran. Yet Maria Rohaly was right to put forth the point that political tactics should not mean a deferral of these concerns.
Earlier in the morning, I asserted that the Green Movement is simply an umbrella term for a wide range of opposition groups and their aspirations and concerns. In the case of gender issues, as well as others, that umbrella should always protect those aspirations and concerns and never cover them up.
In this, as in so much about Iran, I am a student. I was fortunate to go to Tehran just as the first Woem's Studies programmes were being established, and I have been fortunate to learn from numerous colleagues and friends since then. There is a Scarf Movement, but there are also campaigns to convert the Islamic Republic's achievements on literacy and access of women to higher education into equality in the workplace as well as the home. There is serious discussion, as Maria Rohaly, about the acquisition of rights given a Constitution that many see as a constraint on, rather than a vehicle for, justice and fairness.
At the end of the day, I think I have to acknowledge that I have much more learning to do. I hope, however, that the recognition of the issue points --- as so much has in these last nine months --- to the ongoing development of the Green Movement.
Reader Comments (14)
Thanks for this, Scott. Ths cuts to the heart of the matter:
"There is serious discussion, as Maria Rohaly, about the acquisition of rights given a Constitution that many see as a constraint on, rather than a vehicle for, justice and fairness."
A constitution represents the ultimate legal standard to which a country holds itself; it thereby also serves to represent the values of a nation. If the constitution, as final arbiter of all legal issues within a country, and as the document that sets the cultural tone for a society, a priori defines women as unequal to men (in all of the various ways that this impacts women's lives: divorce and other family law, pay equity, equal access to job markets, equal access to educational opportunities, equal access to health care, etc.), then any "rights" granted under that constitution are always subject to that constitution, already constrained by it, and thus fundamental inequalities will always remain. In other words, having "rights" does not mean the same thing as having "equality."
Iranian women fought and won revolution in 1979 for equality; this they declared from their own mouths in the streets of Tehran. What they got for their efforts was counterrevolution and shari'a law.
These were their chants on March 8 1979 when they realized what they were about to be dealt:
“I say it every moment, I say it under torture, either death or freedom!”
“Freedom is not eastern nor western: it is universal!”
“Death to censorship!”
“In the dawn of freedom, the place of women is empty: revolution is meaningless without women’s freedom – we do not want hijab!”
With uncanny prescience, one woman said, on March 8 1979:
“The government raised the issue of hijab. We were part of this revolution. We studied and worked in the hospitals. We treated the wounded during the revolution. After the army surrendered and the revolution triumphed, we were in the streets. Then Khomeini said enough of demonstration, you go back to your homes. We did that. Since Thursday we came back to streets again: We do not want hijab. If you wanted to impose hijab, you must have told us before. We had the revolution to have equal rights for women and men. Women in law were the first to react against the new action. We followed them. We want to fight back. We have to speak up right now for our rights. Otherwise, when they write the constitutional laws, it will be too late. First they impose the hijab, and then other discriminations will come. They’ll impose restrictions on marriage and divorce and finally will force us to stay at home."
(http://missionfreeiran.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/mfi-stands-with-iranian-women-on-international-womens-day-and-every-day/)
Since then, Iranian women have not for one day stopped fighting for equality, and you can see the result of that ongoing struggle in today's movement in Iran. Yet once again, their fight for equality is threatened by what demands for equality during times of social upheaval are always threatened by: "Sit back, darling, wait your turn, let's win rights for "EVERYONE" first, and then gradually your turn will come too. The society needs to evolve to slowly accommodate your demands (to be recognized as an equal human being)." That's what they told blacks in America. That's what they told women in America, and in countless other places around the world, when women demanded equality. But history clearly demonstrates that accommodating racism or sexism in one's own government never results in evolution of that government's values or ways of behaving. It always results in continued oppression of human rights.
I, for one, will not condone those (including leading reformists) who say, "It's OK to tell women in Iran to wait for equality" - a demand that they fought and shed blood for and died for and lost their children over. Women in Iran, and worldwide, have been waiting long enough. It is Iranian women, however, who have managed to open this opportunity for fundamental change in their society, and who deserve the opportunity to implement their demands, unfettered by those who would tell them to wait to have their equal humanity formally recognized.
(Notably, in the US, we can barely get the Lily Ledbetter Act passed, forget about an Equal Rights Amendment to our own constitution.)
A movement, a government, a society can only declare itself in pursuit of human rights when it recognizes as a fundamental principle in a society the equality of all people regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, etc. (Check the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where equality of the sexes in enshrined). Otherwise, rhetoric about human rights is just that - rhetoric, meant to lure the naive to the political fold on the basis of implied promises never meant to be delivered. Unfortunately, in many societies, including in the US, recognizing that girls and women are vested with the full panoply human rights and are fundamentally equal to boys and men remains a challenge, both legally and culturally.
This movement in Iran, if successful in meeting their own demands for equality and human rights, can be a game changer for all of society - not just in Iran, and not just in the Middle East, but throughout the West too.
Thank you again for taking this concern seriously.
Maria
Our brave Iranian sisters have been on the front lines from day 1 and as such should be a part of the transformation the green movement is bringing to Iran.
I can understand why Maria is taking Scott Assumptions for granted and want to prove wrong conclusion which Scott is taking. Women in their revolution 1979 wanted some thing else as she stated from video clip. I agree with her. But what happened by counter revolutionaries, as Islamists were completely different. I have to say even from "Cultural" point of view they had to change what it was main stream and norm in Iranian Society. Iranian women got vote right 1961 before even Swiss which got their own 1972. Scott can not arbitrary choose what mainstream and what cultural norms were existing in Iran at the time. He has to know more facts from Iran than a short trip to Iran. Ones he choose as Iranian women movements are also arbitrary. Those who say first they have to get prisoners out of prisons they never wanted compulsory Hijab be a issues even to talk about it, and now they got good excuse to turn down the most demand of women in Iran which is freedom of clothing an abolishment of Gender Apartheid in Iran. On other hand, why should one demands be against other one which especially both are from the same nature. That means all those are in prisons because of these demands (abolishment of Gender Apartheid and compulsory Hijab as flag of woman slavery in Iran) in first place.
Scott states : "There is a Scarf Movement, but there are also campaigns to convert the Islamic Republic’s achievements on literacy and access of women to higher education into equality in the workplace as well as the home."
All this should show him how much women needed change and 31 years despite of all anti women measures they still tried to join all activities in society. This does not show IRI has any points on that but still worse how they could survive despite of all that desire for grow from women side themselves. Naturally growth does not mean they are doing good job, but we have to think reverse how despite of all that growth this Gender Apartheid State could survived during all these years?!
I agree with Scott that the green movement has many social, political and civil rights movements under its umbrella and that also includes women rights and the goals are to create the atmosphere for all people to represent their demands and equal rights for all
But, we should also consider that the Iranian women represent 50% of the population and I believe the majority of the green movement are women (we may see less women in the streets than men, but they are more active on the social level than men)
most of the university students and graduates in Iran are women while only a small portion of Iranian workforce are women and the majority of the Iranian female workers are underpaid and their education and skills are undervalued
women have faced a lot more oppression than men and have a lot more reason to be a part of a movement towards a more secular and less discriminating government
I grew up in Iran and know how the majority of women suffer being forced to wear hejab. Personally, non of my female family members used to wear hejab before the revolution. If you look at the video's of pre-1979 protests you'll see that only a very small number of female protesters had hejab. In reality hejab represents Islam, not the Iranian culture and the majority of Iranians consider it as anti-Iranian.
still, since Women's rights is not the whole issue and equality for all Iranians under a secular democratic regime will also include equal rights for women, we should focus more on human rights and equality for all to avoid confusion.
Mahin,
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I encountered a common theme during trips to Iran from those women who argued that the Revolution and Islamic Republic had advanced women's rights. It was that the Republic had encouraged literacy and education for women, had encouraged them to go into higher education, and had women in prominent public positions.
May I ask how you would respond to someone who put that argument?
S.
Dear Cyrus,
We shall not forget, Khomeni was in Shah's Darbar (Kingdom Institution) before woman rights to vote became law in Iran. He left Darbar just because of that. As he came to power in Iran he defined his own regime as an anti women Islamist. As you rightfully said we in Iran do not have such a culture as they imposed on us through religious state. All that is right, but we are facing also a Gender Apartheid state in Iran. Like what we had in South Africa, there, the blacks were under discrimination. In Iran we have women in such a position. The same way South Africa could not get rid off Apartheid State without freeing Blacks we can not do the same without freeing women in Iran. This regime's flag is Hejab. You can not talk about women equality or freedom without attacking this compulsory Hejab! Key has been Hejab for Islamic Republic and we can not take the key form it. Have you not seen how every summer when women would need to take off or bring down Hejab how the regime stated huge Security force, Basij, Sepah maneuver in all cities in Iran during all these years. Just talk to any women knows that. Just talk to people of Iran they say YES that is truth! We can not ignore facts and hope for the best! The most male chauvinist men but fair would admit he would be be free in IRI without bring down that damn flag which is Hejab! That is a fact in Iran today!
Maria Rohaly,
Now we know why the Women of Iran are the backbone of the Green Movement!!! Great article and website. Keep up the great work and we will always support you!
Thx
Bill
Dear Lucas,
As we always tried to reply that we ended up in prisons.
Argument should have some facts to go on otherwise being imprisoned and tortured and executed we can not get no where.
I just try to reply you for your own sake and not getting into their argument. I should be able freely to challenge them in Iran and see who get ahead me or them. Who really get people around her them or me. Am I free to challenge their views in Iran? No! First of all you have to tell me what progress you mean? Do you mean by getting a child grow but not having any freedom to talk and be really participant as human being in her society it means progress. Women in Iran have tried to take in all those activities as they could. Potential were there but where is implementation of all these potentials. Just take a quick look at all those laws now and before revolutions. Not even that just talk to any women in Iran on streets and found out what expectations of women are and compare them with the all Sharia laws are forced on them. I take you sincere and not labeling you any thing which I should have in another case. But, dear Scott, do you really take all these arguments they presented to you as worth while to even think of it?! I think you should have extended your short trip longer and talk with women and find out what they really strive for. Being a little serious about that you could see after Iran & Iraq war women population exceeded men. If you have use your analytical talent you could see girls just because there is no work and boys to marry end up in University with no future, they try to get some education and then see what happens after. Boys gets jobs faster because most jobs are for boys. That is why universities get overwhelmed with girls. 31 Years people have been waiting this regime to collapse, just because none of it match Iranian people expectations. Millions of people have been refugees from Iran and waiting to go back home. No one could believe they can survive so long. you do not know Iranian history and real mainstream and culture and all those norms people have among themselves. People in Iran are more secular than any people in our world today. How they end up with such a religious state is just the interest of our western power who could not confront such a genuine revolution as 1979 and even today revolution face to face. They have to come up with such a local reactionary elements in our own society and call it our culture. That is the same if I say KKK way of life is American culture. Is that so? Do you really reply KKK argument about Obama and racial norms we have to follow? Do you want me to bring some of those and let you sit down and reply those one by one? Do you really want that? You want us to reply those pro regime so called " reformist" women activists as real argument of Iranian people right now?! You must be joking! Dear Scott, We all hope to be able to reply those in Iran where people themselves can hear us those who know better what are facts and what are not!
Scott,
You mention "those women who argued that the Revolution and Islamic Republic had advanced women’s rights. It was that the Republic had encouraged literacy and education for women, had encouraged them to go into higher education, and had women in prominent public positions."
It is true that women have profited from literacy and education programmes, but all the following was not really intented by the IRI. As an Iranian writer put it in an (unpublished) interview, women were a) forced to leave their homes for economic reasons, i.e. to support the family, and b) turned to universities and intensified their efforts to reach higher education as a REACTION to all discriminatory laws. The clergy could not prevent them from doing so, as all public spaces (including universities and even cinema and theatre) had already been "Islamized", i.e. morally uncritical.
On the other hand Janet Afary points to the fact that "Sometimes, the Islamist state privileged patriarchal interpretations of gender norms over more modern ones. At times, it adopted modern projects alongside a discourse that presented them as practices indigenous to traditional Islam. In all cases, the state used modern institutions to disseminate these various discourses."
(The Sexual Economy of the Islamic Republic) http://www.janet-afary.com/category/articles/
In fact she discounts the popular notion that the IRI "enforced an inclusive form of sexual repression on the Iranian people" and underlines the ambiguous nature of its "sexual economy" (Foucault) as cited above. In some cases these policies had
just the opposite effect, e.g. birth control, which has freed Iranian women from coerced births, resulting in better health conditions, but also the ability to continue education.
The same goes for the alleged "women in prominent public positions". As women have been banned from key positions, e.g. in the judiciary, they have turned to remaining free spaces in universities and in politics.
In any case all these movements started in the two decades before the IRI came to power and could never be stopped in the three decades after, regardless of all constraints.
Moreuseful informations on these issues are to be found here: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/khatami.htm -- and here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_2_67/ai_63787338/
Arshama
Maria
Bravo, and your last bit is very interesting because it shows that iranian women could in effect be a guiding light, not only in ME but in those other countries that still lack equality, usually or always because of religions; (or lazy administrations ?)
I find it very interesting that despite all the obstacles in Iran, over the past years, women have been able to become equal if not a majority in higher education. If that is the case, I would think that (also) despite religious influence that still exists, and that is obvious to us observers with the videos, because the chador isn't imposed, so all those we see, choose it.. unless there are some situations (parliament ?) where it's imposed... there is a strong desire among a majority of women to demand their rights.
I commented recently on the photo of three chadored women in a photo with AM, with in the foreground of the photo, beautiful flowers, that completely cut them out. To me, this showed symbolically that women in AM gvt are not even as worthy as flowers, they are hidden behind crow-like costumes and they are nobody, hardly a visible face. They are even lucky to be able to show their faces a little as the burka or full nikab is what makes them disappear completely.
I hope that this year, will be a turning point for world-wide movements for womens' rights in those worst muslim countries, and elsewhere, that with increased communication networks, it will overcome the 'gradualist' opinions of some males, as I saw on your blog. In fact history was not gradualist, it was jumping in huge hops, depending on the place and the time.
Some peoples/ places have jumped centuries in a few years, like going from no basic amenities to having cell phones, internet.. They adapted, so all is possible.
ps - Mahin your explanation of number of women in universities is eye opener for me.
Mahin,
I competely agree, hejab is the flag of this regime and once hejab is gone, the regime will go with it soon after. Islamic Republic is a death worshipping cult & can not survive w/o it's barbaric Islamic symbols & ideologies.
Also thank you for reminding us of when Khomeini & mullahs turned against Shah. Equal rights for women as well as land reform that freed many people from slavery in Iran. Time to realize that Iran's problems with clerics is nothing new, they have always been against modernity and progress
We've been waiting for the fall of this regime for decades and surprised how it managed to survive for so many years. They created a system of fear that kept them in power for so long, but as people realized that enough is enough and became more fearless everyday, the end of IR is near
Arshama is right,
It wasn't the regime that increased the level of women education in Iran and wasn't because of a single fact either. Mullahs have always seen women's education as a threat to their existence, but coudlnt do anything about it because education is up to the parents, not the government (most students in Iran are enroled in private schools & parents pay for them)
Also an increase in the number of universities in many different parts of Iran led to more education opportunity as long as you can pay for it (Rafsanjani saw an opportunity in private univeristy business as a no-risk profitable business and owns the majority of private universities)
Another thing to mention, the foundation of Iran's education system was layed during the shah, within 5 years, he almost covered the entire Iran w/schools.
Women & their parents are the reason for women's literacy
Mahin,
This is very helpful --- thank you. I would like to ask you further questions later, perhaps when I finally stop travelling....
S.
Bill - thanks so much for standing with Iranian women, and women around the world. We're all in this struggle together. ;)
~Maria.
At the risk of getting Maria's wrath, I'm going to defend poor Scott for a second since he's getting dragged through the mud .. LOL .
I was at the event, and to me this was an easy question to mess up. Firstly, it was a paragraph-long question, not a one-or-two sentence question. Secondly, Maria opened her question discussing women marching against the hijab. The way I've been taught, the first sentence of a paragraph in English (whether oral or written) is almost always the topic sentence. Generally, a well-organized paragraph supports or develops a single controlling idea, which is usually expressed in that topic sentence. Thus, I was myself initially prepared for this to be a question about the hijab. It was only at the very end of the question, after thinking for a few moments, that I realized that Maria had led the question off with an example, not her main point.
We could add in the fact that Scott hadn't been given an opportunity by the moderator to address the previous question, so he attempted to do that first, and then go back and recall Maria's question to answer.
All-and-all, I guess I just viewed it as a very easy mistake to make, rather than a significant error.
On the substance, I am generally in agreement with Maria's points. For me, I guess I see a parallel to gay rights today (or civil rights in America in the 50's/60's). I believe in 50 years people will look back and laugh at the fact that gay people were not allowed to marry in America, and that they were laughed at and viewed somehow as "second class." However, there are a broad swath of the public today who are against gay rights, so you have a large number of politicians who do not support the full litany of those rights simply because they are afraid of the power of that voting bloc. (see John Kerry's and Barack Obama's views, for example.) I believe Mousavi, Karoubi, Khatami et al, are looking at the Iranian population and noting that there are a large number of Islamic conservatives who do not favor equal rights for women. Since Mousavi / Khatami / Karroubi see it as a goal to coalesce as many people around a common set of goals as possible, they likely "sacrifice" women's rights to an extent because it is too controversial, and might alienate supporters. They are focusing on a narrow agenda. While I understand their motivations and concerns, I'm not totally sure that this is what leaders should do. Khatami, in particular, has always stood out to me as someone willing to sacrifice his values for the sake of harmony or expediency (I'm not quite sure Rafs has strong values in the first place, so I'll just leave him out of the equation ;-)
I have a tendency to view the Constitution issue through the same prism (although please note the disclaimer that I've never enitrely read it through from beginning to end.) . Mousavi has this overriding prinicple that the problem is not with the Constitution itself, but rather the failure to implement all its provisions equally. That's certainly debateable, both as a truism, as well as a political strategy. Mousavi is well aware of the limitations of this, so he gets around those by discussing how the constitution can be amended or adjusted later. My hunch is that Mousavi knows that the Constitution may not entirely support all the goals of the Greens, but feels that allowing the possibility that the current Constitution be scrapped is simply too controversial, and he can't possibly take it on. He probably thinks it would alienate too many potential supporters, and would set him up too much to be "against the Islamic Republic", or "a tool of foreigners."
I guess in the end, what I truly have the problem with is that the Iranian people are not truly deciding on women's issues, or their constitution, or a score of other incredibly important things. I'm pretty flexible when I believe that the members of a society authentically want to have things in a way that doesn't line up with my values or what I think is right. The problem I have is when I get the feeling that a government is being imposed on its citizens, without regard for THEIR values or what they think is right.