Gender apartheid in Iran is as damaging to that society as racial apartheid was to South Africa. Don't legitimize it.
FIFA's decision to ban Iranian women footballers from a game against Jordan last Sunday because they wore headscarves and not the approved cap had soccer lovers in a fit of rage all week. They accuse FIFA for being "agents" of their repression and of "Western" discrimination against Muslims.
Please.
Alyssa Rosenberg of Think Progress compares the situation to the rejection of multiculturalism in Western Europe. She writes, "[I]f we're really concerned with how women are perceived and treated in Muslim communities, it seems hugely counterproductive to adopt policies that force women to choose between abiding by the tenets of their faith and participating in activities that let them demonstrate their physical prowess and strategic intelligence."
Say what? How do we even know these women's faith? Iranian citizens have no right to choose their faith. Iranian women have no choice in dress. Some don't have a choice in husband, or to divorce. There is no religious freedom in Iran. There is no freedom of expression. We actually have no idea how many Iranians are actually Muslim, yet we certainly know that no Iranian women -- Muslim or not -- can choose not to wear the hijab even if they don't believe in it. Most of those footballers would take it off if they could, as would most Iranian women, but they would face lashing and jail. I wonder how Ms. Rosenberg would feel living in a country that forced her to think and dress a certain way against her will, or does she think that kind of life is the reserve of only some women. Would she want the world to push back against that treatment, or let her play soccer on unequal and potentially dangerous footing?
David Zirin writes in Al Jazeera that the FIFA decision feeds "profound Western ignorance regarding the position of Iranian women since the Islamic revolution." He describes the improved literacy rate since 1979 (does he honestly expect a nation of 70 million to go backward over a span of three decades?). He also points out that one out of three Iranian doctors is a woman. Oh well, that settles it then! Things can't be that bad for women in Iran since they can be doctors! How is it then that most Iranian women I know desperately wish to leave their country today? That things are good for them is news to my cousin who last month snatched her 14-year-old daughter and left Iran for San Francisco after the regime started mandating different textbooks for girls than those used for boys to start rolling back hard-won progress in education.
Since last week, Iranian traffic cops have been authorized to harass and fine women for failing to wear "Islamic" dress, which means a few strands of hair showing on their forehead. Iranian women's rights activists, which have worked peacefully for decades to gain many of the basic human rights they lost after the 1979 revolution -- such as the right to wear what they want, equal rights in education, work, marriage, and child custody -- have been charged with national security crimes. Women like Nasrin Sotoudeh, Shiva Nazar-Ahari, Maryam Bahreman , Mahboubeh Karami -- have all been sent to notorious Iranian prisons for peaceful human rights activities. The pro-democracy Green Movement -- modeled, and in many ways, led by Iranian women -- was brutally suppressed in 2009.
Let's get some clarity on a few things. First, the regime running Iran should get no credit for the advancement of women. That credit goes to the progressive people of that country for resisting and circumventing a fanatical government which has made every attempt to block their progress by putting them on unequal footing. Forced hijab is the most powerful symbol of that policy. Second, Iran should not be considered an Islamic state -- whatever that means. A prerequisite for a person to be a true Muslim is free choice and since Iran doesn't allow that opportunity to its people, it fails the Islam test. Today, Iran is a brutal dictatorship with misogynist leanings using the guise of "religion" to stay in power. Forcing a headscarf on a women while playing a grueling game like soccer is not Islamic. It's ideological tyranny. Rejecting headscarves on the pitch for safety reasons is anything but Islamophobia.
It becomes deeply disconcerting when free-thinking people start drinking the Islamic Republic's Kool Aid by using the concept of "culture" and "religion" to provide justification for the violations of the rights of women. Western observers should be far more careful in their analysis of these societies, which are all different. Only a few countries in the world force women to wear hijab against their will and Iran happens to be one of them. We should be careful not to accept the definition of a nation's culture sold to us by non-democratic regimes. There is a reason why such oppression in a country like Iran exists, and it is usually because that "culture" is imposed.
One might say that these issues are unrelated to sports and the right to participate in international sporting events should still stand, notwithstanding politics or human rights. Fine, but only if governments and teams abide by the rules. Iran does not. As usual, it tried to bend the rules. There is no reason that international organizations should adhere to the Iranian regime's demands when it breaks the rules and it has harmed the mental and psychological health of its women and men through three decades of gender apartheid and discrimination. The Iranian government has recently declared that it does not agree to universal human rights standards as set out in international treaties and plans to challenge them globally and promote their own "Islamic" version, which denies religious freedom, gender equality, and freedom of expression. Of course, the input of their people will likely not be solicited since Iran's human rights organizations have all been shuttered and their activists and lawyers jailed or exiled.
Make no mistake about it, gender apartheid in Iran is as damaging to that society as racial apartheid was to South Africa. It is time for the world to recognize it as such. The UN has declared that the lack of equality between men and women is the root cause of violence against women. The world should not legitimize institutionalized violence against women which is exactly what forced hijab is.
Put blame where the blame should be. The unfair treatment of women in Iran today is that country's biggest shame. Let the Iranian people deal with the consequences of their government's flouting of international rules and reckless approach to the health of their women. As much as all of us want Iran's women to play the beautiful game, they should play safely and freely and we should help them get there by calling their government out. We should not allow the Iranian government to deflect blame for its abuse of women, and we should also not allow it to erode international standards in any arena, including sport.
Dokhi Fassihian is an international human rights advocate who lives in Washington, DC.
Rabbi Jason Miller: An Analysis of the Delta-Saudi Controversy
Supriya Dwivedi: Quebec's Hijab Controversy: Bend it like Benkiran
Kamran Pasha: Women Retake Islam: The Prophet -- And My Mother -- Would Be Proud
Marianne Schnall: Peace Laureates Take on the War on Women
Oh and by the way, I interviewed one of the girls! :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13777308
See what's happening, and what clerics (remember, there's no such thing as separation of "church" and state in Iran) have to say about it.
These young women have trained long and hard to be a part of an international event whose existence is to bring together the people of the world in order to foster understanding among the participants and audience, in case Ms. Fassihian has forgotten. When they were told they were disqualified simply because of the hijabs, the reports stated the women cried on the field. Now, surely there would have been sly smiles instead if they felt this a blow to their government's repression. FIFA's stance made these women pawns just as much as their government has.
Let them play!!!
Who says even the ones that are would choose to play in hijab if they were given the choice?
From the way you wrote, one would think that Iranian women are subject to the same sort of rules as Saudi women are, and not allowed to participate in society at all, instead of being elected legislators (and not via an artificial quotas, but completely by the free choice of the electorate), businesswomen, even fighterr jet pilots, the ability to divorce their husbands (note the rising divorce rate), who they are marrying (when they do marry) later in life (note the rising average age at marriage) after education and establishing their careers.
Dear Internet polymath,
Please try visiting Iran for yourself sometime and speaking to women there about how they feel about their lot.
Have a nice day.
Yet, I find the arrogance exercised by FIFA troubling.
The blame is shared (we can all sit here and argue about what percentage and what not) but ultimately those athletes got the shaft and both political sides gained ammunition against one another while women were used a as a pawn, or as you put it "Political Football."
However, I do share your passion about women's rights issues in Iran.
My two cartoons may shed more light on both sides of the isle:
http://kavehadel.com/blog/2011/06/political-cartoon-ahmadinejad-versus-fifa-dictators-and-colonialists/
and
http://kavehadel.com/blog/2011/06/political-cartoon-womens-football-dream-grounded/
respectfully.
Kaveh
You want to fight with IRI for women's right then start a campaign or join the ones that are already started. But this is not a time to write about things that we already know even better than you....
My answer to your " So what ? "
is " SO WHAT ? " to your cold and irresponsible article towards these women ....
Now is time to bring to the world's attention that FIFA acting exactly like IRI in terms of treating these girls as the third party by enforcing ridiculous dress codes... one says wear it .... the other one says do not wear this but wear what I want you to wear ...
FIFA's desicion came as a shock and left these girls, who have been practiising against all the odds in Iran, in full tears ...
Shame on you and your " so what ? " conclusion .....
Maybe because they knew it meant they might be gangraped back at home?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13777308
'The Iranian government has recently declared that it does not agree to universal human rights standards as set out in international treaties and plans to challenge them globally and promote their own "Islamic" version, which denies religious freedom, gender equality, and freedom of expression'
Its not just the iranian government but all the majority muslim countries of the OIC who decided upon this. they decided to agree to the 'cairo declaration of human rights', which contrary to your claim does not deny religious freedom, freedom of expression or gender equality (unless its against islam)
those are my rebuttals and refutations and i hope you take time to read them and take it into account.
Babak Irani
'Second, Iran should not be considered an Islamic state -- whatever that means. A prerequisite for a person to be a true Muslim is free choice...'
an Islamic state is a state where the religion of the state is islam and where the sharia is the main source of laws and legislation (if not the only one). also, you are confusing muslim with an islamic state, the former is a living human being who is a believer of islam, the latter is a state where majority of its citizens (i.e. towns, villages, cities, communities, counties, provinces) are the former.
Indeed there is free choice, and that free choice is the freedom to practice islam in the way that fits the believer. Islamic states dont force its population to go to prayers, fast, go to hajj, pay charity etc. that is entirely up to the muslim and its their 'free choice'. if iran is truly an islamic state then it doesn't force people to go to prayers or hajj or fast (which it doesn't, unfortunately ahmadinejad has made it a radical extremist state).
'Today, Iran is a brutal dictatorship with misogynist leanings using the guise of "religion" to stay in power'
on that statement i agree that in the past 2 years, the regime has been using religion to supress the population.
(continued)
'Let's get some clarity on a few things. First, the regime running Iran should get no credit for the advancement of women.'
that depends on your definition of 'regime running iran'. do you mean the ahmadinejad administration of the last 4 years, the regime under leadership of khamenei of the last 21 years, or the entire regime of 32 years? if its the latter one then you are definitely wrong. Khomeini's policy of gender segregation and forced veiling encouraged many of the traditional religious families to let their daughters/sisters/mothers go get an education. Previously under the shah they were against that because his regime created a liberal non-religious atmosphere for education (which discouraged traditional families to let their female companions go get an education). after the revolution khomeini's laws and regulations reflected their values and ideals and religion so they were more open to let the daughters/sisters/mothers go.
as comparison to other countries, if not for the revolution it would have had the same female education and literacy rates as egypt (59.4%)
(continued)
I appreciated your work as an activist for human rights in iran. However, recently it seems you have appeared to have taken the language of the islam-basher maryam namazi.
a few things to clarify from your article:
'There is no religious freedom in Iran.'
the christians, jews, and zoroastrians would disagree with you on that. they are allowed to freely practice their religion and are even given more relaxed rules under the government. they each have members in the parliament to represent. although other non-muslims are persecuted/killed, the claim of 'no religious freedom' is not correct, rather there is little religious freedom.
'We actually have no idea how many Iranians are actually Muslim'
98% according to recent statistics. a recent gallup poll also surveyed the country's religiosity and found that 82% are religious.
(continued)
the christians, jews, and zoroastrians would disagree with you on that. they are allowed to freely practice their religion and are even given more relaxed rules under the government."
If that was true then the atheists and agnostics would be free also. Even in Turkey you can't vocally say you're an atheist or agnostic because you'll get discriminated against if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you will get killed. In Iran you'd probably get hanged.. Nobody is eating your words about the "religious freedom" in Iran. The fact that women are not allowed to dress as they please shows how the government forces people to adopt sharia laws.
No, because if you are Jewish/Christian/Zoroastrian/Bahai you either
1.) Enjoy not being 6 feet under the ground (or very high above the ground if you're a Zoroastrian! [until the 1960's, at least])
or
2.) Have already gotten the hell out of Iran!
Many have shared your wish for past 32 years
Hass has a point about FIFA
But free choice should be the aim