Anahid Hojjati

Hirre

You are right. Imagine the "traditional" Islamic women would:

• Refuse to cook; and do all the dirty work.
• Refuse sex.
• Refuse to leave the house with Hijab. Just let the men do the work.
• Refuse to do anything other than the minimum it takes to keep the family alive.

The Islamic men will have a rude awakening. Yes some will resort to beating some will resort to threats but you really cannot stone someone for the above. It is sort of a general strike until the Islamic **** pull their heads out of 6th century and move to modern times.

The message

A more powerful message would be if all women protested against the hijab instead of men... Men don't have a voice in this matter, it is the women that suffer. Men can only stand behind a women protest march.

Women could actually have a lot of power since men still have to pay for them in order to get married and so on... Women could protest in different areas of life, why not even "sex-protests", this is a nail-in-the-eye tactic in islamic countries which promote abnormal population growth...

Women have a lot of power, if they refuse to go against the "benefits" of islamic laws (such as mehrie, etc etc)...

Sometimes revolutions get triggered because of "simple" issues, e.g. i Egypt the price of food etc (even tough a lot more problems exist)... In Iran social codes could be concrete trigger points, politics by itself isn't a good trigger point, the hijab issue could be...

G. Rahmanian, I am glad you think blog was good for discussion

Dear G. Rahmanian, I am glad you think that even though my blog:"was done in haste, did provide a fresh impetus for a discussion on the subject. "

Any Time!

I believe we do need to understand many issues with regards to our culture and the socio-political factors/forces which have, historically, influenced it. It is not easy to remain thoroughly objective when it comes to such complicated issues, given the fact that we have been away from Iran for so long. Your blog, although as you mentioned, was done in haste, did provide a fresh impetus for a discussion on the subject. Thank you!

Special thanks to G. Rahmanian for comments

Dear Rahmanian, I appreciate your comments on this thread.

thanks Monda jan for reading and commenting

when I was younger, I found out that by tutoring, I actually learned a subject better. Now, I have found out that writing poems and other blogs also teach me. I started by asking whether Iranian men are betraying the women in Iran by not working harder for women' s rights. If you read the comments, in later comments, I am writing about how Iranian women who are successful in their careers, have support of the men in their family. Writing this blog helped me realize that many Iranian men in Iran need to extend the support that they have for their daughter, sister and wife to general population of women. I don't mean the particular acts of support since one's resources are limited and are mostly for his family but I mean the supportive attitude. I also learned from the comments of some of the commentators on this thread.

Great blog and thread, Anahid jan

I'm learning and refreshing as I read the exchanges.

Azadeh jan, I am looking forward to your essay on the history of patriarchy.

akhey...

Mohabat dareed:))

Marhoom is a little bit on the revolutionary side. He is a rebel:)

But it is ok. He will come around.

Dear DM, thanks for the information

DM jan, thanks for info on Kharmagas.  When Marhoum writes comments to me, it is usually short but I have seen his longer comments and they are a bit more involved but still not as involved as many other commentators. Honestly, I rather focus more on writers and commentators whom I like their writings such as Vildemose, MM, hamsade, Ari, yolanda, you, and so many others. 

ah jan

he is a free spirited man. bound by no woman or ideology!

az khodeh bepors!

free egyptian people!

thanks DM, you know that I was joking with Kharmagas

this was just a joke, actually I believe Kharmagas has mentioned in his comments that he is married.

marhoomm geee leleleleleleeellleeeee

geee lelelelleeeee

Bend over... I mean get down on your knees boy and say those words with pride!.

Kharmagas, this is a new year. You can still propose

I have never seen an episode of the show but I knew who Lucy was and just knew that she played some kind of warrior. About Iranian men, my take is that on the average,  those who have lived long time under IRI are worse in their attitudes towards women than those who have lived long time in Diaspora.  By the way, don't be so upset because I rejected your marriage proposal, That was last year, this is new year :).

Amazon!?

Anahid jaan, maybe you can become Xena and not rely on Iranian men?

dear yolanda, these days divorce is not so simple

Dear yolanda,presently, in Iran, divorces are documented. Maybe people who do "sigheh" can verbally end the sigheh. I am not an expert in these matters but based on what I have heard and read, divorce is never so simple as just verbal. At some point the couple have to say some phrases but there is more to divorce than saying those phrases. 

........

Hi! Anahid,

    I am reading the newly published book "The Good daughter"........there is a scene in the book that author's grandpa divorced the grandma verbally.......it occurred before the revolution.....apparently it is an Islamic tradition.... The verbal divorce took place before IRI rose to power.......I was wondering if verbal divorce still takes place over there?

Thanks everyone for contributing and if I did not respond to ...

First I wanted to thank everyone for reading this blog and also for commenting. I also wanted to note that several of commentators' ideas are so radically different than mine that I chose not to respond to them. Other friends were great and in cases, Vildemose, yolanda and couple other friends responded to the other commentators.  I Just wanted to emphasize that if I did not respond to a comment, it does not mean that I agree with it. Please continue your comments, if you have any regarding this blog.

Thanks Anahid & Yo Yolanda

Thanks Anahid,I hope you got my opinion of your blog that I believe it's both men and women's faults.But I think thats just a given.

Yolanda

The whole quote has to be well thought out.I'm glad you decided to add the Ephesians quote because it explains he is talking about Husbands and Wives.

But no to the Christian,Man and Christ are not equal.I focused on the 'Men are the head of women' statement because you just threw it out like its some common speak and believe its unfair..I don't think you're going to get it.Let me try another angle,I think you forgot what a 'Husband' is (Especially in the year 50) .I think it's good advice to this day,if you don't want to devote your life and respect to the guy,if you don't want to obey the guy (submit) then why would you marry him? It could send this message - Don't Marry the guy then.

It's also a message to Men to have that same affection you have for your wife and more - for the Lord.That's ALL.It doesn't mean -Forget about your wife,the Lord is your head..In that sense,that would also be unfair to men.The Statement is also not meant to put Christ ahead of God and it's also not meant for women to forget about the lord because it's said man is your head.

I'm really not arguing with you,just showing the rationality of the quote.I agree it's not equal in a marriage in the sense you see it.I made the point before that it is because of our sexual differences.A man is the head of the household and most women want it that way.They want a strong guy.But certainly both sexes need each other,in that point I made,they are equal...It's really just our nature and Paul is making a point to men-Respect the Lord above all and women- Be true to your Husbands.Nothing more!!

Who has betrayed iranian

Who has betrayed iranian women? The Islamic Republic's Islamic Luminaries such as Mr. Milani, Mr. Dabashi, Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, Mr. An Sadre, Mr. Gangi, and other radical revolutionaries who supported Mr. Khomeini and then fled Iran ..

You are 100% right. These are the most disgusting monsters in recent history. Worse than Khomeini and AN. Because they hide behind a facade of "intellectual" BS. But in reality they are nothing but a bunch of pseudo intellectual harlots.

The world is going to be better off without them. These are indeed the creeps that brought this hell. At least Mollahs are true to their cause. These wolves prey upon the innocent who tried to "learn" from them. Now we know better than to follow an Islamic scholar.

Thanks Escape, yolanda and SOS-FREE-IRAN for comments

Thanks for reading my blog and your contributions.

no, the Islamic luminaries in American Universities are traitors

Who has betrayed iranian women? The Islamic Republic's Islamic Luminaries such as Mr. Milani, Mr. Dabashi, Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, Mr. An Sadre, Mr. Gangi, and other radical revolutionaries who supported Mr. Khomeini and then fled Iran to establish their luxurious pads in America and Europe. These men and women who publish rubbish and blood libel about Pahlavi Family are the traitors to Iran. These islamic luminaries thrive and live to old age, while our royal family and Iranian men and women committ suicide or are bottle raped. How can these people look at themselves in the mirror everyday? Can they ever wash the blood off their hands for their betrayal of Iran? Damn these islamic luminary pseudoprofessors who lounge in presitigious universities spouting poison that keeps our people imprisoned. Down with these traitors.

........

Hi! Escape,

    Thank you for your long post.....

Bible said: the head of the woman is man

You said: a Man and a Woman are Equal parts of an equation.

Bible also said: the head of every man is Christ...

So according to your reasoning that man and Christ are also equal...and Man and God are equal?

Bible Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

Here is the God Word version:

Wives, place yourselves "under" your husbands' authority as you have placed yourselves under the Lord's authority.

******************

It does not sound equal to me at all!

Yolanda &...Mehdi's comments

 I'm near vomit stage reading Mehdi's comments

Reminds me of watching a beheading or reading one of the resident Stand-in's for the Exorcist..

But he mentioned one thing I believe is true,it is not as bad for women in Iran as it is advertised.Maybe he should have added 'at times' because he's not 100% correct either.Not all the time is it a false advertisement.I'm left with the impression it's a little of both's fault.It's really hard to jump on one side of the argument or the other.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvt8rbjH_SU

My take:To both the men and womens fault,It's been a gradual and accepted loss of freedom for women to the point of normalization in Iran.Right now its accepted but It just becomes annoying at times when a women is being stoned to death that it comes to topic.Women in Iran just can't seem to swallow that one as they do the hejab and the smaller loses of freedom.Emancipation needs to be written into law but well,Sharia law is for cavemen.That's what this is about.

Theres no getting around that thruout history 'man'-kind has dominated,which of course they should be easily to do so,they are physically and emotionally stronger in general cases.It may be a myth or may not that cavemen used to drag women around by their hair,force sex acts on them and enslave their wills and labor.I believe it simply because it is possible and I don't put it past us men without laws to obey.But I also believe only the stronger smarter men were capable of pulling it off because I don't underestimate women.It had to be hard for the fat inhuman sloths to get their women to obey.(Poking some fun)It's just built into mans nature.

And It's true women have not always been emancipated in the West by a long shot but it's also long shot to compare to the Islamic ME.Two totally different scenario's isn't it?Where is the ME today and where is the West? Why? Because the books are different,waaay different..So Let's stop this inability to recognize how we got here in the West.Sure today their are plenty of cases in the West and in history of the West that women don't get treated much differently than in the ME but not in Public.We shun it.Abuse is not accepted in the West.Whereas in the ME -It IS the law.Because the book.

The Bible is very complicated and has very deep meanings.You can read into it like the Quran,actually that exactly what 'Mohammad' did and re-invented it to his corruptions.

When you read the bible or even a little piece of it,It often requires with mucho thinking and understanding,let alone the language is centuries old.The world was very different.You see one path down one road and the one went down the other.If they are the same,we would be at the same place.But we're not so that's just a all out wrong interpetation.

Now the thing about the Bible is it says so many different things in simple quotes.Most often the quotes have dual meanings.I agree with this Corinthians quote in the way you're misunderstandng it Yolanda and I also can agree with you in the way you are interpreting it.That is EXACTLY how a ZEALOT interprets it..Let me try to explain.First you have understand our whole human/animalistic nature before reading this thing..

Men ARE at the head of women.It's very blunt but true.Women are femine and Men are Masculine.We are made that way.Masculinity is at the head of Feminity.But a Man and a Woman are Equal parts of an equation..Look at Animals,same thing.The Male lion will dominate when he chooses but will nurture as he chooses as well.That doesn't mean the male lion goes around abusing or acting superior but he knows he is..That's just the way we are created.A woman will take a Man's name as her own and will want to do it.A woman will show devotion and care for the man,the man as well but it's not his nature.The womans,it is.

But Masculinity should not be taken as 'superiority' or Feminity or 'inferiority',they are just ingredients that make a completion.

Exactly, Ms. Hojjati!

You wrote some of the things I had intended to say, but decided to cut my last comment short.

Dear Ms. Hojjati:

Thanks for the response. Everything is clear. I did read Ms. Azad's comment, however, I did not read many other comments. Some individuals I intentionally avoid. As for "getting help," I do agree with you and I would like to add that whether we like it or not we are in this together. Men need women's help as much as women need men's. I don't see it any other way.

Present truth in Iran about independence of women or lack of it

when I meet or discuss conditions of women who live in Iran presently and are my friends and family, their happiness and also their progress in society is directly related to the support they are getting from the men in their lives be it fathers, brothers, husbands, etc. It is dreamy to think that women in Iran can do it alone but As I meet Iranian women from my generation who were able to advance in their career in Iran, one thing seems to be common that they have had supportive men in their lives.  These are extremely educated women, so if conditions of these women are  dependent on the treatment they receive from the men in their lives, how can we say that women are independent of men? Men are aslo dependent on women in Iran for their ultimate happiness but they are not dependent on women for their careers and how much they advance in it.  Since the laws are against equality of sexes, men's support makes all the difference. I am not denying hard work of these women either. Tahmineh Milani has explored this theme in at least one of her movies that I can remember. In the movie "Two women" , one woman has much better life than the other one when movie shows their lives after about 15 years of knowing each other. The one with better life is the one from a supportive family even though when both women were young, the one from non supportive family actually tutored the other one. 

G. Rahmanian, people like Shutruck, and Raoul come to same

conclusions as Azadeh Azad comes too. One camp which is extreme right and is commentators like Shutruck and Raoul write that the way it is in Iran, is preferrable and Azadeh writes that women should not expect men to help them in their struggle. In truth, women should not expect men like Raoul and Shutruck supporting their cause but in Iran, we have many men that support women's rights. So my point was that extreme right and extreme left both absolve Iranian men of fighting for women's right, while I do not. Naive is to think that women in Iran can achieve equality with men without support of some segments of Iranian men which is what Azadeh argues. If you are still unclear, you may want to read again comments by Shutruck, Raoul and Azadeh and see how two sides both come to same conclusion,

which is don't expect support from Iranian men in this struggle.

Dear Ms. Hojjati:

Your last comment is ambiguous. It's difficult to understand what and who you are referring to. I wish you would clarify your statements there.

Missing the point badly, and the real naive ones

All commentators commenting that for me to write that women expecting
men to help them in their struggle is naive are super naive themselves
or are against women's rights in Iran. Ironically, two camps come to an
agreement in saying that women should not expect men' s help. Witness
below comments that how a commentator who had anti women ideas writes
that the other one coming from extreme left position has a good
response. Example of two extreme camps agreeing with each other.

We all have interdependencies and to think that half of population of a
country can achieve anything without participation of the other half,
this is actually very naive not my blog.

.

.