Dinner was served. We had started with a verity of appetizers and many toasts with some of my favorite wines. So far so good, there was no talk about politics. I knew that it wouldn't last.The previous time that we had get together, the outcome was an ugly fight of words among the entire group, ranging from my close family members to some not so close acquaintances. Later they had told me that even with that incident, they all had a great time and were amazed about the diversity of the group in the party. My neighbors were most appreciative of the diversity and commented more than once that they had never seen so many cultures in one place.
So far so good, everyone remembering the last incident had kept their ideas to themselves knowing now how they differ. I raised my glass as usual. I never drink without a toast, it's a habit of mine. This time I made it short since I had to take the food out of the oven. "To you all", I said, "thank you for coming". We all cheered and I began to set the table. I was proud of what I had made, I had worked on the dishes and the plan of what goes where. The table was colorful although I noticed people didn't care as they attack similar to a conquering army yelling victory songs.
Last time was a fun party, similar to this time. If that incident didn't occur. That was the second main reason that I wanted to redo this. The table was half empty and the bottles of wines were poured while the sound of glasses lightly touching for toasts could be heard in all four corners. Yes it was turning out good, again. So far so good.
Originally the argument had started when Steve had brought the idea of the war in Iraq, and it was the Republicans and Democrats took their party position and there we go. The conflict had started. I had a strong feeling about the war but had to remain impartial because I was the host. It would certainly be rude to those who did not agree with my political views to argue with me and possibly feel unwelcome. It was a wise decision to stay out because the heated conversation was only getting louder and less conversational. This time I would interfere and not let it get out of hand. I would not go to the corner as I did last time and make toasts with my best friends while ignoring the noise in the middle of the living room that was getting louder. It is very true that drinking and politics don't mix. Even if you would like to be impartial, it only takes one "wrong" statement to get your attitude changing from a calm, logical and friendly to harsh, obnoxious and illogical. It doesn't take long at all. I have seen too many of those sudden changes of behavior. Not this time.
Alex voice was raising, what was it this time? Should I interfere now or allow it to take its course?
I excused myself from the group that I was discussing Persian modern poetry with and walked towards Alex. He was a good guy. I have known him for more than a decade. He always added extra spice to any gathering. He was talking to Laura, a neighbor of mine. She was very soft spoken and was a well read individual. I stood next to them. Alex and Laura did not react to my presence. They were talking about the women Rights and equal pay. Alex was arguing that it might not be the best way to force the independent businesses to assign a price for a position. "But how can you stop discrimination if you do not make a bold approach" Laura argued "and that might not be fair to some, but it would be fair to the majority. And that's what democracy is about". Looked like a peaceful debate, nothing to worry here.
"What do you think?" I heard Alex's voice and turned to see if he was talking to me. He was. I walked back and listened to his argument that now seemed to have moved to women Rights and Iran. "Remember once in an argument you told me that Iranian women are doing better than before?" Alex looking for my agreement that Laura asked loudly "but you told me that the women's situation is not ideal in Iran?" waiting for my nod. What did I mean in both of those cases? I had done that many times. Depending on the situation I have had things that could be contradictory. "Come on just tell him what you told me" Laura insisted.
"Alex what were we talking about when I told you that?" Looking at Laura I asked the same question. "I have no idea, we were pretty wasted. But I remember that we were talking about the Shah and you were telling me about some of your sweet childhood memories". Laura took a big sip from her glass and said "Oh yeah I remember, I was asking you about the divorce laws and single women life in Iran". That was the case. There were different cases. Can I make the case base on Laura's argument that life for women overall has become worse? It's a fact that women don't have similar rights to men under the Islamic Republic. But I didn't take her side. I went to explain the scenario in both cases and let them decide what they liked based on the historical information.
Their questions did not leave my head.
Why didn't I want to admit to Laura knowing well that she was right. In that discussion, Law was the focus and she was right. Was I embarrassed in front of Alex? No, that was not the case because I had said pretty harsh things before. I recall my best friend once telling me that when it comes to the issue of Iran, I can't be objective. Was that the case then? I had to justify something that I knew was wrong?
Are there different angles for the same issue? Why can't the women's right be an absolute argument, either it's acceptable to take the rights away or it's not. Yet there are times that knowingly I take the other side and that was puzzling to me. I wanted to figure it out for myself. I did that unknowingly. "Here's to the host" Farshid said in a dominating voice and raised his glass. Everyone followed and we all drank to me! My head was still struggling with thoughts that I heard Tammy, Alex's wife. She had picked up the argument and was now trying to convince Alex that one of the problems with Iranian society is the men who accept those laws which makes women inferior. Something was wrong with her logic although her argument was correct. What was missing? The laws were against women but were women in her mind similar to women in my mind? This might have been the key that I could not fully submit to their argument. The issue is looked at from a different lens that was missing some realistic sense. Women in Iran, all the ones that I see or know do not come across as submissive or scared, quiet or silenced by the society. They are the most visible, vibrant part of Iranian society. Where in that argument this image comes across? It doesn't.
"Nothing is absolute" I said and they all became quiet listening, "Laura and Tammy are both correct from many different angles" I looked at them and continued "yet your understanding hides the true images that make up the women's life in Iran. I feel as if we are watching two different pictures from the same camera. The mistake that everyone makes about the people, societies, histories and countries are perhaps conclusive for an argument about the realities while the Sociocultural aspect of the problem is not considered".
When we speak about Rights, we don't tend to think of those who blindly follow the rules and never question. We don't think of those women who work hard in the village, taking care of their families while their men enjoy the authority of the home. That's not the law, that's the accepted social norm from traditions which clearly are flawed. We think of those who are bothered and fight against it. Similarly in Turkey a secular State where the majorities are Muslim, we don't think of those who are fine with the secularity of the country but those who are bothered by the force of not being able to dress or practice what they believe. An opposite side of a coin of the same idea. The image that many carry in their mind when they perceive the Iranian women as a group of submissive, weak, and caged individuals who are suffocated by the authorities and men. Although legally so, socially it's far from the truth. Perhaps that's the core of the double standard that I carry with my arguments depending on the audience.
Once talking to a group of American women, my sister told them "In Iran we always thought of the Western people and societies higher than they really are, and in the West, people tend to think of the people and societies such as Iran lower than we really are". Is that why some of us have double standards? We feel as though they are right in the core argument, there is a great misunderstanding about the realities of the day to day life of the people and dominant culture.
My Party ended well. Hopefully next month we'll have another one.
Recently by Abarmard | Comments | Date |
---|---|---|
خواست | - | Oct 23, 2012 |
پیوند ساقه ها | 5 | Jul 26, 2012 |
رويای پرواز | 14 | Jan 24, 2012 |
Person | About | Day |
---|---|---|
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
I think that applies to
by JustCurious on Mon Sep 28, 2009 04:40 AM PDTI think that applies to women rights in any middle eastern country. I totally understand your point in trying to defend something even tho u kinda know its wrong. . as we believe we represent our ethnicity and its not nice to hear we not doing so well.
But how you say, that iranian women are not submissive etc. . thats partially true, what i found living in an islamic law country, women may not live as bad as the west make them to be but they stil lack alot of rights, they just learn to accept and live with their lives and make the most of it. . as long as they play by the rules they're safe. . but how does that mean they doing ok?
Its actually quite funny, because they do seem happy with what they have/live. As to me it seemed at first they were oppressed but with time when i tried to encourage some they didnt want to know. I think thats mainly down to them only knowing what they'v ever experienced, they dont feel the oppression because it is the norm to them. so does that even make it oppression? being oppressed is holding you back from what you want to do, but if you are happy doing what you re doing, wheres the oppression? i think the wrong starts at the beginning of the cycle, when they are taught to believe thats how to live is the only way.
going into these countries trying to educate women in womens rights, to me seems pointless, cos the damage is done, they need to educate them at the schools, the men, the society as a whole. a woman alone standing for her rights is just suicidal, so no figure they dont wana accept they are oppressed.
and it is quite saddening cos as its the majority who live like that and accept, the minority who choose to be different really do suffer extreme consequences. . i dont ever believe that any eastern islamic country will be as free and accepting of difference as in the west, ever.
Abarmard: What are you
by Anonymous-H (not verified) on Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:22 AM PSTAbarmard: What are you trying to really say? You've gone one too many tangential in your essay. It's not an easy read. Sorry, I don't mean to be too critical but I think you have something important to say!
Dear Azadeh
by Abarmard on Fri Feb 20, 2009 01:54 PM PSTThank you for your input. I did not proof read the piece before submitting it, my apologies. I did correct the two specific points that you made. I had this strange urge to submit this piece before I left from the office.
Enjoy your weekend.
Dear Abarmard
by Azadeh Azad on Fri Feb 20, 2009 01:24 PM PSTThank you for writing this blog.
The problem of miscommunication with, and misunderstanding by, Western individuals and groups will be eliminated once you learn to always articulate both facts in the same sentence. You may say, for instance:
"Although the Islamic Laws (Sharia) are misogynistic and consider a woman to be half of a man as well being her father/brother/husband's property, urban middle-class Iranian women are educated and independent-minded, fighting against these inhumane laws that the Islamist authorities are imposing on them and most Iranian men agree with."
Another reason for the misunderstandings you mentioned, is your own less than ingenuous statements. To tell Alex that "Iranian women are doing better than before" or to Laura that "the women's situation is not ideal in Iran" is misleading. The first statement is socio-historically wrong and the second one can apply to any human society, as there is no such a thing as an ideal society.
As for the situation of women in Turkey, I suggest that you situate the problem of Muslim women who want to wear hijab or practice what they believe in the broader context of the real menace that the Islamic Fundamentalism poses for women and the whole populations in the region.
What your sister says is absolutely true. A big part of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the media on both sides. But we can diminish the negative effects of these propaganda by being honest and less propagandists ourselves and by learning to articulate different aspects of a situation in one long sentence (and then develop it if necessary.)
Finally, please kindly proof-read before publishing. There are so many bothersome mistakes. For instance, Turkey is not a "secular Islamic State," but a "secular State". And it is not "who are suffocating the authorities and men," but "who are suffocated by the authorities and men."
Cheers,
Azadeh