Your World

"Your World" is the title of the lesson plan I created based on our class. You can (and should!) view it here.

Rick Steves: Iran, Yesterday And Today

On the whole I enjoyed this video, Rick Steves's "Iran, Yesterday And Today." It does much to discuss misconceptions about Iran and it touches on some of Iran's history. I know there was some talk in class about the frequent comparison between what Steves expects and what he finds ("Though most people think this, in reality, Iran is like this"), but I think that that commentary was done consciously and purposefully. To a person who knows nothing about Iran or its customs, a person who may have a relatively stereotypical view of Iran (of the Middle East), having those contrasts between reality and perception specifically pointed out can do some good. I think this may be Steves's way of pointing out and shedding misconceptions while offering new facts to replace the misconceptions. It sounds like something we do with students, but when you're trying to reach a mass audience and you're not able to go terribly in depth with your topic I think you need to be more explicit.

One particular issue I had arose in part 5 when Steves was discussing with his guide the differences and strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. At one point, Steves asks why the two groups have been fighting for so long. He asks about the Iraqi Sunnis and the Iranian Shiites and their battles. After the guide explains that those conflicts are national ones (Iraq vs. Iran) and not religious ones (Sunni vs. Shiite), implying (I think) that Sunni and Shiite are just terms reporters use (somewhat improperly) to differentiate between two groups (perhaps to imply a religious conflict that is not an issue, perhaps out of ignorance of the meaning of the words) but that news editorialization does not represent the conflict, Steves still, in his narration, compares the Sunni and Shiite "conflict" to the Protestant and Catholic conflict in the West. While the guide says that a good way to describe the issue is to look at relations between England and Ireland, Steves lends his own spin. I feel as if he wasn't really listening to the guide.

I wish Steves had been able to go more in depth, but for what it is and how long it is, I think the video is a good introduction to Iran. Additionally, we must remember while watching that, as mentioned in the beginning of the video, Steves traveled with a guide. His questions were censored, what his crew was allowed to film was censored, even where he was allowed to go was up to his guide (a government employee in charge of enforcing the provisions that allow Steves and his crew to film in Iran at all). So perhaps some of our questions or the problems we see derive from censorship and not totally from bad "reporting."

For Your Enjoyment

Information about and a poem by Forough Farrokhzad (as mentioned in the Keshavarz piece we read). More about and from (link at bottom of page) Farrokhzad. The Google search.

A selection from Rumi (a renowned and oft-taught poet).

This Website features many works by Mahmud Kianush, but poetry by others is available at the bottom of the page.

mtvU and poetry. More about Behbahani here, here, and here. Her selected works: A Cup of Sin. Some of her poems.

Two Women, Redux

Please see my post on Two Women.

In Related News...

Turkey.

Pro-government Iran.

Military as a vehicle for Orientalism in Iraq?

Religion, veiling, Iraq.

Iraqi displacement and refugees (from 2007).

Iraqi refugee camp now.

Palestine.

Israel.

Corrective (?) Lenses

I'd like to take a moment to discuss something about the literature we've been reading. We're all here trying to get an idea of other cultures through literature. But I think we're facing a little bit of a wall. I have enjoyed almost all of what we have read and watched, I think that it is all valid and useful. I am glad to have read and seen all that I have.

I do, however, sometimes feel as if we are leaving out of our conversation voices that are even more underrepresented in our culture than those we have been reading. Indeed, voices which are underrepresented in their own cultures.

For instance, we read an excerpt from Fatemeh Keshavarz's Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran. We should remember that Keshavarz left Iran in 1979, before the Islamic leadership and laws began. She was educated in the West, she lives and works in the United States. She claims to be an average Iranian, but seems to be upper-middle class. Even just middle class puts her far above most people.

We read Marjane Satrapi's wonderful Persepolis. While the book is engaging, well written, and only talks about Satrapi's personal experience, much of it - her formative teenage years - occurs outside of Iran. Even the end of the book tells us that she will again leave her homeland and live abroad. Today she lives in Paris, France. Persepolis makes it clear that its author was raised in a relatively privileged way. Her parents had money (they can afford to send her to a French school, send her abroad, continuously bail her out of jail, they have a maid).

We never see the perspective of the poor or of those who agree with the Islamic government in Iran.

Rooftops of Tehran, by Mahbod Seraji, is another wonderful book. It takes place in the mid 1970s, when its author was indeed living in Iran. But Seraji was educated and has lived in the United States since 1976. He has since visited Iran, but has not lived there. His memories of the culture and people are decades along.

I would like to read something written in, say, the 1980s or 1990s by someone living in Iran. Fiction or nonfiction, I think the representation would be vastly different.

Likewise, both of the books I read for Iraq were written by U.S. authors. While the books were engaging, especially for high school students, the perspective is uniquely American. Sunrise Over Fallujah discussed its protagonist's feelings on the Iraqi people (that they're really just like Americans, that all people are really mostly the same: good and bad, loving and proud). But I didn't get any perspective of real Iraqi people. Nothing to tell me first hand what life in Iraq is like, how war affects families, what dinnertime is like.

My goal here is not to lampoon the work we've done and the books we've read. It's simply to ask us all to keep searching and always remember that our perspectives are shaped by the information we choose to take in. We have discussed how we are somewhat beholden to publishers and their translation choices. Remember that people in other countries know of us what their publishers choose to translate.

Oppression In The Time Of Freedom

We've been talking a lot about oppression in the Middle East. The oppression of women in particular. I think we all need to recognize two things:

1). Men are also oppressed in countries that force religion and morals upon them.

2). We should buy ourselves a mirror.

1. We tend to assume that because laws force some women to wear oppressive clothing (literally physically oppressive clothing and figuratively oppressive), and because some laws are written that either specifically remove or purposely don't grant certain rights to women, that the men in countries with such laws take full advantage of the fact that the government gives them power over women. But these men live in a place that also dictates their behavior and their dress. Muslim countries often prohibit the consumption of alcohol by anyone. In some cases men are allowed to wear only specific types of clothing (certain ties, for example). Laws against public displays of affection (hand holding, even) certainly affect men. Laws regarding courtship impact men.

Additionally, we are sometimes blind to the fact that many men are against nonsecular governments (just as, in the West, many whites fought for the abolition of slavery and many men in the U.S. rallied for women's suffrage) that are oppressive in general and oppressive to women especially. There are a great many men who are involved in the Green Revolution, for instance. Many men, for and against their current governments, are opposed to the way women are allowed to be treated and to the way the laws make them literally worth less.

I think we acknowledge these men, but act as if they are in the vast minority, and then we are given the perception (by what our media chooses to show us, by the books publishers choose to translate, by our own decisions about whether or not to educate ourselves) that all the men who are not opposed to the government treat women like crap or abuse them or think they are stupid. But this is not true, and it's part of what Fatemeh Keshavarz was getting at.

I'm not arguing that women aren't oppressed. Sure they are. I mean to look at the conversations we have regarding that oppression. We seem to become so passionate, and often place so much blame, that we don't, in the heat of a discussion, recognize that not only are most men not the villains we talk about, but that their lives - the ones they may choose to live if they had the choice - are also altered and diminished by the types of government that rule places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

2. Next, I think that if we're going to talk about how terrible a government is and a country is because it oppresses its citizens (in our conversations, specifically its women), then we need to look at the United States before we demonize others. I'd like to say right up front that I know a lot of you will say, "But it's so much worse there. We have laws that ensure equality and give women legal recourse for things like abuse, rape, and stalking. Aren't you really talking about degrees of oppression?" Well, maybe you'll see degrees, but oppression is oppression regardless. If we (the government of the U.S. or any other country) feel that we are in a position to tell anyone how to treat its people, then we'd better make sure we're treating ours properly, or at least acknowledging and taking steps to rectify any mistreatment.

So how are women oppressed here? Well, I think we all know that women make less money than men do. (They also often pay more for the same products and services.) Women with equal or greater education, equal experience, and an equal track record make less money than their male counterparts in the same positions (even C.E.O.s and the like). And women are statistically less likely to be promoted. Our government doesn't seem to see this as a big problem. I mean, at least we let ladies have real jobs, right? If it were to recognize this as the injustice it is, our government would still be too scared to try to somehow mandate pay guidelines to private employers. After all, many raises are merit based. How does the government know that women just don't deserve raises? Employers can't be forced to give raises or equal starting pay, can they?

It's perfectly legal for a man to walk around without a shirt on because it's hot. It is illegal for women to do so. Why is it illegal? Because women can't show their breasts (which, by the way, are not sexual organs any more than men's breasts (which can lactate) are). Because men like breasts and have sexualized them, they're considered dirty and/or capable of inciting riots. Lewd. Inappropriate. Trust me, I've seen many a bare man-boob far larger than anything I've got to show. But if the suggestion is made that women should be allowed to join men in their shirtlessness, we are faced with one of three reactions: 1) That it's indecent. 2) That it's laughable or not serious. 3) That it's a bad idea because then men'd have to look at less than desirable breasts/ladies without their shirts on (this is supposed to be humorous). Yes. Because my favorite thing to look at is fat-hairy-sweaty-guy-without-his-shirt-on. That's what laws should be based upon - prettiness. So women wear tank tops, which takes us to the ever-popular double standard.

Women wear tank tops because it's 90*F and we're not allowed to be shirtless. Men, of course, feel free to ogle us because, as is common knowledge, we wouldn't put it out there if we didn't want someone to look at it. No person has the right to ogle another, to make another feel so uncomfortable - it's as if women are expected to feel ashamed generally because they have something men want and ashamed especially when even a peek of that something comes out because it ought, rightfully, to be covered and uncovering it is a clear invitation. Let me tell you what my grandma would say (seriously): "Yeah, asshole. I'm sweating like a fat man chasing an ice cream truck, it's hotter than hell, and I thought that instead of being comfortable by covering as much of my body as possible, I'd show you my tits. Fuck off." If this ogling happened at work someone'd be guilty of sexual harassment. But in public it's okay because she clearly wants it. Yes this is a form of oppression. Society allows women to be objectified in this way because no one does anything about it. So women have to choose whether or not it's worth it to be less hot, choose whether they're going to fight today or just look the other way. No, we don't cover our women up by law, but we certainly let them know how we feel about their being uncovered.

The opposite? Well, if a woman wears baggy clothes or a large sweater, it is, of course, so that men will wonder what's under there.

And if a woman chooses to wear anything remotely revealing, she'd better not pick that day to get raped, because you can be sure it'll be pointed out that she clearly wanted it. Showing herself in tight jeans like that, enticing the men - her rapist couldn't be expected to help himself. Plus, it's not like she's a virgin or anything. She just regrets it and is whining now. It's not his fault. Doesn't this sound insane??? Doesn't it sound like Hassan in Two Women? Yet this defense is used in court cases. We want to take away women's power, especially their power to express themselves sexually, but then we project power over men on to them in order to excuse the bad (often illegal) behavior of men.

A real, current example of women's sexuality being used against them? Turn on the news and try your hardest not to hear about Tiger Woods. Rather, try not to hear about "his women." News casters love to talk about how they're all "busty" or blonde or seem dense. They insinuate, and watchers write in and say outright, that these women are homewreckers and sluts. Alright, you shouldn't sleep with a married guy. But HE is the married one. Tiger Woods's marriage is his responsibility. And slutty? TIGER is the one that slept with his wife plus at least 12 other women. But men and women want to talk about the morals of the mistresses and how dirty they are. Seriously? If anyone in this scenario is likely to give you the clap, it seems to me like it's probably Mr. Woods.

Think, for a moment, about the names we call opinionated (especially if they're smart) or aggressive women. Both positive characteristics in men, many try to shut women up by attempting to make them feel as if they are less. Less smart, less important. Just plain silly; annoying for expressing themselves.

We're often surprised at what women do. Surprised because we didn't think women could do that. Because women aren't strong enough or don't have enough determination. Or because they have children. I'm certain we all know women who are in a race to begin their careers because they want to be able to have kids and they don't want to have them too late in life, but if they have them too early it'll ruin their careers. How often do we hear men complain of this? I know what you're going to say, "Virginia, having a baby and taking care of it, even if it interferes with work, is a choice." And I agree. I just don't understand why women are uncaring, bad mothers if they don't leave work for a sick kid or if they work more than the standard work week and men who don't leave work and who work late or have meetings after hours are just providing for the family. They never worry about ruined careers because they don't have to leave or call in or skip a meeting so that they can be called by others a "good parent."

We scoff at women's professional sports (because how can they ever be as good?). Anyone who's ever watched WWF or WWE type shows can tell you that the men beat the crap out of each other while the women barely wear clothes, "wrestle," and sometimes meet the fate (oh, no!) of a water gun/hose. Yes, the men are scantily clad also (I imagine so that clothes don't become a hazard), but the women wear fantasy outfits and have their dirty, inappropriate breasts largely uncovered.

Any person who speaks out about these things is mocked (or at least not taken seriously). People say, "Oh, what are you some kind of feminist? I don't want to hear that man-hater crap." Yeah, no one wanted to hear it in the 1920s when women were arrested, went on hunger strike, were force fed raw eggs, and suffered life altering medical complications or death, either. No one wanted to hear it in the 1960s or '70s when women tried to get equal rights under the law, when they spoke out about the thousands of women killed by coat hangers. Since when is "feminist" a dirty word? Demanding equal pay, rights, and protection is not "man-hating." Every self respecting woman is a feminist.

So what we need is to recognize that we are not without fault of our own. Maybe the oppression in the U.S. seems less bad and therefore less worthy of attention to some. But I spent 10 years convincing doctors and insurance companies to perform a surgery for me. One that any 18 year old man can get in one or two doctor visits (I say this without reservation because I know several men who had it performed when they were aged between 18 and 24). But I'm a woman. My pain, my missing class and work, my hospital visits, the fact that years of injections and treatments didn't work, was of little consequence. Because I'm a woman and I might change my pretty little mind one day. This, too, is wrong. But the government and society would side with the doctors and insurance companies. This is discrimination near par with countries wherein women have no rights over their own bodies, where they need a man's permission.

Do I think all men believe that "she is/was asking for it" crap? No. Do I think all men feel that women need to be the only ones to sacrifice for the children? No. Do I think all men secretly hate women and are glad that they have a disproportionately low amount of power and pay? No. Just like not all Middle Eastern men want to see the women they share their lives with oppressed. We still have societal and institutional oppression in the West against women. And against pretty much all non whites (and some foreign whites, if we're being really honest).

The Complete Persepolis

Given everyone else's feelings, it seems a bit redundant to say this, but I loved reading Marjane Satrapi's The Complete Persepolis.

The graphic novel does a wonderful job illustrating (literally and figuratively) the complexities of Iran throughout its history. While the story centers on events just before to just after the revolution, it takes into account and addresses other parts of Iran's history, parts that led the country to have certain relationships with certain countries, parts that defined how Iranians felt about their own country and its leadership. It also showcases primarily positive characters, both female and male. Those who are "villains," enforcers of the rules of the new government, or are disrespectful are only bit characters that come and go, serving as reminders to the reader that it is an outside force which compels the strife of Persepolis's characters. Additionally, readers are presented with a picture of how the new, religion-based laws have a negative affect on both men and women.

This coming of age novel is well written and beautifully illustrated. Teachers can rest assured that the novel's illustrations lend themselves to a critical reading and understanding of the novel. At times expository, joyful, and beyond sad, Persepolis is always engaging and honest. The book shows the best and worst in its author (the protagonist in this memoir-ish novel) and always the best in those closest to her, her family.

We get to see what war does to a family - any family, anywhere in the world.

Persepolis gets at hypocrisy by directing a critical eye toward those secular characters who embraced (or seemingly did so) Muslim rule of law. It examines and makes clear, so importantly, that Iran needed a revolution, but the one it got was not what many had hoped for. Before the revolution, the shah had people investigated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by his (not so) secret police, the SAVAK. He was brutal. Iranian people were united in their desire for a revolution. But the revolution that occurred brought with it new problems and new oppressions and losses of freedom. An important part of the book is reconciling what the desired post-revolutionary government was with what the implemented government was.

The Complete Persepolis is definitely suitable for secondary classrooms (9th - 12th grades; the first half of the book, sold as Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood, perhaps for middle schoolers). It can be used as a study of oppression in conjunction with other books, it can be used as part of a unit on Middle Eastern studies, it can be used alone to explore a genre or as a platform to discuss many current issues.

You can watch the movie here.

A Mouthful

Reading chapter 2 ("The Eternal Fourough: The Voice of Our Earthly Rebellion") of Fatemeh Keshavarz's Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran left me with a lot to think about, namely how she gets at her main purpose, which is that women aren't as oppressed in the Middle East as Western society and media would have everyone believe.

To be fair, we should establish that Keshavarz left Iran in September of 1979, before the revolution really took hold and she was forced to obey religious laws regardless of whether or not she believed in them.

Some of the first proof she offers of the openness of Iranian life (and its lack of governmental oppression in general) is that translations of Western novels aren't impossible to find in Iran. Keshavarz tells her readers how, in 1986 in (war-torn) Iran, she was able to find an already translated copy of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which she had just read in the U.S.. The novel was first published in Italian in 1980 and published in English in 1983. "The presence," Keshavarz writes, "of such translations in Iranian bookstores is testimony to the openness of the readers and their interest in the world. This is a trait that the New Orientalist vision of the Middle East does not acknowledge. In fact, RLT's depiction of Iran portrays a culture unreceptive to books by Western authors. . . . Censorship of all kinds is undesirable. But there is a difference between banning all Western books and banning the story of the seduction of the underaged Lolita" (37). We should examine, here, that The Name of the Rose is a murder mystery set in a 14th century Italian monastery. When Keshavarz talks about Iranians being receptive to books by Western authors, she makes an unfair comparison: a relatively benign story versus one she readily admits contains more controversial material. Then, not all books are banned, so it's less bad than if they all were. Banning Lolita is for the good of the people because it is arguably crude or shocking (a contention with which many in the United States would agree). But it is difficult to argue a people's receptivity to world literature when you also contend that maybe it's not so bad to ban a book, especially if its subject matter is something that maybe people shouldn't be interested in.

Later, Keshavarz talks about how she interviewed an old man who had memorized the entire collection of Parvin Etesami's poetry. When she first saw the old man, toothless and in "peasant clothing" (43), Keshavarz assumed she was about to waste a couple of hours on an interview that would prove to be useless. Keshavarz found, however, that the old, illiterate man was very intelligent and articulate. It is here that Keshavarz begins to get at something - something about preconceived notions and altering them. She relates this anecdote to what she views as the West's idea that anyone (any country) poor (especially illiterate) is considered to be ignorant and stupid, fundamentalist. Any culture or government outside of one like the West has is a failure in and of itself. Sadly, many in the West believe this to be true - that more "traditional" cultures are backward and wrong and need to be helped along. But this doesn't get at oppression as viewed by those experiencing it.

Keshavarz talks about the media's portrayal of Middle Easterners, especially women, and how those portrayals are often false or exaggerated. I think she's right, but I think her main downfall is that she fails to give readers and consumers any credit for their critical thinking capabilities. I understand Keshavarz's desire to defend her homeland, but she continually skirts the issues surrounding the actual oppression that does take place.

Keshavarz writes about how texts such as Reading Lolita in Tehran, those that discuss sexual abuse in the Middle East, are unfair because they "often associate these corruptions with the local religion, Islam. RLT places these incidents consistently in the familiar context of the savage, overly sexual and duplicitous Oriental who in public projects an image of purity and piety" (50). We in the West, however, have experience separating isolated incidents (a bunch of priests molested a large number of young people) from the need to vilify an entire group (not all priests are molesters/rapists). Keshavarz is right, though. It can be difficult to dissociate Iranian child molesters/rapists from practitioners of Islam in that country because Islam is the national religion. Keshavarz writes, "The reader, predisposed to accept the stereotype of the Muslim male as a sexual oppressor, is unlikely to question the relevance of this individual crime to the overall bankruptcy attributed to Muslim morality. This abusive incident will be just an added 'proof' to what the reader already 'knows'" (50). Again, though, she does not give people enough credit. We are (I sincerely hope) intelligent enough to realize that just because one Muslim man raped someone does not mean that all Muslim men are rapists.

Keshavarz also contends that "women would like to reform electoral law and various other legal codes in Iran to get better representation, and, yes, they are still involved in various struggles to improve their lot" (52), but she never gives specific examples of the laws and reforms of which she speaks. I think some of what Keshavarz refers to can be found in Iran's constitution, some laws which pertain specifically to women (although some affect both sexes), and some explanations of penal codes.

On the whole I agree with Keshavarz that the Western notion of the situation of women in Iran, in the Middle East in general, is sensationalized. Women enjoy a great number of freedoms, Iranians and Muslims don't lock women up and treat them as worthless slaves. The Iranian constitution talks at length about peace and respect and protection. I agree with many of Keshavarz's contentions and appreciate her point of view. But I have to ask her to give people enough credit to differentiate themselves from the (outspoken) minority that takes sensationalist notions at face value and thinks that women are given no respect or regard in the Middle East. And I have to ask her to acknowledge that just because women have freedoms does not mean that they don't suffer. Indeed, both men and women suffer under a government that forces them to live by a religious code to which they may not subscribe. Many women choose to be veiled, but for those who are forced to wear the veil, it acts as a physical reminder of oppression. It's not that women are frequently burned with acid or beaten, it's that the law provides them with no recourse if these things do happen. It's that women are legally worth half of what men are worth. It's that children can't be tried for crimes. Girls stop being children at 9, boys at 14.