From: hr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Rafsanjani)
Subject: Marriage? No, Thank You. Oh, Yes Please! (Was Re: Kayhaan-e Havaaee)
Organization: British Telecom
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 16:52:33 GMT

In article <1991Aug1.145352.3677@cs.ubc.ca> mokhtar@cs.ubc.ca (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:

>   You still have not said what you think about banning marriage?
>   Didn't you say that marriage was "monopolized prostitution"?!

>       Farzin

Ok, ok, Farzin, I heard you.  It is just I got a bit busy
doing some work.  And of course, I should come back and
answer your questions.  They are all motivated by the desire
to learn and find the truth, aren't they?  So how could I
evade it?

Now, I understand your feelings about this sacred subject.
And that you want a definite 'yes' or 'no' answer to these
fundamental questions.  You see, Farzin, you believe in
'authority'. You think things are either 'allowed' or
'banned'.  You see quite well the exterme ends of things.
They are either 'good' or 'bad'.  However, you cannot see
the huge area in between, the 'grey' area.  If things are
bad they should be banned, and if they are good they cannot
be criticised.  You donot think that 'good' things may have
faults in them that can be criticised; that 'bad' things can
be 'bettered'.  That things, *anything* can be modified,
improved, reformed, reconstructed, renovated, renewed,
repaired, amended, changed, transformed, and so on.  And I
understand you, Farzin.  No, I am not going to disappoint
you, by saying that the subject matter is complicated, that
it is deep-rooted, that you cannot answer 'yes' or 'no' to
these questions, that the subject needs to be analysed, etc,
etc.  No, that would be rude and cruel to you.  You asked
the question and I should oblige.  And so, I am going to
give you not just one 'yes' or 'no' answer, but several
'YES'es and a big 'NO'.  Read on...

But first, a health warning for some other innocents:

HEALTH WARNING: 
============== 

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL CONTAINS SUBSTANCES WHICH MAY BE
HARMFUL TO THOSE WHO BELIVE THAT "THEIR" BELIEF, CULTURE,
RELIGION, MORALS, SELF, FAMILY, CLAN, SOCIETY, NATION OR
GOVERNMENT ARE THE BEST OR SACRED AND BEYOND CRITICISM.  NO
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ETC WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Now, Farzin, we can talk more privately.  (I assume you are
still there.  After all, you asked the question, and I
expect at least you have stayed on for the answer.  So here
we go.)

(In the following, smileys deleted all the way)

YES! IF it means that the woman is selling herself to the
man for life in exchange for a fixed amount (as the text of
khotbeh used for religious marriage in Iran implies) (Yes,
Farzin, that's what it implies);

YES! IF the woman is used as means of extracting money by the
woman's parents and/or male relatives from the man in the
form of mahr or shir-behaa (as is common in many parts of
Iran) (NO Farzin, this is not the same as the previous one);

YES! IF a virgin woman cannot marry without her father's
consent;

YES! IF a Moslem woman can marry only a Moslem man and/but a
Moslem man can marry only a woman of 'ahl-e ketaab' i.e.,
Christian, Jews and (some say) Zoroastrian (as is the case
in Shi'a feqh with variations about permanent and temporary
marriage);

YES! IF it is used as means of consolidating the class/cast
structure of the society (You know, Farzin, that in India
you cannot marry someone of a lower cast, and in Iran, you
are supposed to marry someone of your own "sha'an", a
reference to your class); 

YES! IF the woman is used as means of establishing family
relationship in the pursuit of power or wealth (Well, Yes,
Farzin.  I suppose we can make an exception to whoever
succeeds in marrying Donald Trump's daughter);

YES! IF it is regarded as the only legitimate context in
which consenting adults can have sexual relations with each
other;

YES! IF it is regarded as the only legitimate means by which
a woman can get pregnant (No Farzin, this is not the same as
the previous one, or the next one);

YES! IF only one partner (the man) is allowed to have extra
legitimate sexual relations with others, and not the other
(as is the case in Islamic countries allowing polygamy, and
even more so in those which practice sigheh);

YES! IF it means that the woman has to be available to the
man at all times (So you know now, Farzin, why every
out-of-home activity of the woman, including work, shopping,
travel and even going to public bath, needs to be sanctioned
by the man);

YES! IF no divorce is allowed at all (like catholics) or one
party (the man) has the power to divorce the wife and not
the other (You are right, Farzin, the woman can get the man
to give her the power of attorney to divorce herself from
the man if she wishes so, and this can be put as a condition
in the marriage contract so that it cannot be taken away
from her, but as you see it is a bit complicated for many to
understand.  You get my drift, don't you?);

YES! IF it means that the children belong to the man both in
names and custody (the woman's custody limited to the first
two years for boys and the first seven years for girls) (Did
you know, Farzin, that in Islam the woman can charge her
husband for breast-feeding her children, Oops, HIS
children?);

YES! IF it means perpetual rape, i.e., that the woman is
legally bound to consent to the man's sexual desire anytime
and anywhere he wishes (except during the woman's monthly
period) (Of course, Farzin, if you have read Qor'aan you
know which Aayeh I am referring to);

YES! IF it means that the man has the right to admonish,
isolate, and eventually beat the woman if she refuses to
yield to his sexual demands (I leave the reference to the
relevant Aayeh in Qor'aan to you, Farzin, as an exercise);

YES! IF preganncy for a woman before marriage leads invariably
to her disgrace and probable death by her male relatives (as
happens so often in Iran and other Middle-east countries);

YES! IF the man has the right to kill her wife and whoever
he finds with her in bed, even though she might be being
raped (as the law stood in Iran untill early sixties, and
the Islamic Republic tried to revive it - whether it
succeeded or not I am not aware of);

YES! IF neither party can share the wealth the other party
accummulates during the marriage (as is the case in the
Iranian law);

YES! IF it is used by society to unload its obligation for
the welfare of the children to the parents, and so
re-generating the cycle of poverty through the institution
of the marriage - poor parents producing poor children who
become poor parents producing poor children ...  (I know,
Farzin, some poor children break the cycle or marry into
rich families and make it to the top, but I am talking of
the rules not the exceptions.  Do you know, Farzin, what
proportion of us on the net come from the working class or
poor families?  Oh, so it has nothing to do with the
marriage system?  Sorry for the confusion!);

YES! IF on the woman's share of the deceased husband's
wealth is, like to like, half of the man's share of the
deceased wife's - and that the woman's share excludes
property (real estate) (Yes, Farzin, the woman can
effectively be kicked out of her life-time home after her
husband's death.  Of course, Farzin, if she got children
from the same man who are kind to her, they wouldn't do such
a thing.  Also those who argued that mahr is essentally
devised to give a divorced wife something to support her,
take note how a loyal wife is taken care of after her
husband's death);

YES! IF after divorce or death, one party (the man) can
marry forthwith (indeed, before divorce or death of wife)
but the other side has to wait a while (usually three month,
or if she is pregnanat until the child's birth, if later)
(No, Farzin, I am not a divorced or widowed woman impatient
to get married soon.  I am just talking about the extent of
'inequalities' in Iranian/Islamic marriage if you
understand);


AND FINALLY A BIG NO! IF it means association of people free
of sexual repression, social coersion, family consideration,
financial motivation, power manipulation, religious/cast
restriction and class structure preservation, who want to,
by choice, share their lives in a set up based on mutual
love, trust, respect, understanding, and with equality in
law, responsibilities, financial gains/losses, custody of
the children born out of this set up, and free from the
anxiety of the welfare of those children.

Got it?  (No, don't bother to answer.  Go and do something
useful)

-hossein
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian