From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Women in Iran
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:32:09 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Nov9.095756.203232@uctvax.uct.ac.za> snggab01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

> Dear Loren,I am a non-Muslim European who has come to admire the Islamic
> republic of Iran for 
> 1)The fact that a woman can walk the streets there without a fear of being
>   raped

You are wrong.  

Here is what I wrote on the same subject a while back (re-cycling
topics deserve re-cycled answers!)
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.iranian,soc.women
From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: British Telecom
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:56:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.035909.26809@ucunix.san.uc.edu> minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas) writes:

> in iran and other muslim
> countries, there is no denying that rape occurs but there is no way that even
> close to 1/3 of the women get raped, i would not even say 1/5 of them do, that
> is because the cultures of the muslim coutnries (and many other asian and 
> african non-muslim countries) have created a way of thinking that tries to
> prevent the situation from happening in the first place.

It is wrong to measure the amount of oppressions against women in a society
just in terms of rape incidences.  Rape is just one form of of this oppression.
Sexual harrassement is another.  But, irnoically enough, the more a society is
sever about its women, and the more it subordinates its women, the less the
chance of incidents of rapes (outside marriage).

Let's see why.  It is to do with the institution of marriage/family in these
societies, and this has all to do with power and property.  The institution of
family was the cornerstone of the patriarchial society.  This society used
women as means of reproduction and imposed the will of men on them in the form
of family.  Child-bearing had severly limited work opportunities for women, and
made them dependent on society.  The society exploited this need to make them
dependent on individual (man) and so the family was born.  The sanctity of
family then was inforced by religion which severly restricted sexual relations
to that inside of a marriage.  

This institution also created a sense of belonging in the marriage.  The wife
"belongs" to her husband, and any advances on her by other men is bound to be
resisted by the "zealot" husband.  Indeed, nothing more than a sexual relation
between a man's wife with somebody else (whether consented by the women or not)
hurts a man's "honour".  The women in those societies have "owners" and as a
result they have someone to "protect" them.  However, these protection is
nothing more than the protection a lamb destined for the slaughter-house
receives from its owner when it is attacked by a wolf.

And this is the core of the problem you fail to see.  That is to say: RAPE DOES
NOT NEED TO HAPPEN OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE.  It can well be inside it.  I know it
is rather novelty for some to talk about rape inside marriage.  But from a
woman's point of view, if anyhting, it is much worse.  It is worse, because
neither morality nor law is going to support her.  It is worse, because she is
raped by the same rapist again and again for years to come.  And it is worse
because she is told that it is her social, religious, moral and legal duty to
submit herself to this perpetual rape no matter if and to what extent she hates
her husband.

Now, you are interested to talk numbers?  O.K., just think of what percentage
of marriages in say Iran and Pakistan are arranged with no consent of the women
concerned (practically sold to their future husbands).  Then think of how many
of those who do consent find out after marriage thet they have chosen the wrong
person and wish they hadn't done it.  Then think of those who were happily
married and then at some stage the relation between them and their husbands
detroriate (for whatever reasons from either side) but who either financially,
socially or politically cannot "buy" themselves out of marriage and have to
live with it.  Then think of those who would face beating if they don't submit
to the sexual desire of their husbands, and those who are actually beaten at
least once in their married life.  (Remember the Qor'anic verse that if your
wives don't submit do so-and-so- and beat them, and that those who take
advantage of this aayeh are not interested in the niceties of Yusuf Ali's
interpretations.)  And finally, think of all the society, and not that part of
the urbanised population who might have been "currupted" by western ideas, and
are treating their women-folk differently.

Then add all these together and see what percentage of women in those societies
are raped - and raped perpetually.  Now, you amy say that rape inside marriage
is also "common" in the west.  But you know very well that over here it is much
easier for women to get divorce (and so a higher rate of divorce in these
societies - another "minus" in your outlook, I suppose), and also that beating
women is a criminal offence (something which is yet to get into statutory books
of those societies).  Now put all these together, and see if you can still come
to the conclusion that women in the west suffer more from enforced or unwanted
sex (which is after all, the definition of rape) than those in our "Islamic"
homelands.

And some more points.  Can a women who suffer rape outside marriage in Iran or
Pakistan really go straight to the police and say "officer, I was just raped"?
And if she does it, isn't it more likely to ask for protection from her own
man-folk who may be out to kill her in order to "wipe out this shame from the
family"?  And did you know that by Iranian law (cancelled before revolution
then re-instated after revolution, but I ma not sure of its latest situation) a
man finding his wife in bed with another man could kill both and go free
(without the slightest consideration that the women might have been actually
getting raped)?  What do these and the fact that killing victims of rape
(outside marriage) is a common practice in those societies with explicit or
implicit approval of the religious and state authorities, tell you about
"statistics".

Man, wake up!  We come form societies in which one of the most forms of
aprtheid is institutionalized with the full support of religious and civil
authorities.  I for one feel ashamed.  What about you?  Isn't it our least
moral duty to campaign against injustices directed towards half the population
(which incidentally include members of our own families), and isn't the first
step in such a campaign to acknowledge the problem and see it in its most
horrific reality?

-hossein
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian