This article written by an Iranian woman sheds light into some challenges that feminists face in Iran. In addition, some of the comments under the post offer some insightful criticism of the article. I don’t mean to downplay the anti-feminism of American society by posting this piece. Feminists face different challenges all over the world, and that is what I wish to illustrate. Also, the piece is particular to current events.
not that i want to go pick on other people’s countries but…
June 20, 2009 by dontgetrats
Gender Agenda 
Thanks for posting this, it was very interesting.
I can not decide whether or not the call for revolution is a good one; revolutions can easily spin out of control, and rarely result (in my opinion, and I am open to being wrong) in stable, liberal governments. Instead, political unrest leads to violence that ends up legitimizing military-backed, repressive regimes. I do not know whether, despite the horrors that are faced by women and all citizens in Iran, not voting is the right option.
Either way, the Iranians must be allowed to work through all this themselves, western meddling has never done much good for anybody, and odds are, if we let them alone, they won’t do much harm to anyone other than themselves, and eventually they will probably move towards greater openness. Foreign antagonism provides the fuel of legitimacy for regimes like Iran’s.
I wonder if the oppression of women in Iran is exponentially worse than that of women in the United States or merely worse. What I mean is, Iran has a deeply oppressive government in many ways, where as the United states government is oppressive, but not nearly so oppressive, in my opinion, as our culture, forged by the sort of collective mass media and concience of the nation. But is the oppression of women in Iran equally worse than the oppression of women in the United States compared to the oppression of men in Iran compared to the oppression of men in the United States (excluding obviously those men at the very top of the hierarchy) or is the gap between the sexes more or less equal, with Iran simply more oppressive in general. Did that make sense?
And finally, was that even an appropriate question to ask?
youre toads welcome.
i am ashamed to say that i did not give the article the perusal that it requires to recognize what you claim is its call for revolution. is she calling for revolution then? i guess she is, if you think so, and you must have read it more thoroughly than me.
we already talked about this but i dont like how you said “if we let them alone, they won’t do much harm to anyone other than themselves” cuz that rubs me the wrong way, it seems like you are characterizing them as a bunch of hooligans who, when left alone, will settle down eventually. did the article even call for western meddling? again, i am embarrassed that im not rooting through the piece myself to find the answer, but i hope youre able to answer it so that i know.
and didnt you say that the candidates that are running are virtually running on the same platform? in which case not voting makes no difference, in some way. unless you were talking about the other two minority candidates, whom i shamefully know nothing about.
i also really REALLY dont like how youre claiming that the oppression of women in iran is worse than that of women in the united states. what makes one oppression worse than another? are such comparisons even useful? women in iran may be oppressed more by the government, but if women in america are oppressed more by the culture, what difference does it make where it comes from? government embodies culture, not the other way around. so it’s not like america is this grand place of total freedom for women (which you are not claiming) but i dont even know on what grounds you are claiming that it is a place of relative freedom. in iran, women dont have certain legal rights. in america, women are forced to have sex but made to think that sex is good. which is worse? what criterion are you using?
what you said in your confusing paragraph makes sense to me after some re-reading, but i dont know how to answer your question. and i dont know if its an appropriate question to ask cuz i cant really judge it cuz it’s a really weird question. i hope someone else has an opinion on it.
I hate to keep going back to the “It’s all very easy for us to say…” argument, because I know from experience it can get annoying. So, sorry in advance, Orkinson. I believe it is easy and understandable to compare oppression in America and oppression in Iran and say, “It’s all the same.” However, I would also say that if stoning to death was an event that had a more-than-likely chance of happening to you, you might be more inclined to concede that the status of women in the two countries is not the same. What I mean is, because the threat of acid being thrown into our faces and stoning in the street is not a very realistic threat to educated citizens of the First World–of which I think we here are all a part–it is easy to compare our plight with that of women in Iran, for example. When facing the choice between highlighting the very real life-threatening dangers facing an Iranian woman declared an infidel, and emphasizing the overwhelmingly and oppressively sex-positive messages broadcasted by the American media, my initial reaction is that the Iranian case is more urgent. Then again, this could very well be my male privilege talking. After all, I don’t have to put up with overwhelming sex-positivity in the media in the same way that women do. Any thoughts? I’d be delighted if you responded because I feel like I often come off as obnoxious online and I always want to know when that happens.
So when I was a wee freshman in college I used to annoy my friends by quantifying genocide and arguing that the colonization of the Americas led to a greater genocide than the Holocaust. My original point was to explain that quantifying oppression makes little to no sense. These science minded folks just started freaking out and told me that you can’t quantify death and genocide and oppression. Which is true. There is no more worse or less worse– they are particularized by context. IMO.
That said we can not know what is happening in Iran without seeing it for ourselves, and even then it would be shaped by where we go within Iran. There is Oppression going on both there and here. If you think folks aren’t dying due to their oppression here than you might just not be paying attention.
“If you think folks aren’t dying due to their oppression here than you might just not be paying attention.” -Royce
Good point.
Three things:
First, some of the points here strike me as really disingenuous. I’m not going to speak for women of color in the united states, who probably have an experience that is closer to the experience of women in iran since they are more often demonized, blamed for their own rape etc. But as a middle class white girl living in the united states, I really can’t say that the oppression I face is equal to the oppression face by women in iran. There’s just no question about it. Denying the tangible benefits of not having state-sanctioned stonings for adultery and homosexuality, receiving a college education, being able to marry and divorce as you please, seems ridiculously counterintuitive.
“in iran, women dont have certain legal rights. in america, women are forced to have sex but made to think that sex is good. which is worse?”
This exemplifies the problem I’m having with the logic. If a sex-positive commercial is just as bad as being stoned for adultery, then being stoned for adultery is really no worse than a sex-positive commercial. And I just wonder if anyone would be willing to say that.
Second, I think it’s definitely possible to quantify oppression. We do it all the time. It’s kind of the foundation of our philosophy here, I think. We work under the assumption that rich white men are on less oppressed than poor men of color, that white men are on average, less oppressed than white women and women of color, and so on.
Third, I want to reaffirm bejai’s point that none of this entitles the united states to involve itself in iran’s internal affairs.
this is orkinson.
i am not saying that being stoned to death is an amazing great thing that every woman should experience. i think being stoned would suck. i imagine it sucks for women who have to live with that fear.
but unless youve lived with both forms of oppression, you personally should not try to quantify what is worse. i feel REALLY oppressed by sex positive messages. so much so that im considering getting my breasts removed. it hurts in so many weird ways to be carrying around a western fetish that makes people take me less seriously. it has damaged me to a great extent to grow up in western society.
now i dont live in iran. i dont know if women in iran would prefer to live in america. i dont doubt that some women in iran would prefer an iranian society that is more equitable. i just doubt that YOU, lucie, a woman in america who is SO used to sexual oppression that you dont think it’s as much of a big deal, implying that woman everywhere would be better off in american society. you havent lived anywhere else. on what grounds are you making this comparison?
you fully have the right to say “i, lucie, dont want to live in iran. id rather be oppressed in america. american oppression feels less oppressive to me [probably because i am so used to it].”
what i take offense to is you making statements on behalf of other women, who’s experiences you have never had, and can only imagine. and the implication that what happens to some women in other parts of the world is a general statement on what happens to ALL woman in those parts of the world. maybe having to wear a veil and staying at home all the time is something that you can get used to, in the same way women in america having to wear revealing clothing and always be cheerful and smiling and impress men is something that we are used to. being stoned is a horrible thing, but i dont think it makes sense to compare whether that’s worse or better than being expected to have sex with men, whether or not youre in relationships, whether or not you like the man, whether or not you like sex. many women dont even question whether they like sex or not. they assume that they must. so which is worse? i honestly dont think death is the worst thing in this world. i think having to live with oppression is worse than death. i would be careful to compare oppressions. like i said, stating personal preferences is fine by me, but imposing them on iranian women, even though i doubt youve ever had much dialogue with iranian women, is not.
– orkinson
I would just like to take moment to forcefully take back the statement I made in my post about Iranian’s hurting no one but themselves. While I continue to believe that the US should not meddle in foreign affairs, the way I phrased that was racist, otherizing, and frankly wrong and embarrassing. I think I agree with orkinson about not quantifying oppression or calling Iranian oppression worse. Most women in Iran are not stoned to death. they might have to wear a veil and follow other unreasonable rules, but those rules seem not particularly different in essence from those set by american culture-both cultures dictate how women must act, dress, etc. with the ultimate goal of enforcing a patriarchal structure. In any event, I have never spent much time with an Iranian women who had lived under the Islamic Republic, so I don’t have the slightest idea, and I’d imagine niether does anyone else on this board. I agree that it’s possible and important to quantify oppression with in your own society, for example, here in america it is clear that some groups are privileged above others. What is worrisome is comparing two whole nations. I’m not saying our oppression are equal, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t make such a judgement by rote, especially when it’s clear implication is that american culture is superior to Iranian culture.
@bejai:
“I agree that it’s possible and important to quantify oppression with in your own society, for example, here in america it is clear that some groups are privileged above others. What is worrisome is comparing two whole nations.”
could you please explain in more detail why it’s unacceptable to apply quantified oppression to the national level. Right now I’m thinking that you worry about it because your think it’s unfair to compare the oppression of people who live in completely different worlds. But again, white women and black women in the u.s. live in completely different worlds even if they technically live in the same world geographically. I might not know any iranian women but I don’t know many black women either, and I could rightfully be accused of willful ignorance if I said that didn’t know which group of women was more oppressed.
@ork:
my response to bejai is really a response to you too.
Maybe the big difference I have with bejai and you (and possibly everyone else on this blog) is that I think oppression that comes from a government is almost ALWAYS going to be more brutal than the oppression that comes from the culture. maybe our media tells us to wear revealing clothing, but your government can’t punish you for not wearing revealing clothing and that makes a difference in any society. If someone beats you up because you’re not wearing revealing clothing, that person is the criminal under the law, not you. I realize that I am quantifying oppression here because I haven’t been convinced that it’s a irrational thing to do, but I’m in no way trying to excuse the oppression that women face in the united states. I just include u.s. residency as a position of privilege, along with maleness, whiteness, etc.
“I’m just saying that we shouldn’t make such a judgement by rote, especially when it’s clear implication is that american culture is superior to Iranian culture.”
“i just doubt that YOU, lucie, a woman in america who is SO used to sexual oppression that you dont think it’s as much of a big deal, implying that woman everywhere would be better off in american society. you havent lived anywhere else. on what grounds are you making this comparison?”
The culture is different from the law of the land. And I’d unapologetically say that, in regards to womens rights, the laws governing the United States are superior to the laws governing Iran. I haven’t lived in France but if I could trade the United States’ health care system with theirs I would do it.
I think it’s dishonest to say that cultural misogyny (as horrible as it is) is typically as bad as governmental misogyny. For example, we’ve all previously agreed that we live in a rape culture. Assuming that is as bad as living with state-sanctioned rape, none of us should to take special offensive if our congress legalizes rape tomorrow.
Regardless of whether or not congress were to legalize rape tomorrow, folks would still be raped. I understand not equating being told to wear a short skirt and having laws that allow for rape. I just think that outside of ‘governmental governmental’ and ‘cultural misogyny’ is material misogyny. Regardless of whether or not it is de jure or de facto women are getting raped here and there (and everywhere). Quantifying who gets it worse seems counter productive, and leads to glorifying orientalism and imperialism for the sake of saving most of the world because we’ve already got it figured out.
talking with bejai about some things he learned relevant to this in his middle eastern history class yielded the following deductions, below :
iran used to have a decent government that was not so mean to women. then the US intervened and backed a west-friendly liberal leader, who did stuff against iranian values. then he was overthrown by clerics who were more in tune with iranian values, but were also less understanding of women’s rights.
the US, by interfering, was pivotal in the development of women’s rights in iran, as well as other places. so, though the US government may be, in some capacity, more accomodating of women’s rights in the US, at least on paper, it doesnt give a shit about women elsewhere. i think this sort of meddling by western states is something that goes unmentioned in debates about feminism and women’s rights in other places. and talking the way we have as US soil as a better place for US women ignores the complexities of american cultural, and indeed, military and economic imperialism.
also i still maintain that we cant speak for iranian women. whether it is worse to suffer state-sanctioned rape, versus non state-sanctioned rape, whether it is better to have a legal system that fails you when youve been raped as opposed to a legal system that doesnt acknowledge it as rape, is not something that we can determine on the behalf of all women everywhere. it is something that differs, based on one’s individual and collective experiences. again, i dont have a problem with an american woman saying “id prefer american gender-based oppression” with the implicit recognition that such preference comes from just being more acclimated to it.
also, lucie, i love you, and im sorry you have to put up with oppression anywhere and anyhow.
“the US, by interfering, was pivotal in the development of women’s rights in iran, as well as other places. so, though the US government may be, in some capacity, more accomodating of women’s rights in the US, at least on paper, it doesnt give a shit about women elsewhere. i think this sort of meddling by western states is something that goes unmentioned in debates about feminism and women’s rights in other places. and talking the way we have as US soil as a better place for US women ignores the complexities of american cultural, and indeed, military and economic imperialism.”
I don’t doubt that US imperialism has fucked over many a domestic population. But assuming that the US is partly responsible (I say partly responsible because you can’t discount the evolution of political ideologies that occurred organically within Iran’s own borders) for Iran’s oppression of women, that still doesn’t undermine the argument that US domestic womens rights policies are better for US women that Iran’s are for Iranian women. It just means that US foreign policies are not good for Iranian women.
“also i still maintain that we cant speak for iranian women. whether it is worse to suffer state-sanctioned rape, versus non state-sanctioned rape, whether it is better to have a legal system that fails you when youve been raped as opposed to a legal system that doesnt acknowledge it as rape, is not something that we can determine on the behalf of all women everywhere.”
I think royce said something to the same affect in his response. It’s not a question of who’s rape experience is going to be worse. Rape is awful no matter what the circumstances are. But which government is taking more steps to protect women from rape? In which country are you more likely to meet men who have been educated about how “no means no” (as worn out and in need of revival those programs are). Of course women still get raped way too much in the US, but which society is making the bigger effort here?
“i dont have a problem with an american woman saying “id prefer american gender-based oppression” with the implicit recognition that such preference comes from just being more acclimated to it.”
I get what you’re saying here and i do think you’re right. people adapt to whatever environment they’re raised in. I’m better able to handle american society and iranian women are more able to handle iranian society. But despite this, if we can agree that rape is objective a bad thing (can we agree on that? I’m not asking to be snide, I just feel like you might have an unexpected view on it) it’s still legitimate to quantify the tangible efforts being made to minimize it in each country.
throughout the course of this debate youve conceded a couple of points to me. but you insist on holding onto the idea that the american government’s treatment of american women is one of the better/best treatments that any government can offer its domestic women. but i cant concede.
there are two problems with this idea:
1. it implies that other governments are somehow incapable of treating its women right. otherwise, why would so many other governments be so much meaner to its women? i know that you are implying a huge distinction between the state and the individuals in the state. but the argument still makes my blood curdle. because much news media, much western culture, uses the word “government” to mean people. as late as 1993, the new york times was calling the people of haiti names that amounted to “blacks who cant handle democracy”. and i dont doubt that such characterization continues to this day, but as the NYT makes me sick to my stomach im not going to go find you an example right now, though i probably will in the near future. (also you should know that its 4:30 and i woke up at 4 after going to bed at like 2, feverish as though im some kind of sick but divine prince myshkin from a dostoevsky novel, and it was like a vision to wake up at 4 with what i was going to say to you almost fully formed. lol. i guess this is supposed to be a compliment, that i care a lot about my intellectual rivalry with you, such that i wake up from restless sleep, in a pitiful state of health, and the first thing i wanna do is talk to you about this. secondly i think its a funny story and you like funny stories. btw im still sick, probably from reading this book “the uses of haiti” by paul farmer, i recommend it to you so strongly that if i tried to tell you in person id probably fall over from enthusiasm.) so when you say “government” i extrapolate “people” from the phrase, because im wary of the euphemism that seeks to hide the real racism of the way stories are spun in this country, as well as european countries, in publications like as i said NYT and the economist, etc.
2. the idea that the american government’s treatment of american women is one of the bette/best treatments that any government can offer its domestic women: it is moot. it is overshadowed by the question of what a government has the right to do, in order to guarantee liberties to its people, including its women. i can see how it may be considered, in some senses, practical to have an ideal of how a government should behave towards its people/women. that way, you have a template with which to compare other governments, and you can offer concrete goals that a government ought to live upto to be considered feminist or atleast not overtly persecutory (is that a real word?) towards women.
the problem with using the american government, rather than an abstract ideal, is that first of all, american government isnt even that great towards its people, and particularly towards its women. there is prospect for social and economic and political mobility for women, and it incrementally has been growing since the founding of the country. but even still, you can count important female politicians and businesspersons on practically one hand. plus, american women do suffer discrimination that is fatal to them, like when they get worse rates on health insurance, or have no health insurance, and suffer a lower standard of health care, or even if you read “nickel and dimed” by barbara ehrenheich you can see how women who work incredibly hard have trouble getting very far in blue-collar employment, and indeed, are reduced to marrying unsuitable people to at least have a ride to their place of work because they dont make enough to buy a car or have money for rent or whatever. though i cant explicitly cite statistics to you, i do not doubt that these women have higher mortality rates and other problems indicative of their second-class-citizen status in america.
so why are you picking america as your ideal template? would it not be better to formulate an even better template that gives at least the majority, if not all, women a chance to live their lives unpersecuted? i am attributing your choice as typical anglo arrogance, but i could be wrong, and so please enlighten me as to why it is important to you to argue that a country that does not do well by most of its women is your country of selection. perhaps you are saying so because you live here and feel that you cant speak for other countries (which is kind of not true, as you are speaking for women in other countries and comparing their experience with yours as bordering on utterly intolerable, and kind of implying that they must all be very upset and they need our help as liberated american women. ofc, i could have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, but it is hard not to draw a parallel with colonizers who thought that their conquered would absolutely fall all over themselves with gratitude at having western medicine and western culture and western religion, because ofc, how could living in harmony with the environment, and having your own culture/etc. be anything but barbaric? it is an excuse to invade places so that you can help their women. again, i may be stretching your point too thin on this one, but im not going to apologize, because people DO stretch things too far and DO make decisions using the excuse that “no really, we’re helping the iraqis, look how liberated their women are!”
secondly, (lol, it’s not over yet) and this is my bigger point, is the question of how the american government is able to afford such a high standard of living, as measured by per capita GDP anyway. the american government is able to do this due to the various battles/wars it has “won” in the past due to its economic and military might, which it has abused. corporate america is able to send their daughters to college because it makes profits in endeavors that hurt many people, indeed, endeavors that devastate entire economies (example of western corporate gamblers betting against the thai baht, and the currency flight that ensued). another perhaps more wacky example would be like if an american druglord, not in the thick of the drug wars that occur in, for example, mexico or haiti, was able to afford to have a big house in texas and give his wife and daughters their own room and lots of disposable income, which they could use to finance more ethical endeavors. idk how much of this drug example works out, but either way, corporate or not, the money is coming from a place where people have been affected by it in a really bad way, indeed, they have been tortured and murdered. so yes, american women are able to reap the benefits of things like roads, that are paved with amerindian blood, and infrastructure/networks/intra-state relationships that were probably developed during the times of slavery to benefit intra-american trade. the west is connected by this common bond of anglo-saxonness, of a common history of exploiting others to bring home the dough and then feeling happy that it was done to, after all, benefit its own people–the right of every government, except for it does not have this right!
the american government does not have the RIGHT to trample over humanity to give these rights to american women. american women are free to drink and smoke, but in doing so, they are supporting two controversial industries that make profits by getting other people hooked on booze and cigs. american women are free to consume, to go shopping, but in doing so, they are supporting a culture of conspicuous consumption. some american women are free to conduct business with international agents, like the swiss banks famously reputed for its neutrality, where money is deposited by depositors who have stolen it from their people. and etcetera. and ofc, american men do all this even more so.
so why are we using the american government as a template for how a government should behave towards its people? why are we using the american state as an ideal for how women should be treated? a state does NOT have the right to support its citizenry, be it male or female or other, in this manner that leaves the world’s poor in its wake, sick, dead or worse. a state does NOT have the right to give women the right to vote if the entire voting system enriches corporate america, which uses its profits (in the way of favored legislation or political relationships, or even money outright, like that single company that makes voting machines which voting districts must buy from them) to serve themselves while their employees in america, many of them women, are barely able to make ends meet, and as for their employees in other places (again, i must cite haiti cuz its the only one i know in detail about: the american apparel assembling companies that coerced employees into working for less than 30 cents a day, and make no mistake, the exchange rate does NOT work out such that these employees are able to sustain an even decent level of poverty for themselves, forget about making ends meet), it’s kind of funny that they call them employees and not their involuntary slaves.
i am sure that whoever represents these monolithic entities donates to both republican and democratic candidates, in this giant corporate scam that we are told to believe represents free, democratic elections.
any country that enriches itself in such awful ways does so against even the most lax standards of morality. and when this enrichment means that american men and women are “freer” than their non-western counterparts, it is something to cry about, because of where the “freedom” comes from, not celebrated, and certainly not hailed as a standard of how a government should be feminist. it would be like saying that Louis the Fourteenth had the best palace in all of french history. its like, well, that may be, but you are forgetting where the palace comes from–it was built with money extracted from all other layers of french society, particularly the peasant class. where the palace comes from matters in a BIG way. more than the admiring versailles (which so many people do, which is really sad), a conversation about whether to make another versailles should consider where the first one came from, and what it did to people, and then you should decide not to built versailles, and to built something else entirely instead, something that is more necessary and is made possible using methods other than extraction and extortion.
since i cant think of an example of a government that is able to treat its women equitably and fairly and morally, without stepping all over the citizens of other countries, as well as stepping over, though in some ways to a lesser extent, than the citizens of its very own, my conclusion is that i will have to keep looking for one. or that it is not possible to live so well and so free without making compromises that should not be made, relegating the question of a moral AND feminist government as simply abstract. but im more inclined towards the former, because i feel like im not informed enough about the functionings of many other governments, and i could just have missed some gem. though that gem is obviously not america.
Dear ork,
I’m forming a meticulous response to you, but I’m going to wait a little while to post it. Basically until you tell me I should post it (unless I’m not done with it at that point). I don’t think we’re all too far apart from each other on this, but I don’t think I’m very good at gauging these things either.
Also, if you just want leave this where it lies that’s fine with me, since I think that maybe like half of this response is going to be me restating my views more precisely. like there are lots of people in the world who aren’t in agreement on this stuff, and there are a lot of people who have views on it that are much more egregious than either of ours, not that that should really be a comfort.
Thanks for this post! I think it’s a good reminder to all of us ladies in the U.S. and other more Feminist nations for what we DO have and what we already won.
I used to think that Misogyny and hatred of women was rare these days.
But I have realized that some very ugly, very hateful feelings lurk beneath the surface of more men than you can imagine.
It’s something that women simply cannot get lax on. The moment we stop paying attention and start buying into this nonsense about how men are stigmatized and how rape stats are sensationalized…..
We cannot allow this kind of misinformation and hatred to go around even casually….I think we’d all be really unhappy to suddenly wake up one day and again be the property of men, be given less rights than a dog….be forced to do whatever we were told to do by our owners, denied the right to own property, denied the right to vote, go to work, and even the right to say “no” to sex from our husbands!
Misogyny and real loathing for women is very much real and alive in this world. It’s something that younger women (myself included) have taken for granted and we need to use stories and articles like this one, to remind ourselves of where we could STILL be today.
Anyway….sorry for the ramble and thanks for the article!
~LR~
“I think it’s a good reminder to all of us ladies in the U.S. and other more Feminist nations for what we DO have and what we already won.” I wouldn’t call the U.S. a “more Feminist” nation by many standards though!!
I agree with your ideas of vigilance, however.
thank you for reading! no need for apologies, i would not consider your thoughts to be a “ramble”, i find them quite meaningful.