Women in Iran march against discrimination

[Sandy Eggo]

(CNN)  -- Like thousands of other Iranian women, Parisa took to Tehran's streets this week, her heart brimming with hope. "Change," said the placards around her.
Iranian women demonstrate Thursday in the streets of Tehran, the capital city.

Iranian women demonstrate Thursday in the streets of Tehran, the capital city.
more photos »

The young Iranian woman eyed the crowd and pondered the possibility that the rest of her life might be different from her mother's. She could see glimmers of a future free from discrimination -- and all the symbols of it, including the head-covering the government requires her to wear every day.

Women, regarded as second-class citizens under Iranian law, have been noticeably front and center of the massive demonstrations that have unfolded since the presidential election a week ago. Iranians are protesting what they consider a fraudulent vote count favoring hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but for many women like Parisa, the demonstrations are just as much about taking Iran one step closer to democracy.

"Women have become primary agents of change in Iran," said Nayereh Tohidi, chairwoman of the Gender and Women's Studies Department at California State University, Northridge.

The remarkable images show women with uncovered heads who are unafraid to speak their minds and crowds that are not segregated -- both the opposite of the norm in Iran, Tohidi said.

She said a long-brewing women's movement may finally be manifesting itself on the streets and empowering women like Parisa.

"This regime is against all humanity, more specifically against all women," said Parisa, whom CNN is not fully identifying for security reasons.

CNN

My hope is that these women are successful, but they have a long and difficult fight against thousands of years of religious based tradition of bigotry.

With any luck, 50 years from now, women there will be free and considered equal  and well on their way to forgetting the women who sacrificed and put themselves in harms way to secure the freedoms that they'll then be able to take for granted. Just like us.

[me]

Just think it all started with Bush getting rid of Sadam......

[Sandy Eggo]

Just think it all started with Bush getting rid of Sadam......

Don't know much about history do you? This just another chapter, not the beginning for all women in the middle east.

[LOsborne]

Oh, me, are you really that clueless? These women are in Iran. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. And under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, women had rights to own property, have careers, receive an education, hold office... in fact, most of what women here in the United States demand and receive. All that is changed now, of course. The fall of Saddam was also the fall of women's rights in Iraq. Now they wear burkas, walk one step behind men, and are property which can be disposed of in any manner the "owner" sees fit, including killing them.

You are right about one thing. This subjugation of women in Iraq started with Bush's invasion.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

[me]

Oh, me, are you really that clueless? These women are in Iran. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. And under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, women had rights to own property, have careers, receive an education, hold office... in fact, most of what women here in the United States demand and receive. All that is changed now, of course. The fall of Saddam was also the fall of women's rights in Iraq. Now they wear burkas, walk one step behind men, and are property which can be disposed of in any manner the "owner" sees fit, including killing them.

You are right about one thing. This subjugation of women in Iraq started with Bush's invasion.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

I think you'd better start getting your facts else where if you think anyone had any rights under Sadam especially women. 

[LOsborne]

You have some kind of problem with doing the research yourself? Here's a few more sources:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1054

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=666790

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=20447

I particular like this paragraph from the last source:
No accurate numbers are available, but rape and kidnapping cases in the past six months run well into the thousands. "We never had this kind of problem under Saddam," Ahmed says. "We could walk outside, alone, and late into the night. Not any more."

[me]

Iraqi women brutalized by Saddam

By Wendy McElroy
web posted February 17, 2003

Before and after Sept. 11, politically correct feminists crusaded for Afghan women oppressed by the Taliban. By contrast, little outrage has been expressed over the treatment of Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein.

The silence may be currently appropriate -- feminist goals should play no role in forming foreign policy. But the contrast between the two reactions is puzzling, especially in the face of horror stories coming out of Iraq.

Amnesty International has documented the brutal executions of Iraqi women accused of prostitution. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October 2000 after criticizing corruption within local health services. According to another report, in October 2000 "a group of men led by Saddam Hussein's son Uday, beheaded with knives 50 young women in Baghdad. The heads of these women were hung on the doors of their houses for a few days."

The Iraq Foundation joins Amnesty International in chronicling human rights violations, such as the methods of torture in prison, which include rape and "bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee."

Why then does the Feminist Majority site have a "Help Afghan Women" button but no "Help Iraqi Women?" Why does an Oct. 10, 2002 press release from NOW warn, "A U.S. invasion of Iraq will likely entail ... dangers to the safety and rights of Iraqi women who currently enjoy more rights and freedoms than women in other Gulf nations, such as Saudi Arabia."

Why does Women's eNews run an article by Yasmine Bahrani who states, "As it happens, women's equality is one of the few aspects of the nation's ruling ideology ... that has survived the brutality that has marked Iraqi political life."

The theme seems to be that Saddam may brutally violate human rights but his presence is good for women. For example, the Bahrani article mentions "a recent report" compiled under the auspices of the United Nations in which Iraq "scored highest in women's empowerment" for that region. (Saddam's motives are not mentioned. "Advances," such as mandating five years' maternity leave for women from employers and equal pay with men allowed him both to curry favor with the West and to regulate the economy.)

Without making a case for or against war, I question PC feminism's comparative silence on Iraqi women. The Bahrani article reveals one reason why. It points readers who wish more information to the Iraq Foundation site, which contradicts the article by stating: "The rights of women in Iraq are going down the drain, along with everything else ... In 1998, Saddam ordered all women secretaries working in government agencies be dismissed. Now there are new laws barring women from work altogether."

What is the truth of the situation? The horror stories are starting to mount. On Oct. 4, 2002, seven Iraqi women of different regional, ethnic and religious backgrounds sat on a panel entitled "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women." They recounted their personal stories of brutalization under Saddam's regime.

One of the women eloquently stated, "The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like other in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang." She added, "the Iraqi woman has lost her loved ones -- husbands, brothers and fathers." So much for the notion that Saddam can massively violate human rights while protecting those of women.

PC feminism has not ignored such testimony but neither has it embraced the cause of women in Iraq as it did those in Afghanistan.

Several reasons may underlie this apparent reluctance. A condemnation of Saddam may be viewed as an admission that Bush is correct on Iraq. And hatred of Bush runs deep in most feminist circles.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0203/0203womeniraq.htm

[me]

Ya, they all really had it good didn't they? 


http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=5BEA8CB86CD8F2A480256A16004BE849&c=IRQ

[Sandy Eggo]

Dr. Raja al-Kusai worked as a gynecologist for 26 years. Now, as a member of the national assembly helping write the nation's constitution, she is fighting for women's political and social rights.

"We need to bring all the women to be ... just one unit," she said, "and, you know, to fight for their rights."

Kusai wants the new Iraqi constitution to treat men and women as equals, but others want to put tighter controls on women's rights in the tradition of Islamic law, known as sharia.

Historically, Iraq has been one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East when it comes to women's rights. The first female Arab judge, government minister and university professor all were Iraqi.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=666790

[Sandy Eggo]

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Hussein was an angel, however he isn't solely to blame for the standard of discrimination against women in Iraq. Implying that his demise led to women standing up to fight for their rights, anywhere in the middle east, is short-sighted and shows that you're not aware of the history of their struggle. In regards to the equal rights we mostly enjoy and take for granted, no, they don't "have it good over there" and never have.

If you do some reading, then you'll find that throughout history insurgents and religious extremists have used rape, acid and assassination to force Iraqi women into submission and repression.

[LOsborne]

Ya, they all really had it good didn't they? 

No one is disputing the fact that Saddam Hussein ruled by violence and intimidation. We are disputing the fact that women were treated worse than men.

Even me's enterstageright source states The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like other in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang. Saddam was an Equal Opportunity butcher. Anyone who publicly criticized the regime was subject to torture and execution -- not just women. But in Iraq, and in no other Arab country, women  actually held positions where their words could be perceived as damaging to the regime.

[me]

What I was saying more than anything was that they realize now they don't have to sit still and let a dictator take over.  They can stand up for their rights and take him down rather than submit to it and let him take over like Sadam did. What good did it do them to have all those rights if they weren't allowed to enjoy them? They had rights just no freedom to use them. 

[LOsborne]

What I was saying more than anything was that they realize now they don't have to sit still and let a dictator take over.  They can stand up for their rights and take him down rather than submit to it and let him take over like Sadam did. What good did it do them to have all those rights if they weren't allowed to enjoy them? They had rights just no freedom to use them.

I see. So now they have freedom to use them, but no rights?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraqconflict/women_2681.jsp

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/health-education/iraq-forgotten-women

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/13/gender.iraq

I am still addressing your original post:

posted by me:
Just think it all started with Bush getting rid of Sadam.....

And I still maintain that the 2003 invasion of Iraq has little, if anything, to do with the current demonstrations by Iranian women, seeking to change the religious laws requiring them to be nothing more than an accoutrement to some man.