“Gender” and “Space” in Tehran

Dissertation for the Obtainment the Academic Degree of Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften (Dr.-Ing.) Faculty of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning University of Kassel

by:

Minoosh Sadoughianzadeh

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ulla Terlinden Consultant: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kerstin Doerhoefer Day of Disputation: 26.11.08

Vol. 1

Contents

Volume 1

Erklaerung (Declaration) 7 Zusammenfassung 8 Abstract 11 Acknowledgements 14

Introduction 15 Part One, General

Chapter One: Theoretical framework

Introduction 17 Gender, Sex 18 Patriarchy, Internalization of Oppression 22 Space 26 Space and Gender Identity 27 Difference 28 Difference, Space 30 Internalization of Spatial Oppression 31 Hypotheses 31 References 33

Part Two, Case Study

Chapter Two: Tehran, General knowledge

Geographical situation 39 Tehran development through political and socio-economical process 40 Population 44 Literacy, Education 54 Dependency rate, Labor force, Employment 57 Changing situations of women in Iran 61 References 85

2 Chapter Three: Case Study in Tehran, Method and Methodology

Method and Methodology 87 Samples 91 Variables and Indicators 92 The Logic of the Questions 94 Notes 97 The Diagram of variables & indicators 98 References 99

Chapter Four: Gender Identity

Introduction 101 Category no. 1: Attitudes towards women’s employment 102 Category no. 2: Attitudes towards women financial independence 104 Category no. 3: Attitudes towards social role of women & men in society 106 Category no. 4: Attitude towards existing social differences between men and women 107 Category no. 5: Attitude towards appropriate educational level 108 General Groups of gender attitudes 109 Conclusion 112

Chapter Five: “Gender” & “Private Space of the House”

Introduction 127 Category no.1: Parents preferences about their girls’ and boys’ necessity to private room 128 Category no. 2: Parents preferences about the closeness of children’s room to parents’ 129 Category no. 3: Parents preferences about children’s rooms position whether they are overlooked by (or overlooking to) other places or not 130 Category no. 4: Parents preferences whether their boys or girls open the apartment door 131

3 Category no. 5: Parents preferences whether their boys or girls answer to the phone 132 Category no. 6: Parents preferences whether their boys or girls entertain the guests 132 Conclusion 134

Chapter Six: “Gender” and “Semi Private Semi Public Spaces”

Introduction 153 Category no. 1: Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use courtyard space 154 Category no. 2: Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use overlooked balconies 156 Category no. 3: Parents attitudes towards the way their children use semi public spaces of neighborhood 159 Category no. 4: Parents attitudes towards the ways their children do the grocery shopping 159 Category no. 5: Parents attitudes towards the issue that which one of their children take the garbage out in the evening 162 Category no. 6: Parents preferences towards their children watering the courtyard’s flower bed or the flowerbed in front of the door 164 Category no. 7: Parents preferences towards their children cleaning shared staircase 168 Category no. 8: Parents attitudes towards their children using roof 169 Category no. 9: Parents preferences towards their children hanging the clothes up in courtyards, balconies or roofs. 169 Conclusion 172

Chapter Seven: “Gender” and “Public Space”

Introduction 181 Category no. 1: Parents attitudes towards the way their children go to educational spaces 182

4 Category no. 2: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could drive in the city 186 Category no. 3: Parents attitudes towards the way their children do their personal shopping 187 Category no. 4: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children spend their free times in the city 192 Category no. 5: Parents attitudes towards the ultimate time in the evening their children could stay out of home 197 Category no. 6: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could cycle in the neighborhood or the city 201 Category no. 7: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could ride a motorbike in the city 204 Category no. 8: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could educate in other city far from family 205 Category no. 9: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children do official or banking affairs 207 Category no. 10: Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could work to earn money 210 Conclusion 212

Chapter Eight: Conclusions

Introduction 223 Gender Identity 224 Spatial Identity 225 Hypotheses Appraisal 230 Gender, Space in Tehran through a systematic approach 230 Parallel Social Powers in Tehran 236 Epilogue, Suggestions 249

References 253

5 Volume 2

Appendixes

Gender Identity, Qualitative investigati ons, 3 - 61 Gender Identity and Private Space, Qualitative Investigations 62 - 105 Gender Identity and Semi Private, Semi Public Spaces, Qualitative Investigations 106 - 158 Gender Identity and Public Spaces, Qualitative Investigations 159 - 228 Questionnaire 229 - 233

6

Erklärung (Declaration)

Hiermit versichere ich, dass ich die vorliegende Dissertation selbständig und ohne unerlaubte Hilfe angefertigt und andere als die in der Dissertation angegebenen Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich order sinngemäß aus veröffentlichten oder unveröffentlichten Schriften entnommen sind, habe ich als solche kenntlich gemacht. Kein Teil dieser Arbeit ist in einem anderen Promotions- oder Habilitationsverfahren verwendet worden.

7 Zusammenfassung

Generell behandelt die Studie das Verhältnis zwischen den „Geschlechtern" und dem „Lebensraum“ in der heutigen Zeit und innerhalb der Hauptstadt Teherans. Das Geschlecht als sich ständig veränderndes Phenomen differenziert sich innerhalb der Gesellschaft und im laufe der Zeit. Die „Betrachtungsweise der Geschlechter“ oder die “Identität der Geschlechter“, welche die Einstellung im Hinblick auf die Probleme der Geschlechter beinhaltet, ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil innerhalb der Forschung der sozialen Identität der Einwohner Teherans. Der „Raum“ aus physikalischen und sozialen Bestandteilen bestehend, wurde hier recherchiert mit dem Schwerpunkt auf die „räumlichen Verhältnisse”, also die Einstellung zur Nutzung des „Lebensraumes“, einschließlich privater Räume, halb privater/halb öffentlicher Räume und öffentlicher Bezirke der Stadt. Betrachten wir die systematische Organisation der Gesellschaft, stellen wir fest, daß durch die wechselseitige Beziehung "Geschlecht" und "Raum", als zwei variable Bestandteile dieser Organisation interagieren. Diese Studie recherchiert die unterschiedlichen Identitäten der „Geschlechter“ im Hinblick auf ihre Assoziation zu „Räumlichkeiten“. Es behandelt die „räumliche Manifestation“ der Geschlechter, ebenso wie umgekehrt den Einfluß der „räumlichen Identität“ auf die Entwicklung des Genus. Die Hypothesen bezüglich dieser Studie lauten wie folgt: • Die „Identität der Geschlechter“ reflektiert sich in der „Identität des Raumes“. Verschiedene Identitäten der Geschlechter in der Stadt Teheran haben verschiedene Betrachtungsweisen des Raumes, mit anderen Worten, sie identifizieren den Raum durch unterschiedliche Wertvorstellungen. • Da „Geschlechter Identität“ patriarchale Unterdrückung verinnerlicht, wird es ebenso mit räumlicher Unterdrückung assoziiert. • Innerhalb der gleichen sozialen Schicht, zeigen unterschiedliche „Geschlechter Identitäten“, in Bezug auf Männer und Frauen ähnliche Qualitäten, im Gegensatz zu den „Geschlechter Identitäten“ anderer sozialer Schichten. Diese Situation

8 finden wir ebenso in der „räumlichen Perspektive oder Betrachtungsweise" von Frauen und Männern „gleicher sozialen Schichten“ wieder. • Der oben genannten Hypothese zufolge fällt das Ausmaß der "räumlichen Unterdrückung“ innerhalb verschiedener sozialer Schichten Tehrans entsprechend der Örtlichkeit unterschiedlich aus. Im Laufe dieser Studie wurden in Tehran Eltern, in deren Haushalt, sowohl eine Tochter als auch ein Sohn leben, bezüglich der unterschiedlichen Aktivitäten und Verhaltensweisen ihrer Kinder in unterschiedlichen Räumlichkeiten befragt, um eben die Wechselwirkung dieser beiden Phenomene darzustellen. Das Ergebnis verdeutlicht die paralellen Meinungsänderungen der jeweiligen Eltern in Bezug auf die Wechselwirkung der beiden Faktoren "Geschlecht“ und „Raum" - bestätigt wurde eine starke Verbindung der beiden, sodaß sie als integrierte Komponenten betrachtet werden können. Es wurde ebenfalls deutlich, dass dieses „variable Konzept“ sich innerhalb der Geschlechter unterscheidet, denn es zeigt sich, dass die Mutter im Gegensatz zu dem Vater, gerechtere Ansichten in Bezug auf „Geschlecht - Raum“ vertreten. Ein Unterschied findet sich ebenso im Vergleich von "sozialen Klassen“ und "Bildungsniveau", sprich: die Identität von „Geschlecht-Raum“ zeigt sich innerhalb der Mittel - und Oberschichten gerechter und aufgeschlossener. Das Verhältnis vom Status der Versorger innerhalb dieser Familien zu den Haushältern ist partnerschaftlicher und offener. Letztendlich verändert sich die Identität von „Geschlecht - Raum“ durch den Wohnort innerhalb der Stadt von Süden nach Norden. Diese Studie zeichnet inhomogene Aspekte im Hinblick auf „Geschlecht – Raum“ bezüglich des Lebens in Tehran; Mit anderen Worten wird dieser widersprüchliche Lebensstil in Tradition und Moderne der Iranischen Gesellschaft manifestiert, jedoch repräsentiert er gleichzeitig den Wandel hin zur modernen sozialen Beziehung. Diese Illustration verdeutlicht instabile soziale Situationen, benötigt jedoch sondierte Lösungen für diese soziale Integration. Indem wir die Richtung erkunden, könnten

9 heterogene soziale Gruppen in ihrer Denkweise und ihrer Art Lebensraum zu nutzen angenähert werden. Diese Entwicklung muss im Hinblick auf Planung einer sozialen Räumlichkeit, sowohl auf der Makro Ebene, als auch auf der Mikro Ebene einer privaten als auch einer öffentlichen Fläche einer Stadt berücksichtigt werden. Es scheint, dass demokratische Mittel, wie zum Beispiel gemeinschaftliche Planung und Durchführung, die Stadt in die Lage versetzen könnte, im Hinblick auf mehr Stabilität und Solidarität im sozialen Lebensraum - inklusive der Bedürfnisse der Geschlechter – wirksame Schritte zu unternehmen.

10 Abstract

This dissertation generally concentrates on the relationships between “gender” and “space” in the present time of urban life in capital city of Tehran. “Gender” as a changing social construct, differentiated within societies and through time, studied this time by investigation on “gender attitude” or “gender identity” means attitudes towards “gender” issues regarding Tehran residences. “Space” as a concept integrated from physical and social constituents investigated through focus on “spatial attitude” means attitudes towards using “living spaces” including private space of “house”, semi private semi public space of neighborhood and finally public spaces of the city. “Activities and practices” in space concentrated instead of “physical” space; this perspective to “space” discussed as the most justified implication of “space” in this debate regarding current situations in city of Tehran. Under a systematic approach, the interactions and interconnections between “gender” and “space” as two constituent variables of social organization investigated by focus on the different associations presented between different “gender identities” and their different “spatial identities”; in fact, “spatial identity” manifests “gender identity” and in opposite direction, “spatial identity” influences to construction of “gender identity”. The hypotheses of case study in Tehran defined as followed: • “Gender identity” is reflected on “spatial identity”. Various “gender identities” in Tehran present different perspectives of “space” or they identify “space” by different values. • As “gender identity” internalizes patriarchal oppression, it internalizes associated “spatial” oppression too. • Within the same social class, different “gender identities” related to men and women, present interconnected qualities, compared with “gender identities” related to men or women of different social classes. This situation could be found in the “spatial” perspectives of different groups of men and women too. • Following the upper hypotheses, “spatial” oppression differs among social classes of Tehran living in different parts of this city.

11 This research undertook a qualitative study in Tehran by interviewing with different parents of both young daughter and son regarding their attitudes towards gender issues from one side and activities and behaviors of their children in different spaces from the other side. Results of case study indicated the parallel changes of parents’ attitudes towards “gender” and “spatial” issues; it means strong connection between “gender” and “space”. It revealed association of “equal” spatial attitudes with “open, neutral” gender attitudes, and also the association of “biased, unequal” spatial identities with “conservative patriarchal” gender identities. It was cleared too that this variable concept – gender space - changes by “sex”; mothers comparing fathers presented more equitable notions towards “gender spatial” issues. It changes too by “social class” and “educational level”, that means “gender spatial” identity getting more open equitable among more educated people of middle and upper classes. “Breadwinning status in the family” also presents its effect on the changes of “gender spatial” identity so participant breadwinners in the family expressed relatively more equitable notions comparing householders and housekeepers. And finally, “gender spatial” identity changes through “place” in the city and regarding South – North line of the city. The illustration of changes of “gender spatial” identity from “open” to “conservative” among society indicated not only vertical variation across social classes, furthermore the horizontal changing among each social class. These results also confirmed hypotheses while made precision on the third one regarding variable of sex. More investigations pointed to some inclusive spatial attitudes throughout society penetrated to different groups of “gender identities”, to “opens” as to “conservatives”, also to groups between them, by two opposite features; first kind, conservative biased spatial practices in favor of patriarchal gender relations and the second, progressive neutral actions in favor of equal gender relations. While the major reason for the inclusive conservative practices was referred to the social insecurity for women, the second neutral ones associated to more formal & safer spaces of the city. In conclusion, while both trends are associated deeply with the important issues of “sex” & “body” in patriarchal thoughts, still strong, they are the consequences of the transitional period of

12 social change in macro level, and the challenges involved regarding interactions between social orders, between old system of patriarchy, the traditional biased “gender spatial” relations and the new one of equal relations. The case study drew an inhomogeneous illustration regarding gender spatial aspects of life in Tehran, the opposite groups of “open” and “conservative”, and the large group of “semi open semi conservative” between them. In macro perspective it presents contradicted social groups according their general life styles; they are the manifestations of challenging trends towards tradition and modernity in Iranian society. This illustration while presents unstable social situations, necessitates probing solutions for social integration; exploring the directions could make heterogeneous social groups close in the way they think and the form they live in spaces. Democratic approaches like participatory development planning might be helpful for the city in its way to more solidarity and sustainability regarding its social spatial – gender as well – development, in macro levels of social spatial planning and in micro levels of physical planning, in private space of house and in public spaces of the city.

13

Acknowledgments

This doctoral research has been performed in University of Kassel, Faculty of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning. First of all, I gratefully acknowledge Professor Dr. Ulla Terlinden, the supervisor, and Professor Dr. Eng. Kerstin Doerhoefer, the consultant of the study, for their precise and continued advises to guide the study in appropriate direction. I would like to mention and to thank in particular, Mr. Mohammad Fayyazbakhsh, Mehdi Jahangiri & Mostafa Tanha who sincerely did several of the interviews. I would also like to thank Ms. Khatoon Mirrashed the photographer, who precisely played her difficult role in taking most of the photos specially those of public spaces in Tehran. My thanks also go to individuals who worked on the interviews to be written up, translated to English and typed.

14

Introduction

This dissertation which generally investigates about “gender” and “space” in Capital city of Tehran includes two parts; the first part expresses the theoretical framework of study, in fact the theories and debates, this study is based on; the deliberation of two subjects of “gender” and “space” and their relationships. What considered from these concepts and what is the perspective to their relationships, would be discussed in the first part according to the referring theories; the conclusion of these initial studies would be definition of the hypotheses which are to be investigated through a case study in “Tehran” during the second parts. The second part of study in this way includes debates related to case study in Tehran which supposed to investigate relationships of “gender” and “space” in an actual situation and in present time of life in capital city of “Tehran”. Results of this inquiry in the one hand provides the evaluation of hypotheses, so they illuminate some aspects of "gender" and "space" situations and their relationships in Tehran; and in the other hand, They could provide the scientific materials to contribute to the general knowledge about “gender” and “space” relationships.

15

Part One, General

16 Chapter One Theoretical Bases of Study

Introduction

This chapter is to explain those notions which include the main thoughts this study based on. The most important is notion of "gender", the basic subject of study. Those thoughts are considered here which take "gender" as a social construct, changeable in time and space. "Sex", is also observed as a fact very related to "gender", that couldn't be neglected when gender is the subject of study. Attention paid to those notions which investigate the relationships between "sex" and "gender". "Sex" and "gender" both considered as the realities strongly influenced by the power relations of patriarchal social system. Patriarchy is observed as a system of power relation, penetrated all aspects of people life, not only social and economical aspects, but the world of meanings, values, and believes; those values which in fact, present the internalized oppression of this system. "Space" is the next notion, studied with its two dimensions of social and physical aspects. The relationships between "space" and "gender" identity are investigated and this reality too that different gender identities connect to different spaces or they connect to spaces differently. This part finally includes discussion about spatial oppression within the interconnections between "space" and "gender" and how this oppression is also internalized as people values and believes. Conclusion of this chapter draws hypotheses of study which are to be investigated in Tehran.

17 Gender, Sex

The most basic term in gender studies has been the term "gender". In this notion gender is a social construct. It refers to the social, cultural and historical constructs that define the concepts of men and women in societies. Gender is all the society expectations from men and women to be, to act, even to feel: "Gender is the term used to encompass the social expectation associated with femininity and masculinity." (Unger, quoted by Lips, 2003: 6) As gender is a social construct, then it is subject to change and variation: "what we take to be real, what we invoke as the naturalized knowledge of gender is, in fact a changeable and revisable reality." (Butler, 1999, xxiii) In fact gender identity like any other aspects of social identities is constructing by social powers. (Castells, 2001: 23). "…women and men thoughts, feelings, and behavior may indeed be different in many respects, and such differences may reflect their different positions in the social hierarchy of power and status rather than their different "natures". (Lott, quoted by Lips, 2003: 70) As the social powers involved in shaping identities, are themselves in change all the time and in all the spaces, their effects on identities for example gender identities are variable and changeable too. As a shifting and contextual phenomenon, gender does not denote a substantive being, but a relative point of convergence among culturally and historically specific sets of relations. (Butler, 1999: 15) Gender is not fixed. We could understand this by considering history: how men and women roles as well as their identities have changed during the times related to a given place. Furthermore we could find different gender roles of men and women who are living at the same time but in different spaces. Considering two different parts of the world, or two areas within a country, even within a specific city, we would find how women for example, might live differently related to their different identities: Finding that cultures also differ from one another in their rules and expectations for femininity (and for masculinity) is a good clue that gender is "socially constructed". In other words, each society, to some extent, makes up its own set of rules to define what it means to be a woman or a man, and people construct gender through their interactions by behaving in "appropriate ways". Another clue that gender is socially constructed is

18 the way the rules tend to change arbitrarily over time even within a given culture. (Lips, 2003: 6) Along with the "gender" the other important term for gender studies has been the "sex" and specifically the kind of relations exist between "sex" and "gender". Thinking about "gender" thoroughly is not possible but to consider "sex" along. These two qualities are strongly related and associated with each other. Any examination about each of them requires considering the other. How they effect and influence each other, if any one is more basic, weather one of them is cause for the other. We have learned in a very usual way that "sex" is a natural and biological fact of human body, something fixed in male and female bodies that assert itself in heterosexual relation between two sexes: while sex depicts biological differences, gender in contrast ……(McDowell, 1999:13). In the most simple of summaries, sex – male & female – exemplifies biological differences between bodies and gender…… (Rendell, 2000a: 15) Also we have learned that sex effects (as a natural cause) on gender and define natural gender roles for men and women: "…the presumption here is that the "being" of gender is an "effect"(Butler, 1999: 43). Women as mothers (bearers of children) are taking care of children and responsible for house domestic works, and men as the head and incomer of the family and responsible for going outside and getting income. This kind of relation between "sex" and "gender" based on natural sex as cause and normal gender as its effect is the foundation of patriarchal system –dominated social system in most part of the world during the long history- have been strongly challenged during the last two centuries by not only women themselves as the oppressed group of patriarchy, but by the different thinkers, first of all feminists. Rejecting this kind of relation between sex and gender in practice and in theory has been the main discursive challenge of feminism for changing constructed positions of men and women in society: Being maternally inclined or nurturing are not obviously biological or anatomical qualities. Rather they arise from social expectations that build on women's biological ability to bear children. (Lips, 2003: 6) For making possible to imagine a humanistic, equitable relationships between men and women in practice, it is necessary as the first step to refuse those natural connections between sex and gender, whatever is the sex, gender could be independently in change,

19 there is no necessary relation between being a male or female and being a man or woman. Don't we see females in different part of the world living differently in relation to their womanhood? Many women refused the traditional identities as housewives or homemakers. They are all female in sex but enjoy various gender roles, it's the same with males and men: "In a commonsense way, there is a clear geography to gender relations because there are enormous variations between and within nations in the extent of women's subordination and relative autonomy, and correspondingly in male power and domination." (McDowell, 1999: 12) In fact these changing situations of men and women in societies themselves, refuses the natural connection between "sex" and "gender". "One is not born a woman but becomes one" (Simone De Beauvoir), this known statement of feminist thought presents the first step in theory of gender that cut the naturalized interpretation of relation between sex and gender as the patriarchal notion of femininity and masculinity: "biology is not destiny" By this step that cut the dependence of gender on sex, it was made possible to deliberate gender more:"…when the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free- floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one."(Butler, 1999: 10) Deliberating gender identities and qualities of its changes more and more formed other steps in profounding gender knowledge and revealing unequal gender aspects of social constructed phenomenon. Gender studies by further investigating in history, have presented how social identities even social thoughts about men and women influenced and shaped by social structure of power, in fact by power relations of patriarchal system based on binary relations between men and women and domination of men over women: "Gender systems are not the legacy of nature; they are the legacy of a power struggle" (Alcoff, 1996: 21)"Power seemed to be more than an exchange between subjects or a relation of constant inversion between an subject and an other; indeed, power appeared to operate in the production of that very binary frame for thinking about gender." (Butler, 1999: xxviii)

20 "…our lives are structured by a small number of crucial relations of power and gender is one of them."(McDowell, 1999: 248) So, this notion suggested for more investigation through history to found out powers in act of constructing gender: "Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of "women" the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power…. (Butler, 1999: 5) Radical thoughts (like French poststructuralists, Foucault, and Butler) in this relation not only cut the dependence of "gender" as "effect" on "sex" as "cause", even refused to see sex and sexuality (body) as an origin or natural fact: "…hence, sex couldn't qualify as a prediscursive anatomical facticity" (Butler, 1999: 12) They studied sex along gender as a social constructed identity: "Most feminist theorists today adopt something similar to robin's account in which gender identity and sexuality are taken as social constructs rather than natural attribute, however remediable."(Alcoff, 1996: 21) "The category of sex is understood depending on how the field of power is articulated."(Butler, 1999: 25) Furthermore some radical thoughts claim that sex and sexuality are themselves the production of gender relations of power regime, that unequal binary of gender relation necessitates the binary heterosexuality: "Bodies can not be said to have a signifiable existence prior to the mark of their gender"(Butler, 1999: 13),"…gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established. As a result, gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the discursive, cultural means by which sexed nature or a natural sex is produced and established as "prediscursive", prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts." (Butler, 1999: 10) Anyway, even if we put aside the radical thoughts which claim dependence of sex on gender (as environment, or social factors), but the stable, natural, and substantial situation of either gender or sex and the essential relationships between them, have been strongly broken and most of social thinkers confirm the important role of social factors in constitution of human identities, either sexual or social. (Giddens, 1999: 95, 320), (Castells, 2001: 246).

21 "... the more we learn about human beings, the more we become aware of how much we are all shaped by our context."(Lott, quoted by Lips, 2003: 70)

Patriarchy, Internalization of oppression

Patriarchy, as the powerful, dominant system over the long known history of societies, is a complex of entire principles based on honoring of the sacred "family" as the basic unit of society and authority of men, mentally and physically (as the head of family, as fathers or husbands or son),particularly over women as their possessed wives, sisters and daughters: "In its most general sense patriarchy refers to the law of the father, the social control that men as fathers hold over their wives and daughters. In its most specific usage within feminist scholarship, patriarchy refers to the system in which men as a group are constructed as superior to women as a group and so assumed to have authority over them" ( McDowell, 1999: 16) Multilateral system of patriarchy has been pervaded over, not only the socio – economical processes, but also the cultural aspects, also different aspects of human thoughts, philosophy, religion, as well as human knowledge: " The feminist project rests on the explicit recognition that gender and gender differences pervade all aspects of social life, including language, moral consciousness, and the categories with which we think." (Friedmann, 1996: 467) The most important domain of this system has been the realm of gender structure, definition of gender social roles in family and society on the basis of man's authority. Patriarchy is a system of power relation that defines the domains of authority of men over women in public and private spaces. Sex and gender as discussed before, have been identified under the power relations of this system. Binary positions of men and women identities have been defined so women belong to the private space and men to the public. Women as the symbols of sex and beauty and bearer of children and responsible for housework as well, are responsible for giving pleasure and happiness to men (physically and mentally) and keep his house and his children. And men, who are masters of house and control their family, are responsible to earn money to provide satisfaction and safety for their possessed families.

22 This definition of gender identities and roles are not fair and just. The position of women in societies regarded as inferior, because they couldn't control their bodies and their lives. They are dependent on their men, physically, mentally and emotionally, because they don't have that power to control themselves, because power belong to whom get money in family, to whom their work worth by money, and women's work in house worth nothing but their duties based on their good nature and feelings: "And because this housekeeping was seen to rely on women's natural skills and was financially unrewarded. It was correspondingly devalued and long left untheorized." (McDowell, 1999: 73) But the most important signs and marks of patriarchy are in the realm of meanings in a very concealed way. Not only socio – economical aspects of men and women lives influenced by this system, but the world of values, believes meanings and symbols, too: "…the social construction of gender and embodiment combines both material social relations and symbolic representations of difference…" (McDowell, 1999: 71) The point is that all the social values and believes of this system are reflected, in fact are constructed into identities. They are internalized in identity. Castells have said about "identity" that is what, internalized by social actor and that create meaning. (Castells, 2001: 23) "By "identity" I mean the cultural construction of meaning by a social actor…that meaning motivates people to do the things appropriate to the group they belong to." (Castells, 2003b: 67) The deep understanding of patriarchal system is to perceive how this system acts as a system of values. How it sets meanings in deepest place of minds and feelings, as one's real substantial and essential being. How this system valorize and naturalize what in fact are constructed meanings of a social system, a system of practice and a system of thought. In fact, men and women perceive those values as the original ones. This means that the power relations of patriarchy are so dominated in our lives as natural and normal that people's (men and women)) wishes, ideals and desires are become what the patriarchal system of power have defined and imagined for them: "Foucault describes how power grips us at the point where our desires and our very sense of the possibilities for self- definition are constituted." (Hills, 2000: 74) Differences between men and women and their oppressive relations which have been the representation of patriarchal power relation, are taken for granted by whole members

23 of society either men or women, because: "…oppression is structured into our social institutions: political, educational, and organizational…" (Grunig, Toth, Hon, 2001: 351) The important issue is that women, who are oppressed by this system, haven't been able to observe their oppressed position, because they see those values as their very essential identity not something imposed and enforced. Gender differences always perceived as natural and normal reality of human life: "Historical subjugation has created among women a subaltern culture, negative self images and a mindset that often accepts as natural what in fact is a social product of male domination." (Friedmann, 1996: 467) "An individual is not necessarily aware of the consequences of their actions in any broad sense, or in relation to others. Actions which reproduce structural relations against their own best interests are produced by "learned ignorance" or habitus, which lends agents a sense of order; so women acting on their subordination to men even while they may sometimes exploit their freedoms to intimate social change.” (Hills, 2000: 74) Social values of patriarchal power sit in the deepest place of men and women identities and minds, it means that men and women perceive the oppression of men's power over women not as oppression but as very natural relation, in this way oppression is internalized: "…internalized oppression is a reality"(Meyers, 2002: 6), "For women, this means that they internalize oppression- that is, subordinating norms influence what they are like and what they aspire to be and do. Still, as individuals, they assimilate these norms in distinctive ways." (Meyers, 2002: 31) Internalization of oppression of patriarchal system is the process of gender construction in identity: "…to internalize oppression is to incorporate inferiorizing material into the structure of the self- to see oneself as objectified, to value and desire what befits a subordinated individual, and to feel competent and empowered by skills that reinforce one's subordination." (Meyers, 2002: 8) The process of identity internalization is taking place in the process of people socialization. Within this process, social norms and attitudes are formed and learned (of course during the interconnection between people and society) by each member of society.

24 Process of socialization which continues in whole life starts from family and continues in other small and large societies such as local neighborhood, school…, by interconnections with other members of family and society. Mass media like TV, radio, journals, and so…also have a very important role through the process of people socialization and teaching social values to each member of society. Gender roles, gender differences, and gender stereotypes are among those values that configured in people's identity through the process of socialization. (Golombok, Fivush, 1994; Hoominfar, 2003; Ezazi, 2002) Dissolution of patriarchal system of power in theory and in practice is the main step in process to achieve gender equality. Patriarchy and its particular associated "family" have been challenged through two last centuries by feminists and whom pursuing gender equality: The next stage, I think, involves the transformation of the family." (Castells, 2003: 75) Many different aspects of gender differences have been taken into question. Hidden angles of this system have been taken into the light by different investigation to refuse the natural and essential bases of gender differences. Some basical points of this system strongly shocked. (Castells, 2001: 217, 246, 267)," …the patriarchal family is in crisis…" (Castells, 2003b: 75) Identities have been valorized by this system of thought, have been rejected in reality, through social practice by men and women. Patriarchal families weakened, even demolished in some parts of the world. Women have acknowledged other identities but the homemaker wives, and men too, but the master of family. New egalitarian families have emerged: "The egalitarian rather than patriarchal, family is a new invention."(Castells, 2003b: 75), even the binary of sexual relation between male and female and its naturality have been challenged in reality and practice. The necessities of this relationship have been taken into question especially by new technology used in reproduction. (Castells, 2001: 246) But still patriarchy live in many parts of the world in different features: "The reality of the patriarchal family also continued, and still does…the depth of patriarchal values and structures is very great." (Castells, 2003b: 73) It remains many things to be done. Social scientists continue to investigate patriarchy as a system of power proliferated all aspects of life, they suggest revealing the power relations of patriarchy that have been

25 concealed and have produced a feature of naturalness and essentiality. Butler following Foucault insists on historically genealogy to reveal the political power relation that produce these identities still presented in societies: "…genealogy investigates the political stakes in designating as an "origin" and "cause" those identities that are in fact the "effect" of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple and diffuse points of origin." (Butler, 1999: xxix)

Space

"Space", the term used in various disciplines with an extensive meaning. What is considered in this study, based on common concept of space in social sciences, geography, architecture, and urban design as well. In this relation, "space" which couldn't be imagined without its physical aspects and it could exist by any scale- small, as a room and large as the human world- is strongly associated with social activities and social processes: "Space is relational and constitutive of social process." (McDowell, 1996: 29) "As material culture, space is not innate and inert, measured geometrically, but an integral and changing part of daily life, intimately bound up in social and personal rituals and activities." (Rendell, 2000a: 102) While social scientists emphasize on the social aspects within "space": "It seems to be well established that physical space has no "reality" without the energy that is deployed within it." (Lefebvre, 1991: 13), architects and urban designers emphasize on physical attributes too: Rob Krier and many others defined "urban space" as a part of urban structure that retains three specifications: physical enclosure, aesthetical qualifications and livability by a set of activities. (Krier, 1979: 15-16), (Zooker, quoted by Tavassoli, Bonyadi, 1992: 18) But, social aspects of "space" and its influences are what, have been the main focuses in many texts by different specialists: "…space reflect social organization, but of course once space has been bounded and shaped, it is no longer merely a neutral background: it exerts its own influences." (Ardener, 2000: 113) "Public space is produced through public discourse, and its representation is not the exclusive territory of architecture, but is the product of the inextricable relationship between social action and physical space." (Torre, 2000: 145)

26 "Space" and "Gender identity"

Gender identity as a main part of social identity and so as a social construct, strongly associated with the two dimensional organization of "space". In fact this social construct, like any other social construction is interconnected with the "space", because as it was said “gender” itself is a constitute part of social system and social system is an important dimension of “space”. So in a mutual interconnections between two physical and social dimensions of “space” while physical “space” is produced by social powers – “gender” relations too – then in a opposite direction this physical “space” influences that social system and “gender” identity too. Thus it could be said that identity or gender identity is produced by space and produces it. The relationships between "space" and "identity" is mutual, either the stress would be on physical aspects: "…architectural space is not the container of identities, but a constitutive element in them." (Durning, Wrigley, 2000: 1) "Behavior & space are mutually dependent… space defines the people in it, at the same time, however (again reflexively), the presence of individuals in space in turn determines its nature…thus people define space." (Ardener, 2000: 113) "Space determines and affects behavior, just as the organization of space is produced by and in relation to behavior." (Hills, 2000: 74) Or stress would be on the social aspect of “space”, is a means to produce "identity", at the same time itself changed and reproduced by "identity": "space is socially produced, but that space is also a condition of social production." (Harvey & Soja, quoted by Rendell, 2000a: 101) So space as the representation of social relation – social system of power – or “space” as an entity by its two interconnected social & physical aspects presents a very strong association with "identity". In fact “identity” – or “gender identity” – defined within “space” & in tern defines that “space” too: "Is space indeed a medium? A milieu? An intermediary? It's doubtless all of these, but its role is less & less neutral, and more & more active, both an instrument and as goal, as means and as end. Confining it so narrow a category as that of medium is consequently woefully inadequate." (Lefebvre, 1991: 411)

27 Difference

Difference a well known debate in gender studies, still used in different meanings. One is common in philosophy, literature …as well as architecture and urban design, is related to the concept of differences in post modernism, in opposite of modernism, the meaning that considers differences and appreciates plurality among people in theory and practice. Another meaning of differences related to gender differences, attempts to investigate the basic routes of differences between men and women, biological, natural, social, cultural … But the concept of differences aimed here in this study that it also presents a strong debate, is the concept of differences among women -or men- in fact each group of gender. It investigates how and why different groups among women -or men- are different from each other. This debate is related to former meaning of differences, because both of them study about the reasons of gender differences, either differences between men and women or differences among groups of women or groups of men. Both kinds of these differences are gender differences and related to social reasons. But the last meaning has been so important in feminist politics in defining the category of women: "The very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms. There is a great deal of material that not only questions the viability of the subject as the ultimate candidate for representation or, indeed, liberation, but there is very little agreement after all on what it is that constitutes, or ought to constitute, the category of women." (Butler, 1999: 4)," …it is indisputable that women do not share a common identity" (Meyers. 2002: 7). This notion of differences, except its attention to the political matter, confirms differences among women still as an inferior gender in patriarchal system of binary relationship between genders. This notion accept that women -although all of them as defined in social system of patriarchy, as a group subordinated to men- in this relation of domination differ across spaces and times: "What it means to be a woman or a man is, therefore, contextual dependent, relational and variable" (McDowell, 1999: 23) In fact, this various positions of women or men in society is the result of their positions in social system of power: "…a related change of emphasis revolved around the often painful

28 recognition that women themselves are situated within networks of unequal power relations…" (McDowell, 1999: 245) These differences among different women (and different men as well), exist not only between different women of different social classes of any societies, which are in different position of social system of power relation of that society, but also exist among any other unequal or dissimilar positions among ethnics, races, and nations…and also they differ through time: " …it is now widely understood that the forms taken by women oppression, vary historically and culturally over time and are additionally complicated by the intersecting consequences of class, imperialism and sexuality, which have different kinds of significance depending on where women are coming from and how they are positioned…" (Thompson, 2000: 63), "acceptable notions of both manliness and femininity vary by class position and by race, as well as over time and between regions and nations. (Connell, quoted by McDowell, 1999: 20) Differences among women are so clear because gender, as mentioned earlier, is a social construct , therefore variable and unstable; so how could something constitutive and dependent on social situation, present an stable being within different social situations? In fact the same kind of reasons that make men and women different from each other, they make groups of women – or men – different too: "…these differences themselves are part of the social constitution of gender…" (McDowell, 1999: 12) It is of the same kind when social groups of one society are considered: "Working class men and women may have interests in common that working class women do not share with middle class women or white women with black women…." (McDowell, 1999: 248) Differences among women show that patriarchy as a system of power relation differs from society to society and from one social group to another. Understanding differences among women (or men), has been an important step in feminist or gender knowledge: "thinking about gender in not enough, for current gender theorists, issue of race, class & sexuality are inextricably involved."(Rendell, 2000a: 8)

29 Difference, Space

Differences among women related to different position in society, mean that woman who belong to different races (internationally differences), and women who belong to different ethnic groups (internationally or nationally differences)…, even those belong to different social classes within one society or one city, experiencing the society differently: "Women's experiences are mediated by class, they are also mediated by race and ethnicity" (Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 15), this means people (women or men) in different spaces; spaces which represent different physical attributes with different social relations, so they hold different gender identity. The bases of this debate are the same as discussed before in relation between "space" and "identity". In fact these mentioned differences represent different "spaces" or require those differentiated spaces; it means different social situation in different physical places. They are differences among spaces that reflected on different identities among women or men, or inversely. Any different physical spaces in the world which hold different socio-economical, cultural…relations, in fact represent different spaces and retain different identity, that gender is one aspect of it:" Gender is constituted differently in different places, in part because residents in those places differ in class or racial or other social variables, that is places are sites where particular sets of social relations are experienced and compressed." (Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 11-12) Among these differences, social class retains a special important role; class means socio-economical situations and usually it differs by location even in one city: "Class, too, is a social and economic construct that is lived in and mediated through place." (Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 25) Considering a special place like a city, different social classes which reside in different parts of it, represent different gender identities of their men and women: "The way of being in Gender vary not only from town to town but also from area to area within cities and towns, we hasten to add that across these differences exist pervasive patterns of inequality."(Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 11), “It’s clear that women do not represent a homogenous social category in the Middle East; they are differentiated by region, class and education ….” (Moghadam, 2004:157) This study investigates those gender identities (men or women) associated with different social classes within different parts of Tehran. The main focus is on the

30 relationships between gender and space; public or private spaces that different genders interconnected with them. In fact it investigates different gender identities through its different associations with spaces.

Internalization of spatial oppression

It is argued here that: oppression that associated with gender identities in patriarchal system, reflected on the space and on the relationships between gender and space. In the mutual relationships between gender and space, gender identities take the spatial values and reflect their values on the space and on the social – physical aspects of it. When identities are reflected on the relationships they have with the space, so oppression associated with those identities, reflected on those relations too. It means that oppressive relations could be seen in the space, in the physical aspects and social aspects of it. And as gender identities internalize oppression by making them as their values, they internalize spatial oppression too. It means that those relationships with the space and those attributes of physical space too, which represent spatial oppression, become valuable and reflect people believes and values. It depends on how much their gender identities have internalized oppression itself. As much as they have internalized gender oppression, they internalize spatial oppression too.

Hypotheses:

According to the different discussions of this chapter, the hypotheses of research in Tehran are specified as: • Gender identity is reflected on spatial identity. Various gender identities in Tehran present different perspectives of space or they identify space by different values. • As gender identity internalizes patriarchal oppression, it internalizes associated spatial oppression too. • Within the same social class, different gender identities related to men and women, present interconnected qualities, compared with gender identities related to men or women of different social classes. This situation could be found in the spatial perspectives of different groups of men and women too.

31 • Following the upper hypotheses, spatial oppression differs among social classes of Tehran living in different parts of this city.

32 References:

Alcoff, L.N. 1996, Feminist Theory and Social Science, New Knowledges, New Epistemology, in, N. Duncan, (ed.), Body Space, Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality London & New York: Routledge Ardener, Sh. 2000, The Partition of Space, From Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps, in, J. Rendell, B. Penner, and I. Borden, (eds.), Gender Space Architecture, An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Routledge. Berkeley, E.P., McQuaid, M. (eds.) 1989, Architecture, A Place for Women Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Bingaman, A., Sanders, L., Zorach, R., (eds.) 2002, Embodied Utopias, Gender, Social Change and the Modern Metropolis, London & New York: Routledge. Bondi, L. 2003, Gender Symbols and Urban Landscapes, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Booth, Ch., Darke. J., Yeandle, S., (eds.) 1996, Changing Places, Women's Lives in the City, London: P.C.P. Butler, J., 1999, Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge. Castells, M. 2003, The Process of Urban Social Change. In A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Castells, M. & Ince, M. 2003, Conversation with Manuel Castells, Cambridge: Polity. Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, volume 2, The power of Identity, (trans. Into Persian by Hassan Chavoshian, 2001, Tehran: Tarhe- no) Code, L. (ed.) 2000, Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories, London & New York: Routledge. Coleman, D., Danze, E., and Henderson, C. (eds.) 1996, Architecture and Feminism New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Doerhoefer, Kerstin, 2000, Women’s Shelter and Gentleman’s Mansion, Findings from Architecture and Urban Design, in ifu (International Women University) Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel

33 Duncan, N. (ed.) 1996, Body Space, destabilizing geographies of gender and sexuality, London & New York: Routledge. Durning, I., Wrigley, R. (eds.), 2000, Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Ezazi, Sh. 2002, Analysis of Gender Construct, In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 37-91. Fainstein, S.S. 1996, Planning in a Different Voice, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Flyvbjerg, B., Richardson, T. 1996, Planning and Foucault, in search of the dark side of Planning Theory, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Friedmann, J. 1996, Feminist and Planning Theory: The Epistemological connection, in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Garret, S., Gender, (trans. into Persian by K. Baghaie, 2000, Tehran: Digar.) Giddens, A., Modernity & Self Identity, Self & Society in Modern Age, ( trans. into Persian by N. Movafaghian, 1999, Tehran: Nashr-Ney.) Golombok, S., Fivush, R., Gender Development, (trans. into Persian by M. Shahraray, 1998, Tehran: Ghoghnoos.) Grunig, L.A., Toth, E.L., Hon, L.Ch. (eds.) 2001, Women in Public Relation, Guilford Press. Harvey, D. 2003, Social Justice, Postmodernism and the City, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Hayden, D. 2003, What would a Nonsexist city be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design and Human Work, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Hayden, D. 2000, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, Eighth printing, Cambridge: MIT Press. Hills, H. 2000, Architecture as Metaphor for the Body: The Case of the Female Convents in Early Modern Italy, in, I. Durning, and R. Wrigley, (eds.), Gender and Architecture, Wiley.

34 Homminfar, E. 2003, Changes in Gender Socialization, Women's Research, 7(1) 89- 113 Humm, M. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory, (trans. into Persian by Ahmadi Khorasani, N., Gharedaghi, F., Mohajer, F., 2002, Tehran: Nashr- Tosee) Huxley, M., 1996, Govermentality, Gender, Planning, A Foucauldian Perspective, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Ifu (International Women’s University), 2000, Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel Jenkins, R., Social Identity (trans. into Persian by T. Yarahmadi, 2002, Tehran: Nashr-Pazhoohesh-Shirazeh.) Knopp, L. 2003, Sexuality and Urban Space: A Framework for Analysis, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Kramsch, O. 1998, Tropics of Planning Discourse, Stalking the "Constructive Imaginary" of Selected Urban Planning Histories, in L. Sandercock, (ed.) Making the Invisible Visible, A Multicultural Planning History, Berkeley: University of California Press. Krier, R. 1979, Urban Space, London: Academy Edition. Lefebvre, H. 1991, The Production of Space, trans. D. Nicholson Smith, Blackwell. Lips, H.M. 2003, A New Psychology of Women, Gender, Culture and Ethnicity, second edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Mahdavi, M.S. 2002, Analysis of Gender Differences in Primitive Societies. In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 93-110. McDowell, L. 1996, Spatializing Feminism, Geographic Perspectives, in, N. Duncan, (ed.), Body Space, Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, London & New York: Routledge. McDowell, L. 1999, Gender, Identity & Place, Understanding Feminist Geographies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mcilwaine, C., 1995, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity, Concepts, Realities and Policy Implications TWPR, 17(2), 237-243.

35 Meyers, D.T. 2002, Gender in the Mirror, Cultural imagery and Women's Agency, Oxford University Press. Milory, B.M. 1996, Some Thoughts about Difference & Pluralism, in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Moghadam, V. M. 2004, Patriarchy in transition: Women and the Changing Family in the Middle East, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 35, part 2. pp 137 - 162 Najm- Eraki, M., Salehpoor, M., Mosavi, N. (eds.) 2003, Women references, Vol. 1, 2, Tehran: Digar. Ottes, L., Poventud, E., Van Schendelen, M. and Segond von Banchet, G. (eds.) 1995, Gender and the Built Environment, Emancipation in Planning, Housing and Mobility in Europe, Assen: Van Gorcum. Pratt, G. and Hanson, S. 1994, 'Geography and the Construction of Difference', Gender, Place and Culture 1 (1):5-29. Rendell, J., Penner, B. and Borden, I. (eds.) 2000, Gender Space Architecture, An interdisciplinary introduction, London and New York: Routledge. Rendell, J. 2000, Ramblers and Cyprians: Mobility, Visuality and the Gendering of Architectural Space, in, I. Durning and R. Wrigley, (eds.), Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Ritzdorf, M. 1996, Feminist Thoughts on the Theory & Practice of planning, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Sandercock, L., Forysth, A. (1996) Feminist Theory and Planning Theory: the Epistemological Linkages, Ii, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Shahshahany S. 2002, Concept of Gender. In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 15-36. Tavassoli, M., Bonyadi, N. 1992, Urban Space Design, Tehran: Urban Planning and Architecture Research Center of Iran. Thompson, J. 2000, Women, Class and Education, Routledge. Terlinden, Ulla, 2000, New Living Spaces, Technological Development and Urban Change, in ifu (International Women University) Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel

36 Torre, S. 2000, Claiming the Public Space: The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, In, J. Rendell, B. Penner, and I. Borden, (eds.), Gender Space Architecture, An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Routledge. Torres, A.T., Rosario, R.D. Gender and Development, (trans. into Persian by J. Yoosefian, 1996, Tehran: Banoo.) Weisman, L.K. 1994, Discrimination by Design, A Feminist Critique of the Man- Made Environment, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Weisman, L.K. 1996, Diversity by Design: Feminist Reflections on the Future of Architectural Education and Practice, in, D. Agrest, P. Conway, L.K. Weisman, (eds.) The Sex of Architecture, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc

37

Part Two, Case Study

38 Chapter Two Tehran, General Introduction

1 - Geographical situation

Tehran has been placed on Southern foothills of Alborz Mountain chains in the North of Iran so it’s confronted with mountain and high lands in North. (Figures no. 1 &2) In the South, Tehran eliminated by central desert of Iran, the more we go to the South of the city, the more slope of land decreases, green fields in the South East and desert in the South and South West. The quality and desirability of land in Tehran mainly has been affected by these conditions, high lands addition to rivers and gardens and also good quality of air in most parts of the North and low lands and air pollution in the South. This causes the spatial distribution of social groups in Tehran. Mainly, North parts have been location of middle and upper classes and the Southern parts, location of poor classes and rural immigrants, (Figure no.24): "The North – South slope, on which the city is built, has provided a natural setting in which the process of social stratification has taken a particular shape. The North has been traditionally associated with privileges such as a better supply of water, a higher defensive value, a visual dominance over the South and the countryside, and a better climate" (Madanipour, 1998: 103). And of course there have been some urban policies, have affected on spatial location of different social groups. As David Harvey argued, when social classes at first located in some certain areas in the city, this inequality then become more and more by different urban policies associated with those areas: "Location in the city has a major impact on the opportunities and life chances of the residents of different areas, redistributing 'real income' and exacerbating inequalities between social classes” (Harvey quoted by McDowell, 1999: 106). Tehran climate, generally is hot- arid, but in the North parts relatively, with more humidity and less temperature and inversely in the South, with less humidity and more temperature. As there is also mountainous area in the East of Tehran, the main direction for extension of the city during the history of development has been the West that there are

39 plain lands. Some other conditions, like existence of routes, industrial plants, or closeness to the cities… have enforced this direction.

2 – Tehran development through political, and socio – economical process

Tehran had been a small village up to Safavid era. Then it was gradually changed to a city, till in 1550 AD, Shah Tahmasb, Safavid king built a city wall around it (Figure no. 3). In 1785, Agha Mohammad khan Qajar, the founder of Qajars dynasty selected Tehran as the capital city of Iran because of the some political and strategic reasons. Being selected as capital and being the center of government men and the army attracted more people and it caused development of trade and industry and rapid economic development in the capital. Mostly from the middle of the 19 century, a process of transition into capitalism, through participation of Iran in the world commodity exchange, started which was to restructure all of society and its institutions. The main outcomes of this restructuring included an increase in the population of Tehran and its entry into the world market as a peripheral node (Madanipour, 1998: 8). kind of relationships have existed between Iran and Western countries (Russia and Britain at first), although accompanied with some aspects of modernization and civilization, but always have retained within, Western domination in policy, economy and …: political threats and territorial losses, colonial contractions like the exemption of the European traders from internal duties and taxes,… These kind of relationships linked Iran economy to the global economy unequally: Western imported manufactured goods placed instead of locally produced handicrafts; the subsistence crops, wheat and barely, were replaced by export crops such as cotton, rice…, "the economy was gradually restructured to export raw materials and import manufactured goods" (Madanipour, 1998: 9). These kinds of changes accompanied with other aspects of Westernization and modernization were happening mainly in the capital which was the center of country administration and military. Furthermore, concentration of wealth in this city too, provides an attractive figure of the capital to accept more immigrants or more population.

40 So during Qajar dynasty, Tehran as the capital developed and extended so in 1890, the first wall destroyed and Tehran and its surroundings were placed in a larger second wall (Figure no. 6). This wall was designed by General Bohler, a French teacher, as a perfect octagon. Tehran in this time represented West influences in different aspects of urban life such as new architectures and new urban streets (Figures no. 8, 9, 10). Western influences on different aspects of Iranian life in a traditional society caused various interactions during the time: "The modern history of Iran since the beginning of the nineteenth century can be seen as a response to the political, economic, and cultural challenges of a domineering West. The response can be analyzed in the tensions between three sets of actors with different roles and strategies: modernizers, traditionalists, and the state. The modernizers or reformists, as represented by the secular intelligentsia, have sought to transform the country with the aim of economic, political, and cultural development. The traditionalists or conservatives, as represented by the clergy and the bazaar, have sought to resist this process of reform, which they have thought avoidable, and have demanded that the traditional norms and patterns of life be maintained. At their extremes, the traditionalists have manifested a tendency towards maintaining the feudal- tribal structure and refusing to negotiate with any new development. The extremist modernizers, however, have wanted to move towards total assimilation with the capitalist industrialized countries of the West. The state has often played the role of the mediator between, and making alliances with, these trends (particularly with reformists) and the Western influence…the two peaks of the long history of struggle and tension between these forces are two revolutions, each showing a supremacy of one of these two trends in their alliances against the Western political and economical influence and the state” (Madanipour, 1998: 11, 12); the first revolution, the constitutional (1906), with dominance of reformists in the leadership and the other, Islamic Revolution (1979) by dominance of traditionalists in the leadership of the revolution. Constitutional revolution (1906) which aimed to replace arbitrary rule with the rule of law, in spite of establishing a parliament, couldn't remove the dictatorship from Iran regime. It continued and became so powerful later in Pahlavi dynasty. After establishing Pahlavi dynasty in 1921, the modern trends were speeding: more attempts for the destruction of feudal dispersion and centralization of government and

41 consolidation of central power carried out by a new army; A recognized government bureaucracy provided the basis for the growth of an urban middle class; A first major railway in country; The first modern university in Tehran; Secularization of educational and juridical system and cutting the clergy power from those systems; And a major move towards industrialization. Tehran urban context was changed as well by the trend of modernization. City wall destroyed; construction of new and modern streets opened urban old fabric and in spite of some advantages, damaged the organic pattern of urban texture; modern infrastructure, water and electricity were provided through these routs. The street became the main channels of transportation and the squares became traffic circles, distinct from the older squares and streets which were the places for communication and for pedestrians. Transportation system of capital also provided an appropriate network to control the city. Many new buildings in new functions and new styles (inspired by Western styles) were built. These things altogether changed the city appearance (Figures no. 11, 13, 14. 15). These large changes in Tehran were an attempt to change the morphology of the entire urban area from an oriental city to a modern one. During the reign of Pahlavi the second, Political and economical changes continued, foreign trade expanded and new foreign partner, the USA gradually became the dominant Western country in foreign relations. The oil industry was running at first by Anglo- Persian Oil Company got little by little major role in economy. After social movement during the nationalization of oil industry during Mossadegh's nationalist government in 1951and after its collapse by Mohammad Reza Shah, Pahlavi the second, supported by USA, influences of United States grew more and more in foreign relations, politics and economy. From the mid 1950s, with the increasing of oil revenue, the state started an industrialization drive. Most of the plants were located in Tehran and its environs which caused more immigration to the capital. Tehran was extended to its surrounding parts, at first all around, but when its expansion was confronted with the mountain in North and East, agricultural lands in South West, some high lands in South East, gradually the main side for its expansion became the West (Figure no. 12).

42 The fastest term of Tehran’s development of population and land had been after the land reform in Iran rural parts in 1962 by Pahlavi the second. It caused great changes in socio - economical relations in villages and it made great immigrants from rural to urban parts, especially to Tehran as the largest city of country and as the most concentrated area of job, income, and services. The land reform of 1962 which was regarded as the intervention of state to encourage the capitalist transformation of the Iranian countryside, was declared as a "White Revolution": "by then about 70 percent of the fertile agricultural land was owned or controlled by a small number of large absentee landowners and was cultivated on the basis of the small holdings of crop-sharing peasants. In the land reform programme, this system of ownership and production, which was considered as a barrier to both development and the central government control of the countryside, was largely dismantled. According to the reform, large landowners had to sell or lease, their agricultural property, in excess of a certain amount, through the state, to the sharecropping peasants who worked on the same land and had some cultivating rights. However this programme didn't include the rural wage earner, about 40 percent of the cultivating villagers…The unequal distribution of land created a rural middle class; it also gave impetus to those who had received insufficient or no land to immigrate to the cities” (Madanipour, 1998: 18-19). Most of these immigrants go to the peripheral poor parts of the capital. After that, Tehran grew up as a metropolitan and little by little added to itself small and big villages and cities around it (Figures no. 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20). "Tehran became the largest concentration of economic enterprises as well as the largest market in the country, creating large surpluses of capital and labor” (Madanipour, 1998: 20). This fact that the state was the recipient of oil income, i.e. the major source of funds, and accordingly, the major distributor of it, gave it a far-reaching place in the economy, somewhat similar to other oil economies (Gilbert & Healey, quoted by Madanipour, 1998: 21). Together with support from its international allies, this allowed the state to practice the utmost degree of political control over the population (Holliday, quoted by Madanipour, 1998: 21).In the 1970s, the Iranian state was characterized as being a royal dictatorship, dependent on support from the advanced capitalist countries, which was promoting the growth of capitalist social relation and the expansion of productive forces

43 along capitalist lines (Holliday, quoted by Madanipour, 1998: 21). The form of this dictatorship was, however, unique in that it combined the vigorous promotion of capitalist development with a fully constituted monarchist regime, a fundamentally anti- capitalist form of political structure (Madanipour, 1998: 21). Islamic revolution of 1979, which eroded the powerful dynasty of Pahlavi, was analyzed by many Iranian and Western thinkers in different way, but there are elements of truths in each of them: a traditionalist challenge to a forced and rapid modernization by the Pahlavi regime; as the result of a tension between economic development and political underdevelopment; as the reaction of the local bourgeoisie to the stifling intervention of the state and the international capital in an uneven market-place; as a revolution of a mass movement by the uprooted and disgruntled immigrants who had been concentrated in Tehran and other large cities… Anyway this revolution was a coalition of various groups with different interests and backgrounds which was finally led by traditionalists. Right after Islamic revolution, eight year war with Iraqi army caused lots of refugees to immigrate to Tehran and other large cities. During the years after revolution and war, Iran suffered from the weaknesses in policy and economy, high inflation rate increased living costs in Tehran and other large cities, so immigration to these cities especially to Tehran started to decline, but immigration of population to Tehran's suburbs grew very rapidly. In the suburbs especially towards South the quality of life and the living costs are lower and immigrants could relatively afford them. Social exclusion and polarization with its spatial manifestation in the North – South have continued after revolution even intensified.

3 - Tehran population

Population growth rate of Iran before Islamic revolution – 1979 - which became under control and showed a reduction trend, in the first decade after Islamic regime, showed an explosion (3.9%).This had been because of different socio – economic and cultural values played role during that great change. But this high growth has reduced during next decades and now population is growing by the same reduction trend before Islamic revolution (Table & diagram no. 1).

44

45 Urban areas population of the country has always shown increasing in its percentage during the last decades because of mentioned socio-economic situations made continuous immigration from rural to urban parts (Table & diagram no. 2). Among the urban areas of country, Tehran as the capital city has played the greatest role (Figure no. 28). Population growth of this city has been the greatest one because of various possibilities and services concentrated within (tables’ no. 3 & 4); these tables which present Tehran population percentage to the country and to the urban areas, show that these percentages grew till Islamic revolution (1979) .After that they have been reduced. It can be found that immigration to Tehran- the main city - has been reduced during the years after revolution and according to the table no. 5, that shows growth rate of Tehran population and compare its rates with the same of Iran (table no. 1), it could be seen the same process: population growth rate of Tehran has been more than the country till revolution because of the high immigration and then it has become less because of reduced immigration to Tehran. Population growth rate of 1.1 in Tehran in decade 86-96 might be close to the natural growth without immigration. Considering table no. 6, that compares population growth rate of Tehran, region of Tehran and region without city with each other, it could be found that high immigration to metropolitan had not been actually stopped at revolution time, but, it had been transferred from main city to its suburbs, to the region of Tehran- small and large villages and cities around the main Tehran the metropolitan’s rate of 10.28 in the region compared with 2.28 in Tehran in decade 76-86, shows high immigration to region around the capital. The growth rate of 7 in region in next years after decade 76-86 shows that immigration to this metropolitan has begun to decrease, however it’s still high. To find reason for this process it could be said that Tehran’s attractions for immigration have been reduced during two last decades. It occurred first in the main city, then in whole metropolitan. It’s been first of all because of the economic problems after revolution and decreasing different economic possibilities (job, income…) and some economic limitations (high living costs) in Tehran. Distribution of various socio- economic possibilities in other parts of country under development programs after war time might play some roles in this process.

46

47 Sex proportion & sex ratio in Tehran have always shown greater number of male compared to female. It is because of not only the greater number of male in birth, but also the greater number of male immigrants. Usually immigration to the city begins with the single men then it continues by their families (tables no. 7 & 8). Household size, except decade 1956-66 that household size was increased (it had been because of improving health factors) it has always been decreased in Tehran. . It‘s the result of different socio-economical trends such as more education, changing cultural values in process of modernization, single immigrant men … (table no. 9). Despite this process of nuclearization, family continues to be a strong social economical unit: "especially as supporting networks which allow individuals to cope with hardships of immigration, unemployment, and through various stages of life” (Madanipour, 1998: 92). In addition to economic support, cultural and religious values, which insisted more after Islamic revolution, support traditional family structure. The same reasons caused the low rates of working women that itself is in an interaction process with the size of household. Proportion of male & female head of household indicates the small number of female householder in Tehran that show low level of working women too, and their dependence on men. Tables’ no. 11 &12 mean & median ages in Tehran both show the gradual decreasing of young population. Reduction speed has been less in the first decade of Islamic government (76-86) because of the mentioned high growth rate of population in this decade. According to the diagrams no. 13 and 14 and figure no. 23, population growth rates of Tehran districts – these districts are the municipal or administrative divisions of Tehran - in decade 86-96 have been positive and high in those districts which had first of all the main condition of enough and proper land for developing. This condition has been mostly achieved in districts which set around the core city and have at least one free side to extend. Districts 2 &5 have the most proper lands for development. The more we go to the core city, the more growth rate decreases. This is in the result of various problems existed in internal parts of the city, high density, noise, pollution, traffic problems and so on. These problems push population to surrounding parts of the city. District no. 12, the location of old bazaar is the most ancient part of Tehran, has

48

49

50 most negative rate (-3.6). Addition to the mentioned reasons, commercialization of land use in this district and other its neighbors also push the population out. Two districts no. 21 &22 are the newest ones, have been added to Tehran as the new parts of developing lands in the West. According to the diagrams no. 15 & 16, while there is greater number of male immigrants than female in whole districts, there is relationship between distribution of immigrants in different districts and population growth of them. Comparing these diagrams with the diagram no. 14 – population growth rates of districts – it’s clear the less immigrants in districts with negative growth and more immigrants in districts with positive growth. Some districts like no. 6, 9, 11 show high immigrants in spite of negative rate. These are the districts which not only their population have been reduced, but also have replaced their left population. It occurred when there were commercializations of land use or other reasons that changed the district quality and caused replacement of social groups. Table no. 17 presents annual growth of household numbers and household size in 22 districts of Tehran. While whole districts of Tehran follow the same process of reduction of household size during last decades, in general, districts allocated to middle & upper classes (figure no. 24) which enjoy of more educated people (diagrams no. 22 - 26), more income and higher health factors show less household size or less children and inversely, districts allocated to poor classes, show larger size of household. Districts no. 4, 21, and 22 too, which allocated to heterogeneous middle classes (figure no. 24), show larger size of household than the Tehran average (4.1). Table and diagram no. 18 and figure no. 22 present and compare densities of Tehran districts. As a general principle, the older a part of city is, the higher density there is. It’s the same in Tehran. High population density of internal districts of Tehran is related to the dense and small pieces of built land, narrow routes, shortage of green and open spaces and large size of household as well. Although these parts are pushing out their population (existence of negative rates), but still they have much population compared with their areas.

51

52

53 The scale of land uses is the other factor causing density of the district. District no. 6 which included large scale land uses –university, hospitals, long high ways, large parks,…),show low density of population. North districts of Tehran, in spite of existence high rise building, have low density because of the more open and green spaces, long highways and small size of household. Cultural varieties of the social structure that differ among North and South of Tehran, influences the family size and the density as well. Diagram no. 19 presents mean and middle age in Tehran districts. According to the distribution of social classes in Tehran (figure no. 24) those districts allocated to lower classes and rural immigrants and have large size of household and more children, show less mean & median age that it means more young population, inversely districts allocated to middle and upper classes show higher mean and median age that it means less young population.

4 – Literacy, Education:

According to the table no. 20, literacy rate have showed increasing in whole population of the country during several last decades. While high speed of rising literacy rates among men & women are partial related to the education in elementary level- that is growing fast in the result of population growth rate in these ages (see table no. 1 and figure no. 29, age pyramid),but it is also effected by the education in all levels, even old people. Higher speed of increasing is seen among female literacy rate, too. It’s the same after Islamic revolution. Although Islamic rule have had different restrictions for women, but in other way caused that women came out in society (both rural and urban parts). Many prejudiced families that made many restrictions against women activities in society felt security after establishing Islamic rule and let women come out to society from the home and participate in different activities including different educational levels. Female literacy rates have been following the same trend before Islamic revolution, and continued by the same speed, even in the decade 86-96 which there has been a reduction in population growth rate and elementary ages.

54

55

56 The same process is seen in the capital Tehran with smaller differences between men and women rates (table & diagram no. 21). According to the diagrams numbers 22 - 26, that show literacy rates and higher education proportions in 22 districts, it could be found that district no. 3 has the highest rank in education. Districts numbers 1, 2, and 6 have also the high ranks in literacy rate and higher education as well. At the same time these districts have the highest ranks in higher educated women. These areas are the residential location of upper & middle classes in Tehran (Figure no. 24). It’s also seen that poor classes in districts numbers 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 of Tehran show the lowest proportions in literacy rates and higher education. Middle education ranks are seen in middle parts of Tehran in districts numbers 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21 &22 are belonged to the middle classes. According to the diagram no. 22, the mentioned poorest districts show the high differences between male and female literacy rates and the lowest female literacy rates among Tehran districts.

5 - Dependency rate, Labor force, Employment

Average dependency rate in Tehran in 1996 is 55.3 (table no. 27).It means that more than half of the population of Tehran is out of working age. If districts of Tehran are considered from this point, (diagram no. 28) it is understood that poor classes in poor districts show larger dependency rates and it means larger households, or more children among these social classes. Employed dependency rate in Tehran and its districts is shown in tables’ no. 29 &30.This rate show the real dependency rate. Instead of last numbers that present only proportion of not working ages to the working ages, this proportion show proportion of not working population (total population – employed population) to the working population (employed). While average employed dependency rate in Tehran is 2.8 and it means one person works and pays for four persons (himself or herself and three others), this rate differs from 2.4 (in district no. 11) to 3.2 (in districts no 17, 18, 19. In general greater numbers of employed dependency rate in poor and poorer districts of Tehran. It

57

58

59

60 means first of all, larger household, more children and less working women as well in these areas. According to the table no. 31, average labor force in Tehran show low percentage of women population (8%) in labor force, high proportion of housekeeper among them and high proportion of student among both male and female."…middle aged men are the main breadwinners, supporting a young population in growing households. The economy has not absorbed women and has found it difficult to provide opportunities for the young” (Madanipour, 1998: 55). According to the diagrams no. 32, although it is not seen meaningful differences of civilian labor force proportion in total population of districts, but looking at male and female numbers, it could be found that among Tehran women, who are located in districts allocated to middle and upper classes, show more participation in labor force, so female proportions increased instead of decreasing male proportions. Inversely in poor and poorer classes (districts no. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20), female proportions show less numbers in labor force compared to the female proportion of other districts and so, male proportion relatively increased in these areas. Employed population in different economic divisions – agriculture, industry, & services – has been shown in diagram no. 33. In total population, employment in services (basically founded on oil’s revenue) shows the highest proportion. It’s the same in male and female proportion. But female proportion is too high, so it could be said that female employment is concentrated in service division. According to the diagram no. 34, districts which are located near to the industrial uses of Tehran or belonged to poor classes – mostly in South and West, districts no. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, & 22 – show relative higher proportions in industrial employment. Accommodation of these employees mostly located in these districts. Some surrounding districts like 1, 2, 5, 9, and 21 show relatively higher proportions in agriculture because of some agricultural lands and fruit gardens existed near to these areas.

6 - Changing situations of women in Iran

Generally, changing in social situation of women in Iran, had been started during the modernization and Westernization trends from the lately years of Qajars and especially

61 during Pahlavi era (from 1925). Before that time, women entirely restricted by patriarchal and religious rules in the private space of house. Political and economical trends of modernization of Pahlavi regime had been continued in social aspects too. It had major impacts on women's life especially in urban areas and most of all in Tehran, the capital. It could hardly penetrate to rural parts because of the strong traditions there. Even in urban parts, these processes mostly influence middle and upper classes, and not easily poor and rural immigrants. Among the cases of change in women situation, some important legal ones could be appointed: 1 – Hijab forbidding law; by this law, women are prevented to wear chador and scarf to cover their body or hair in public scenes. This law was implemented by force for several lately years of Reza shah, then was cancelled in reign of Pahlavi the second. It could be imagined that this situation how much could irritate severely a traditional society with strict religious believes. Apart that, these kinds of radical practices during the Pahlavi era against traditionalists received radical responses later, after revolution by Islamic traditional rules, it’s clear that women firstly suffered from those practices, but short period of that forced law made one of the first steps for women going out of home, so after abandoning that law, women without hijab could be seen in urban spaces. 2 – Women’s right to participate in elections; it was approved in reign of Pahlavi the second, during the White Revolution in 1962. 3 – Civil laws for protecting family; it was approved during reign of Pahlavi, the second. It was originally for protecting women against patriarchal polygamy and divorcement and also to recognize women's right to divorce. After Islamic revolution, in spite of different restrictions against women, and reviving traditional laws, the modernization trends have been continuing and women activities in society have been increasing. As it was mentioned before, what caused many prejudiced families prevent their girls and women to participate in activities out of home, were removed relatively after revolution. They felt that society is Islamic and safe again and women go outside with hijab and cover in the street, schools, offices…and all places are under the control of Islamic rules; so women permitted to go out for different activities. It is the reason that apart from the modernization trend that couldn't be stopped in global

62 age caused the relatively high rate of participating women in education or other social activities. It couldn't include the employment because of the different economical problems that even prevent young men to enter the work force. Unfortunately, there is limited statistics information about situation of women in Iran and especially in Tehran. The statistics which are accessible are followed: - Growing up literacy rate among whole population and faster speed among women (table no. 36). While Iran female proportions of student in all educational levels are gradually increasing, their percentage is going to be more than male’s one, in spite of female population in the same ages that are less than male. In the level of upper secondary & Pre University, it is more, even at present time (50.9). This process is happening because of the more and more women coming out to society and participates in social activities (table no. 37). - The process of decreasing difference between male and female numbers of technical and vocational centers (table no. 38). According to the last table, number of male technical & vocational centers is more than female ones but number of educated women is more than educated men in table no. 39. This shows the greater attention of women to these centers, in other word, the social possibilities have not yet responded to active women necessities. - In universities too, it is seen the same process of increasing proportion of female student instead of decreasing proportion of male student (table no. 40). Azad Islamic universities are the private ones, established after Islamic government. They are making some restrictions against women participation in some fields of study (table no. 40). The process of increasing female students of universities could be clearly presented by admitted students in universities during the last years. The percentage of female admitted are now exceeded than male (table no. 41). Process of increasing female proportion is also seen in each field of study. In field of technical & engineering the increasing process is not as fast as other ones (table no. 42). - Stable proportion of male & female as university teachers during the last years (table no. 43).

63

64

65

66 - In general, female candidates & members of the parliament have increased in number and percentage, in spite of low proportion - because of some formal restrictions against women participation especially in the governmental field of activities - but in some terms there are reductions, because of the politics and kind of authorities had been made during those terms (table no. 44). - Only 2.2 of whole council's candidates in country have been women. These councils are in their first steps and their area of activity is not known for women, but despite low participation of women in these councils, it's surprising that female elected number is higher in rural parts (table no. 45). - Table no. 46 shows the low proportion of women participation in managing area of employment. - In spite of small number of employed women, their percentage in public sector is relatively high. The public sector offers women employment opportunities unavailable else where (table no. 47). - Growing up the number of women N.G.O.s in spite of its lowness (table no. 48). - Participation of women in labor force has been growing up during the last years, while the total proportion of labor force has decreased during the same years. It is because of fasting process of women participation in social activities in last years (table no. 49).

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 References

Adle, Sh. (ed.) 1996, Tehran, The 200 year old Capital of Iran, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran studies Research Group, Cultural Studies & Research Institute. Center for Women's Participation, Women Statistical Investigation based on Development Approach in Tehran Province, Report no. 645, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Center for Women's Participation, Women Situations in the Future, the country, Report no. 771, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Center for Women's Participation, Women Statistical Investigation based on Development Approach in country, 2001, Report no. 625, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Hamidi, M. 1997, Tehran Urban Structure, 3 vol. (in Persian), Tehran: Technical & Engineering Consultant Organization of Tehran, Tehran Municipality. Khatam A. 1992, Reduction of Capital Population Growth, The End of a Nightmare, In, Book of Tehran, vol. 3, (in Persian), Tehran: Roshangaran. Madanipour, A. 1998, Tehran: The making of a Metropolis, Chichester &…: Wiley. Management & Planning Organization of Tehran Province, 2002, selected Statistics of Tehran province 2001, Tehran: Management & Planning Organization of Tehran Province, Statistical assistance. Moosavi, S.S. 1997, Women Socio economical Indicators in Islamic Republic of Iran, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Sahab, M. 1991, Tehran's Maps, In, M. Y. Kiani (ed.), Iran's Cities, vol. 4, (in Persian), Tehran: Sahab. Saidnia, A. 1991, Tehran Structure, In, M. Y. Kiani (ed.), Iran's Cities, vol. 4, (in Persian), Tehran: Sahab. Statistical Center of Iran, 1996, General census of population & housing1996, detailed results for whole country, 1 (in Persian), Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. Statistical Center of Iran, 1999, General census of population & housing1996, detailed results for city of Tehran (22 districts), 7 (in Persian), Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran.

85 Statistical Center of Iran, 2002, Country statistical Year Book 2001, Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. Takmil Homayoon, N. 2000, Tehran Population, the sociological & cultural history of Tehran, 3 vol. (in Persian), Tehran: Cultural Research Institute of Tehran Municipality. Taleghani, M. (ed.) 1992, Population, Tehran: The 200 year old Capital of Iran, Sociological studies, (in Persian), Tehran: The Tehran studies Research Group, Cultural Studies & Research Institute. Tehran Center of Research & Planning, 1998, Tehran Population Investigation, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran Municipality. Tehran Center of Research & Planning, 1997, Tehran Social Investigation, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran Municipality. Zanjani, H. 1992, Tehran Women Fertility, In, The Book of Tehran, vol. 2, (in Persian), Tehran: Roshangaran

86 Chapter Three

Case Study, the Method and Methodology Structure of Inquiry in Tehran

Method and Methodology

Regarding to several considerations method and methodology of the case study has been defined. The method of inquiry means the way of collecting data, here has been done by the “semi structured interviews” as a qualitative method of inquiry and the methodology of research, means the way of analyzing data here approaches to qualitative analyzing either; They were defined regarding to the followed conditions: First of all, the subject of study is to be investigated has the major role in this regard. The objectives points to the relationships between “gender” and “space” in Tehran, here it precisely means study about those influences on the way people think about “spaces”, use them, or do their activities within (their spatial identity), that comes from the way they think about gender issues (their gender identity). The focus actually is to the people’s attitudes about the subjects which haven’t been researched before in the way this study tends to do; actually these kinds of relationships between “gender” and “space” and involved different aspects, have not studied before. The subject as well as the place (city of Tehran) is new, so it seems that kind of qualitative method could be helpful, because qualitative way of study could provides initial information about the subject which is necessary in organizing a widespread quantitative way of data collecting to provide a reliable assessment of the society regarding the related issue. It’s also useful in better conceptualizing the main ideas of the study and making it useful for theory development: "The objective of qualitative research should more correctly considered to be 'theoretical generalization', simply put, this means that qualitative researchers are not only documenting the experiences of a group of people for their own sake (however interesting or important they may be considered to be) but also because they hope that their case study will contribute to theory development” (Damaris, Rose: 2001, 6). Another advantage of qualitative research, here interviewing with the people which is important to be pointed is"…The chief strength of this method lies in the depth

87 understanding it may permit, although other research method may be challenged as 'superficial', this charge is seldom lodged against field research” (Babbie, 1998, 303). By interviewing with the people, it could be comprehended and illustrated people’s gender values influences on space the same way as people evaluate them: “Intensive interview as a way of qualitative research method is considered for study about institutionalized values & believes” (Marshal & Rossman, 1998, 147), “Field research is specially effective for studying the subtle nuances of attitudes and behaviors …” (Babbie, 1998, 303); like internalized gender or spatial values in this regard: "… discovering subject experiences and how subjects make sense of them …” (Babbie, 1998, 281). That is really the chief strength of qualitative interviewing that indicates its more “validity”, it means that what is aimed to be measured is actually the same as it’s studied: “Field research seems to provide more valid measures than surveys and experimental measurements, which are often criticized as superficial and nor really valid” (Bobbie, 1998, 303). Possibility of continuous checking or changing the questions and the way those questions being asked during different interviews to be more appropriate, are the other advantage of this method of inquiry; it means that within the series of interviews, each interview could remove its last weaknesses and develop its strengths: "Qualitative interviewing design is flexible, interactive and continuous, rather than prepared in advance and locked in stone” (Herbert & Riene, quoted by Babbie 1998, 290), “Qualitative methodologies are seen as less structured and consequently more flexible” ((Damaris Rose: 2001, 5). It’s been the same about process of checking and changing during about 40 interviews within this inquiry. And at last Since this case study is to be done within a PhD research and there is no organizational support, there are limitations in the time duration and its budget, so the method of data collecting – quantitative or qualitative – tends to be of small scale one, it usually means qualitative one; specially regarding to the objective of study that intends to search in a great populated city like Tehran that any kind of generalization of conclusions necessitates large number of sampling which is not appropriate regarding mentioned reasons, so a qualitative method would be more appropriate: "… it's not an appropriate means to arriving at statistical descriptions of a large population” (Babbie, 1998, 303).

88 The methodology of study, means the way the data would be analyzed, mostly approaches to qualitative interpretivism, because despite the method of data collecting from unrepresentative samples that necessitate qualitative analyzing, but also the way the researcher analyze the concepts and notions that people expressed about the issues during the interviews, justify it; in fact in many cases, kind of reasoning and explanation samples made to the issues, provide the basis for the assessment of their thoughts: “the subject (interviewee) not only answer questions prepared by the researcher but themselves formulate in a dialogue their own conceptions of their lived world” (Babbie, 1998, 281). For example regarding to the question of “which one of your children opens the door” or “which one of them do the local shopping”, while the parents’ answers could pointed to the same sex but they are really placed in different groups of “spatial attitudes” because of the different explanation in their preferences. In this regard, study approaches to the phenomenology, interpretivism and it keeps distance from objectivity and positivism: "Qualitative research is characterized by subjectivity rather than objectivity, closeness to the subject, uniqueness over universality …"(Rundele, Mandell, 2000, 413, 'encyclopedia of feminist theories'). Subjectivity means here that different groups of people evaluate phenomenon (gender and spatial relations, here) differently, and researcher efforts to understand people's view to find how and why these differences exist. And also within the analyzing of the information and assessment of people’s concepts, those observed relations which repeated and repeated for times, considered as the major social facts; in this way process of data analyzing sometimes approaches to the quantitative study. In fact, this inquiry benefit from a method between qualitative and quantitative ones; while the structure of study, the purposes, the hypotheses, even the variables and indicators are defined earlier, like a quantitative research, but from the points of sampling, collecting data and analyzing, approaches to the qualitative one. The last scientific texts relating to the method and methodology referred to the possibility of using both methods in one research. They’ve stressed on the complementarity between two methods (Roberts, 2002). It’s said that qualitative analyzing is not “reliable”, it means it couldn’t be repeatable by other researches: “Compared with surveys and experiments, field research

89 measurements generally have more validity but less reliability” (Babbie, 1998, 305). Here for reducing this problem, study benefits from the conclusions of some quantitative studies that their findings could be considered along with the conclusions here to help this study to quantify some of its conclusions or verify some others. An important point about the subject of this case study is what is actually under focus in “space” as the influences or as the manifestation of “gender”. “Space” itself reflexes two different concepts, one material, all of that related to building, form, volume, construction materials …, and the other non material, all of the activities and behaviors with their various social aspects happened in “spaces”. These two different aspects of “space” are strongly interconnected to each other. Any change in one side, followed by the change in other side. This fact is not disputable; there are much studies mentioned before about it; in the theoretical framework of study, this subject has been discussed under the debate related to “gender” and “space”, “gender” as the social aspect of “space” that itself is physical. Interconnections between social and physical aspects of “space” have changed during history; the social physical factors involved in these interconnections have been tremendously complicated so their clear integrity, the clear physical spatial manifestation of social (geographical, cultural, economical…) aspects observed during the past times, no longer is obvious. It’s because of the other influential factors in the modern age especially the influences of international forms – modern style - of built environment. In this time, influences of social aspects – including gender aspects too - on “space” instead of “physical form”, more obviously could be seen in the kind of “activities and behavior in space”: “More recent discussions of gender and space have argued for a more sophisticated analysis of the ways space is negotiated and lived in the family house / home. There is for example, increasing recognition that rooms or spaces in the family home are not effectively gendered even when they are designed to meet the requirements of a man or a woman (e.g. height of kitchen benches). Rather it is the activities that are performed in these spaces at given times & in given relational contexts that reflect and / or subvert particular ideas about gender, age, and role” (Muntro and Madigan; Mallett; Bowlby et al; Massey; quoted by Mallett, 2004:76 – 7).

90 These conditions influenced the subject of focus and the categories of the questions in the study, so we focused on spatial behaviors or activities instead of the spatial forms of the private or the public spaces. It must be mentioned that only three first categories regarding “private space” could present physical aspects of “space”.

Samples

Samples of this inquiry are specified according to purpose of study which is to investigate the gender aspects of different spaces in Tehran at present time. For this objective, people’s gender identity, also their spatial identity (of course that part related to gender) is investigated. Gender identity includes those values and believes behind gender roles and gender practices in society; and spatial identity includes values, believes and attitudes towards space that reflect gender values and are presented in spaces, their activities, or uses of spaces; so samples are those who are asked about their notions, their attitudes about gender relations and about their preferences in uses of space in Tehran. Now, which social group living in Tehran could present better the actualized notions about gender or space? By actualized I mean those notions that are live and mostly associated with current situations of life in Tehran. If attitudes of old people represent the notions of last generations they are now powerless in social life; and if youth believes are representative of the future conditions (potential situations), so for inquiry about existence situation, adult attitudes could illustrate the moderate of current situations; now which group of adults? Family is the basic container of patriarchal gender values dominated in this society. Every member of society especially adults – who are old enough - know about gender values of society including those influence spatial uses, but those adults who themselves participate in transferring gender values to the next generation directly, fathers and mothers, could be one of the best representatives of those values. They also present patriarchal values much better, because they are the basic members of the patriarchal family. Among parents living in Tehran, those who have both sexes of children, experience situations of comparing between them permanently. They experience gender differences when they are treating their boys and girls how to practice in different

91 situations or how to use different spaces, or when they are deciding for them in every aspect of their living including spatial aspects. Their thoughts in fact are actualized partially by their children practice in society. They are more conscious than other parents to these kinds of differences in society. They experience actual situation, then they are the representatives of actual gender values in society, they have to practice in actual conditions, so they could illustrate differences in gender values relatively better than other parents. This kind of sampling named "purposive sampling": "Usually they (qualitative researchers) do "purposive" sampling for "information – rich" cases." (Damaris Rose: 2001, 6). "Purposive sampling is a type of non probability sampling method in which the researcher uses his or her own judgment in the selection of sample numbers, it's sometimes called a judgmental sample” (Babbie, 1998, 228). The thought behind this sampling is that parents, who have both sexes of young children at the same (present) time, could give rich information about gender value differences and their repercussions on space, so it could be possible to get rich information in spite of small number of samples. Sample selection because of the kind of purposive samples defined here means fathers or mothers having at least two young (15 and upper) girls and boys, inevitably tends to the selection of “available samples”. This could be possible because of the kind of research, qualitative one which doesn’t need for representative samples.

Variables and indicators

In order to investigate about relationships between “gender attitude” and “spatial attitude”, the first one considered as “independent variable” of study that its influences on “spatial attitude” as the “dependent variable” examined by its differentiation among society by three indicator of “social class”, “sex”, and “breadwinning status in family”. These sub variables supposed to have great influences in differentiation of social groups regarding their “gender attitudes”. In this way, various groups of “gender attitudes” who are differentiated by “sex” means mothers and fathers, “social class” means lower, middle and upper class, and “breadwinning status in family” mean being housekeeper or participant breadwinner or only breadwinner in their families, are investigated according

92 to their “gender & spatial attitudes”. So in combination of three indicators there are 15 groups of “gender identity”: - breadwinner men of upper class - breadwinner men of middle class - breadwinner men of lower class - participant breadwinner1 men of upper class - participant breadwinner men of middle class - participant breadwinner men of lower class - breadwinner women of upper class - breadwinner women of middle class - breadwinner women of lower class - participant breadwinner women of upper class - participant breadwinner women of middle class - participant breadwinner women of lower class - homemaker women of upper class - homemaker women of middle class - homemaker women of lower class In sample selection, it has been tried to have at least two samples of each group. This occurred for most of the groups except the group of “participant breadwinner men from lower class” which has no sample, and two groups of “participant breadwinner women from lower class” and “only breadwinner women from upper class” which have only one member within. This implicitly indicates the small members of these social groups in real society especially regarding the groups of participant breadwinner men and women from lower classes. It is important to note that since there isn’t the homemaker men as usual group in this society, so they abandoned totally. This situation adding the fact that women in some groups have more than two samples – it might be because of the sex of the main interviewer, the female researcher, that caused female samples accept more easily to be interviewed – resulted that total number of women’s samples are more than men.

1 Participant breadwinner is one who belongs to a household which have another breadwinner too. This situation here exists when wife and husband both employed.

93 Specifying two sub variables “sex” and “breadwinning status in family” is easy and it’s enough to see their sex or ask them whether they and their spouse are employed. But for specifying sample social class, the residential districts in Tehran has been the indicator. Regarding to former information about Tehran districts, their characteristics were specified according to their social classes of their residences which is the dominant feature of districts. So the initial assumption about the sample’s social class relied on the location of their residencies, and then after, by getting more information about their employment, education … and visiting the house building (since the most of interviews have done in interviewees’ houses), the sample’s social class specified more precisely; later information was necessary especially in inhomogeneous districts. Consequently, in this way samples of study distributed in different districts of the city representative of different social classes. These 15 groups of “gender identity” are studied regarding to their “gender” & “spatial” identities, it means the gender values, conditions, and positions beneath the activities of their girls and boys within spaces, the gender aspects of how they use spaces, how they prefer to use spaces, or who they should to use spaces. The “spaces” focused here, are the “private space” of house, “semi private semi public spaces” of neighborhood, and “public spaces” of the city.

The Logic of the questions

The questionnaire has five different parts. One of them provided the questions related to “gender identity”, three other parts allocated to questions about “spatial identity” regarding three domains of spaces, and the last part includes questions which specify indicators defining sample’s group of study means mentioned 15 groups which are differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status in family”. Asking the questions is how that the questions related to “spatial identity” (three domains of spaces) are firstly asked; then questions related to “gender identity”; at last questions of personal familial information which specify the group of the sample.

94 Questions of “gender identity”

By these questions different groups of parents present their thoughts about “gender issues”, in fact their “gender identities”. They are very open questions about homemaking, employment, education, financial independence, and …relating to each gender.

Questions of “spatial identity”

Other section itself included from three parts asking from parents about their “spatial identity”. Parents responding to these questions present their attitudes towards the way they preferred their children, girl or boy use different spaces or do some activities in those spaces. By comparing between their girl and boy regarding different activities in spaces in fact they present their gender values towards space, the gender aspect of space important for them, their “spatial identity” which influenced by their gender attitudes. This main part of questions (questions of parts 1 to 3) which specified to elicit spatial identity, the dependent variable of study, includes three parts in three spatial spheres: private space of home, semi private, semi public space of neighborhood, and public space of city. Spatial attitudes towards using these three domains are the main concern in these questions. This questioning concentrates on one of the basic gender notion of patriarchal system as public man and private woman that clearly manifested by space: "The most pervasive representation of gendered space is the paradigm of the 'separate spheres', an oppositional and an hierarchical system consisting of a dominant public male realm of production (the city) and a subordinate private female one of reproduction (the home)" (Rendell, 2000, 103). Regarding this notion, this gender relation deliberated in various spaces from private one to the public. It is supposed that notion of public man and private woman, not only characterize private space to women and public space to men, but it also influences each domain of private to public ones. The effects of this separation could be seen within each space itself, public or private.

95 Questions of private space

Even in private space of home there are different domains of private and public ones. Having private room in the house could reflect different points of view either positively having independence or having authority to a space or negatively being protected from views (questions no. 1, 2). Some elements like window or main door of the house connect private space of the home to the outside (being in public realm or closeness to it), so it could reflect different notions towards using them (questions no. 3 & 4). Answering to the phone is the other way of connection to the outside (question no. 5). At last reception some guests (friends, not closed relatives …) in the home reflect the other aspect of connection between private and public realms in the house (question no. 6).

Questions of semi public, semi private spaces

Semi public, semi private spaces are those between private space of house and public space of the city. Originally they are spaces of neighborhood or those within private spaces of house could be seen by neighbors. Activity in these spaces that contains outsider view, reflect the feeling of being in the public realm, even if they have feeling of security of being either in the house or in the close neighborhood. These spaces could also reflect different views towards using them by different genders. There are some places of this kind in the building of house shared within the neighbors, especially in apartments, like yard, staircase, parking, and roof. Some questions investigate gender relations in the spaces of the house being seen by neighbors like private yard, and balcony. Other questions examine activity in the neighborhood spaces.

Questions of public spaces of city

Questions in third part investigate about how different genders experience different spaces of the city (spaces for work, education, shopping, moving, or recreation), alone or with someone else who is accompanied; by which kind of transportation, by walk, bicycle, car, by private taxi, or by public transport; and during what time of the day or night. Each of these aspects reflects different notions regarding different genders.

96 Notes

- Totally four interviewers did the interviews including myself which did most of the interviews and three men, two educated in sociology and one journalist. The sex of interviewer was the important issue regarding the subject of questions related to gender issues. Actually for reducing the negative reactions of interviewees’ responses against gender issues regarding their children and improving their comfort in this relation, the same sex of interviewer and interviewee was helpful, so the interviewer assistants were chosen to be men to do the interviews with male samples. - The questionnaire modified meanwhile the interviews having done, some questions removed because they couldn’t reflect gender aspects of space, and some new appropriate questions added. Some questions were asked from all of the samples which were not analyzed after because of the mentioned reason. - The way the questions having asked were modified either during the interviews. For example, while the main purpose of questions was specifying the parents’ preferences about their children according different activities in spaces but sometimes because of the same reason, eliminating parents’ reflexive reactions, instead of asking that which one of the children do you prefer to do certain kind of activity, they have been asked that which one of them do those activities usually. Précising on the answers, both kinds of answers involved the intended purpose regarding parents’ preferences. Also according to mentioned situation, the interview’s time of deliberation on different issues took long according to the patience and eagerness of interviewee to the subjects, mostly between half to one hour. - This case study includes usual available samples living within formal borders of the capital Tehran. It doesn’t include samples from most deviated people of southern suburban of the city or certain social groups like powerful authorities.

97 Variables and Indicators of Study in Tehran

Male Female Participant Upper Class Class Upper Lower Class Class Lower Homemaker Homemaker Householder Householder Middle Class Breadwinner Breadwinner

Breadwinning Status Sex Class Independent variable Independent variable Independent variable

Gender Identity (Independent variable)

Spatial Identity (Dependent variable) Semi Public Semi Public Semi Private Public Space Private Space

98 References

Babbie, Earl, 1998, The practice of social research, 8th edition, Wadsworth publishing company. Code, Lorraine, (ed.), 2000, Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories, Routledge Denscombe, Martyn. 2002, Ground rules for good research “a ten points guide for social research”, Open University press Mallett, Shelley, 2004, Understanding Home: a Critical Review of the Literature, The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, Blackwell Publishing Ltd Marshal, C., Rossman,G.B. Qualitative Research Method, trans. into Persian by A. Parsaeian & M. Arabi, 1998, Tehran: Daftare Pazhooheshhaye Farhangi McNeill, Patrick, Research methods, translated into Persian by Mohssen Salasi, 1997, Tehran: Agah publication Rafipoor, Faramarz, 1981, An introduction to the techniques of sociology and social research, Tehran: Enteshar publication, (in Persian). Rendell, J. 2000, Ramblers and Cyprians: Mobility, Visuality and the Gendering of Architectural Space, in, I. Durning and R. Wrigley, (eds.), Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Roberts, Andy. 2002, A principled Complementarity of Method: In Defense of Methodological Eclecticism and the Qualitative - Quantitative Debate, in The Qualitative Report, volume 7, number 3, September 2002, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7- 3/roberts.html) Rose, Damaris, 2001, Revisiting Feminist Research methodologies: A Working Paper, Status of Women Canada, Research Division, http://www.swc- cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/revisiting/revisiting_1_e.html Sarookhani, Baghir, 1993, Research methods in social sciences, Tehran: Institute of cultural studies, (in Persian) Tavassoli, Gholam-abbas, 1999, Theories of sociology, University of payam noor, fifth edition, (in Persian).

99

100 Chapter Four Gender Identity

Introduction

In order to investigate about interviewees’ gender identities as are reflected on their gender attitudes, twelve open questions have been asked from mothers and fathers. These questions have made the forth part of questionnaire. Now for analyzing the answers, these twelve questions and their answers are themselves classified to 5 categories as followed: 1 - Attitude towards women working out of the house (question no. 2 & 3). 2 - Attitude towards financial independence of women (questions no. 9). 3 - Attitude towards social role of women and men in society (questions no. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12). 4 - Attitude towards existing social differences between men and women (question no. 5). 5 - Attitude towards appropriate educational level for boys and girls (question no. 8). In this chapter at first for each category, interviewees’ attitudes will be investigated compared to other interviewees’; investigation about each category has its conclusion followed. Then, those five categories which in fact all together make general gender attitudes are put together for each interviewee parent. Therefore a general view could be provided for each interviewee’s gender attitudes or gender identity. In the last part of this section and in a comparable view, all interviewees’ notions analyzed through their general gender attitudes. In this way, in a general assessment, various ranges of gender attitudes of Tehran resident parents of this sampling could be investigated; so in the next chapters, through investigation on interviewees’ spatial notions, the possible connection between gender identity and spatial identity could be analyzed.

101 Categories of Gender Attitude:

Category no. 1: Attitudes towards women’s employment

– What's your opinion about women employment out of home? – If you agree about women employment, which areas of employment are appropriate for women? Must they be different for men and women?

General findings

1 – In general, most mothers of this study agreed with women’s employment for different reasons like earning money, social promotion, or even for having fun out of the house, even housewives who themselves never worked outside, wished that for their daughters. This group of agreeable mothers has been from different social classes with different level of education. They are either employed mother – participant or head – or not, a housewife who preferred employment for their girls. 2 – Some fathers, educated from middle or upper classes agreed with working women out of the house and considered it as an advantage in women’s life to promote socially or personally. These fathers are either householder or participant breadwinner (it means they have housewife or employed wife). 3 – In a comparable view, while women agreeable are from all social classes, men are from middle and upper. So by the same way while women are either educated or not, all men are educated (mostly higher educated). 4 – Group conditional included the majority of fathers and several mothers of this sampling .They expressed something as a condition for women working outside. Among this group, some mothers and fathers mentioned some special fields of profession appropriated to women like field of education or health or office works. These works are sometimes gender separated or their working time could be short – a useful situation for women could arrange both their work in and out of the house – And some other parents referred to the physical strength differences of men and women which affect their appropriate jobs differently. 5 – An important condition was mentioned for women working outside by many fathers. These fathers asserted housework – all kinds of them including mothering,

102 cooking, cleaning …- must be done properly by women if they want to work outside. Actually in their minds, housework is a womanish issue, anyway she must arrange it. 6 – Some fathers said that if women are not proud of themselves, they could work and earn money. What’s the meaning of proud in these fathers’ opinion? It seems these fathers are anxious about the women autonomy resulted from her working and earning, not to be a good obeyed wife any more. 7 – It’s important to remind that the both conditions men asserted for working women – housework having done well and not to be proud – are not referred by any women in this way as a condition, even if they have them in their minds.. 8 – Mothers of group conditional are from different social classes that mean they have different level of education, primary till university education; also they are housewife, or householder or participant breadwinner. But it’s important that most of the fathers belonged to this group and accepted working women with some limitation, are educated –mostly with higher level of education. The difference between number of university educated mothers and fathers in this group are tremendous; and this is while they referred to different conditions in some cases. 9 – While the majority of mothers belong to the group agreeable, majority of fathers belong to the group conditional. 10 – According to the upper fact, while university educated women mostly are from group 1, agreeable, university educated fathers mostly are from group 2, conditional. 11 – Group disagreeable with working women out of the house, include mothers and fathers from lower and lower middle classes, almost all low educated. It’s so interesting to know mothers of this group, who opposed to working women, are themselves employed even employed householder. The Important fact about this disagreement is these mothers have been forced to work because of their strong need to money to cover main expenses of their family life, while their husbands doesn’t provide it for some reasons (sickness, addiction, unemployment…) or he is absent (he is dead or divorced).Since these mothers are low educated, the job they could afford, is kind of unskilled, mostly hard physical ones with low wages, and at the same time all the housework is on their shoulders; while these situations are not the fact for their counterparts from upper middle or upper classes since those women either employed or

103 housewife, enjoy from some kind of help in doing housework whether they have servants or they could benefit of ready made foods or kindergartens or…: “Greater financial resources facilitate the purchase of domestic services that, presumably, relieve a share of task burden that otherwise would be performed by the wife. Income also captures class differences, where lower or working class men & women appear to be less egalitarian in their values …” (Brines, 1994: 671); so it could be understood why they wish to be a usual housewife with a good incomer husband in a safe family life: “…working class men and women may have interests in common that working class women do not share with middle class women or white women with black women …” (McDowell, 1999:248). 12 – Two householder fathers belong to this group, from lower class with low education represented a very traditional patriarchal perspective to the subject of working women out of the house and assert their strong opposition to it.

Category no. 2: Attitudes towards women financial independence

- What's your opinion about financial independence of women? How much should they participate in family income and living costs?

General findings

1 – All the mother interviewees expressed their positive opinion about women financial independence. They counted various advantages for that: from having their own money to spend on what ever they want – house expenses or personal needs … - without any other’s argument, to psychic effects of it like self confidence, authority and autonomy in family relations …. It seems while earning money to cover much better family expenditure is a reason for women to work outside home, but having independence and authority in family is the important issue for many of them. 2 – While women all included in group agreeable, men expressed different perspectives to the issue of women financial independence. 3 – Most of The fathers who agreed with financial independence of women and women participation in family expenses and seem to be equitable in this aspect of family relation, have university education and are from middle and upper classes.

104 4 – Group 2 of fathers, the largest group included those who accepted women having their own money conditionally; some fathers asserted that women financial independence is acceptable if they are not proud, if they don’t argue with their husband about this money …. In fact they don’t like their patriarchal authorities and the resulted relations within their family to be altered; the peaceful situation that is the consequence of their absolute authorities in family relations not to be changed. Some others declared that women could have their own money but they don’t like to spend women income in life main expenses. At first, this seems an advantage to women to spend their money for themselves not for shared expenses, but the internal concept is the same with the first conditional group; there isn’t any difference between previous group and this one, because this notion doesn’t accept women autonomy resulted from their parts in covering life expenses neither. It seems this belief unconsciously expresses the same anxiety about alteration in men’s power in family as the master of the house who is responsible to provide all family financial needs. This issue under the definition of masculinity or masculine identity is very well deliberated in article of Julie Brines, 1994, Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. 5 – This belief has its route in Islamic rules too that now is legislated and accomplished. 6 – These fathers that accepted women financial independence conditionally are distributed all over fathers’ social groups of study, from lower middle class to upper class, it means from low educated to university educated. They are either householder or participant breadwinner. 7 – A few fathers from lower and lower middle class expressed their strong opposition to the issue of women financial independence. They expressed very conservative notion towards the existence patriarchal gender relationships among some social groups of society.

105 Category no. 3: Attitude towards social role of women and men in society

– How is your opinion about social roles of men and women in society? Do you think they are different or not? - What's your opinion about girls and boys training? Do you think that it must be different or not? If yes, in which cases? – In your opinion, what is the best social role for women in society? - In your opinion, what is the best social role for men in society? – What's your opinion about the time that women must appropriate to the home, homemaking, caring children …? – In your opinion, do women or men have a main duty? – What are your ideal woman and man in society?

General findings

1 - Mothers who expressed equitable balanced perspective to the issue of gender social roles for men and women are all educated, have high school diploma or university education. Fathers of this group all have university education. All the parents are from middle or upper classes. 2 – Most of women belonged to group agreeable are employed either participant breadwinner or head of family. 3 – The number of women who expressed their equitable notions to the issue is clearly more than men. 4 – The majority of mothers and the majority of fathers belonged to the group 2, conditional, parents whose opinions to the gender social roles are semi open, semi conservative. While they accept dual roles for men or women, both in and out of house, but they believe men and women have originally separated domain for their activity. Men are the main breadwinner and women the main housekeeper. They could help each other by activity in other’s domain. They have a moderate view to the boys and girls training and referred to some differences. 5 – Mothers belonged to this group are from any social classes with any level of education; They are all either housewife from all social classes, or householder from lower and lower middle classes. At the same time no educated participant breadwinner is included. It seems natural that housewives because of their own situation present semi

106 conservative notions to the issue of gender roles as these housewives even educated from upper class included. As it’s said they accept dual roles for each gender but basically they counted main separated roles for each of them. As it’s mentioned before, some employed householder mother from lower classes belonged to this group presented some conservative notions to the working women because of the hard situation in their working lives. Anyway except their opinion in this relation, they presented semi open notions in other aspects of this category. 6 – The fathers of this group as usual, have some differences in their characteristics. They are educated (secondary diploma or higher) men from middle and upper classes. 7 – The group 3 of disagreeable, included only fathers presented very conservative thoughts to the separated social roles of men and women in society and strongly rejected women involving in men’s domain. They also believed that boys and girls training are totally different. These fathers are all low educated from lower and middle class.

Category no. 4: Attitude towards existing social differences between men and women

- How much do you agree with the differences there are in our society between men and women?

General findings

1 – Majority of Mothers from very different social positions in society – regarding class & breadwinning status – expressed their disagreements about social differences existed in the city. They referred to the limitations and obstacles existed in city against women social promotion and women using freely urban facilities. Two main groups of limitations pointed: 1 - many mothers pointed to the issue of insecurity and spoiled situations in the city that limit their girls using urban facilities freely in different times of day or night. This unsafe situation is the consequence of different complicated social

107 reasons; the heterogeneous residences living in the metropolitan from the point of cultural and socio economical aspects are one of their presentations. 2 – The other important limitation pointed by some mothers was the dominated cultural atmosphere against women’s presence in public spaces and rules and regulation that made some limitations special for women like wearing Hejab, restriction in going into some places like football stadium, or….and the weak practicing of laws against insecurity which must protect women properly. This second point mentioned mostly by educated mothers from middle and upper class. 2 –Some of these mothers educated referred to the shortage of urban facilities for women. 3 – Few fathers belonged to this group disagreeable with social differences between girls and boys, are all educated from middle and upper classes. 4 – Few mothers from lower and lower middle classes and majority of father interviewees from different social classes agreed with some social differences existed in society and reject some others. 5 – Only one low educated man from middle class agreed with social differences between girls and boys and made the third group.

Category no. 5: Attitude towards appropriate educational level for boys and girls

– What's your opinion about the appropriate level of education for girls (women) and boys

(men)?

General findings

1 – Most of the parents (fathers and mothers) expressed the same appropriate high level of education for their daughters and sons; this willing as a social value distributed all over urban social classes and social groups: “children’s education has become an

108 important need for all classes of people; parents admire education for their children, regardless of gender” (Aghajanian, 2001: 19). 2 – Few educated and well informed parents from middle and upper classes stressed on the importance of girl education in society. They declared since women and girls don’t have proper social support (of any kind, cultural, legal …) so they themselves must be enough strong to support themselves and education is the main way to be prepared: “Access to education seems to have an immediate, tremendous impact on women’s perception of themselves, their reproductive and sex roles, and their social mobility expectations (Mernissi, quoted by Moghadam, 2004:152). 3 - Few other parents from middle and lower classes said that boys need education more than girls because they will be the householder in the future and if they want to have a good job and earn enough money then they need education. 4 – The fact about group no. 1 & 2 is that group 1, those who assert same level of education for their daughter and son and group 2, those who mentioned the importance of girl education in society, both believe in presence of women in society and relatively dual roles for women at least. The traditional gender roles if it hasn’t broken completely in their mind, but it has changed in a way, but parents in group no. 3 (mostly lower and lower middle) who expressed their preferences about boys’ education seem to support mentally the traditional separated gender roles.

General Groups of gender attitudes

Now, in order to provide a general summarized perspective to the respondents’ gender identity, by precision on each interviewee and putting all her – his – answers to the five categories together, a general knowledge could be provided to her – his – attitude comparing to other interviewees’. These notions as their general perspectives to the gender issues regarding to the table no. 6, could be arranged in four groups:

1 – Group of “open – informed”

These parents presented a very equitable notion to all or most of different gender issues – five mentioned categories. Addition to their equitable view, they analyze issues

109 very well from an intellectual perspective. The importance about first group is they are able to imagine, illustrate and analyze the ideal situations well. This group of attitudes belonged to a few parents, mothers and fathers all of them educated (almost higher educated) and employed from upper classes or upper middle classes.

2 – Group of “open”

The second range of gender attitudes belongs to the parents who also presented equitable notion towards gender issues. The difference between this group and the first one is the consciousness and clear knowledge the first group have about equal gender relations; the first group presented an obvious well analyzed notion about gender issues. This second group included mostly of mothers – employed or housewife - from different social classes, of course mostly educated from middle and upper classes. Only one father could be considered in this group.

3 – Group of “semi open semi conservative”

Third group, the largest in this study, includes much differentiated social characteristics mothers and fathers. These parents while in actual daily life passed from traditional way of living, but in mind, they still support traditional men and women social roles so they presented open gender notions towards some issues and conservative ones towards some others. The mothers, are employed or housewife from lower and lower middle classes, and housewives from upper class. Of course well educated ones from upper class have more developed way of living in the city; these housewives activating in the city much more than housewives from lower classes. The fathers are either only breadwinner (householder) or participant; mostly have university education from middle and upper classes.

110

111 4 – Group of “conservative”

Fourth group, these parents expressed very closed perspectives to the most of the different gender issues and clearly supported the divided public - private spheres appropriated to men and women presence and activities. The mothers who belong to this group, having high school diploma or lower; they are from lower middle or lower class; either employed or housewife. The fathers of the fourth group are from different social classes, educated or low educated, and all of them are householder (the only breadwinner).

Conclusion

This conclusion tries to illustrate main findings of this section, gender identity or gender attitudes, as the independent variable. This conclusion presents some different changing processes of gender attitudes which could be found through deliberation on the categories’ general findings and the general gender attitudes as well. As a social fact, distinguishing these processes, means that they are main dominated trends in society – of this samples of course; mentioned processes are repeated again and again within different categories of study and confirmed by this study itself, so they are major social facts of society. And the important point is that there are several quantitative surveys in Tehran which their findings could be regarded here, since they confirm findings of this study in other ways. Findings of those quantitative researches will be referred in appropriate places of this chapter or others, also the final conclusion of study. The major independent variable of study is “gender identity” which its mutual associations with “spatial identity” is on focus .For this measuring, “gender identity” considered to be changed by three indicators: “sex”, “social class”, and “employment” (or “breadwinning status”); they made 15 groups of “gender identity”. Now here, before entering to the main discussion of “spatial identity” (and its relationship with “gender identity”), at first “gender identity” itself should be understood through its variation within mentioned 15 groups. In other words, in present discussion, focus would be on the changing of “gender identity” as dependent variable according to three variables of “sex”, “social class” and “employment” as the independent ones.

112 1 – “Sex”

This variable makes two main groups of fathers and mothers. In general and by deliberation on the analyses within different five categories of gender identity, mothers comparing fathers in all social classes, all educational levels, and in all family breadwinning status have explicitly presented more open equitable thoughts about gender issues. The majority of mothers - of this study - expressed their agreement about woman working out of the house (category no. 1), women financial independence (category no. 2), and their disagreement with existing social differences between men and women (category no. 4), while inversely the majority of fathers expressed their conditional agreement with women employment and women financial independence and their partial disagreement with existing social differences. Furthermore kind of referring fathers asserted as the condition for women employment are so different from the mothers’. There isn’t any woman disagreeable with women dual roles it means women working out of the house (categories no. 1 & 3), neither any woman disagreeable with women financial independence and nor agreeable with existing social differences; this is while there are some men in those groups. Distribution of fathers and mothers among different groups of “general gender attitudes” presents most of the women in groups of “open” and “semi open – semi conservative”, while most of the men in groups of semi open – semi conservative and conservative. This fact means women’s relatively more consciousness about their benefits and social rights, at the same time men relatively more conservations towards existing gender relations: “…women have been much more prepared than men to reject traditional gender role attitudes” (Oriel Sulivan, 2004: 213).

2 – “Social class” and its associated variable “education”

Social class considered by three classes of lower, middle and upper. The base of samples selecting has been their residential districts which made the initial concept about their social classes. Base studies in Tehran – presented in the last chapters – revealed different characteristics of Tehran districts regarding their socio – economic & cultural

113 aspects; it was mentioned that educational level as a factor changes by social class, changes within districts too; as much as the social class getting upper among the districts, the average of educational level getting higher. Mentioned social characteristics of different Tehran’s districts have been confirmed by several quantitative researches in universities (Rabie, 2004; Maleki, 1996; Afrough, 1998; Ansari, 1996; Biabani, 2002; Mahmoodi, 1999). Regarding to the samples characteristics, this fact is confirmed here by this study too; samples of study selected from various districts of Tehran confirmed those characteristics again, so selected samples followed the before mentioned characteristics of socio – economic & cultural aspects of the districts; and the educational level’s association with social class confirmed either. Now to deliberate relationships between “social class” and “gender identity” two social facts about their relationships have been found important to be mentioned: First, according to mentioned social association between class and education this sampling showed that more open equitable notions belong to the more educated people who socially belong to upper classes (middle and upper); and inversely more “conservative” gender notions belong to the lower educated people, usually belong to lower classes (lower & lower middle). In category no. 1 (working women issue), there is a trend of belonging more sample mothers from middle and upper classes (educated) to the groups of agreeable and then conditional, so only one from upper class belong to the group conditional. Those middle class mothers belong to the groups disagreeable and conditional are mostly low educated. Although there are some lower class ones in group agreeable (it shows women’s relatively more consciousness in all social classes), but most of mothers of this group are from middle and upper classes. For fathers too, lower class fathers (low educated) belong to the group disagreeable, and group agreeable include only middle and upper or educated fathers. But educated fathers from middle and upper classes mostly place in the group conditional (it shows more conservative notion of fathers). Category no. 2 (women financial independence) doesn’t show any differentiations among different social classes regarding to mothers, since all mothers of any social classes agreeable with women financial independence (relatively more consciousness of women) but fathers mostly from upper & middle classes belong to groups of agreeable

114 and conditional and fathers from lower and lower middle classes to group of disagreeable. In category no. 3 (gender social roles and social training), mothers and fathers who considered equal gender roles and balance social training for men and women, are all from middle and upper classes (educated). Although there are educated (from middle and upper classes) ones (fathers and mothers) in group of semi balance notion to the issues but there is no educated one in group of unequal notions towards gender roles; the only father of middle class belong to this group is low educated. In category no. 4 (attitudes towards existing social differences) there is no sample (mother or father) educated from middle and upper classes in group agreeable with these differences. Mothers from all social classes included in group disagreeable with social differences and it means women consciousness to their benefits; but fathers from all social classes included to the group conditional that means relatively more conservative notions of fathers towards issue. And of course only fathers from middle and upper classes (educated) belong to the group agreeable. Category no. 5 (comparing between girls and boys educational level) while basically shows equitable attitudes towards issue in all social classes also speaks about presence although weak of some conservative notions towards issue among educated people from middle class. But the most important table, concluding table of no. 6 that shows distribution of interviewees among different groups of “general gender attitude”, is more considerable in this relation. It presents mentioned situations of association between social class (or level of education) and gender identity clearly with the mentioned differences between mothers and fathers’ so more number of mothers comparing fathers from lower classes and lower education seen in more “open” group of gender attitudes. In general mother samples’ distribution tends to “open” groups and inversely father samples’ distribution tends to “conservative” groups. This situation as mentioned before is the consequences of more consciousness among women comparing men to existing unequal gender relations. According to the four gender groups of table if we consider group of “semi open semi conservative” gender attitudes that is the largest one as the representative of moderate and most general situation of whole society (this seems true because this group is the

115 largest group of sampling and includes samples from any social classes, table no. 6 & 7), two extreme groups are in two side of this group (meanly “open” and “open informed” in one extreme and “conservative” group in the other); distribution of mothers shows only mothers from lower and lower middle classes that non of them have university education in conservative group of gender attitudes and most of university educated mothers of middle & upper classes in “open” and “open – informed”. The moderate group of “semi open semi conservative” of mothers while includes mother of all social classes and all educational level, but domination of lower classes is obvious. But for fathers this distribution differs so we see university educated fathers from middle and upper classes in all gender groups not only “open” groups; it’s interesting many of them in “semi conservative semi open” group. Of course the same process of women distribution relatively could be seen here again with some differences, it means “open” groups only included from educated fathers from upper and upper middle classes (while for women low educated from middle even lower are included) and “conservative” group mostly included from low educated fathers of lower and lower middle classes (upper classes fathers are also included but are not regarding mothers). Generally relating to mentioned relationships between “gender identity” and “class” and combination of those relations with the relationships between “gender identity” and “sex”, following trends could be drawn that in each social classes, number of open minded women (towards gender attitudes) are more than men; it is so that many lower educated from lower classes’ mothers presented open notions while many higher educated from higher classes’ fathers showed conservative notions. This situation could be found in other way according to different gender groups too, so that, except that mothers’ distribution tend to open groups and fathers’ distribution tend to conservative ones, regarding to conservative gender groups, while they are included mostly from low educated mothers from lower classes, but this is not the fact for fathers; many educated fathers from middle and upper classes included; and inversely regarding to open groups while only educated fathers included, many low educated mothers included too. If we consider “semi open semi conservative” group of gender identity as the middle and moderate situation of society, mentioned differences between mothers & fathers are presented in the best way.

116 Despite the upper mentioned dominated social trend that people from upper classes generally belong to open gender attitudes and inversely people from lower classes generally belong to “conservative” gender attitudes (These class relationships among Tehran’s residences have been confirmed by the quantitative social researches, for example Biabani, 2002, that made her study according to other social variable, religious modernism), deliberation on the sample distribution among different gender groups presents some conservative notions among people of middle and upper classes and inversely some open gender attitudes among people of lower and lower middle classes. This social situation could be revealed better when we focus on “educational level” as the base of comparison rather than the “social class” (in this study “class” defined by three variables of “economic income”, “employment social status”, and “educational level”). This relates to the subject of next perspective to the issue: Second, when we change our perspective from focus on analysis based on majorities to other point to see the minorities too in each “gender” groups then we see other feature of the social relations. These minorities speak about the opposition trends about belonging of upper classes people to “conservative” notions or belonging of lower classes people to “open” gender notions. In this way we could follow the social existence of parallel gender notions across the society. From this viewpoint according to the tables no 6 & 7, “conservative” gender attitudes exist throughout social classes from lower to upper and of course because of the first upper mentioned trend these traditional kinds of thoughts have more appropriated members from lower middle and lower classes and more members among fathers comparing mothers. By the same way, “open” and “open informed” has also distributed across social classes but by more strength in higher classes and among mothers. It’s mentioned before that “class” usually considered as a multi layer variable composed of three components of “economical income”, “employment’s social status” and “educational level”, it’s the same in this study too. We saw the parallel changes of “educational level” with the “class” among the samples in most of cases; it seems normal when the economic income gets more, the “educational level” getting more either as a consequence of more convenience that more income provides, and also its reciprocal relations that better education leads to better income; this is the usual and mutual

117 connections between “economical income” and educational level” which is the fact in most of the cases (Ansari, 1996: 359), but not all the cases. Among samples sometimes there have been cases of upper classes means well off incomers with appropriate social status of their employments but with low education – at most, till high school diploma – these samples are exactly those with conservative gender attitudes; it seems more association of “gender identity” to “educational level” than to the composed variable of “social class”. Now considering two extreme gender groups means “conservative” in one end and “open informed” in other, if we focus only on educational level rather than the social class, it could be found that “conservative” gender notions not existed in level of university education – the only one higher educated conservative sample has military education which totally differs from other usual university fields – also “open informed” group has no member of low educated (lower than high school diploma) samples. This fact about “open – informed” group followed by the “open” group but only among fathers; mothers have members from all educational level in this group. So, while traditional view to the gender relations crossed all social classes (from lower incomers to higher incomers) but not crossed all educational level, it hardly could find a member in higher educated people of any social classes; in other words, while appropriate place for extreme patriarchal traditional notions is among low educated people of lower classes, but when we separate economic aspects of social class from its educational, we observe that “conservative” thoughts exist in all social classes including upper class but not in all level of education. It is the same for “open informed” gender group; there are only higher educated (high school diploma and higher) samples in this group of gender attitudes. No need to remind its different strength among different educational groups. In “open” group of gender attitude, while mothers included samples from any educational levels but fathers included only higher educated one. Other than mentioned extreme gender groups of society – much open and much conservative – there is group of “semi conservative semi open” gender attitudes which’s the most including among samples; it seems dominant situation of gender attitudes among society. It’s the largest group of social attitude towards gender relation. Members’ distribution of this moderate group presents comparable equal members of either all

118 social classes or all educational levels. It means that large number of people of this society are living by gender values between those two extremes; they seems conservative in some of their gender attitudes and seems open in some others. This group also has equal members among mothers and fathers although they are differentiated by their social characteristics as mentioned earlier. So in general, when our scale is “social class”, we could find conservative notions in all social classes including upper classes too, and also open notions in all social classes including lower classes either; but when our scale base changes to “educational level”, then there would be no “conservative” attitude in higher lever of education, and no “open - informed” gender notions in lower level of education. It seems here level of “education” could be more implying than the “social class”. Two quantitative researches in Tehran one about differentiation of lifestyle and social identity (Chavoshian Tabrizi, 2002), and the other about relationship between lifestyle and social class (Sazegara, 2003) confirmed that cultural capital - and among it level of education - shows a strong connection with the lifestyle and its associated values and attitudes – gender values either – while the “social class” and “level of income” don’t. In the first study, Chavoshian follows an assessment about the relationship between people “lifestyles” – which includes gender relations and attitudes too – from one side, and the “social class”, “economical capital” – level of income - and “cultural capital” – which includes level of education too - from the other side. Among these, more meaningful relationships exist between people “lifestyle” and people’s “cultural capital”; then “social class” presented more connection to “lifestyle”, and at last there would be no meaningful relationships between “lifestyle” and “economical income”. It seems again when “economical income” as an important indicator of “social class” causes on “cultural aspects” of “social class” - here level of “education”, it could change the effect of “social class” on “lifestyle”, otherwise it couldn’t effect on that. In other study, Sazegara investigates about two different sub groups of Tehran’s middle class, old and new stratums (layers). These two groups, while they have similar “income” and “employment social status” among middle class, but they are totally differentiated according to their “lifestyles” and “cultural capital” or - “level of

119

120 education”; here again association between “education” and “lifestyle” confirmed in other way. “Gender identity” and its differentiations among society is one special aspect of strong contradictory social powers existed between modernity and tradition in this society. This sampling explored one important area of this contradiction related to “gender” attitude. In the next chapters these contradictory powers would be looked for their possible presentation on the “space”, different domains of “space” from private to public. And now, according to the relationships discussed in this part between “gender identity” and “social class” and considering before mentioned association between “social class” and “location in the city” – various characteristics of Tehran districts – it could be concluded that: “gender identity” in Tehran differentiated by the place in the city: :" Gender is constituted differently in different places, in part because residents in those places differ in class or racial or other social variable …” (Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 11-12). This differentiation in Tehran follows the North – South line of the city: “The North – South divide in the city of Tehran shows a very clear social and spatial segregation across economic lines” (Madanipour, 1998:235).

3 – Breadwinning status in family

Which itself includes three status in family as householder (or only breadwinner), participant breadwinner, and housekeeper. It seems this variable (status of breadwinning in family) influences differently for men and women, also its effect is totally different within social classes. In category no. 1(attitudes towards working women out of the house), while there are employed mother in all groups of agreeable, conditional and disagreeable, but it’s important to note employed mothers (mostly householder) of group disagreeable are all from lower middle or lower classes who are working by force. Except these women, it seems logical that women, who selected to work are agreeable with working woman and it is the fact for middle and upper classes’ employed women either householder or participant. Housewives distributed among groups agreeable and conditional. It seems

121 these women who worked never or for a short time wish to change their situations or at least their daughters’ situations. The fathers who are only householder or participant breadwinner and not housekeeper, with these two positions in family distributed among different groups, of course with the tendency of more participant in group agreeable and less (actually no one) in group disagreeable. It’s important that many participant breadwinner fathers expressed their conditional agreement with working woman and it means partially hard situation for these working woman in their families and partially men conservative notions towards issue. Category no. 2 (financial independence of women) shows distribution of mothers in all positions only in group agreeable (women consciousness) and fathers within different groups with the tendency of more participant in group agreeable and less in group conditional and no one in group disagreeable; and the contrary trend for the householder men. Category no. 3 (attitudes towards gender social roles) shows all employed (participant breadwinner or householder) mothers of middle and upper classes who work by their willing in group agreeable with balanced social roles; and all employed mother from lower middle or lower classes who work by force, in group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles. It also presents almost all housewives from any social class in group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles. This category presents that group of fathers agreeable with balanced gender roles only contains participant fathers from middle and upper classes; and group agreeable with unbalanced separated gender roles only contains middle and lower householders. Group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles include mostly householder fathers. Category no. 4 (attitudes towards existing social differences) doesn’t show any meaningful differences between groups of mother employed, participant, or householder since mothers mostly disagreeable with social differences; but for fathers, group disagreeable with social differences only includes participant breadwinner father (of course from middle and upper classes since there isn’t any lower class participant at least in this study) and group agreeable and group conditionally agreeable with social differences mostly includes householder fathers.

122 Category no. 5 (attitude towards girls and boys level of education) present no meaningful differences between groups, since most of the parents included in group who asserted same level of education for their girls and boys. Distribution of interviewees among different groups of general gender attitudes presents a tendency of placing more participant mother (of course from middle and upper classes) in groups of “open – informed” and “open” attitudes; no housewife in “open – informed”; no participant breadwinner in group “conservative”; also housewives in different groups from “conservative” to “open” except “open – informed”. For fathers, group “open” and “open – informed” includes only participant fathers and group “conservative” only includes householder father. In general, breadwinning status in family influences gender attitudes among social class so being an employed mother – participant or householder – when they work in a usual situation and by their willing, means at least accepting dual roles for women, then more open attitude towards gender issues: “Women’s employment has been almost as important as women’s education in changing the position and self perception of women, and in altering the patriarchal gender contract” (Moghadam, quoted by Moghadam, 2004: 155). There is an exception for lower employed mother who work by force in a situation of harsh financial difficulties while at the same time, householders of these lower classes bear the cultural burden of being a lonely mother, so they wish to live in a peaceful situation of a housewife mother with a good husband incomer (a patriarchal formation of family with divided gender roles). For fathers who have a housewife or an employed wife, there are some differences in their gender attitudes, so participant fathers often show more open and less conservative attitudes towards gender issues and inversely householder fathers showed more conservative and less open. Since there isn’t any lower class participant father in this study (it shows few of them in society), so the mentioned tendency belong to the middle and upper classes. So, it could be said employment that means for mothers being a participant breadwinner or a householder in their family has a positive affect on their gender attitudes to get more equitable notions; it’s especial for middle and upper classes. And for fathers who are all employed, being a participant breadwinner – having an

123 employed wife – has positive effect on their gender attitudes too to get more open and equitable notion It’s while that inversely householder fathers, who have a housewife, mostly presented more conservative gender notions: “The conclusion is that there are now more equal or more nearly equal couples, particularly among couples wherein both parents are full – time employed” (Sullivan, 2004: 216).

Internalization of discrimination

Important point implicit within the discussions having done above, about gender attitudes of different groups of people, is the concept of “consciousness”, here means consciousness towards unequal gender relations. The social fact have been shown by the sampling is that people think differently about the same social phenomenon of unequal gender relations of patriarchal system dominated over society. In fact it’s the same about other social phenomenon as the gender relations. It’s the fact that people live by different values and believes in society. Although the patriarchal social system is dominated throughout the society, but people live differently within; they experience the society differently. In fact there are subsystems of living within the same patriarchal social system. Among these subsystems of living people think differently, feel differently and practice differently. People practice differently because they feel or they think differently or inversely they feel or think differently because their experience is different. These differences present different identities; and one important aspect of identity is gender identity. These subsystems of social (or gender) values and social (or gender) practice, as they have been investigated in sampling, include people who believe in their group‘s gender values and practice and reject other groups’ gender values and practice. In fact as these values make their identities it means they are internalized in their identities, so people think about those values as their very deep and natural fact of their existences; those values are vital and essential. Since people live naturally on their essential values, they are not conscious to those values; in fact they couldn’t look at them as outsider, because they are insider. So those groups who their gender identities associated with unequal gender relations they

124 obviously internalize unequal discriminated gender relations as their very essence of identities; it means for them these kinds of patriarchal relation are natural and honorable, even sacred. Sampling presented different groups of gender identities differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status”. According to above discussion, these gender groups from “conservative” attitudes to “open – informed” attitudes internalize discriminated gender relations by different level from “deep internalization” to “complete externalization”; or in other words from “completely being insider” to “completely being outsider” towards unequal gender relations. A good example of this issue is groups’ attitudes towards the issue of women and men’s social roles and social training. When they presented their notions towards women’s employment or this issue that who is responsible for housework or family expenditure when both parents are working outside home, we have seen that different groups differentiated by sex, social class and breadwinning status presented different consciousness towards the unequal separated domain of a housekeeper and an employed person. There are kinds of attitudes, very insider to the subject of traditional social role of men and women in one end (like Sample no. 31: Yes, in my opinion women should work at home….Yes, it (men and women social roles) should be different. Men’s should be different…..She has been called woman and he has been called man. Therefore each one of them should have specific role…….Yes, girls and boys are different.....Girls should be trained by their mother in the fields of Hejab and house working because in the future they should know how to behave with their husbands and children. Boys can be also trained by their mother.....I don’t know but I know that you should train girls more …) and kind of attitudes, very outsider to the issue in the other end who deal with the issue consciously (like Sample no. 21: I agree with their (women) financial independence….If they both work, and they both do the house chores, they should be equal in financial affairs. I think there’s no difference that one pays more (for expenditure). Men usually have more income, any way they both should pay as much as they can...). In general, internalization of oppression in different social groups follows the same distribution as gender identities; it’s getting less in “open” gender attitudes or getting more in “conservative” gender attitudes; it also means that internalization of oppression

125 gets less in women’s thoughts compared to men’s (variable of sex) and by social class gets upper means getting more education (variable of social class), and by employment (variable of breadwinning status).

126 Chapter Five “Gender” & “Private Space of the House”

Introduction

This chapter is to deliberate gender aspects of the private space of house, the association there is between gender and space as it is presented within different domains of the house. For this, as it’s pointed before, Parents attitudes towards the way children use different spaces of the house are investigated. All the questions of this chapter intends to reveal gender aspects of spatial organization of the house and children’s (with different sexes) practices in using spaces; those aspects that present gender values associated with this system. Again, questions generally test the before mentioned spatial division of “public – private” spheres as the manifestation of gender relation between man and woman (girl and boy). In fact they are testing how space of the house is gendered; how this old gender division of public man and private woman is manifested in space; this time “house” as the most private space of the city is in focus; different houses, the residences of different social groups in capital city of Tehran in present time. Although “house” itself is a private space, but within has different domains of privacy; in fact these different domains created through house spatial organization and associated circulation, different kinds of connection spaces hold with “outdoor” space (through window, door … ); also different ways of using and moving within these organized internal spaces. These are domains except those attached external ones that connect house space to the outdoor space, like staircase, balcony, roof … - they are considered as “semi private – semi public” spaces in this study, which would be examined in the next chapter. Six categories (presented in different questions) considered here for investigation about house spaces and its different domains which could present gender relations. These categories include either spatial organization of the house or type of space’s using by individuals (here children). In this relation, Parents attitudes towards these categories are studied. In fact parents preferences about how their children use spaces, reflect their

127 values and among them gender values are in focus. These six categories which considered to present parents gender values are as followed: 1 – Parents preferences about their children necessity to private room. 2 - Parents preferences about the closeness of children’s room to parents’. 3 – Parents preferences about the position of children’s rooms whether they are overlooked by (or overlooking to) other places or not. 4 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls open the apartment door when somebody unknown knocks at the door. 5 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls answer the phone. 6 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls entertain non – mahram guests.

1 – Parents preferences about their children necessity to private room

Question: In your opinion, which one of your children is preferred to have private room? Why?

Or: If you could afford only one private room for children, which one of them is preferred to have it?

General findings:

1 – Majority of parents either mothers or fathers asserted their daughters needed more to have a private room (space) for their private affairs such as changing clothes or … specially in sleeping time; in fact issues related to their body in the situations might be seen without proper covering. This point of view presented throughout different groups of gender identity from “conservative” to “open – informed”. 2 – Having a private room for girls is an advantage, since they themselves feel inconvenience to do many of their private affairs in common spaces. 3 – Some mothers all from groups of “open” and “open – informed” gender identity presented a neutral attitude towards their boys and girls necessity to private space. Actually they presented neutral attitudes towards using of house spaces like their neutral attitudes towards gender relations.

128 Some parents, who expressed other effective factors in this relation like “age” and “education” requirements, considered in this group of gender neutral too. 4 – Several parents with conservative notions about gender issues – groups of “conservative” & “semi conservative - semi open” asserted their boys neediness to private space for doing whatever they want. It seems as before that they considered more power for men in gender relationships they also manifest those relationships on the spaces of house. 5 – The important point about mothers who named their son for having private space is that most of them are lower classes householder mothers who had to run family with all difficulties and problems a lonely mother faced in this condition (they presented their opposition with working women before) so it seems natural they need their son responsibility as their men from one side and so their authority in the family and house from the other side to support the family. It’s while most of these mothers live in small houses with small numbers of bedrooms at the same time there isn’t need to parent’s room so it seems normal mother sleep with daughter and son sleep separately. 5 – Some parents from lower classes claimed private space for their son from the other point of view; they said their boys (comparing to their girls) is preferred to be separated (having private space) from parents in the sleeping time. It must be because of more sexual drives of their young sons in this age to be controlled. It doesn’t need to point that in a patriarchal society, they are men which their sexual desires seen normal to be developed to that extent then they must be controlled from possible bothers for others.

2 – Parents preferences about the closeness of children’s room to parents’

Question: If your children have their rooms, whose room would you prefer to be closer to yours?

General findings:

1 – No parent preferred his or her son having room near to their rooms. It seems boys are training their future roles as the head of family so they practicing independence and courage.

129 2 – Most of parents either mothers or fathers declared their girls’ room better to be closer to their room. They referred to two reasons; some said that girls need more attention and care – that means inversely for the boys - and some referred that boys’ room preferred to be far from parents’ room comparing to girls’ room; it’s because of an ethical reason that they want their sexual affairs not to be considered by their boys since boys are more interested in this relations than girls. This kind of reasoning means when both sexes of children have their own rooms, it’s preferred boys’ room to be farer and when all family have to sleep in one place in the case of lower classes, it’s preferred young boys to sleep in other room separated from parents (for example quest room). So again it’s a common belief in this society and it’s repeated by parents from any gender attitude group that they prefer their girl’s room to be closer to their room although they refer to different reasons. 3 – Parents with neutral notions towards this issue declared no preferences in closeness of their children rooms. They said either it’s better both of them to be far or there is no difference in this relation or referred to other factors like age influencing the closeness of children’s rooms. Most of the mothers of this group are open minded about

gender issues, but not the fathers.

3 – Parents preferences about children’s rooms position whether they are overlooked by (or overlooking to) other places or not

Question: If the room is overlooked by other people – either neighbors or public – which one of your children is preferred to have it?

General findings

1 – All the fathers and most of the mothers presented their preferences about considering the overlooked room for their boys. They are from any groups of gender attitudes, so it’s a common belief. 2 – Some mothers from lower classes and “semi open – semi conservative” group said they prefer their boys’ room not overlooking neighbor’s places since there might be

130 some problems with the neighbors. In fact they referred to the same issue mentioned in no. 1, but from the view of the son’s mother. 3 – It seems the important issue for both group of parents – it could be said for all parents of this society – is that they don’t like their daughters being overlooked by strangers in secured space of the house. While many fathers and mothers looked at the issue from the position of a daughter’s parent, only mothers looked at the issue from son’s mother views; it shows more consciousness among mothers. 4 – Few neutral mothers from “open” group of gender identity declared no preferences in this relation.

4 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls open the apartment door Question: When somebody unknown knocks at the door (or apartment door), in your opinion which one of your children is preferred to open it?

General findings

1 – There is a common behavior among different groups of gender identity towards issue of opening the door by boys of family since it’s kind of relationships with possible strangers. This common action observed among majority of interviewees belongs to different social groups of society with different gender attitudes. It’s the same either parents preferred their sons do the job or their sons tend or feel responsibility to do this job or it’s easier that boys to do the job because women should wear a covering clothes; all present a dominated social phenomenon; an institutionalized act (although different social classes cleared its different aspects). 2 – The minority of interviewees (mostly mothers) asserted their daughters open the door; because their son either is not at home during day time or he doesn’t take responsibility. Anyway answering to this question people believed their son should to it but they have an excuse not to do that. These parents (mostly mothers) belong to “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity.

131 3 – Some of the mothers and fathers who belong to “open” and “open – informed” groups of attitudes towards gender issues, asserted no preferences in this relation either their boy or girl open the door. Except these parents who presented similar notions towards gender and opening the house’s door, there are some fathers in this neutral group belong to “conservative” group of gender attitude; more questioning needed to make clear their notion either they understood the question unclearly – they might consider the main door of house opening by electric instrument – or there is other effective factor.

5– Parents preferences whether their boys or girls answer the phone

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to answer the phone?

Reviewing the answers and précising on them it seems there are no meaningful relations between gender attitudes and kind of preferences parents made for answering the phone by their children and it seems other factors involved (table no. 5). Since answering the phone is not a direct relation to the out or with the strangers, people don’t feel worry about their children especially their girls – although some parents feel – so mentioned relation hardly could find.

6 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls entertain the guests

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to entertain non – mahram (not closed relatives, friends or strangers; in fact those persons that female members of family must cover their body and hair in presence of them in Islamic tradition) guests?

General findings:

1 – Traditionally, from one side, serving the guests included in housework and so it’s a womanish work then naturally referred to girls of the house comparing to boys; but from the other side for many families serving non – mahram guests (not closed relatives, also non relatives) is not preferred to be done by girls or women; these trends in combination create different situations in different social groups.

132 2 – Serving the guests in spite of its gender aspects, also influenced by other characteristics of children like how much they are sociable or interested to spend time with guests, or have time to do the job. 3 – Some parents with “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open” notions towards gender issues asserted they prefer their son serves the non - mahram guests because guests are non – mahram and it’s better girls not to serve them. 4 – Some parents with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender issues asserted that their girls do the serving non – mahram guests but with proper covered clothes. It seems they must refer it to their son similar with parents of the first group, but maybe their sons are not at home most of the time (they’re employed) or boys are not willing to do this womanish job. 5 – Some “open” minded mother also said their girl do the job and their son don’t participate in this work, maybe they are not so sociable or not willing to do this womanish job; other characteristics might be involved. 6 – Some parents which belong to “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity said that they themselves do serving the non – mahram guests not the children. It seems other family characteristics might be involved too. 7 – Some parents who actually could be named neutral declared no difference, both of them do this kind of job. They mostly are from “open” and “open informed” group of gender identity. These parents neither consider serving the guests as a womanish job, nor pay attention to serving the non mahram guests as a male job. 8 – Some parents, actually neutral to the issue with “open” notions towards gender issues asserted boys serve the non – mahram guests, but this time because girls don’t like this job or they are not sociable. 9 – Therefore in general, it seem there isn’t a simple connection between girls and boys participating in serving the guest so that more conservative family refer it to boys and more open refer to girls or both of them. In fact from one side, serving the guest is a womanish work like housework, so as much as a family is open minded to gender issue, and then men and boys participate in this job too. But from the other side serving non – mahram guests for religious traditional family is a men job, so these two trends in

133 combination with other factors related to children and family characteristics create different cases as mentioned.

Conclusion

The investigation having done in this chapter about different gender aspects of house’ spaces, cleared how spatial organization of the house and circulation within from one side, and kind of using residences make, from the other side could present gender values of this organization. In fact gender relations manifested in space of the house and influence its spatial organization and the living, moving and using of people within. Regarding to the five categorical conclusions of this chapter about different gender attitudes of parents towards their girls and boys using spaces of the house in different situations, the most common attitudes in this relation which are represented by different gender (or social) groups of Tehran’s residences, could be drawn as followed: 1 – Girls need personal private space (room) for their private issues (related to their body) more than boys. 2 – Girl’s room (girl sleeping space) is preferred to be near to parents’ room comparing to boy’s room (boy’s sleeping space) for more caring or controlling. 3 – It’s preferred that boys open the door when an unknown person knocks to the door. 4 – The overlooked rooms are preferred to use by boys comparing to girls. It’s important to note that these kinds of notions penetrated all gender groups from “open” to “conservative” indicate tendency towards biased spatial attitudes against neutral ones in society; they present that dominated gender relations in society still dominated by patriarchal values based on more caring, preservation or controlling of girls specially when they connect to the “out” (opening the door, overlooked room); the situations in society is so that even groups of “open” gender attitudes presented the same notions; but important point about “open” groups is that although apparently they do the same behavior but they are more conscious about those practices. This subject would be discussed under the title of “internalization of discrimination”.

134 Except these common gender believes towards space of the house, still there are other attitudes are represented by mostly some certain gender groups of people. It means that some spatial behaviors (or attitudes) represented mostly by “open” groups of “gender identity” and some other represented mostly by “conservative” ones. It should be noted that “semi open semi conservative” group of gender attitudes as the middle group shares their spatial notions with one of the “open” or “conservative” groups, sometimes with the first and sometimes with the other one and of course when there is general spatial notions, most of them belong to those ones. “Conservative” and sometimes “semi conservative” gender groups showed “spatial attitudes” are more associated with patriarchal gender relations: 1 – Boys need private room more than girls (in most of the cases boys claim room themselves or parents think they need it more). 2 – Overlooking room is better not to be used by boys (because boys might look at neighbors and bother them). 3 – Serving the non - mahram guests are done by girls because boys are employed and not usually at home or don’t do it (they do not do this womanish job). 4 - Serving the non – mahram guests done by boys because guests are non – mahram (girls should not presented to the strangers). 5 – None of boys or girls does serving the non – mahram guests; only parents do it (strict parents who also are conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes). This is while more “open” and sometimes “semi open” gender attitudes presented more neutral attitudes towards their boys and girls activities in private space of the house: – No difference between girls and boys neediness to private room. – No difference between girls’ and boys’ room closeness to parents room. – No difference between girls and boys having overlooked or overlooking rooms. – Serving the non - mahram guests are done by girls because boys are not sociable (in fact neutral spatial attitude). - Serving the non – mahram guests done by boys because girls are shy and not sociable (in fact neutral spatial attitude). – No difference between girls and boys serving non – mahram guests.

135

Therefore in this way the meaningful relationship between “gender attitude” and “spatial attitude” is revealed so as much as people are open in their “gender attitudes” most probably they think openly – neutral - towards the spatial issues regarding private space. Otherwise, as much as people are “conservative” in their gender attitudes, they show conservative notions towards spatial issues. Besides these relationships, there are some general spatial attitudes across all gender groups of society. These notions like covering women’s body although are apparently the same spatial practices but they have different meanings in people minds that are different in their gender attitudes.

Variables of “sex”, “social class”, & “breadwinning status”

After specifying general relationships seen between “gender identity” and “spatial identity” of private space of the home, also pointing to the general spatial tendencies among different gender groups, now it’s possible to point to various influences of three different variables of “gender identity” mean “sex”, “social class”, & “breadwinning status” - into “spatial identity”.

Variable “sex”

Distribution of mothers and fathers among different groups of spatial attitudes, regarding attached tables, in half of the cases seems to be relatively similar. According to the questions no. 2, “closeness of children’s room to the parents’”, no. 3, “allocation of overlooking room”, and no. 4, “opening the door”, mothers and father’s distributions among groups of attitudes are similar. This indicates effective factors other than “sex”, the same factors caused mentioned general attitudes across all gender groups, involved. Despite this similarity, in some questions mothers showed more numbers in open groups of spatial attitudes. In question no. 1, “having private room”, while there is only one father in “neutral group” – gender equality - of spatial attitudes, many mothers included. And in question no. 3, “allocation of overlooking room” there are only mothers despite

136 their few numbers in neutral group. Also the numbers of mothers in “neutral” group of category no. 6, “entertaining the guests” are relatively high. This relatively high numbers of mothers in “open” groups of spatial attitudes inversely shows relatively higher numbers of fathers in “conservative” groups of the same categories. It seems normal that women comparing men as the inferior sex in patriarchal relations to be more equitable in their attitudes.

Variable “social class”

In spite of mentioned inclusive spatial attitudes within private space that obscure the relationships between “spatial identity” and “gender identity” and therefore three variables of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” either, but still those relationships could be drawn in some ways. Like the upper mentioned relations between “sex” and “spatial identity”, relations between “class” and “spatial identity” could be pointed in different categories of private space. And as it was pointed before that “education” is an important indicator of “social class” and its changes associated with changes of “social class”, here it shows its influences again. According to the distribution of spatial identity groups, tables’ no. 1 to 6 present more educated parents from middle and upper classes in more equitable “open” groups of spatial attitudes and inversely more low educated parents from lower middle and lower classes in more “conservative” groups. In category no. 1, “allocation of private room”, neutral group included mostly educated parents from middle and upper classes. It’s the same in category no. 2, “closeness of children’s room to parents’”, category no. 4, “opening the door”, and category no. 6, “entertaining the guests”. And inversely in category no. 1, “allocating private room”, and category no. 6, “entertaining the guests”, numbers of lower and lower middle classes in more “conservative” group of “boy preferred” are relatively high. Within discussion about “gender identity” – last chapter – was pointed to the special meaningful relationships between levels of “education” – per se not as an indicator of social class - and “gender identity”. Here similar relationship between “education” and “spatial identity” could be seen only according to fathers and their distribution among

137 “neutral” groups mean most “open” groups of “spatial identity”. According to the tables’ no. 1 to 6, there are no low educated fathers among these “open” (neutral) groups (the exception of the category no. 4 was explained before). As always women of all social groups – all educational level, here – might show “open” attitudes. The opposite relations mean lack of association between higher educated samples within “conservative” attitudes haven’t been clear here, because of the same general inclusive spatial attitudes (of course if we precise on the samples’ referring, we could find parents differences in those general attitudes).

Variable of “breadwinning status”

“Breadwinning status” as one of the variables of gender identity has shown before relations with gender attitude. Now in this part, relations between breadwinning status” and “spatial identity” is investigated. “Breadwinning status” for fathers means to be either an only breadwinner (householder) or a participant (having employed wife) but for mothers means to be a housewife (unemployed) or participant breadwinner wife (employed wife) and at last only breadwinner or householder (divorced or a widow mother). If we consider mothers and fathers’ different positions regarding patriarchal family, the position of a householder father is related to a housewife, they have made a traditional patriarchal family. And a participant father with a participant mother, they have made a family with changed relations regarding patriarchal one. But a householder mother makes an incomplete patriarchal family. These parallel positions in family create parallel attitudes among fathers and mothers towards different issues; for example a householder father’s attitude might be similar to a housewife’s attitude and both of their attitudes are likely to be associated with patriarchal values; and two participant parents of a family might show changed gender values regarding patriarchal values… but the position of a householder mother and her attitude is not comparable with a father of any position. “Breadwinning status” in family according to the different private space categories’ investigations didn’t show a clear relation with “spatial attitude”; it might be because of the mentioned general attitudes among different social groups which attract majority of social samples to those general groups ; also influences of other variables like

138 “social class” or “sex” might be considerable. Despite this, in category no. 1, “allocating private room” considering “conservative” group of “boy preferred” all the fathers are householder and most of the mothers are householder from lower and lower middle classes. In category no. 2, (closeness of children’s room to parents’) considering “open” group of “neutral” most of the fathers are participant breadwinner. Also in category no. 6, “entertaining the guests” considering “open” group of “neural” half of the parents are participant breadwinner.

Internalization of oppression

Internalization of oppression means being unconscious towards oppressive patriarchal relations, while they’re lived and practiced in society; it differs among different gender groups. As much as a gender group (differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status”) is unconscious towards patriarchal relations and live or practice in society adapted to those relations, it means that group has internalized those relations and their associated oppressive values, by the same way. Different groups of gender identities as they are studied in this chapter presented different attitudes towards different issues related to private space of house. In fact they made different groups of spatial identities. And like their various consciousness towards unequal gender relations they showed different level of consciousness towards unequal spatial relations regarding their children’s spatial experiences. There are many examples of these different consciousnesses towards spatial issues could be referred like differences existed between these two samples who delivered their notions related to the question no. 6, “entertaining the non – mahram guests”. While the first one who named his son for entertaining non – mahram guests, pointed to his religious believes as the reason for this spatial behavior, the second sample referred to the social norms as the reason for her practice not her internal values and she declared she practices differently in other situations:

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father

139 from middle class): I do it myself or my wife. Some times Alireza (son) helps. Since they are non-mahram, I prefer that a man entertains them. We don’t want strange cultures.

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle): My husband is kind of religious, but not so much that believes the girl should stays in bedroom and the boy does the reception. I usually wear scarf and long clothes when a worker comes to clean the house, the same as my daughter. Whenever we have guests, if they are religious we wear our scarves, if not, we don’t wear scarves and usually younger ones (children) do the reception. Good examples of these different spatial consciousnesses might be seen among different members of general spatial attitudes mean those spatial attitudes shared among different groups of society. Different member of these general groups apparently showed the same attitude towards the issue but in fact their notions are from different standpoints. While existence of these general notions as was pointed, indicates patriarchal values still dominated in society, but still there are differences between the “open” reasoning and “conservative” one. For example, among members of the spatial group of “boy preferred” in category no. 1, about “allocating private space”. Sample no. 1 referred to family believes (internal values) for separating daughter in private room, but the second sample pointed to daughter’s comfort and freedom (consciousness towards the differences) in having private room:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): My daughter. ... Their (my sons and daughter) studying and working’s things are all in a same room. My sons sleep in that room. And my daughter sleeps in the living room. We’re tenants; they couldn’t have their own rooms. We’re building a house for ourselves. She’s (my daughter) religious and doesn’t put the curtains away. Despite there are video and satellite in our house. My son (the older) is religious too. He doesn’t like to have a room with her sister.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education):

140 The girl. It s better; ...of course it s better for both of them to have a private room but I prefer the girl. That s because she will be more comfortable, the boy is always out. He has the freedom outside. ...Then she knows what to wear, how to sleep because the boy is free he can wear whatever he wants and sleep.

It’s the same about selected two samples regarding to the reasons they delivered for “allocating overlooked room” to their sons. While the first one referred to basic gender differences in this relation, two other samples consciously referred to likely social situations for their selection.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class): If one of the rooms were overlooked I have to give to my son. My daughter’s room shouldn’t be overlooked; we try to make it better by curtains. Because of the differences between girls and boys in gender and the girls’ problems which are pointed in our religion, we’re more anxious for our daughter. For example if the boy went out and come 2 hour late, although we have anxiety we don’t think that something has happened for him. But our daughter shouldn’t come 2 hours late. Because of her differences in gender and the problems in society she shouldn’t be out late in the evening or she shouldn’t be with her mother or someone reliable.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): I prefer especially my daughter's room wasn't overlooked because other people may bother her. You know we have depraved society. But they're comfortable and they don't feel this problem.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Well, the not overlooked one is better for my daughter. But I think both of them should be in such a room, but if I have to choose one, my daughter is preferred. Maybe someone from other side look at a girl’s room not a boy’s room. And the other example in this relation regarding the category no. 4, “opening the out door” is:

141

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): My daughter even doesn’t go near the door ،my son opens the door. She doesn’t like it. We were in a neighborhood for 28 years and my daughter didn’t know a supermarket. She doesn’t go shopping and out. In the morning, She goes to the class (for university entrance exam) and English classes but she’s not naughty and doesn’t go shopping .she even doesn’t clean the stairs and her brother doesn’t let either. He cleans the balcony and stairs himself. He even doesn’t let me.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife mother from upper class): The boys are preferred. Wearing clothes is different in our country, according to be religious or not. I even don’t go to the door sometimes. It’s so easier for my sons to run to the door before I wear suitable covered clothes. In general could be said that in dominated relations of patriarchal social system in a society, there are people who consciously reject those values and practice differently in society as much as it’s possible. But majority of people who live among those dominated situations and apparently practice the same, don’t have the same consciousness towards the situations they live in. Some of them consciously understand the conditions and know that they might act differently in different conditions, while some think about the dominated patriarchal relations as the normality and essentiality

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152 Chapter Six “Gender” and “Semi Public Semi Private Spaces”

Introduction

“Semi public semi private spaces” are those spaces attached to the house, either used only by one family like balconies or private courtyards or used by some neighbors like roofs or staircases or shared courtyards. Neighborhood spaces like alleys or common spaces of residential complexes are other kinds of “semi public semi private spaces” considered here; all of these spaces have common uses with small number of other neighbors and if they haven’t common use still they have neighbors’ view to them. Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use or should use these kinds of spaces are focused in this chapter. Nine categories as they have been presented within questionnaire will be investigated as followed: 1 - Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use space of courtyard 2 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use overlooked balcony 3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use semi public spaces of neighborhood 4 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children do the local grocery shopping 5 – Parents preferences towards the way their children take the garbage out in the evening 6 – Parents preferences towards the way their children water the flower bed in the courtyard or in front of the door 7 – Parents preferences towards the way their children clean shared staircase 8 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use the roof of the house 9 – Parents preferences towards the way their children hang the clothes up in courtyards, balconies or roofs

153 1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use courtyard space

Question: Which one of your children does some activities in the courtyard (the overlooked or shared one)? Or: Which one of them uses courtyard more?

General findings

1 - Parents who responded to this question presented their notions in three ways. Some said that neither of them uses yard space and some of them neutrally said that both of their children use space of courtyard, overlooked or shared one. Last group said that their boys use yard more freely than their girls. No one declared that their girls enjoys from space of yard freer than their boys. 2 – The largest group, parents who said neither of them uses space of courtyard present different social trends. The first one seen among different groups of society (gender groups too); since yard in many cases is a common place shared by neighbors – in apartments specially - and since there is a trend of individualism and reduction of social closed relationships among people specially within neighbors of urban areas, so there is an unwillingness towards neighborhood connections; it’s against people interference towards family lives and then there is reduction in using common spaces of neighborhood or being overlooked in those spaces while doing something. This trend is fortified in heterogeneous neighborhoods from one side and by attractive activities of closed space of house like watching television or satellite programs or computer uses from the other side. 3 – The other trends among this group of parents –both don’t use - belong to those conservatives or semi conservatives who don’t like their children connections to the neighbors from the point of gender issues. 4 – Parents of neutral group which their both children use space of yard are mostly mothers with open or semi open gender attitudes – from middle and upper classes - towards gender issues. 5 – Some parents who belong to the group of “limitation for girls’ and are mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender issues – and mostly from lower and lower middle classes - asserted that their sons do some activities

154

155 in yard more than their daughters or their daughters wear covered cloths while have something to do in courtyard.

2 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use overlooked balconies

Question: Which one of your children does some activities in the balcony (the overlooked one)? Or: Which one of them uses balconies more?

General findings

1 – Near to half of the samples missed in this category. Either they have not been asked about this question or their houses don’t have an overlooked balcony. The other respondents made the same three groups. 2 – Those parents – mostly mothers - who asserted neutral notions towards using of balcony by their children are mostly either open minded in their gender attitudes or semi open but from upper classes. It’s important to point that some upper class parents of this sampling despite their semi open semi conservative notions towards gender roles showed neutral notions towards the way their children use different spaces. 3 - Parents who asserted that none of their children they prefer to use space of balcony – they either referred to the gender issues or not - are mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender relationships and from any social classes. 4 – Mothers who made third group – more free boys - and said that their boys use overlooked space of balcony freer, they pointed to the issue from different perspective. Middle or upper class’s open minded parents towards gender differences said that they have to consider social situations. Beside this view, one conservative mother asserted this difference as her internalized belief. Since this category lost near to half of the samples, so that seems the reason for the existence of only mothers in this group.

156

157

158 3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use semi public

spaces of neighborhood

Question: Which one of your children allowed to spend time in the alley or neighborhood spaces? Or: Which one of your children spends time in neighborhood spaces more?

General findings

1 – Despite the fact that many neighborhoods in Tehran have lost their old familiar characteristics so their neighborhood activities have decreased in general but still there are different perspectives to the issue. As usual, three groups of respondents answered to this question. 2 – Most of the parents of group “neutral” are mothers and with open or semi open gender attitudes from middle and upper classes. 3 - Group of “limitation for both” made mostly from fathers, conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes but from any social classes. 4 – Regarding to the neighborhood spaces, parents from any social classes and any gender attitudes included in group of “limitation for girls” or “more free boys” (the largest group), but the way that parents referred to the issue is totally different. Educated open minded parents referred to the social conditions as the reason make limitation for girls in using neighborhood freely; but more conservatives pointed to the situation as necessities of normal situation, as their internalized social values.

4 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children do the grocery shopping

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to do the grocery shopping in the neighborhood? Or: which one of them does it?

159

160

161 General findings

1 – Different interviewee parents presented their spatial preferences towards the way their children do the local shopping in four different ways. 2 – There is a general widespread preference in whole society among different groups of gender attitudes that “boys do it”, the local shopping, especially during the dark time. Of course there are differences between those parents of “open” gender attitudes who pointed to the social limitations for freely moving of girls in society related to this spatial category, and those “conservative” attitudes that look at the issue as the social normality. 3 – Some parents with “open” gender attitudes from middle and upper classes and some parents with “semi open” gender attitudes from upper class asserted no differences between their children related to this issue. For many upper class family financial facilities they enjoy, like personal cars and cell phones that allocated to each of their children, provide more security while moving in the city, so they could present neutral attitudes to the issue more easily. 4 – Those parents who declared none of them do the local shopping are mostly conservative or semi conservative householder mothers with financial difficulties in their lives. 5 – Only two (employed) mothers from lower & lower middle class despite their semi conservative gender attitudes said their daughters do the job instead of their boys; it might be because of the social security of the neighborhood they live there so they could permit their daughters do the local shopping instead of their sons.

5 – Parents attitudes towards the issue that which one of their children take the garbage out in the evening

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to take the trash out in the evening? Or: which one of them does it?

162

163 General findings

1 – At the time of interviewing with samples, in most part of the city, the system of garbage gathering has been in this way that people put their garbage in front door of the house in early evening and they were gathered at nine o’clock or later by special tracks. The “place” and “time” related to this job – putting the garbage out – mean “out” and “darkness of the night” are two definitive factors associate this job with men. 2 – So, according to mentioned relations, absolute majority of parents made the group of “boys do it”, means boys preferred to put the garbage out. 3 – A few mothers (all employed) and one father, mostly from lower and lower middle classes said that they do it themselves instead of their sons. 4 – Only two middle class and “open” minded mothers asserted their girls like their boys might put the garbage out.

6 – Parents preferences towards their children watering the courtyard’s

flower bed or the flowerbed in front of the door

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to water the courtyard flower bed (shared or overlooked one) or flower bed in front of the door? Or: which one does it?

General findings

1 – There has been a trend of increasing mass density in Tehran and inversely decreasing of open and green spaces especially those related to houses, flower beds in courtyards or in alleys so this question has lost many of interviewees because their houses don’t have any flower beds. There are also samples which haven’t been asked about this question. 2 – Many parents, among them most of the mothers – it seems accidentally - placed in the group of “none of them do it”. While in many complexes especially of upper classes, there is a custodian doing these kinds of jobs, in other cases these are parents to do the job. It sometimes considered as a house work that usually children and specially

164

165

166

167 boys are not interested to do it; it might be because they are busy with their studies and the reason among others is might be related to the decreasing of open spaces activities in general and increasing of closed space ones as it mentioned before. While considering watering as a womanish job prevents boys to do it, for girls its relation to out might be the reason too. 3 – Group of “boys do it” includes mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes and from middle and upper classes; they asserted their preferences if the task is to be done by their children. Lower class fathers belong to other group as it will be mentioned later. 4 – Group of “neutral” parents includes mostly mothers with “open” or “semi open” gender attitudes from middle and upper classes. 5 – Group of “girls do it” includes parents mostly from lower classes who live in single unit houses so they have private yards (of course it’s overlooked) and since their sons are not at home during the day (they’re employed), so their daughter do these kinds of housework – like watering flowerbeds - of course with covered clothes. Beside this there are mothers that their daughters do the job because they enjoy it; they actually belong to “neutral” group.

7 – Parents preferences towards their children cleaning shared staircase

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to clean the staircase of apartment? Or: which one does it?

About three quarters of interviewees didn’t have an appropriate respond to this question; the important reason is that in most of apartments – prevailing kind of house form in Tehran – a worker cleans shared parts of the apartments like staircase. Many of answers presented this fact; and it’s why in many cases this question hasn’t been asked at all since the question had been inappropriate in interviewer’s mind. Furthermore in some houses, single units, there isn’t a shared staircase at all. These houses are seen in lower parts of the city as small units or inversely in upper parts as large villas.

168 So with this few numbers of answers it doesn’t seem right to be entered analyzing them, although they confirm previous findings.

8 – Parents attitudes towards their children using roof of the house

Question: Which one of your children allowed to use the roof for some activities? Or: which one does something there?

During the past time when people lived in single unit houses and the roofs was private; and when the urban density was low and urban air was clean, residences of Tehran use the roofs for many activities, among them and most important ones sitting and sleeping there in summer during dark and cool time. But now, roof uses limited to placing cooler set, TV and satellite antenna and in some cases hanging up the clothes. Very seldom people use it for sitting or sleeping. So in this relation the appropriate question to be asked from samples, should be the one asking about whom goes to roof for setting the cooler or antenna or hanging the clothes up (like the next question about hanging up clothes)? But unfortunately the way the question has been asked that who uses roof for some activities caused wrong impression in interviewees’ mind about activities and in most cases people said no one use roofs; in few cases samples referred to occasional activities related to antenna or cooler setting. In this way the answers to this question were not appropriate and couldn’t present the actual situation, so it seems right not to be entered to its analyzing.

9 – Parents preferences towards their children hanging the clothes up in courtyards, balconies or roofs.

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to hang the washed clothes in the yard or balcony or roof? Or: which one does it?

169

170

171 General findings

1 – Hand washing clothes and hanging those up, as housework is usually done by women even if it is related to overlooked spaces like courtyards, balconies or roofs. Women, who care about covering their bodies, do this job with suitable covering clothes. Since doing housework has changed during last decades, this job has also changed and in some cases men help women doing this job. 2 – So the largest group belong to those parents asserted that it’s mainly mothers who do this job. These parents belong to any social groups of gender identity. 3 – The second large group includes those parents who said that their daughters help their mothers doing this job, hanging up clothes. In many families children even daughters don’t participate in doing housework; they usually are studying in schools or universities, in families whose daughters don’t continue study anymore, they usually participate to help their mothers and this is mostly seen in conservative families – fathers of this group mostly – and lower or lower middle classes (mothers & fathers). 4 – Group of “neutral” parents is only “open” minded mothers as usual that asserted both of their children participate to do this job. Some of them said their daughters do it more and it present that most of the housework are still done by women even in “open” groups of gender identity. 5 – Parents who preferred their son hang up clothes in overlooked spaces are mostly fathers with “conservative” or “semi conservative” gender attitudes.

Conclusion

Now in this part, according to the general findings of different categories related to this chapter – activities in “semi public semi private spaces” and “gender identity” – the most important social spatial trends among different social groups in fact gender groups – here, among parents with different gender identities - would be extracted. At first it’s referred to the most general trends, those which might be found among all gender groups of society. Then it’s pointed to those spatial attitudes found among some certain groups of gender identity for example “conservative” gender attitudes.

172 Now at first, the most general attitudes towards spatial uses of “semi public semi private spaces” seen among parents from different gender groups:

1 – Parents from different groups of gender identities asserted that their girls use “semi public semi private” spaces less than their boys or with more limitations. This conclusion made on the basis of former findings related to different categories of this chapter:

– finding no. 4, general findings of category balconies. - finding no. 4, general findings of category neighborhood. - finding no. 2, general findings of category local shopping. - finding no. 2, general findings of category garbage.

Comparing different spaces of the kind, semi public semi private, it’s cleared that some of these spaces are more public like neighborhood spaces and some of them are more private like space of balcony. The important point about upper mentioned attitude is that it’s mostly related to activities in more public spaces of these kind means activities in neighborhood like local shopping in neighborhood, and putting garbage at the out door. (This last activity although it’s a short time one but it’s done in the dark time. Those two first activities in the neighborhood are surely done by boys during the dark time too). It’s obvious that insecurity in outdoor spaces is an important factor involved here. So activities in this kind of spaces getting more masculine while spaces getting more public; it’s why parents from different gender attitudes placed in this group or why this attitude is a general one dominated in whole society. The other important point is the different references different gender groups made to the issue. As it’s pointed before, parents look at the issue by different values so more conservative parents think it’s a normal situation of society that girls should connect to pubic spaces of neighborhood more limited and by more controlled ways while more open minded parents look at this existed situation in society as social inequalities to be altered. It’s the important issue of internalizing the social spatial discriminations as values and believes.

173

Now, the attitudes mostly seen in more conservative groups of gender attitudes:

1 – Parents from “conservative or semi conservative” gender groups asserted that none of their children do something in semi public semi private spaces or they prefer so. These conservative parents more probably are fathers. This conclusion made on the basis of following former findings of this chapter:

– finding no. 3, general findings of category courtyards. - finding no.3, general findings of category balconies. - finding no. 3, general findings of category neighborhood. - finding no.4, general findings of category local shopping.

2 - Parents from conservative or semi conservative gender groups asserted that their boys use semi public semi private spaces more than their girls; or their girls use those spaces with more limitations. Comparing this attitude – prevailed mostly in conservative groups - with the one of general attitudes – prevailed in most of the social groups – actually they are the same; the only fact could be found why some of these cases which referred to “more free boys”, are general and the others is associated to only conservative groups is that the general cases are related to the more public of this kind of spaces like neighborhood. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings has been made before during study on different categories of semi public semi private spaces:

– Finding no. 5, general findings of category courtyards. – Finding no. 3, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. – Finding no. 5, general findings of category hanging clothes up.

3 - Parents from lower and lower middle classes with conservative attitudes towards gender issues asserted that their girls do some of the housework even in semi public

174 spaces (overlooked ones) of house like balconies, yards or roofs with proper covered clothes. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings pointed before:

- Finding no. 5, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category hanging up clothes.

And at last, attitudes have been seen in “open” group of gender identity:

1 - Parents with open attitudes towards gender issues who are mostly mothers asserted neutral notions about their children in using semi public semi private spaces most of the time. This conclusion made on the basis of following former findings:

– Findings no. 4, general findings of category courtyards. - Finding no.2, general findings of category balconies. – Finding no.2, general findings of category neighborhood. - Finding no 3, general findings of category local shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category garbage. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category hanging up clothes.

In this way there is a meaningful relationship between “gender identity” and “spatial identity” in “semi private semi public spaces” so parents with more conservative gender attitudes presented more “conservative” or “unequal” spatial attitudes and inversely more open gender attitudes asserted more “open” or “neutral” spatial attitudes. Furthermore there is a tendency towards “conservative spatial behavior” in using “semi private semi public spaces” throughout society. We emphasize on “behavior” instead of “attitude” here and it points to the mentioned differences between open minded parents and conservative ones; while they are all placed in the group of “unequal” spatial identity, in fact they presented different reasoning for their behaviors.

175 Analyzing “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status”

“Sex” Looking at the differences between mothers and fathers, following relations have been repeated in different categories of this chapter about fathers that: 1 – In different categories, most of the time fathers’ distribution tends to the group of “conservative” or “semi conservative” attitudes towards the issue (like group of limitation for girls). This is clear in categories no. 1 (yard), 2 (balcony), 3 (neighborhood), 4 (local shopping), 5 (garbage), and 6 (watering flowerbeds). 2 - In “conservative” or “semi conservative” spatial attitudes, most of the time, the weight of the parents distribution tends to the fathers. This is presented in categories no. 1 (yard), 2 (balcony, 3 (neighborhood), 6 (watering flowerbed), 9 (hanging up clothes). And inversely the most important fact about mothers is that in repeated situations: 1 - Most of the time, number of mothers in “open” groups of spatial attitudes, relatively has been considerable. This is the fact about categories no.1 (yard), 2 (balconies), 3 (neighborhood), and 9 (hanging up clothes). 2 – In “open” groups of neutral, the weights of interviewees have been towards mothers. This fact has been the case in all categories. So in general, mothers, in opposite to fathers in different situations have shown relatively more “neutral” or “open” spatial attitudes. And the opposite conditions are the fact for fathers.

“Class” During debates on nine categories of this chapter (except categories no. 7 & 8), and on relationships between “spatial identity” and “gender identity”, and according to the tables no. 1 to 9 (except no. 7 & 8) of this chapter, it has been pointed in different categories that: educated parents from middle and upper classes have mostly presented equitable “open” attitudes towards spatial issues and inversely low educated parents from lower middle and lower classes have mostly presented more “conservative” notions. This has been concluded according to following points:

176 1 – Groups of neutral parents made mostly from educated samples from middle and upper classes. 2 – Educated parents from middle and upper classes who are seen within conservative general spatial groups, most of the time were those “open” (in their gender attitudes) minded parents within conservative spatial groups – like groups of “more free boys” - they were analyzing the social conditions as the reasons for their conservative spatial behavior. 3 - Again these educated parents from middle and upper classes who rarely belonged to group of “both don’t use” or “limitation for both”, are those “open” minded parents which other reasons except their gender identities had been the motives for their spatial behavior for example compare these two sayings from two mothers who are opposite in their gender identities but both placed in the same group of “both don’t use” courtyard:

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Your yard is overlooked by other neighbors. Are your children allowed to use it? -They are allowed but they don’t use it themselves. They don’t like to use the yard. -What’s the reason? -It’s so small. Maybe the reason is that it’s not beautiful perhaps if it was built more beautifully, they would prefer to spend if it was built more beautiful. It’s not big either. Therefore they wouldn’t think about it.

Sample no. 5 (an educated housewife – high school diploma - from lower middle class): ?Q: If you had a shared yard ،would they use A: No ،now we can use the roof but my son doesn’t go there. He thinks maybe our neighbors .(don’t like it. My husband even doesn’t go near the windows ،causes a problem (for neighbors

4 –Several parents from upper classes despite their semi conservative attitudes (actually semi conservative) towards gender issues showed open neutral notions towards

177 spatial issues related to their children in different cases. It seems financial possibilities they have and their more connections to the modern culture of western world make the situation so that their both children connect to public spaces more freely even than the children of “open” minded parents. 5 - “Conservative” group of “limitation for girls” or “boys do it”, most of the time included more parents from lower or lower middle classes, these parents showed internalized values towards the issue. 6 – Those activities in semi public semi private spaces of the house which considered as housework are done by covered daughters helping mothers mostly in lower and lower middle classes. It’s based on traditional division of gender roles. To précising these parallel changes of “social class” and “spatial identity”, or “educational level” and “spatial identity”, as was pointed in the discussion related to “gender identity” also of “private space”, two last chapters, we could see the mentioned parallel existences of “open” and “conservative” spatial identities in each social classes (although by different strengths), in other words, parallel existences of these opposite notions throughout society. Distribution of different spatial attitudes would be better explained by the “educational level” than the “social class” since the “social class” is a multilayer variable composed by not only “educational level” but also “income” and “employment”. If we set aside two last variables and only consider the “educational level”, it would be cleared that while conservative spatial attitudes are seen throughout social classes including upper classes too, but the most conservative claims never seen among higher educated people. The opposite trend means distribution of “open” spatial group also excludes “open” spatial attitudes from lower educated samples (of course not mothers). For presenting how “educational level” could be more implying than the “social class”, we could compare these two answers of two fathers which although they placed in the same middle class, also the same group of “boys do it” – in category of watering flowerbed - but they actually have different level of education along with their opposite gender identities and different attitudes to this spatial issue:

178

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class):

Because of the situations here, my son usually does it. Not because I have problem with it, just for the atmosphere of here.

Sample no. 10 (a low educated and householder father from middle class): Which one of your children has the permission to water the flower bed of the yard? The boy Who waters the flowerbed in front of the door? None of them. The municipality would do. But if it was necessary, my son does it. Sometimes I myself water the flowers too.

And the same is about these two fathers of upper class placed in two opposite spatial attitudes:

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Do they have permission to spend time in an overlooked balcony? Even they are seen? 100% there’s no problem

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from upper class): If your balcony was overlooked by your neighbors’ house or the alley or the street, would you let your children use it? No, they’re not comfortable themselves and also they draw other people’s attention.

These two fathers while both from upper class they presented opposite notions towards this spatial attitude. They have different levels of education and different kinds of gender attitudes either. So it confirms again the more importance of “educational level” than “social class” to imply “gender spatial identity”.

179

Breadwinning status

Generally since there are small numbers of samples within different groups of gender identity – considering 15 groups of study – while in this chapter near to half of the samples missed for many questions and probably because of the other influential factors like “sex” or “class”, also existence of general spatial attitudes in society, a clear relationship couldn’t be seen between gender identity and breadwinning status.

Internalized discrimination

This matter was pointed for different times meanwhile this chapter’s discussion; internalized discriminations could generally being interpreted as being unconscious towards unequal gender relations. This issue is a relational situation which has been referred previously in different parts as followed” - In general changes from “conservative” spatial attitudes towards “open” spatial attitudes, means a ranges of people from whom they are unconscious to those who are conscious towards existing unequal gender relations. - This different consciousness was seen among each spatial group of “boy preferred to do the job” or “none of them preferred to do the job”; these groups against “neutral” groups apparently seem to present a conservative attitude towards using different spaces, while in fact samples within each group presented different consciousnesses towards the situation, since they delivered different reasoning for their attitudes or behaviors. - The variables studied here as they influence on “gander identity” or “spatial identity”, mean “class”, education”, “sex”, and breadwinning status, all of them should be considered as influential to “gender consciousness” either.

180 Chapter Seven

“Gender” and “Public Space”

Introduction

In this chapter questions related to public spaces of city will be investigated. Through these questions mothers and fathers of young girls and boys expressed their opinions about how their children (boys and girls) should use different public spaces or how their children use those spaces in their real practice which both reflect parents’ attitudes towards studying spatial issues. Ten questions in this general subject made ten categories of public space here that are examined from a gender perspective:

1 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children go to educational spaces. 2 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could drive in the city. 3 - Parents attitudes towards the way their children do their personal shopping. 4 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children spend their free times in the city. 5 - Parents attitudes towards the ultimate time in the evening their children could stay out of home. 6 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could cycle in the neighborhood or the city. 7 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could ride a motorbike in the city. 8 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could educate in other city far from family. 9 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children do official or banking affairs. 10 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could work to earn money.

181 1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children commute to educational spaces

Question: Since when have your children gone to school or university alone and how? Or: Do you let them go to school or university alone? (Table no. 1)

General findings

1 – Responding to this question, parents expressed their notions in two different ways: those who presented the same attitudes towards their both girls and boys according the way and conditions they commute to educational spaces; and those parents who let their boys commute to school more independently than their girls. 2 – Considering this issue (the way of commuting to school), some strong factors except gender attitude involved: - The neighborhood social security - The plan of neighborhood and its safety from motor traffic (safety conditions of the route between house and school considering motor traffic) - the distance between house and school. These factors strongly influence the condition of independency of girls and boys in the way they go to and back from school and obscure the influences of parents’ gender attitudes into the using of space considering this issue. 3 – Mentioned conditions – social security, safety from motor transportation, and short pedestrian distance to school – if happened in neighborhood, the situations could be so that parents feel security and let their children even their little girls go to elementary school independently. In these cases the influence of gender attitude that makes differences among different gender groups of parents is weaken so different parents of different gender identity groups could be seen in the same group who asserted the same condition of independency for their boys and girls in going to school (group of equal situation). 4 – “Age” is other affective factor which influences the independency of girls and boys. In fact, as much as they are getting old as teenagers or older, they go to university or their job more independently. In this situation differences between girls and boys in the ways of commuting to university or job presented in the kind of vehicle they use

182 (from the point of their personal safety) or the time of day and night they move in the city (it’s the subject of other question). 5 – Except upper mentioned conditions in the city or neighborhood which could provide the same safe situations for both girls and boys, many parents from different social classes or different gender identity groups expressed more dependency of their girls compared to their boys: parents accompany their girls going to school more than their boys; when they both using school services, boys leave this kind of vehicle service in younger age sooner than girls usually during secondary school, while girls continue till the end of high school; boys use different systems of public transport more easily but girls use the safer ones. This is all because of the insecure situations in the city caused girls commute to school in a more controlled way. 6 - In fact gender differences existed in practice in society considering this issue of commuting to school is strongly influenced by social reality of insecurity for women too. These situations like the urban structure and neighborhood social security obscure the parents’ gender identity as an affective variable here as it is seen in other cases of this study, so the meaningful relations couldn’t be seen between parents’ gender identity and the way of children’s commuting to school (spatial identity). 7 – As conclusion, there are two social trends regarding this issue of commuting to school, both general and distributed among different gender groups; first trend is that in secure situations in the neighborhood caused from urban structure and social factors or short distance to school, parents let both their children go to school independently; and the second trend is that in insecure situation – caused from motor traffic and social factors too - dominated in many parts of the city, girls commute to school under more controlled ways. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” - Since “gender identity” couldn’t present its influences here, its variables of “class”, “sex”, and “breadwinning status” don’t show meaningful relations with the “spatial identity” neither.

183

184

185 2 – Parents attitudes towards the conditions their children could drive in the city

Question: Which one of your children could have or drive private car in the city? (If you could provide a private car for your children, which one of them is preferred)? (Table no. 2)

General Finding

1 – Regarding the issue of driving in the city, parents expressed their attitudes in three ways: those who declared no preferences about their girls or boys driving in the city; the second and third group are those who mentioned one of their girls or boys in their preferences. 2 – The largest group belongs to those who presented a neutral attitude towards the issue; they are mostly educated parents from middle and upper classes that distributed among different gender groups except conservative parents. 3 - Some parents – few ones – mentioned their girls in their preferences. The important point about their reasoning is that they pointed to the more safety using the car could provide for their girls moving in the city especially during the dark time. These parents are mostly from upper class and “open” groups of gender identity. 4 – Those parents who mentioned their boys in their preferences, implicitly referred to their sons’ employment as the reason that they need a car for easier commuting to their job. This is the fact especially about lower and lower middle classes that their sons work very soon after graduation. Furthermore these parents are mostly conservative in their gender attitudes; this is clear especially for fathers; all the conservative fathers and most of the conservative mothers belong to this group. 5 – So in general, there is a trend of parallel changes between “gender identity” and “spatial attitude” that when “gender identity” getting more open, “spatial attitude” towards the condition of children’s driving in the city getting more neutral (or in this case towards girls’ benefits). Existence of parents with semi open, semi conservative gender attitudes in different groups of spatial attitudes from open to conservative shows again the duality of situations this largest group of society lives in.

186 6 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” (variables of gender identity) – Distribution of fathers and mothers (variable of sex) among different groups of “spatial attitudes” presents relative equality. “Social class” shows a parallel changes in relation with “spatial identity”; it means that distribution of parents of different social classes among different spatial groups is so that the class goes higher where the spatial group tends to “open” notions (means “neutral” notions towards girls & boys’ driving and for this case means group of “girl preferred” too) and inversely. In other words, the numbers of upper classes (upper class and upper middle class) samples getting more when spatial group getting “open”; inversely in “conservative” group of spatial attitudes (group of “boy preferred” here), the number of lower classes (lower class and lower middle class) samples getting more. This relation, seen within changes of “spatial identity” and “social class”, is the same as relation between “spatial identity” and “gender identity” mentioned before, since “social class” is one variable of “gender identity” and the main among them. Deliberation on sample distribution, also shows other mentioned fact about social classes that: despite the process of arranging more “open” spatial or gender attitudes in upper classes and inversely more “conservative” spatial or gender attitudes in lower classes, but also there are samples of different social classes in each of “open” group of “neutral”, “girl preferred” and “conservative” group of “boy preferred”. This indicates second social trend of coexistence of “open” and “conservative” notions along, in one “social class. “Breadwinning status” shows most of the householders (fathers and mothers) in conservative group of “boy preferred”; and most of the participants (fathers and mothers) in open group of “equal situation”.

3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children do their personal shopping

Question: How do your children do their personal shopping, with parents, or friends or alone? (Table no. 3)

187

188 General findings

1 – Regarding the issue of children’s shopping, parents asserted four different kinds of attitudes: some parents said one of their girls or boys are more independent in their personal shopping; some said that both of them are independent and some declared that both of them do their shopping with parents or other member of family. 2 - Considering the interviewee distributions, it seems this issue – shopping – is strongly influenced by financial possibilities of social class so in those upper middle or upper classes with more budgets for shopping, children do their shopping more easily and more independently; and inversely in lower middle or lower classes with limited budgets, shopping is done by parents’ supervision in more cases. 3 – Few mothers mostly from upper class and all open minded in their gender attitudes asserted that their daughters do shopping independently and sometimes do it for their sons too, while their sons depend on their families in this relation; and the reasons except family gender attitudes, seems to be related to age, personal characteristics or sociability of the sons. 4 - Those parents who let both of their children do shopping independently are either those parents from middle classes belong to open gender attitude groups, or upper classes parents either open or semi open – semi conservative towards gender issues; in fact for upper class, financial possibilities and the money spending for the children needs make the situation so that semi open - semi conservative parents of this social class let both of their girls and boys doing their shopping independently. 5 - Controlling parents who accompany their both children in their shopping are mostly those from lower and middle classes that either they have presented before conservative – or semi conservative - gender attitudes or they have limited money to spend for children’s shopping (lower class). 6 – At the same time, some parents mostly from lower and lower middle, either conservative or open said that they (mostly mothers) accompany their girls but not the boys in their shopping. It presents more dependency of girls to mothers in their shopping in some families. Existence of some open minded parents in this conservative spatial attitude is in the result of social insecurity for women that closes this spatial behavior to

189 general one and caused these open minded parents to be influenced in their spatial behaviors; of course these parents are more conscious to their behaviors. 7 – The important point is that all householder mothers from lower and middle classes belong to those two groups of “equal dependency” and “more independent boys”. It means more conservative spatial attitudes towards their children both or their daughters only. 8 – So in general regarding this issue of shopping, there is a general association between “gender identity” and “spatial attitude”; a parallel change of “gender identity” with “spatial identity”; it means while “gender identity” getting more open, “spatial identity” getting more neutral and even towards girls independency in this case. Also there is a strong influence of financial possibilities of social class regarding this issue of shopping. 9 – Influences of “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status” – While mothers have more members in two “open” groups of “more independent girl” and “equal independency”, fathers have more members in two “conservative” ones of “equal dependency” and “more independent boys”. “Social class” firstly presented its influences in upper mentioned process in last paragraph as a variable of “gender identity”; secondly it presents its influence this time stronger because of the association between financial possibility and shopping; more upper and middle class samples seen in two “open” spatial attitudes (“more independent girl” and “equal independency”), and more lower and lower middle class samples in “conservative” groups of “equal dependency” and “more independent boy”. Third important point about social class is that regarding “conservative” spatial group of “both dependencies”, samples with “conservative” gender attitude from all social classes are seen; it presents of existence of conservative notions either towards gender or space in all social classes; of course as it was mentioned in chapter of “gender identity”, “conservative” notions haven’t seen in higher educated people from any social classes. Higher educated people at their most conservative situation are placed in “semi conservative, semi open” group of attitudes. The opposite relation means lack of association between low educated parents with “open” spatial attitudes is true for the fathers not the mothers.

190

191 The meaningful relation of “breadwinning status” with spatial identity is seen in the association of all householder mothers (except upper class householder) and “conservative” spatial attitudes; and including of most participant breadwinner mothers in group of “neutral”.

4 - Parents attitudes towards the ways their children spend their free times in the public spaces of city

Question: 1 - How do your children spend their free time in public spaces of city (like cinemas, parks, restaurants, sport centers …), with families, friends, or alone? 2 - Do they spend most of their free time out or at home? (Table no. 4)

General findings:

1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways that their children spend their free time out of the house could be placed in four groups; group who asserted equal dependency for their boys and girls, group who expressed equal independency for them, and two groups who asserted more dependency of their girls or boys to their families. 2 - It’s worth mentioning that only one mother said her girls go out more to the city than her boy and it’s because of son’s personality. 3 – Group of equal independency who asserted that both daughter and son spend most of their free time out of the house independently with friends, mostly includes upper class parents – semi open or open in their gender attitudes – and open minded mothers from middle class. The important point about upper class is that their children have got different material facilities for using city spaces more easily and safely like personal cars or personal cell phones, so even parents with semi conservative notions towards gender issues let their children both spend time out of the house with more peaceful mind and less anxiety. 4 – Parents from different social classes – with decreases among upper class - and mostly fathers made the third group of respondents that asserted the same dependency of their children to their family in spending time in the city. Although there are open minded

192 parents within group but relatively this group included more conservative attitudes towards gender issues. This is the fact especially among fathers. 5 – The last group belongs to largest group of parents (mostly mothers) that presented more independency of their sons in this relation, that boys going out and use public spaces of the city more easily and more often than girls; although they are mostly from lower and middle classes with semi conservative or conservative gender attitudes, but upper social classes and open gender attitudes are also included., so it is also a general notion among society. Among this group more conservative parents expressed the situation as social normality, and parents who pointed to the social abnormality that cause girls couldn’t use city as free as boys and to be more dependent on their families (they are conscious parents with open attitudes towards gender issues). This largest group shows the general situation in society that girls comparing to boys use public spaces of the city with more limitations, either girls themselves don’t use city freely or couldn’t use or they are not allowed. 6 – The other fact about this group – more dependency of girls - is that all the householder mothers from lower and middle class belong to this group. As pointed before, these lonely mothers live in the city without proper social support and with more anxiety towards their situations in society, so it’s natural that they worry about their girls more and try to save them from the dangers of the city. 7 – As conclusion, this issue again shows the parallel changes between “gender identity” and “spatial identity”; it points to the increasing of samples with “open” gender attitudes in two groups of “more independent girls” and “equal independency” and inversely decreasing of those samples in two groups of “more independent boys” and “equal dependency”. The other fact is shown by this issue is the more insecurity for girls and women in society that cause general spatial attitude in society regarding the “more dependency of girls”; of course there are differences among “conservative” and “open” samples pointing to this notion according their consciousness towards gender differences. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” –Mothers comparing fathers have more members in two open groups of spatial identity (sex). Despite this, total numbers of fathers and mothers in conservative group of “more independent boy”

193

194

195

196 are high and near to each other; this show the situation resulting from social insecurity in the city. “Class” shows its influences strongly in placing most members of upper class in group of “equal independency” and all lower class samples in conservative spatial attitudes (“more independent boys” and “equal dependency”); so as before, class influences seen in parallel with gender identity changes within different spatial attitudes. Secondly regarding to two conservative groups of spatial attitudes having members from different social classes, it reflects the social insecurity specially for women from one side, and it presents spatial conservative notions as the general notion in all social classes of society from the other side. “Breadwinning status” (being housekeeper or householder or participant breadwinner) doesn’t show meaningful relations with “spatial identity” except that conservative householder mother from middle and lower all belong to conservative group of “more independent boy”.

5 – Parents attitudes towards the ultimate time in the evening their children could stay out of home

Question: How long after darkness (till what time) could your children stay out of home? (Table no. 5)

General findings

1 - Different interviewee parents presented their notions towards the time in the evening their boys and girls should be at home in three ways; some set the longer time for their boys could be out, some set the same limitation, short time after darkness for both of them could be out, and at last some parents allow both of them to be out for longer time after darkness. 2 – There aren’t any parents who allow their daughters stay out of home for longer time than their boys.

197 3 - The absolute majority of parents allow their boys come back home later than their girls. This attitude distributed among all social groups of society, within mothers and fathers, different social classes, different position of breadwinning in family, and also different groups of gender identities. So again social insecurity for girls provides the same condition for all groups of society and obscures the influences of other variables. But the important point here again is the way that parents point to the issue so that conservative parents think about this issue as a natural and normal fact of relationship between genders that make unsafe situation for girls so they try to make secure situation for their girls by not letting them to be out after darkness and let their boys experience their dominated situations. While open minded parents most of the time refer to the issue of insecurity for girls as the social abnormality that could and should be changed to ideal one in that every one like women feel safe and move in the city freely. These parents while preserve their daughters from dangers of the city, they believe that their boys should be learned to behave in society in a right way to provide secure situations for all. 4 – The important point about mentioned group – more freely boys – is again that all the householder mothers of any social class belong to this group who are worry about their girls. 5 - Some strict parents, mostly fathers and mostly with conservative or semi conservative gender identity from middle and upper classes asserted the same limited time for both of their girls and boys. 6 –A few parents, only from upper class considered the same time relatively long for both of their children. These parents instead of their gender notions, semi open – semi conservative, because of their material facilities - providing private car or possibility of using private taxis or having cell phone - for all of their young children could let them to be out of home safe for longer time. 7 – Here, two social trends could be seen; one trend, general and strong included in most of social & gender groups and resulted from the insecure conditions for the girls in the city especially during dark time that caused more limitations and more limited time for them staying out of home. As before, kind of referring different groups of gender identities did to the issue is totally different and it again indicates parallel changes of “spatial identity” and “gender identity”. These situations of insecurity in the city caused

198

199

200 some more strict parents specially fathers make limitations for both of them. Second trend only seen in upper classes that letting their both children staying out for long time and it’s possible because of their financial facilities. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – As mentioned, social situations of insecurity for girls especially during the dark time provide the same general attitudes among samples towards the issue but among this general attitude relatively more mothers (sex), more educated people of middle and upper classes (class) and more participant breadwinners (breadwinning status) expressed their open analysis towards the issue. This is beside the conditions of some upper class people who could provide same secure situation for their children by their material possibilities (influence of class); also this fact that the father’s numbers in strict group of “equal limitation” is clearly more than mothers (influence of sex).

6 – Parents attitudes towards their children’s cycling in the neighborhood or the city

Question: Which one of your children could cycle in the neighborhood area or city? (Table no. 6)

General findings

1 – As introduction, cycling isn’t a kind of usual transportation vehicle in Tehran now days and the urban planning and design didn’t regard it to plan especial safe routs for cycling. So in general it’s not accepted as a safe vehicle in the city except as the recreational facilities in some rare neighborhood or in some special parks. From the other side it also considered as a male vehicle; from the point of cultural and social values, females are not usual to cycle in the city freely everywhere, except little girls or within some certain neighborhoods and parks far away from public scene. 2 - Parents attitudes towards their children’s cycling in the neighborhood or the city are distributed relatively balanced (total numbers of mothers and fathers) among three groups of notions: 1 - Parents who asserted that their both of their children allowed to

201 cycle but there are some external limiting conditions. 2 – Parents who allowed none of them cycle in the city. 3 – And those parents who let their boys cycle but not their girls. 3 - Those parents of first group asserted that if the city is safe from the motor vehicles and if the cultural and social aspects permit, they certainly let their both children enjoy from cycling in the city. These parents are mostly mothers and belong mostly to the open and open informed groups of gender identity; they are only from middle and upper classes; they deliberate the issue very well. 4 – Parents of second group (both not allowed) definitely rejected their children cycle in the city. Despite apparent similarity with the first group they didn’t refer to the issue like them. Insecurity routes and limiting social values are something usual in their notions not challenging with them. These parents are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. 5 – Parents of third group said their boys are allowed and cycle in the neighborhood or city, but their girls are not allowed or don’t do it. Samples of this notion although included few open minded mothers but they are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. Existing open minded parents in this group is in the result of the social and cultural limitations for girls’ cycling in the public that they didn’t refer to it clearly. 6 – Almost all householder mother from lower and lower middle classes belong to two conservative notions towards cycling in the city; it means groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed”. 7 – Again it could be seen a general trend relating the issue of cycling in the city; this strong trend shows changes in attitudes towards cycling associated with changes of gender identity that parents of the open groups of gender identity mostly like cycling for both girls & boys (if it was possible) while more conservative ones don’t let none of them or only their girls cycling in the public. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – Mothers comparing fathers (sex) include most of the numbers of group “both allowed” means open and conscious group of spatial attitude. Only upper and middle classes included in group of “both allowed” and only few upper class in conservative groups of “both not allowed” or “boys allowed” (class).

202

203 Regarding “social class” again must be pointed that meanwhile the general associated changing process between “spatial” or “gender” attitudes and “social class” mentioned above, there are minorities of samples narrate about other process; it presents the existence of all social classes in each group of “spatial” or “gender” identity. In most of the cases like this category of cycling, there are samples of upper classes in “conservative” spatial attitudes; the opposite situation means existence of lower classes in “open” spatial groups are rarely and only within mothers observed; and as it will be analyzed later it’s because of the variable of education in “social class”. Most of participant breadwinner mothers belong to open group of “both allowed”. And almost all householder mothers from lower and lower middle classes belong to two conservative notions towards cycling in the city; it means groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed” (breadwinning status).

7 - Parents attitudes towards their children’s riding motor bike in the city

Question: Which one of your children could ride a motor bike in the city? (Table no. 7)

General findings

1 - Motor bike is one of the usual vehicles of transportation in Tehran, only used by men and since it costs relatively lower so used mostly by lower and lower middle classes for commuting to work or as a facility of their job (carrying something related to their job). And it sometimes used dangerously as family’s vehicle of transportation. 2 - Most of the parents – from any social classes or any gender group - disagreed with their sons and of course their daughters ride motor bike in the city because of its low safety. 3 – Other few parents (conservative or semi conservative mostly from lower and lower middle social classes) said that their sons ride or could ride motor bike in the city. They mostly use it for commuting to their work.

204 4 – So there is a strong and general trend of refusing riding motorbike because of its low safety in all gender groups. Other trend presents boys’ riding bicycle in lower or lower middle classes usually with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes. 5 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” - In first trend, since “gender identity” doesn’t show its influences, neither do its variables. In second trend only “class” shows its affect.

8 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could educate in other city far from family

Question: In your opinion, which one of your children could continue her (his) education in university in other cities? (Table no. 8)

General Findings

1 – Parents who responded to this question – not all the samples - made three groups of answers: those who let both their girls and boys continue their education in other cities; those who disagreed with this issue; and those who let only their boys go to other cities for university education. 2 - The largest group of interviewee that among them mothers made the majority, agreed with both of their children continuing their university education in other cities far away from their families. Large number of interviewee in this group shows again the importance of university education for both girls and boys in people’s mind from any social groups. 3 – While parents from any social classes and any gender identity groups belong to this group, and this shows the expansion of the notion among society, but considering the table no. 8, most of the upper class interviewees and half of the middle class respondents belong to this group of agreeable; and this shows either the importance of the issue for these social classes or their financial possibilities to make them able to send their children to other cities.

205

206 4 - Parents (mostly mothers) of the second group who presented their disagreements with their both girls and boys go to another city for their university education, conservative or semi conservative, either are anxious parents about unsafe society, or have financial problem in this relation (lower classes). 5 – Parents who said that they let only their boys go to other cities for education they expressed their anxious about social insecurity for their girls, lonely in other cities far from the family. This group made from mostly conservative or semi conservative parents. Most of them are fathers, and most of the respondent fathers belong to this group too. 6 – Although only half of the samples and fewer fathers among them responded to this question, but a general trend could be seen that shows parallel changes of “gender attitudes” with “spatial attitudes” towards the subject of education in other cities; it presented relatively more open gender attitudes in group of “both allowed” and more conservative ones in conservative groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed”. This trend seems to include gradually more and more from conservative gender group in neutral spatial group since there are some of them already; in fact within this trend, neutral attitudes towards the issue is more strong even now. 7 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – For this general trend mothers showed more eagerness towards the issue (sex); middle and upper class show more numbers that except than their gender attitudes it’s because of their financial possibilities (class). By these numbers of samples it’s seen no meaningful relation between “breadwinning status” and spatial attitudes”.

9 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children do family’s official or banking affairs

Question: Do you let your children (which one) doing official or bank affairs of the family? (Table no. 9)

General findings

1 - Different sample parents presented their attitudes about how their children do family’s official or banking affairs, in four different ways.

207 2 – Only one householder mother said that her girl do the job instead of her son. According to her other sayings about her son that he has done some social crime, it seems she doesn’t trust her son for doing this kind of job. 3 – Majority of parents, mostly mothers said their both children are allowed or are doing the job, no difference. These notions belong to different social groups of gender attitudes and different social classes, of course with more members of middle and upper. In other words, some members of lower class, many members of middle class and all members of upper class included. Those who referred to the age of children as the involved condition are included in this group too 4 – A few mothers lower or lower middle class householders (conservative or semi conservative) said that their children don’t do the job, so they themselves do it. 5 – Some parents – more fathers among them and most of the respondent fathers in this group too – asserted their son do the job. They are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. 6 – Although small numbers of samples included but a general trend could be seen. This trend shows relatively more open gender attitudes with more neutral spatial attitudes from one side and more conservative gender attitudes with more conservative groups of spatial attitudes – “both not to do” and “boys allowed” – from the other side. This trend meanwhile shows some conservative or semi conservative parents in group of letting “both do the job” and it shows that this trend – girls’ participating in social works like boys – is developing among more conservative groups too, gradually. It also indicates of relatively more women’s security in this official places. 7 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – Because of the small numbers of samples specially among fathers, it’s not possible to conclude about “sex”; only regarding mothers could be said that most of them placed in the neutral group of “both allowed”. “Breadwinning status” doesn’t present its affect because of the same reason, also because of the general trend in society about social practice of women. But social “class” changes parallel by “gender identity” in relation to “spatial attitudes” towards the issue. But the important point is that this trend changes gradually to be a general one included all gender groups in neutral group of spatial identity, it means more

208

209 and more gender identity groups of all social classes of society let both their girls and boys do this kind of job.

10 – Parents attitudes towards the conditions their children could work out of the house to have income

Question: Do you let your children (which one) work to have income, by which conditions? (Table no. 10)

General findings

1 – Responding to this question, parents’ answering made only two groups; those who permit both of them to have a job in society and those who permit only their boys to work. 2 – Majority of parents and almost all the mothers allow their both children working out of the house, so they are from any social groups of gender attitude or any social classes. This general notion towards the issue of working girls rather than its social – economical necessities, it seems influenced by more safety of this kind of official working places for women comparing to other public spaces. It seems the same regarding the last category about banking or official works. 3 – Mostly lower class parents of this group (agreeable) and semi conservative expressed some kind of condition for their working girls, something like a good feminine environment, or a promising and honorable job. 4 – All the householder mothers included in the group of agreeable with working girls. Those conservative householder mothers from lower and lower middle classes that presented before their unwillingness to their employment – they have said before that they work because they have to, in absence of their husbands – this time said their daughters are better to work. It seems again that the financial conditions of the family force them to live opposite to their wishes. Also it’s the social changing trend that they couldn’t stop following it; they have accepted before their girls continue their education

210

211 at least till graduation of high school; now they couldn’t stop their girls to get benefit from their education, to work in society, being independent and having income. 5 – All the semi conservative fathers of this group, agreeable are participant breadwinner and have employed wives; so it seems that even if they have some conservative notions towards gender issues, but since their wives are working and they have accepted it before, so they let their daughters work too. 6 – Group disagreeable with working girls that let only their boys work outside, are almost all householder conservative fathers. 7 – Although this question like two last ones included half of the samples and less fathers among them, but a general trend could be seen in society accepting girls employment out of the house more and more, only some conservative householder fathers from lower class and a few from middle class refused their daughters’ employment. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – regarding the subject of employment, relatively more mothers (sex), more middle and upper classes (class), and at last more employed mothers and more participant fathers (breadwinning status) are included in more open attitudes towards employment (group of “both allowed”).

Conclusions

In this section, main spatial attitudes concluded from the chapter’s ten part discussions about the parents’ attitudes towards the preferred way their girls and boys use public spaces of the city, the general findings and the main trends defined in each ten sections. At first it’s pointed to those general attitudes of society that’s expanded in almost all social groups of gender identity; they certainly include as much more of parents of different social classes, fathers and mothers, and parents with different status of breadwinning in their family (three variables of sex, class & breadwinning status considered in this study for gender identity as the main independent variable of study). Then it’s referred to those attitudes belong to some gender groups of urban society of Tehran. It means attitudes mostly seen in, for example “open” group of gender identity or

212 those of “conservative” groups. It’s important to note that “semi conservative – semi open” groups of gender identity have always a position shared with one of the “open” or “conservative” groups. In fact this binary position between those two groups is the logic of their name. In the next part, consideration would be towards the three variables – “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – of “gender identity and their relations with “spatial attitude”. Finally there would be a discussion about important issue of “internalized discrimination”. Now at first, the most general attitudes:

A - The most general spatial attitudes

These are notions which are seen throughout different social groups of the study, it means different groups of “gender identity” from “open” to “conservative” groups of parents. It also means almost all gender identity groups with their changes by social class, sex, and breadwinning status:

A - 1 – Parents by different gender identities believe that their girls should use urban spaces of the city with more limitations and by more controlled ways: The common point among all following cases is issue of insecurity for women in the city that in some cases added by social cultural understanding of the issue. This conclusion made on the basis of some general findings of different ten section discussion in this chapter: – Finding no. 5, general findings of category commuting to school. – Finding no. 6, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home.

A – 2 – Parents from different “gender identities” believe neutrally towards their

boys’ and girls’ some activities in society.

213 In addition to the upper mentioned attitude – more preservation of girls in society – as a common attitude in society, there is other general notion in different gender groups which look at some girls and boys activities in society in similar way. In most of these attitudes, some other strong conditions in society influence the situation and weaken gender differences and push it to other areas. According to four following cases and except the first finding, others indicate the general process of society towards equal gender relations. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section discussion:

- Finding no. 2, general findings of category motorbike riding. - Findings no. 2 & 3, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category banking and official works. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category employment.

B – Attitudes mostly seen in “open” groups of gender identity

These parents are mostly educated from middle and upper classes.

B – 1 – Parents of more “open” group of “gender identity” believe neutrally towards their girls’ and boys’ activities in public spaces of the city. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings of ten section discussion of the chapter:

- Finding no.2, general findings of category driving in the city. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no.6, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category cycling.

B – 2 – Parents of more “open” groups of “gender identity” believe they should consider more facilities for their girls’ safety in society.

214

This conclusion made on the basis of one following case of ten section discussion:

- Finding no. 3, general findings of category driving in the city.

C – Attitudes are mostly seen in more “conservative” groups of gender identity.

These parents, “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open”, although seen in different social classes but they increases by social class getting lower and uneducated.

C – 1 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” present more dependency of their girls to family or more limitation for them compared to their boys in using public spaces and inversely more freedom for their boys This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings of ten section discussion in the chapter:

- Finding no. 5, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category banking or official works. - Finding no.6, general findings of category employment.

This attitude of more “conservative” parents has been pointed before as a “general” attitude. By precision on the base findings of each attitude, it would be found that while cases of “general” attitude, mostly referred to recreational activities in the city like shopping, cases included in “conservative” attitude referred to official daily jobs like banking jobs of family which are more secure regarding women presence.

C – 2 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” consider some facilities for their boys because of his employment or breadwinning role

These parents are naturally from lower or lower middle classes. Conclusion made on the basis of following findings:

215

- Finding no.4, general findings of category driving in the city. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category riding motorbike in the city.

C – 3 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” control both of their girls and boys in their social activities and caused their dependency on the family

These conservative or semi conservative parents are much controller and make limitations for both of their children. They mostly belong to lower or lower middle classes or some times middle class. It seems for these parents who make limitation for both their girls and boys, besides their gender conservatism, other factors like social pessimism are also included. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section discussion:

- Finding no.5, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category education in other cities. - Funding no.4, general findings of category banking or official works.

So regarding to mentioned spatial attitudes appropriated to different “gender identities”, there is general conclusion that: “spatial identity” gets along with “gender identity”.

Variables “class”, “sex”, and “breadwinning status”

“Sex”

In fact differences between mothers and fathers regarding their spatial attitudes. Different findings distinguished that:

216 Mothers presented more “open” spatial attitudes in many cases and inversely fathers presented more conservative spatial attitude in many cases. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings of ten section discussions:

- Finding no. 3, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no. 9, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category ultimate time being out. - Finding no.8, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category employment. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category employment.

“Class”

Regarding to the different social – spatial trends defined during general findings of ten section discussions and the debates about three variables of “gender identity” in those ten general findings, a general common trend could be concluded that indicates: the parallel changes of “social class” with “spatial attitudes”. As it was presented before, it’s the same relation between “social class” and “gender identity”, this time again: more parents from upper and middle classes presented more open spatial attitudes and inversely, more parents from lower and lower middle classes presented more conservative spatial attitudes. “Educational level” is the most important variable involved to these kinds of class differences. While educational level usually changes by multi variable of “social class” and so confirms the upper mentioned relation about parallel changes of “social class” and “gender spatial identity”, But it has independent influence on “gender spatial identity”; as mentioned in the discussion about general “gender identity” groups, samples belonged to the “conservative” gender attitude, are no one higher educated; they have at best level,

217 high school diploma even when they are from upper classes; (the only higher educated father of this “conservative” group, Sample no. 16, has military education which its general conditions are completely different from a usual university education). In fact, this difference between social classes is associated with variable “education” which is differentiated among “social classes” and usually goes up with social class, so when ever “education level” doesn’t follow the “social class”, whatever the reason is – there would be a general discussion about this issue in the last conclusions - then “gender attitude” doesn’t present the same association with “social class”; it means that “gender attitude” or “spatial attitude” here, doesn’t tend to “open” when “social class” tend to upper and inversely it doesn’t tend to “conservative” when “social class” tend to lower. This social condition indicates other social process; it suggests that each social class embodies parallel powers of “open” and “conservative” notions towards “gender” or “space”; in other way it means: there are two parallel social – spatial powers of “open” and “conservative” attitude throughout society that changes along educational level; these parallel powers change their balances in society as educational levels change so in lower educated members of society this balance deranges in favor of “conservative” notions and inversely in higher educated ones, it deranges in favor of “open” attitudes. Other important aspect of “social class” is its economical condition which directly influences “spatial attitude” strongly. This kind of affects was mentioned in the case of financial facilities upper classes giving their children which causes them to practice in the city more easily, to shop independently, to spend their free time in the city with their friends safely, to educate in other cities comfortably, to drive in the city, and to be at home later in the evening; it means their open attitudes towards their children’s using urban spaces. That is while the opposite financial possibilities of lower classes cause the opposite tendencies in the same cases. The appropriate example is case of householder women from lower classes in their conservative notions towards spatial issues regarding their both children; this will be pointed later in next parts.

218 “Breadwinning status”

While in many cases, meaningful relations haven’t seen between “breadwinning status” and “spatial attitudes” because of the small samples in this relation, but still there are some conclusions related to the issue.

1 - Participant breadwinner mothers and fathers presented more “open” spatial attitudes. This conclusion made on the following bases:

- Finding no. 9, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no 8, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category employment.

2 - Householder fathers especially from lower and middle classes presented more “conservative” attitudes towards spatial issues:

- Finding no. 6, general findings of category driving. - Finding no.6, general findings of category employment.

3 - Householder mothers especially from lower and lower middle classes are more conservative towards their both children’s or girls’ activities in society

Householder mothers especially low educated from lower and lower middle classes who are conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes, in many cases presented conservative notions towards spatial issues related to their children too (and this is except than their girl employment because of the same reason about their employment themselves). Their “conservative” notions towards gender – spatial issues are not only because of their social position as a lonely mother with double pressure regarding their responsibilities and cultural pressure of being a divorced or a widow woman, but is also because of their economical pressures of their social class too.

219 This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section’s discussions:

- Finding no.7, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 4, general findings of ultimate time in the evening to be at home. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category official or banking affairs.

So while being an employed wife – a participant breadwinner in the family - has a positive effect towards equality in gender – spatial attitude for both mother and father, being an only householder for mothers and fathers has different meanings. A family with participant breadwinner parents means changing position from patriarchal family towards equalized family, which surely has its effects on parents’ attitudes, but an only householder father in a family with a housewife means a patriarchal formation of family and it has its patriarchal influences on parents’ attitudes too; and a family with a householder mother while has broken the patriarchal formation of family, but in this hard social situations push much pressure, material and nonmaterial too, on the part of householder woman specially when she is from lower classes (in lower classes, cultural pressures too ,on lonely householder women are much more than upper classes).

Internalization of gender – spatial oppression

During the discussions made in this chapter, attentions paid to the issue of “internalized gender values” in some cases. As mentioned before, gender differences practiced in society in everyday lives, those presented in different social activities, or those which parents expressed their notions towards them in this study, are social phenomenon that different groups of people look at them in different ways, and by different values, in fact from different social standpoints. For different people, social gender differences mean differently; these differences have been the focus of this study. During this study pointed to the relationships existed

220 between “gender attitudes” and “spatial attitudes”: how different groups of people who presented different attitudes towards “gender issue”, now express their notions towards “spatial issues”? Are there relations? Upper part of this conclusion pointed to these relations between “gender identity” and “spatial identity”; now in continue, it would be pointed to the issue of “internalized spatial values”. The claim is that people while internalize gender social relations as their values; they internalize spatial relations caused from gender relations by the same way. This notion has been cleared during deliberations on parents’ attitudes. The study presented that this relation – internalized spatial values - is not the same for different groups of “gender identity”; it presents different meanings. In fact those “open” groups of “gender identity” analyze spatial differences between genders very well most of the time, from a conscious mind. They are outsider to the issue. They refer those differences to the social conditions which could be changed, while for the more conservative notions, those spatial differences between girls and boys are natural and essential. They are insider to these differences. These differences are especially clear in those common attitudes spread among all groups of gender identities; while there is an apparent similarity among different members of one certain spatial notion, but in fact, there are differences among the ways they look at the issue. For example in that common attitude towards the issue of using public spaces of city in free time that there were a commonsense that boys use those public spaces independently more than girls, parents of “open – informed” attitudes pointed to social limitations for girls must be changed so girls could benefit of them too; while more conservative ones refer to the situations as social normality, as fixed natural existing. This different attitude caused “open” gender groups present neutral attitudes towards the spatial issues that their equalities could be possible in reality while more conservative ones reject this equality as social deviation. It means limitations for girls equal social activity with boys, are mostly in their mind not in reality in society, otherwise these activities are possible in practice. Like driving or shopping having done independently by

221 both girls and boys of educated middle and upper classes (mostly open minded), while for these conservative families are not usual. So, either limitations for equal social activities of girls & boys are in conservative minds of people (in these cases, limitations acted only for their girls and boys of their social groups otherwise girls and boys from other social groups practicing more equally) or those limitations act in society for all social groups (social insecurity for women or other social reason) the consequence is the same. Those both kinds of limitations have been internalized in their minds as their internal values.

222 Chapter Eight Conclusions

Introduction

This final chapter will point to the main conclusions from various discussions during case study which associated with the basic theoretical debates of the first chapter. Besides direct conclusions of the case study, it will surely provide the evaluation of hypotheses defined at the first chapter resulting from theoretical framework. The main purpose of the study defined as the investigation about the relationships between “gender” and “space” in Tehran, in other words, the illustration of Tehran’s spaces whether they are gendered at present time. And for this objective, study undertook a qualitative research and focused on “gender attitudes” of Tehran’s residences as their “gender identity” from one side, and kind of their connections to living “spaces” which indicates their “spatial identity”, from the other side. Among Tehran’s residences, parents’ of both young girl and boy have been selected as the purposive samples which their attitudes towards gender issues, and towards the ways their children use different spaces – from private to public – have been considered as their gender and spatial identities. Spaces studied here, included private space of house, semi private semi public spaces of neighborhood, and public spaces of city. At first part of case study, “gender identity” means parents’ attitudes towards gender issues examined. Changing nature of “gender identity” investigated by three variables of “sex” (mothers or fathers), “social class” (lower, middle or upper), and “employment status in family” (housekeeper, participant breadwinner, or only breadwinner), means among 15 different groups of “gender identity” which provided from combination of those variables. Evaluating “gender attitudes” of these different groups of samples provided a general view towards the changing processes of “gender identity” among different groups of Tehran residences. It made clear that:

223 According to “gender identity”:

- Mothers comparing fathers in all social groups presented more “open” equitable attitudes towards “gender” issues. It means: gender identity differentiated by “sex” in Tehran. - There is a social association between “gender identity” and “educational level”, so: more open equitable notions belong to the more educated people and inversely more “conservative” gender notions belong to the lower educated people. It means that: “gender identity” in Tehran differentiated by “level of education”. - Since there is relationship between “level of education” and “social class”, it affected on the relationship between “social class” and “gender identity” so: more open equitable notions belong to the more educated people who mostly belong to upper classes (middle and upper); and inversely more “conservative” gender notions belong to the lower educated people, usually belong to lower classes (lower & lower middle). It means that: “gender identity” in Tehran differentiated by “social class”. Précising on relationship between “gender identity” in one side and “social class” and “educational level” in other side cleared that: “Gender identity” has more explicit relationship with “level of education” than the “social class”. This doesn’t reject upper mentioned association between “gender” and “class”; it is a complementary finding about social groups. This social fact about special conditions according Tehran residences would be discussed from a macro perspective later in this chapter. - In general: “employment” has a positive effect on “gender identity”, but here it presents its effect through the family formation. It differs among mothers and fathers too, also among social classes, so: employment that means for mothers being a participant breadwinner or a householder in their family has a positive affect on their gender attitudes to get more equitable notions; it’s especial for middle and upper classes. And for fathers who are all employed, being a participant breadwinner – having an employed wife – has positive effect on their gender attitudes too to get more open and equitable notion. It’s while that inversely householder mothers from lower classes and householder fathers from any social classes, who have a housewife, relatively presented more conservative gender notions.

224 - Among all different “gender” groups, group of “semi open semi conservative” is the largest one, also most inclusive; it includes members from different sexes, all social classes, all positions of breadwinning status in family, and all educational levels, although sexes’ social positions are totally different. It cleared that: large number of people of this city is living by gender values between those two extremes; they seem conservative in some of their gender attitudes and open in some others. - “Gender identity” in Tehran differentiated by place in the city. It follows the same association of “social class” and “educational level” with the different districts in the city, the before mentioned distribution of social groups from South to the North of the city, so place differentiations of “gender identity” in Tehran follow the South – North line of the city. - So, according to “gender identity” differentiations among different social groups who are different by their “sex”, “social class”, “educational level”, “employment status in family”, and “place” in the city, it could be concluded that: internalization of discriminated “gender values”, here means internalization of unequal gender relations of patriarchal system differentiated by the same variables of “sex”, “social class”, “educational level”, “employment status in family”, and at last, the “place” in Tehran.

According to “spatial identity”:

Regarding discussion in three chapters of “private”, “semi private semi public”, and “public” spaces, it’s been found that: - There is an explicit parallel change of “spatial identity” along with “gender identity”, so we could speak of “gender – spatial attitude”. While parents with more conservative gender attitudes presented more “conservative” or “unequal” spatial attitudes adapted to patriarchal social system (based on divided public private gender roles and controlling of women in more private spaces), inversely more open gender attitudes asserted more “open” means “neutral” or “equal” spatial attitudes (even in some cases regarding to upper classes, parents allocate more facilities to their girls for their more safety towards equal using of the city). And also “semi open semi conservative” group of “gender attitude” as the largest group, this time again confirmed their moderate

225 social position by presenting “conservative” spatial attitudes in some cases and “open” spatial attitudes in some others. - Furthermore there are some inclusive spatial opinions throughout society of Tehran. These inclusive attitudes are distributed not only among different “gender identity” groups, but also among different “spaces” from private to public. These general spatial attitudes in many cases tended to “biased” gender – spatial attitudes. In three kinds of spaces studied here, parents generally presented the necessities of more caring, protecting, controlling, and restricting their girls comparing their boys in using spaces. These inequitable notions towards “gender – spatial” issues reflect different social spatial reasons; they are consequences of either women’s position in patriarchal system of thought is relatively present in whole society, or that of insecurity for women in this special situation. It means it’s partially because of the patriarchal values still dominated in society in the one hand, and partially because of weaknesses of social system which should protect women social security in the other hand. In fact, the “conservative” political (management) system penetrated different social institutions like educational, juridical, legal … and disciplinary forces which believes in women place is in the house, is not able to practice against social insecurity especially in a great metropolitan like Tehran. These conservative spatial attitudes while include people with “conservative” and “semi conservative semi open” gender attitudes, also penetrated to “open” attitudes, so it seems there is a fragmentation between “gender” and “space” that people are mentally “open” but practically “conservative”; but there are differences within the references these different groups with different gender consciousness made in their reasoning for their same practices; since conscious “open” parents referred to existing social conditions in their reasoning, while “conservative” people claimed their patriarchal values. So in other way, these public inclusive attitudes confirm again the upper mentioned relationships between “gender identity” and “spatial identity”. - These general “gender spatial” attitudes despite their general tendency towards “conservative” notions, in some other cases regarding girls’ employment, education, and official works have shown a progressive neutral tendency. They resulted except from their social economical necessities, also from the more security of these official spaces comparing other ones and the day time of their practicing. This time again like the

226 upper mentioned cases while it apparently seems a gap between “gender” and “space” process of change, but there are differences among references different gender attitudes made to the issues; it means that it doesn’t reject the parallel changes of “gender” and “space”. - According to different domains of spaces from private to public, mothers compared to fathers presented a general tendency towards “open” spatial attitudes, while fathers inversely presented the opposite general tendency towards “conservative” spatial attitudes. Since this relation have been presented before according to “gender” issues, so it confirms again the association between “gender” and “space”. - In three different domains of spaces, parents presented their “spatial attitudes” like their “gender attitudes” associated with their “educational level” so in general there is a meaningful relation between “gender spatial identity” and “educational level”. - And again as “educational level” usually changes by “social class” so there would be a relative change of “gender spatial identity” along with “social class”. It must be pointed that since “educational level” in some cases doesn’t follow the “social class”, in those situations, “gender spatial identity” doesn’t follow the “social class” too. - The large number of parents distributed in all social classes and all levels of education and all breadwinning statuses in family, also among different sexes, live in a situation of “semi open, semi conservative gender spatial attitude”. - “Employment” presented its effect on “gender spatial identity” through the changes in patriarchal formation of family, so participant breadwinner mothers and fathers presented relatively more “open” gender spatial attitudes. It is while householder father (a patriarchal formation of family) from any social class and householder mother from lower and lower middle classes presented relatively more “conservative” attitudes. - And again: “gender spatial identity” in Tehran changes by place and according to South – North line of the city. - Unequal “gender spatial values” practiced in society, internalized in people minds by different strength according to studied variables of “sex”, “social class”, “educational level”, and “breadwinning status”; according those patriarchal values, people differ from being the unconscious insider to the conscious outsider.

227

228

229 Hypotheses appraisal

Association between changing trends of “gender” identity and “spatial” identity found through the case study in fact confirms the first hypothesis: Gender identity is reflected on spatial identity. Various gender identities in Tehran present different perspectives of space or they identify space by different values. Association between changing trends of “gender spatial identity” and “social class” in different spaces relatively confirms the third hypothesis that: Within the same social class, different gender identities related to men and women, present interconnected qualities, compared with gender identities related to men or women of different social classes. This situation could be found in the spatial perspectives of different groups of men and women too. In fact this finding must be completed and corrected with other important finding of case study regarding the variable of “sex” that indicated mothers comparing to fathers from any social classes presented more “neutral” or “equal” gender spatial attitudes. Mentally internalization of unequal “gender spatial” values of society’s practices, differs for different groups of people who are differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, “educational level”, and “breadwinning status in family”; this confirm and complete the second and forth hypotheses: As gender identity internalizes patriarchal oppression, it internalizes associated spatial oppression too. And spatial oppression differs among social classes of Tehran living in different parts of this city.

Gender, Space in Tehran through a Systematic Approach

Under this title, four important issues of study would be discussed through a systematic approach: 1 – The macro social system, the subsystems of “gender” and “space” 2 – Kind of relationships between “gender” and “physical space” among the macro social system 3 – The opposite direction in “gender – space” relationship

230 4 – The transitional period of social change and the challenges within the social system

1 – The macro social system, the subsystems of “gender” and “space”

Returning to the first chapter’s (theoretical framework of study) discussions about relationships of “gender” and “space” and according to the case study’s conclusions about association of “gender” and “space” changes in Tehran, now through a general perspective we could see that these two, “gender” and “space” are associated subsystems of an entire imagined social system, here urban social system in Tehran in macro level; the social system which includes material and non material integral parts, “gender” as non material constituent and “space” – here physical space – as the material subsystem of the macro social system2. Since subsystems are interconnected to each other systematically and their changes are associated among the whole changes of system, so it is the same about the mutual relationships of “gender” and “space” within the universal system practicing in Tehran. Within the case study, when we spoke of “space”, private to public, in fact we considered it as “physical space” which its association with “gender” as the social aspect was investigated; so both of them as the material and non material constituents of the macro system of city of Tehran change systematically in relation with other urban variables (like “social class”, “sex”, …) within the changes of the whole system. And then we spoke of “gender space” as one integrated part of social system to emphasize on the strong association between them found during case study; or “gender spatial” identity to emphasize on integration between these two material and non material parts of “social identity”.

2 Before, when we focused on “space” and its two material and non material aspects, as we did in theoretical discussion, we imagined “space” itself as a general “social system” with different physical and non physical subsystems. However the reality is the same, in second perspective, space as physical space is on focus while in first one, “space” as a thorough system is on consideration.

231 2 – Kind of relationships between “gender” and “physical space” among the macro social system The important point related to the association between “gender” and “space” which has been mentioned before in debates related to method and methodology, is kind of influences that “gender” make to the “space” or it accepts from “space”. Within the systematic relationships, kind of relationship between “gender” and “space” is not simple and stable in any of its direction. According to the case study, while spaces from private to public influenced by gender structure or gender relationships in general, these influences are not easily clear among physical space. The influences we observed through case study in Tehran, manifested mostly through spatial behaviors or kind of activities practiced in spaces comparing to physical aspects or spatial form of space, in fact through activities and behaviors in space not by physical characteristics. Regarding to private space of house, we observed gender aspects of house space for example, by specifying which one of girl or boy is preferred to open the apartment door, in fact we studied kind of activity in space of house which is different, not the physical characteristics of that which is similar; because actually there wasn’t major physical differences in this relation between houses belonged to different families that preferred their boys or their girls. Or according to urban spaces, while urban spaces in different parts of the city are very similar in their physical characteristics but they are used by very different people and very different kinds of activities (regarding the categories related to private space, the first category: which one of the girl or boy preferred to have the private room and the second one: which one’s room preferred to be closer to parent’s room, and the third category: which one’s room could be overlooked, could partially present physical differences, but not the other categories of private space or the categories of other kinds of spaces). Actually, what specified this kind of investigation about “space” was this fact that there aren’t clear and direct relationships between physical space and all kinds of social aspects as existed in the past time, since physical differences could no longer reflect social differences thoroughly. In fact the clear association between physical and social aspects of space in many of their sides has broken because of the influences of some major factors, although they might be social, economical too. Architecture and city

232 spaces in the past time formed by more simple and definable forces3, but in the modern age variables involved to form the physical form of spaces are numerous and complicated. In past, the system defined the physical space was more simple comparing present time. It would be more obvious if we consider only the role of “international modern style” in the form of built environment in this modern era4; or if pay attention to this fact that people don’t build their favorite houses but live in the houses built by others, so kind of relationships between “gender” and “space” - physical space - studied here, and is claimed as the valid way of study about their present relationships at least in a great metropolitan like Tehran, characterized by “practice and activity in space”.

3 – The opposite direction in “gender – space” relationships

The association between “gender” and “space” as it was mentioned before is a mutual systematic one. Relationships between “gender” and “space” in opposite direction mean affects that “gender” accepts from “space”, in fact they relate to the reproduction of “gender relationships” within “spaces”. And by the same way as “gender” influences to the kind of behavior and activity in “space”, this time again “gender relations” mutually reproduced by the activities in “spaces” and kind of uses people make of “spaces”. It means for example when parents preferred their boys doing the daily shopping of family, in one hand they prefer this practice because of their gender identity (one direction), and in the other hand they produce or reproduce special kind of “gender relations” by this kind of activity in neighborhood “space” (opposite direction).

4 – The transitional period of social change and the challenges involved within the social system The other important point found during case study in Tehran about relationships between “gender” and “space”, is influences of other social factors make their relationship complicated so in some cases “spatial identity” doesn’t follow “gender

3 For example there is a study about relationships between traditional Iranian architectures and city forms with the “gender structure”: Sadoughianzadeh, M. 2006 “Gender social structure & space, reflection on Iranian traditional spaces”, Architecture and Urbanism, no. 82 / 83, 4 There is a long debate in Iranian literature about the split between form and function in Iranian architecture and urbanism after modern influences. This split translated here to the separation of form from social cultural contexts including gender aspects too.

233 identity” apparently; according to inclusive spatial attitudes found among very different groups, some cases indicated a tendency of whole society towards “open” or “equal” spatial practices, and more cases presented the opposite tendency towards “conservative” or “unequal” spatial behaviors. While kind of references people made to the issues reject the initial assumption about the split between “gender” and “space”, however they are so important to be analyzed. For analyzing these widespread opposite tendencies, they should be understood among the same macro social system and variables involved. The factors made the progressive tendency towards equal opportunities for girls’ education and employment in whole society, also the major social factor pointed in the case study about the social phenomenon of women’s insecurity in the metropolitan of Tehran caused a general “conservative” tendency against women’s activities in the city, both should be analyzed within the entire urban social system practiced in the city. Actually these spatial tendencies, while they are the other feature of same social fact regarding contradicted social groups of “open” and “conservative” and “intermediate” (in fact by reductionism, we could say that in some “gender spatial” issues, society responds by contradicted “open” and “conservative” actions, in some other cases, relatively whole society responds only by “open” actions, and at last, in some cases, only by “conservative action), manifest the greater social facts which influences to the “gender” and “space” relationship too among the universal system of the city. The emergence of these “gender spatial” tendencies among society could be understood according to the historical descriptions related to Iranian social development discussed in chapter no. 2. We would pay attention to the historical bases caused the emergence of these opposite social tendencies in the following section, but the important issue should be pointed here is that both of progressive and conservative tendencies among society, either represented by contradicted groups of “open” and “conservative” gender spatial attitudes, and the group of “semi open semi conservative” between them, or manifested by two inclusive opposite spatial tendencies among society should be considered within the process of change, that the patriarchal social system is practicing towards the new social order of equal gender relation within the capital city of Tehran. According to the contradicted inclusive attitudes among society, while patriarchal old system has changed in some way (the general progressive attitudes towards girls’

234 education & employment as the examples), but these changes themselves created challenges (women’s insecurity in public spaces) must be confronted properly. Actually the old social order resists against new changes and women’s insecurity is one of its major resistances. Considering the issue of women’s insecurity in city except the conditions caused from urban characteristics of Tehran emerged during its changes from a small familiar city towards a great metropolitan of strangers, other reasons should be considered among the changes of the patriarchal social system of the city, so while the old system, have been experienced great changes from the defined gender relations based on separated secured spaces for women and men, towards the new social system based on equal gender relations on shared spaces, but the process is not complete yet. While women are coming out from their specified secured private space, but their new position in public is not appropriate in all cases; many challenges should be confronted and many problems should be solved through the time and through the hard efforts to create the appropriate conditions. And the situation of women’s insecurity is one of those challenges towards the new social order. In fact city experiencing the transitional period and the great challenges special to this period of time in the situations that new social order hasn’t been reached to its appropriate spaces yet. These appropriated spaces couldn’t be produced till now. In other words, the new social powers of “gender equality” at first captured the spaces, more formal and safer; they’re under public supervision (employment & education), so more ready to be conquered, while insecure spaces, strong and remained to be captured by the following efforts. The important point here, respected according to the issues of “gender” and “sex” and their implications in patriarchal thought. Although these two issues challenged by “gender” studies associated to each other, however they have differences; while issues related to “gender equality”, “gender roles equality” means “women social activities” have processed much of their social legitimacy and public acceptance, even penetrated to more “conservative” of gender groups, but those activities which reflect issue of “sex”, is still controversial; “sex” differences have much more social acceptance comparing “gender” differences. And two practices of “education” and “employment” could more easily reflect issue of “gender”; they are mostly considered as “safe social activities”,

235 they hardly reflect issue of “sex”, so they have more legitimacy for even “conservative” notions; while those social activities in “spaces” more vulnerable to women insecurity could reflect issue of “sex” which still is a resistant notion in patriarchal thought. According to inclusive “conservative” attitudes, they are not included only activities related to “public” spaces which could be unsafe, but the categorical activities of “private” spaces and “semi private semi public” spaces as well which considered safe. If we pay attention to these categories of private and semi private space, it would be cleared that these kinds of activities as well are mostly associated to issues of “sex” or “body” – category of necessity of private room for girls, for example in private space – from one side and insecure public spaces– putting garbage out in the darkness - from the other side.

Parallel social powers in Tehran, historical bases

The main concept was formed through deliberation in Tehran parent’s attitudes towards gender - spatial issues, points to the contradicted gender values manifested in spatial attitudes throughout society, so we’ve confronted with two main parallel social powers of contradicted perspectives – “open” & “conservative” - towards “gender” and “space”. This social duality presents itself not only in opposed groups in two ends of social powers but also a widespread moderate group in between of two extremes; the largest group of this case study and other quantitative ones, “semi conservative semi open” group of “gender spatial attitude”; two widespread spatial tendencies present the same social duality in other way. It seems these two parallel perspectives are parts of two general trends of “tradition” and “modernity in society penetrated all aspects of life in Iranian society. They have their roots in recent history of Iran. Here we focused only on two aspects of “gender” and “space” as two important manifestations of these contradictory powers related to our debate. To understand conditions regarding modernity and tradition in this city or in this country and the contradictions between them among social groups is necessary to go through history to see its backgrounds in lately 150 years; this review would be short and only points to the main related issues.

236

Looking at the recent history

As it was mentioned before (in the chapter of general introduction about Tehran) recent history of Iran experienced a very great & rapid change in different aspects of its life through the connections with the modern West and the reactions to those influences. The first serious contacts of Iranian society with the West initiated in the middle of nineteenth century by sending students to the European universities. This accompanied by gradual decline of Feudalism, development of national industrial bourgeoisie, and increasing pressure of European countries entering to Iran’s bazaars which gradually led to some social institutional necessity of reformations… These social economical changes at last led to Constitutional Revolution in 1906. In fact from mid of nineteenth century Iran’s society has experienced challenges of its transitional period from a closed traditional society towards a modern one which it hasn’t finished yet. The fastest term of these changes began after World War I in Iran during Pahlavi dynasty: “The first half of the twentieth century saw a sustained effort of modernization and Westernization by government. Political centralization and expansion of oil facilitated some industrial development and modernization of the infrastructure (Abrahamian, 1982; Lapidus, 1988). Economic development and modernization was accompanied with growth of a strong modern army, secular educational system, and strong nationalist ideology” (Aghajanian, 2001: 2). This process of change is not eliminated to Iran; it could be traced in the region of Middle East and its different countries; there are similarities in the processes these countries passing through. The same process which initiated in Iran by Pahlavi the first king, Reza shah, in Turkey had started before by Kemal Ataturk: “When the Turkish Republic was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk following the Ottoman defeat in World War I, the republican regime adopted a top – down reformism based on modernization cum Westernization. From its inception, the Turkish state promulgated a strong – armed secularism based on the subjugation of religious practices, scholars and educational institutions to state regulation and administration (Berkes, quoted by Secor, 2001: 194).

237 Changes according to the relationships between Iran and the West countries influenced not only policy and political regimes but the different aspects of Iranian social life. During the long period of Pahlavi’s dynasty (1925 – 1979) beside military actions for central unification, and political economical changes made the basis for Iran’s transition into capitalism – based on merchants and rant owners - and participation in world commodity exchange, social cultural changes accompanied towards modernism. Important secular institutional changes made in educational and judicial system traditionally managed by traditional clergies; some other important changes caused challenges to patriarchal system of family, changes related to marriage, divorce, polygamy, child custody, and inherence,…all these efforts besides mass schooling for all and for women too, women’s right to participate in election, even the superficial law against women presence in public with their traditional covering clothes, hejab (chador) were made towards empowering women and improving women status in family and society; these situations were very similar to Turkey after Ataturk reforms: “In Turkey, where modernism, secularism and Westernization comprised the national ideals of the new post Ottoman state, the state’s efforts to create women – citizens went hand in hand with the denunciation of veiling as a backwards and uncivilized practice, a tradition to be overthrown …” (Secore, 2002: 5 - 6). But the main point here is that all these changes practiced by force, formally and superficially, while deep social values couldn’t be changed forcefully, further it was practiced by a corrupted dependent system of a monarchy. The important point associated with the relationships with the domineering West and the process of Westernization, modernization and secularization in the countries of the region like Iran has been that these influences imposed by the political dictatorships and attached groups dependent on the West policies; in fact West countries5 were protecting dependent political regimes favoring their interests. So the social process of change towards modernism that had been before begun gradually among a traditional society and needed time to be settled, suddenly interfered by strong Western powers with the

5 Great Britain, sometimes accompanied rival Russia in Iran till the mid of the twentieth century, had the upper hand influencing Iran political system and then gradually USA took their place.

238 dependent dictatorship inside: “Unlike many other countries of the third word, these new forms were not directly introduced by westerners, since Iran was never colonized. Instead the agents of transformation here were the groups that came into existence as a result of contacts with those powers … this (changing) was made possible by the direct intervention of the state in the creation and support of new institutions …” (Madanipour, 1998: 246). In fact those rapid social changes had never had internal appropriate bases in the society at least among most of the social groups or institutions and till a long period of time; it was imposed to the whole society so it caused many tensions in a traditional society like Iran as it was. While people accepted some aspect of new social system, but rejected some others, so they’re living with kind of crisis in their social cultural identity. After many years, and after great social changes towards modernism, these challenges still continued to influence the social and political life of people in Iran and in the region: “However, like many other colonized countries, the imposition of new institutions led to a crisis of cultural identity …” (Madanipour, 1998: 246). This kind of secularization imposed into the traditional society dominated by patriarchal relationships although changed social situations gradually in different aspects but the costs society paid and still paying for those imposing changes, couldn’t been compensated easily. While social changes imagined through the process of modernization and secularization were progressive social goals per se, but unfortunately they didn’t evolve out from the internal powers and social necessities. Modern waves haven’t influenced all groups of society equally. Changes towards Western modernism although has become a slightly internal process for some social groups, but it caused severe resistance among more traditional parts (Sazegara, 2003). Islamic Revolution (1979) led by traditional clerics, was interpreted by many social scientists not only as a response of national powers against the corrupted dependent government, but as the society’s response to superficial, rapid, and forceful practices towards modernism during the Pahlavi’s era: “…Along with the modernization efforts, the strong infiltration of western culture & specially the component of western culture which were at odds with the Iranian Islamic traditions, created another dividing line among the population of all areas” (Aghajanian, 2001: 3).

239 “This rapid social change – the impact of industrialization, urbanization and education on marriage, the family and gender roles – has caused a conservative backlash in the form of the Islamist movement, fundamentalists are concerned that education for women has dissolved traditional arrangements of space segregating, family ethics, and gender roles” (Moghadam, 2004:155). And the important point here is that although Islamic traditional regime got the power from Pahlavi’s modern monarchy and gave it to traditional social groups, but it couldn’t stop the process of change towards modernism, neither the challenges between the modern and old lifestyles: “The battle between the old & new continues, even after the apparent victory of the traditional values and forms” (Madanipour, 1998: 247). The process of Modernism in Iran during Pahlavi regime and afterwards meanwhile its response by the Islamic regime both have been characterized as the imposed actions towards people in favor of interests of domineering groups against others. Unfortunately this process of change of values has never happened through the public sharing within a democratic process. Recent history of this country have been a representation of the challenges between old & new social powers caused its way of development accompanied with great difficulties: “A tense coexistence of the old & new, in which they constantly struggle for domination, is a hallmark of the modern history of Iran and its capital, Tehran) (Madanipour, 1998: 252).

Social groups

Any way under this process of change towards modern values, by force or by peace and through a long period of time, configuration of social classes or social groups changed. Along with old social groups, new social groups, new social institutions with new social values and believes emerged; although old social powers transformed or accepted changes but some of them still alive and influential for some social groups so now we confronted with an inhomogeneous society; mentioned process caused that the homogenous traditional society divided to pieces as the contradictory social groups; in general, the reaction of society presented itself in social groups in behalf of these changes, and groups opposed, and many of them in intermediate position as well.

240 During near to one and a half centuries, formation of social classes gradually changed; Iran society changed from its social formation of feudalism to a kind of dependent capitalism, a special capitalistic social structure which is mostly depended on oil revenue and its economic rants. In fact since 1.5 centuries Iran is in a form of transition from a traditional to modernized social relations, from feudality to industrial capitalism. Iranian history and social development is still influencing from these challenges. In new formation of social classes through the process of modernization, secularization, and urbanization, the new middle class in urban areas emerged which become larger and larger through the time while the urban population has been increasing by a rapid change to get about 65% of the total population of country at present time (refer to the chapter 2). Increasing urban population so fast is the consequences of great immigration from rural to urban parts - based on poor rural infrastructures, traditional agricultural system and water problem of agriculture from one side and expanding service sector of country’s economy founded substantially on oil revenue in urban parts from the other side. Among urban population the urban middle and upper classes, most educated people among them, have been influencing by Western lifestyle and modern culture through education and communication with the West. Although modern culture influenced whole population of the country little by little, but urban educated people adapted to those values basically much more. Abrahamian described the roots and changes of this urban educated people through the time: “The modern intelligentsias were those intellectuals who, through travel, translations, and new educational establishments, had adopted modern ideas, aspiration, and values along western lines. Initially they come from different strata, from aristocracy as well as from bazaar, and were two few to form a social class. In twentieth century however, resulting mainly from expansion of the bureaucracy and the armed forces, they developed into a salaried middle class” (Abrahamian, quoted by Madanipour, 1998: 245). And inversely while rural population, newcomer poor urban immigrants along with the clerical organization and traditional urban middle classes of merchants basically constitute the old traditional social groups of society so: “The constituent parts of the traditional middle classes were the clergy and the bazaar community of merchants & artisans who, before the impact of the West, practiced a large degree of control over

241 economic & social affairs. The traditional privileges of this group were lost through the establishment of new economic orders and the predominance of foreign interests and their associates and through secularization of the society by the government. Integration of the country into the world economy somewhat marginalized this group, which turned into a propertied middle class (Madanipour, 1998:245). Old middle class is the social groups with properties, mostly included commercial traders of the bazaar, traditionally associated with religious clerics in Iran; now their upper parts – with some changes compared the past - got the power in Islamic regime again. But the new middle class are those whose properties are mostly included cultural capitals. They are educated and professional. They included bureaucrats, experts, managers, or moderate wagers in public and private sectors (universities, ministries, army or industry), (Sazegara, 2003, Ansari, 1996 & 2006). Now as a general conclusion to the social position of these contradictory groups in society and connecting these overall view to the findings of the case study, as it was mentioned, some parts of population have been prepared to accept modern changes more than others; they have been those with more connection to modern life through education and other communications, This is why urban population generally, and middle and upper incomers of it especially – because of their financial possibilities which provide for them possibility of higher education & communication with Western countries - adapted to modern life more than others. So we see a process of increasing modern values and modern lifestyles through social classes when they go towards middle and upper classes, and decreasing of those values among lower classes. In fact we confronted with vertical differentiations among society from traditional to modernity, from lower class to upper and from South of the city to the North: “These are reflected in the more or less distinguishable residential areas of the ethnic & religious minorities as well as of the different lifestyles produced by the clash of modernity & traditionalism. This created a secular space in the north, in line of incoming social environment, leaving the religious institutions for the south, where the previous social habits and believes have continued to exist” (Madanipour, 1998: 114). But besides this vertical process of changes along social classes , as mentioned before not all parts of each social classes for example middle or upper adapted to new values;

242 there are social groups among these social classes which retained their distances from modern life; it means among middle and upper parts of social groups there are people who are more attached to traditional values, these people most probably are from those old community of bazaar and merchant attached to clerical organization and their closed groups. These groups of people most probably don’t have higher educated members among and so many of them have lower level of education. It’s obvious most of the lower urban population culturally is along with traditional groups of middle and upper classes; they have lower education and less communication with modern life. This situation, indicates horizontal split within each social classes, the position of this split changes vertically it means according to the vertical trend of change among modernity and tradition, this split line, in upper middle and upper classes placed in favor of “open” or “modern” attitudes, and inversely in lower middle and lower classes placed in favor of “conservative” or “traditional” attitudes. And the groups of “semi open semi conservative” or “semi modern semi traditional” while generally the largest group of society and distributed among different social classes, it changes its inclusion among different social classes regarding to sexes; according to case study, among fathers this moderate notion mostly seen in middle and upper, and among mothers it’s mostly seen in lower classes. This social situation of duality especially among middle classes obviously investigated by a quantitative PHD research: Sazegara, 2002, compared two groups of these two contradicted parts of middle class in their lifestyles; samples from community of bazaar, the traditional middle class and samples from university teachers, the new middle class were compared. She found that lifestyles of these two social groups are totally different while both group shared the same economical income and the same social status of their employments. The first group showed a kind of traditional attitudes and lifestyles, while the second one presented attitudes and lifestyle more connected to modern values. Actually these two groups were differentiated by their level of education either. Actually it confirms horizontal differentiations among society. These two contradicted lifestyles as representatives of traditional and modern trends and as Sazegara investigated are differentiated in their tastes – all kinds of tastes according food and clothes to artistic – and kinds of spending leisure times … actually all that interpreted as

243 “lifestyle”. Although Sazegara didn’t study about “gender” & “spatial” attitudes as they’re focused here, actually her study found the same contradicted social powers regarding other aspect of social life; anyway it’s obvious they are differentiated in their attitudes for example towards “gender” or “space” too. Other social scientists have pointed to this social fact either; lifestyles of these two parts of middle class are totally different; while new middle class’s lifestyle is associated with Western and modern world, the old middle class follow the traditional old values of society (Ansari, 1996 & 2006). They claimed that these fragmented groups are sometimes too contradicted in their values, behaviors and lifestyles which hardly could be placed them as one certain social class (Sazegara, 2003; Chavoshian Tabrizi, 2002). This obvious contradiction in urban population as we seen, it’s not a simple or distinctive fragmentation, while according to some people, the tendency towards one side of duality is distinctive but for many people actually it’s not easy to be in one side of this split. In reality most people live in a situation between these two powers; while old and religious values are still strong in their minds, ideas of modern world are attractive too. So challenges between different social groups tended more to modernity or tradition also include challenges in the people’s mind of some groups between this duality. In other words these horizontal differentiations become more obvious when we focus on middle situation. By middle situation I mean those groups between these two contradicted ones, those who are “open” or “modern” in some aspects of their life, and “conservative” or “traditional” in some other, those who classified in our study as “semi open semi conservative” parents. They have made the largest group of “gender attitudes”. They are distributed in all social classes (according to the table no. 6 of chapter of gender identity, their distribution differentiated by class, sex, education and employment), so they represent the situation of a large number of people. According to other valuable quantitative PHD study by Chavoshian about social identity, he found that 61% of people in Tehran are those who presented indeterminate attitudes means “semi conservative, semi open” towards “traditional values of family” means “traditional gender relations” (Chavoshian, 2002: 167). This social situation pointed by different social scientists: “The reality, however is that at all times and under any regime in the country, the battle between tradition & modernity has been fought, as both tendencies can be clearly traced

244 in both the modern intelligentsia & the traditional middle classes… these contradictions are signs of tension inside both camps and a continuing struggle between tradition & modernity” (Madanipour, 1998: 247). Many social scientists pointed to the challenges people living in, as a social problem; while modern values are present in society and they are reality but they are not fixed and generalized throughout society, so this instability in social system values are the origins of present social problems and behavioral abnormalities in individuals and social groups (Hazeri, 2001: 44). The other feature of social contradiction between tradition and modernity could be traced as the intergeneration gap in Iran between young and old generation. Young generation much tended to modern values so they are representative of modernity and they are against of old generation as the representative of old traditional values (Azadarmaki, 2001: 56; Aghajanian, 2001: 38). This pattern interfered with mentioned interclass differentiation towards modern values so young generation of middle and upper classes are more associated with modern valued than their counterparts from lower classes; or old generation of lower classes are much more associated to traditional values than their counterparts from upper classes. This social situation, in fact, indicating the transitional period from traditional society to a modern one and it’s not only seen in Iranian society but the Middle Eastern countries as well. The conclusions have been made in upper parts with referring to the history and valid researches have confirmed the findings of our case study about vertical and horizontal distributions of “gender spatial” attitudes of parents in Tehran. These parents presented the same general tendencies of “open – modern”, “conservative – traditional” and at last “semi open semi conservative” or “semi modern semi traditional”. The focused subject of “gender” and “space” here surely placed in general issue of “lifestyle”. “Lifestyle” defined by the way people think and live in society so it includes all their attitudes and practices, “gender” attitudes and “spatial” either, so the way they use spaces. Bourdieu’s social theory about lifestyle despite its references to Western societies seems close to our discussion. Special relationships among modernity and tradition in

245 city of Tehran, vertically and horizontally, could be analyzed very well by Bourdieu’s theory about groups of lifestyles and their distributions according to social classes6.

6 According to him, “social class” could no longer analyze all attributes of social groups in modern societies, because in these societies social classes strongly divided to sub groups with the different social – cultural tastes; and these sub groups of homo tastes of different social classes are connected to each other vertically. He pointed to the “lifestyle” and its associated notion of “consumption” as the appropriate notion for analyzing social groups’ differentiations in present societies. Bourdieu emphasized to the four kinds of capital including economical, social, cultural and symbolical, which could be exchanged to each other; and a combination of these four kinds of capitals defines social groups in modern societies. “Bourdieu reveals that this space of social positions is organized by two crosscutting principles of differentiation, economic capital and cultural capital, whose distribution defines the two oppositions that undergird major lines of cleavage and conflict in advanced society. The first vertical, division pits agents holding large volumes of either capital – the dominant class – against those deprived of both –the dominated class. The second, horizontal, opposition arises among the dominant, between those who posses much economic capital but few cultural assets (business owner and managers, who form the dominant fraction of the dominant class), and those whose capital is preeminently cultural (intellectuals and artists, who anchor the dominated fraction of the dominant class). Individuals and families continually strive to maintain or improve their position in social space by pursuing strategies of reconversion whereby they transmute or exchange one species of capital into another” (Wacquant, 2006:8). In fact the contradictory positions existed between tradition and modernity in Iranian society and the distinctive position, the modernized groups have taken against traditionalists, and inversely the negative position of traditional groups towards modernists, is not only a vertical differentiations between well off and deprived people but also horizontally it’s the reality among different parts of each social classes associated with their kind of cultural assets, level of education, their profession and their lifestyle, modern or traditional. What Bourdieu pointed as the major agent to differentiate social groups, is their “lifestyles” which differs by a combination of four kinds of capital, basically two economical and cultural. “Lifestyle” is defined by the way of “consumption”; and “taste” is a main concept to distinguish the “lifestyle” and way of “consumption”. Bourdieu (also some other social scientists like Weber, and Giddens) emphasized on the “lifestyle” and “consumption” as the main factor to differentiate social groups, since in modern societies, consumption is itself a social value that people define their social identity by consuming certain kinds of good (Chavoshian Tabrizi, 2002). Or they make social distinction by their special taste and kind of goods they consume; people consume different goods by their different tastes..; these goods involve basic life necessities like clothes or foods, also things related to their cultural or artistic tastes like film, music, novels, …

246 So in other perspective to the subject, this study has been about different lifestyles lived in Tehran which their two important aspects related to “gender” and “space” have been investigated; also the distribution of these different lifestyles in society and among different social groups, vertically and horizontally have been pointed according to social variables of “sex”, “social class”, “educational level”, “breadwinning status in family” and “place” in Tehran.

In special situation in Iran, contradictory social groups of tradition and modernity present contradictory kinds of lifestyles as their contradictory attitudes towards “gender” issues; they also evaluate spaces and practice in spaces – private to public – differently related to their contradictory spatial identities. Modernists with showing Western values & believes and affiliation to the Western lifestyles make distance from traditional groups and define their distinctive social identity and lifestyle against traditional lifestyle. This group of modern people with much cultural capital presents modernized “open” believes relating to their gender attitudes too; they use spaces culturally belong to them or they experience “spaces”, use them, and behave through them by their certain kind of “taste” which is associated to modernized, Westernized, and more “open” kind of attitude. And traditional groups with less cultural capital, inversely attached to old “conservative” lifestyle and define their social or “gender identity” in negation with modernist lifestyle; they either use spaces culturally belong to them and by the same way they experience spaces by their “traditional” kind of taste. So in general, distinction between modern and traditional groups of society as distinction between their lifestyles is originally associated with their different kinds of cultural attainments, educational level in the one hand, and to their position in social classes in the other hand because social class itself associated with cultural attainment or educational level. This neither rejects the differences exist among groups of modern attitudes associated to different social classes or the differences among traditional peoples of different social classes, but in general kinds of similarities among modernists or traditionalists distinguish them within society.

247

248 Epilogue, suggestions

While this study illuminated some aspects related to “gender spatial” relationships in the city, it could provide some suggestions to the urban planning & design of the city regarding the issue for the coming spatial programs in Tehran. One of the most important aspects of life in Tehran pointed by the study is its duality in “gender spatial identity” and association of this social spatial segregation across the North – South economic lines of the city, and meanwhile their relatively parallel distribution among social classes. We see an inhomogeneous society respecting its different aspects of life, in better word their lifestyles; people live within “spaces” of the city from private to public regarding their different gender – social - identities. The situations in the city are so that people suffer from this heterogeneity in their living spaces. Surely, most problematic are public “spaces”; although private spaces also in crisis according to changes of family relations, but the most problem would be when they come out. People from different areas in the city from their residential “spaces” come together to pass through common shared passages to go to shared “spaces” for work, for eat, for walk, … they have to use many places inappropriate to them, they have to deal with those people who are so different to them; those whom they rejected their kind of attitudes and lifestyles, actually humiliated them and their values. Sometimes people deny going to others’ places, but sometimes they have to. So what happens to these people so different with each other? Sometimes they’re struggling, sometimes they’re bearing, and anyway they’re suffering. These inhomogeneous contradicted groups of people have a long history of struggle for domination; domination in power relations to get the authority, to be them which define the justified kind of lifestyle, the authoritative way of values, attitudes, behaviors and activities in spaces, in private and specially public lives. No matter which side of these contradicted groups had the upper hand in social system of power relation and no matter which group’s attitude whether is progressive, the traditionalist or modernists, what the history tells, either of them in power tried to suppress the other, to negate them, at least to ignore them. In fact by struggling on power they try to assert their “identity”, make “spaces” favorable to their social lifestyle so inappropriate for the others. And so what the response of suppressed group is that they

249 reciprocally do the same, struggle for domination, compensate their obsessions, making the “spaces” appropriate to their lifestyle, when in power. And this story repeated and repeated during the past history; no group of people feels peace and convenience in these challenging struggling situations. Till the time that any side of this struggling sees its living based on non living of the other side, no matter which one has the power; no improvement in social, gender relations towards equality and not “spaces” achieved the progressive objective of equal gender social relations. The existence of the large “gender spatial” group of “semi open semi conservative” itself is a strong reason for invalidity of biased actions towards one side. This duality in social life and most important, its manifestation on “space” not only affects people’s life in the city but more important make its process of development challenging, reflexive, problematic and slow. What really could be done to associate the developing process of the city spaces with peace? How city spaces could healthfully pass through this transitional period? What could provide the city spaces more integrity? How city could achieve consensus in its public spaces? The special conditions dominated in this society, the long history of hate and rejection among social group’s identity and lifestyles, which prevent them to practice in city spaces peacefully, require a long time patience and sustainable efforts on public actions under democratic systems so that these contradictory groups could be able to look at each other as deserving people and rightful members of society. And this struggling wouldn’t be finished till the achievement of some kind of public agreement and consensus. Despite the major role of political system of power in macro level which must provide the different social contexts appropriated to social integrity, any way, in any level of space production, the democratic actions would be the answer. Urban planning and design among the entire social system seems to be successful if it is practiced through democratic developments like participatory planning; it means the system of decision making could provide the most social agreements related to their living spaces. For sustainable consequences in the long period kinds of communicative planning might be able to make contradicted notions close to each other, so they could understand differences and accept their social rights. The system of decision making that

250 aims the closeness among different notions, to make solutions concluded from different attitudes, satisfy most of the people. And the major point make the communicative planning too serious, is the important issue of internalized values regarding to unequal gender spatial practices; in fact this is people’s social identity which internalized these discriminated patriarchal values; and as Manuel Castells theorized: “It’s important to realize that these identities are essential to people and are not fading” (Castells, 2003, 68). To understand it deeply helps any social action while encouraging equal gender relations. It’s important to pay attention to people’s gender values as the very deep, sacred, and internalized notions to deal with. Historical experiences indicated any forceful action favoring what is supposed progressive and valuable is a great fault; because what is supposed progressive for one group of people might be a hostile and anti – value in opinions of other group. A good example in this relation is the issue of women clothes in public scenes which still is a live national even international debate. Iranian society have experienced both sides of practices, one Act in behalf of the women presence in the city without traditional covering clothes (chador) during the Reza shah, Pahlavi the first, and the other Act practicing now during Islamic Republic, against the presence of women in the city without hejab. These kinds of social obligatory Acts, while don’t move towards their objectives, cause great social reactions among society and make its way of development slow, unstable, and challenging. While achieving equal gender spatial situation in the different spaces of the city, and in architectural spaces, is itself a progressive objective, but the process, the method for obtaining that valuable goal is as important as the ends per se. It seems that kinds of democratic public actions in different level of decision making from micro to macro could provide the successful and sustainable consequences.

Findings of this research bring up areas necessitate more studies:

- Focusing on gendered spaces of different North – South locations in the city, their differences according to their associated behaviors, activities or perhaps physical characteristics.

251 - Quantitative researches in subjects of this study to specify the quantified distribution of different gender spatial groups, and more specification of social characteristics. - People differentiations by “sex” means “gender spatial identity” differences between women and men require an special study looking for its presentation on different scales, particularly among families; it seems the obvious crisis in many of Iranian families, and increased numbers of divorcement in the city are the indications of family’s disagreement related to the different level of consciousness towards gender inequality among women and men in family relations. - Case study clarified the importance of social phenomenon of women’s insecurity in the city as a major obstacle to the women’s freely moving in the city and using its different spaces. Insecurity of the city causes that even gender equitable thoughts tend to conservative actions in using spaces; in fact it pushes whole the society towards inequality in spatial practices. Understanding this social phenomenon thoroughly needs an special study to investigate its various aspects in its complicated situation in Tehran. - While this research provided material for theoretical study about “gendered spaces”, it also clarified the necessity of theorizing the framework for this kind of study mean “gender – space” relationships. - Related to “gender – space” theory, it’s necessary to do more researches in other places investigating their kinds of relationships, whether physically or through practice to specify theoretically the place of findings of this research about the associations between “gender” and “space” through “spatial practice and activity”.

252 References

Adle, Sh. (ed.) 1996, Tehran, The 200 year old Capital of Iran, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran studies Research Group, Cultural Studies & Research Institute. Afrough, Emad, 1998, Society, Space, and Social Inequality, Spatial segregation, Tehran: University of Tarbiat – e - moddaress. Aghajanian, Akbar, 2001, Family and Family change in Iran, in Diversity in Families: A Global Perspective edited by Charles B. Hennon and Timothy H. Brubaker, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Aguilar, Delia D. 1996, Filipino Women and the Work of Mothering, in Women, Work and Gender Relations in Developing Countries, “ A Global Perspective” edited by Parvin Ghorayshi and Claire Belanger, London: Greenwood Press. Alcoff, L.N. 1996, Feminist Theory and Social Science, New Knowledge, New Epistemology, in Body Space, Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality edited by N. Duncan, London & New York: Routledge Ansari, Ebrahim, 1996, Rise and Expansion of the New Middle Class in Iran, the Case of Isfahan (PHD thesis), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran. Ardener, Sh. 2000, The Partition of Space, From Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps. In, J. Rendell, B. Penner, and I. Borden, (eds.), Gender Space Architecture, An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Routledge. Ashrafolkettabi, Manouchehr, 2001, A Study of Changes in Passing Leisure Time in Families in Three Generations (MA Thesis), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran. Azadarmaki, Taghi, 2001, The Generation Gap in Iran, Journal of the Iranian Sociological Association, No. 4, Special Issue of the Social Problems of Iran. Babbie, Earl.1998, The practice of social research, 8th edition, Wadsworth publishing company. Berkeley, E.P., McQuaid, M. (eds.) 1989, Architecture, A Place for Women, Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Biabani, Azita, 2002, A Connection Survey of Young People’s Socio – Economic Status with Religious Modernism (MA Thesis), Tehran Department of Sociology, University of Tarbiat – e – Moddaress.

253 Bingaman, A., Sanders, L., Zorach, R., (eds.) 2002, Embodied Utopias, Gender, Social Change and the Modern Metropolis, London & New York: Routledge. Bondi, L. 2003, Gender Symbols and Urban Landscapes, In, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Booth, C., Darke, J., Yeandle, S., (eds.) 1996, Changing Places, Women's Lives in the City, London: P.C.P. Bowlby, Sophie, Gregory, Susan & McKie, Linda, 1997, “Doing Home”: Patriarchy, Caring, and Space, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp 343 – 350. Brines, Julie, 1994, Economic Dependency, Gender, and Division of Labor at Home, A.J.S. Vol. 100, No. 3, pp 652 – 688. Butler, J., 1999, Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge. Castells, M. & Ince, M., 2003 Conversation with Manuel Castells, Cambridge: Polity. Castells, M. 2003, The Process of Urban Social Change. In A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, volume 2, The power of Identity, (trans. Into Persian by Hassan Chavoshian, 2001, Tehran: Tarhe- no) Center for Women's Participation, Women Situations in the Future, the country, Report no. 771, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Center for Women's Participation, Women Statistical Investigation based on Development Approach in Tehran Province, Report no. 645, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Center for Women's Participation, Women Statistical Investigation based on Development Approach in country, 2001, Report no. 625, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Chavoshian Tabrizi, Hassan, 2002, Lifestyle & Social Identity, Consumption & Taste as a New Base for Social Distinctions in Late Modernity (PHD Thesis), Tehran: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran.

254 Code, L. (ed.) 2000, Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories, London & New York: Routledge. Coleman, D., Danze, E., and Henderson, C. (eds.) 1996, Architecture and Feminism, New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Denscombe, Martyn. 2002, Ground rules for good research “a ten points guide for social research”, Open University press. Devika, J. 2006, Negotiating Women’s Social Space: Public Debates on Gender in Early Modern Kerala, India, Inter Asia Cultural Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 43 – 61. Doerhoefer, Kerstin, 2000, Women’s Shelter and Gentleman’s Mansion, Findings from Architecture and Urban Design, in ifu (International Women University) Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel Duncan, N. (ed.) 1996, Body Space, destabilizing geographies of gender and sexuality, London & New York: Routledge. Durning, I., Wrigley, R. (eds.), 2000, Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Ezazi, Sh. 2002, Analysis of Gender Construct. In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 37-91. Fainstein, S. 1996, Planning in a Different Voice, in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Fattollahzadeh, Roya, 2007, Dialectical Relationships between “Consumption” & “Class” in Bourdieu’s Notion, online journal of Salam Democrat in Persian. Flyvbjerg, B., Richardson, T. 1996, Planning and Foucault, in search of the dark side of Planning Theory, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Fokouhi, Naser, 2007, Pier Bourdieu’s social theory, Naser Fokouhi Website. Friedmann, J. 1996, Feminist and Planning Theory: The Epistemological connection, In S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Garret S., Gender, (trans. into Persian by K. Baghaie, 2000, Tehran: Digar.) Giddens, A., Modernity & Self Identity, Self & Society in Modern Age, (trans. into Persian by N. Movafaghian, 1999, Tehran: Nashr-Ney.) Golombok, S., Fivush, R., Gender Development, (trans. into Persian by M. Shahraray, 1998, Tehran: Ghoghnoos.)

255 Grunig, L.A., Toth, E.L., Hon, L.Ch. (eds.) 2001, Women in Public Relation, Guilford Press. Hamidi, M. and others, 1997, Tehran Urban Structure, 3 vol., (in Persian), Tehran: Technical & Engineering Consultant Organization of Tehran, Tehran Municipality. Harvey, D. 2003, Social Justice, Postmodernism and the City, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Hayden, D. 2000, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, Eighth printing, Cambridge: MIT Press. Hayden, D. 2003, What would a Nonsexist city be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design and Human Work, in, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Hazeri, Alimohammad, 2001, The Social Problems affected by Conflict of Values in the Transitional Era, Journal of the Iranian Sociological Association, No. 4, Special Issue of the Social Problems of Iran. Hills, H. 2000, Architecture as Metaphor for the Body: The Case of the Female Convents in Early Modern Italy, in, I. Durning, and R. Wrigley, (eds.), Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Homminfar, E. 2003, Changes in Gender Socialization, Women's Research, 7(1) 89- 113 Humm, M. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory, (trans. into Persian by Ahmadi Khorasani, N., Gharedaghi, F., Mohajer, F., 2002, Tehran: Nashr- Tosee) Huxley, M. 1996, Govermentality Gender Planning, A Foucauldian Perspective, in Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Ifu (International Women’s University), 2000, Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel Jenkins, R. Social Identity, (trans. into Persian by T. Yarahmadi, 2002, Tehran: Nashr-Pazhoohesh-Shirazeh.) Kandiyoti, Deniz, 1988, Bargaining With Patriarchy, Gender and Society, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp 274 – 290.

256 Khatam A. 1992, Reduction of Capital Population Growth, The End of a Nightmare, in Book of Tehran, vol. 3, (in Persian), Tehran: Roshangaran. Knopp, L. 2003, Sexuality and Urban Space: A Framework for Analysis. In, A.R. Cuthbert, (ed.) Designing Cities, Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell. Kotnik, Toni, 2005, The Mirrored Public, Architecture and Gender Relationship in Yemen, Space and Culture, Vol. 8, issue 4, pp 427 – 483. Kramsch, O. 1998, Tropics of Planning Discourse, Stalking the "Constructive Imaginary" of Selected Urban Planning Histories. In L. Sandercock, (ed.) Making the Invisible Visible, A Multicultural Planning History, Berkeley: University of California Press. Krier, R. 1979, Urban Space, London: Academy Edition. Lefebvre, H. 1991, The Production of Space, trans. D. Nicholson Smith, Blackwell. Lips, H.M. 2003, A New Psychology of Women, Gender, Culture and Ethnicity, second edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Low, Martina, 2006, The Social Construction of Space and Gender, European Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 119 – 133. Madanipour, Ali, 1998, Tehran: The Making of A Metropolis, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Mahdavi, M.S. 2002, Analysis of Gender Differences in Primitive Societies. In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 93-110. Mahmoodi, Mehri, 1999, The Relationship between Social Stratification and Religious Attitudes and Behaviors in Tehran (MS Thesis), Tehran: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tarbiat – e – Moddaress. Maleki, Amir, 1996, A Survey of Relation Between Socio – Economic Status of Family & Value Attitudes of Adolescents, Tehran Male High School Students of Mathematical Physics & Experimental Sciences (MA Thesis), Tehran: School of Humanities, University of Tarbiat – e – Moddaress. Mallett, Shelley, 2004, Understanding Home: a Critical Review of the Literature, The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

257 Management & Planning Organization of Tehran Province, 2002, selected Statistics of Tehran province 2001, Tehran: Management & Planning Organization of Tehran Province, Statistical assistance. Marshal, C., Rossman, G. Qualitative Research Method, (trans. into Persian by A. Parsaeian & M. Arabi, 1998, Tehran: Daftare Pazhooheshhaye Farhangi). McDowell, L. 1996, Spatializing Feminism, Geographic Perspectives, in, N. Duncan, (ed.), Body Space, Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, London & New York: Routledge. McDowell, L. 1999, Gender, Identity & Place, Understanding Feminist Geographies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mcilwaine, C. 1995, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity, Concepts, Realities and Policy Implications, TWPR, 17(2), 237-243. McNeill, Patrick, Research methods, translated into Persian by Mohssen Salasi, Agah publication, 1997, Tehran. Meyers, D.T. 2002, Gender in the Mirror, Cultural imagery and Women's Agency, Oxford University Press. Milory, B.M. 1996, Some Thoughts about Difference & Pluralism, in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Moghadam, Valentine M. 2004, Patriarchy in Transition: Women and the Changing Family in the Middle East, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 35, part 2, pp 137 – 162. Moosavi, S.S. 1997, Women Socio economical Indicators in Islamic Republic of Iran, (in Persian), Tehran: Center for Women's Participation. Najm- Eraki, M., Salehpoor, M., Mosavi, N. (eds.) 2003, Women references, Vol. 1, 2, Tehran: Digar. Ottes, L., Poventud, E., Van Schendelen, M. and Segond von Banchet, G. (eds.) 1995, Gender and the Built Environment, Emancipation in Planning, Housing and Mobility in Europe, Assen: Van Gorcum. Pratt, G. and Hanson, S. 1994, Geography and the Construction of Difference, Gender, Place and Culture 1 (1):5-29.

258 Rabani, Rasoul & Ansari, Ebrahim, 2006, Sociology of Stratums and Social Inequalities, Tehran: Sasman – e – Samt. Rabie, Hosein, 2004, Criteria of Legitimacy of Religious Government with Emphasis on Place Differentiation, Case Study Tehran (MS Thesis), Tehran: Department of Geography, University of Tarbiat – e – Moddaress. Rafipoor, Faramarz, 1981, An introduction to the techniques of sociology and social research, Tehran: Enteshar publication, (in Persian). Rendell, J. 2000, Ramblers and Cyprians: Mobility, Visuality and the Gendering of Architectural Space, in, I. Durning and R. Wrigley, (eds.), Gender and Architecture, Wiley. Rendell, J., Penner, B. and Borden, I. (eds.) 2000, Gender Space Architecture, An interdisciplinary introduction, London and New York: Routledge. Ritzdorf, M. 1996, Feminist Thoughts on the Theory & Practice of planning, in, S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell. Roberts, Andy. 2002, A principled Complementarity of Method: In Defense of Methodological Eclecticism and the Qualitative - Quantitative Debate, in The Qualitative Report, volume 7, number 3, September 2002, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7- 3/roberts.html). Rose, Damaris. 2001, Revisiting Feminist Research methodologies: A Working Paper, Status of Women Canada, Research Division, http://www.swc- cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/revisiting/revisiting_1_e.html Sadoughianzadeh, Minoosh, 2006, “Gender Social Structure & Space, Reflection on Iranian Traditional Spaces”, Architecture and Urbanism, no. 82 / 83, pp. 7 – 13, (a Persian Journal). Sahab, M. 1991, Tehran's Maps, In, M. Y. Kiani (ed.), Iran's Cities, vol. 4, (in Persian), Tehran: Sahab. Saidnia, A. 1991, Tehran Structure, In, M. Y. Kiani (ed.), Iran's Cities, vol. 4, (in Persian), Tehran: Sahab. Sandercock, L., Forysth, A. 1996, Feminist Theory and Planning Theory: the Epistemological Linkages, in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell.

259 Sarookhani, Baghir, 1993, Research methods in social sciences, Tehran: Institute of cultural studies, (in Persian). Sazegara, Parvin, 2003, A Survey of the Relationship between Lifestyle and Social Class, A Comparison of Old & New Middle Class in Tehran (PHD Thesis), Tehran: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran. Secor, Anna, J. 2001, Toward a Feminist Counter – geopolitics: Gender, Space and Islamist Politics in Istanbul, Space and Polity, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 191 – 211. Secor, Anna, J. 2002, The Veil and Urban Space in Istanbul: women’s dress, mobility and Islamic knowledge, Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 5 – 22. Shahshahany S. 2002, Concept of Gender. In N. Jazany (ed.), An Approach to Gender Analysis in Iran, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, 15-36. Somerville, Peter, 1997, The Social Construction of Home, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp 226 – 245. Statistical Center of Iran, 1996, General census of population & housing 1996, detailed results for whole country, 1 (in Persian), Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. Statistical Center of Iran, 1999, General census of population & housing1996, detailed results for city of Tehran (22 districts), 7 (in Persian), Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. Statistical Center of Iran, 2002, Country statistical Year Book 2001, Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. Sullivan, Oriel, 2004, Changing Gender Practices within the Household, a Theoretical Perspective, Gender and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp 207 – 222 Takmil Homayoon, N. 2000, Tehran Population, the sociological & cultural history of Tehran, 3 vol. (in Persian), Tehran: Cultural Research Institute of Tehran Municipality. Taleghani, M. (ed.) 1992, Population, Tehran: The 200 year old Capital of Iran, Sociological studies, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran studies Research Group, Cultural Studies & Research Institute. Tavassoli, Gholam-abbas, 1999, Theories of sociology, university of payam noor, fifth edition, (in Persian).

260 Tavassoli, M., Bonyadi, N. 1992, Urban Space Design, Tehran: Urban Planning and Architecture Research Center of Iran. Tehran Center of Research & Planning, 1997, Tehran Social Investigation, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran Municipality. Tehran Center of Research & Planning, 1998, Tehran Population Investigation, (in Persian), Tehran: Tehran Municipality. Terlinden, Ulla, 2000, New Living Spaces, Technological Development and Urban Change, in ifu (International Women University) Reader, Project area “City and Gender”, Kassel Thompson, J. 2000, Women, Class and Education, Routledge. Toker, Umut, & Toker Zeynep, 2003, Family Structure and Spatial Configuration in Turkish House Form in Anatolia from Late nineteenth to Late Twentieth Century, in Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London. Torre, S. 2000, Claiming the Public Space: The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. In, In, J. Rendell, B. Penner, and I. Borden, (eds.), Gender Space Architecture, An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Routledge. Torres, A.T., Rosario, R.D. Gender and Development, (trans. into Persian by J. Yoosefian, 1996, Tehran: Banoo.) Wacquant, Loic, 2006, Pierre Bourdieu, Department of Sociology, University of California – Berkeley, http:// sociology. Berkeley. edu Weisman, L.K. 1994, Discrimination by Design, A Feminist Critique of the Man- Made Environment, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Weisman, L.K. 1996, Diversity by Design: Feminist Reflections on the Future of Architectural Education and Practice, in D. Agrest, P. Conway, L.K. Weisman, (eds.) The Sex of Architecture, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Zanjani, H. 1992, Tehran Women Fertility, in The Book of Tehran, vol. 2, (in Persian), Tehran: Roshangaran.

261

“Gender” and “Space” in Tehran

Dissertation for the Obtainment the Academic Degree of Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften (Dr.-Ing.) Faculty of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Planning University of Kassel

by:

Minoosh Sadoughianzadeh

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ulla Terlinden Consultant: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kerstin Doerhoefer Day of Disputation: 26.11.08

Vol. 2

Appendixes

Gender Identity, Qualitative investigations, 3 - 61 Gender Identity and Private Space, Qualitative Investigations 62 - 105 Gender Identity and Semi Private, Semi Public Spaces, Qualitative Investigations 106 - 158 Gender Identity and Public Spaces, Qualitative Investigations 159 - 228 Questionnaire 229 - 233

2 Gender Identity

In order to investigate about interviewees’ gender identities as are reflected on their gender attitudes, twelve open questions have been asked from mothers and fathers. These questions have made the forth part of questionnaire. Now for analyzing the answers, these twelve questions and their answers are themselves classified to 5 categories as followed: 1 - Attitude towards women working out of the house (question no. 2 & 3). 2 - Attitude towards financial independence of women (questions no. 9). 3 - Attitude towards social role of women and men in society (questions no. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12). 4 - Attitude towards existing social differences between men and women (question no. 5). 5 - Attitude towards appropriate educational level for boys and girls (question no. 8). In this chapter at first for each category, interviewees’ attitudes will be investigated compared to other interviewees’; investigation about each category has its conclusion followed. Then, those five categories which in fact all together make general gender attitudes are put together for each interviewee parent. Therefore a general view could be provided for each interviewee’s gender attitudes or gender identity. In the last part of this section and in a comparable view, all interviewees’ notions analyzed through their general gender attitudes. In this way, in a general assessment, various ranges of gender attitudes of Tehran resident parents of this sampling could be investigated; so in the next chapters, through investigation on interviewees’ spatial notions, the possible connection between gender identity and spatial identity could be analyzed.

Categories of Gender Attitude:

Category no. 1: Attitudes towards women’s employment

– What's your opinion about women employment out of home? – If you agree about women employment, which areas of employment are appropriate for women? Must they be different for men and women?

3 Looking at the answers, three groups are found; - Those parents who expressed their agreement about women working out. - Those who mentioned a condition for women working out. - At last those mothers and fathers who disagree with women working out. Parents’ distribution within different groups has shown in table no. 1.

1 – Group agreeable: Most of the women belong to this group. These women are from different social classes; housewife or participant breadwinner or householder. Mothers agreeable, mentioned different reason for their preferences: getting social promotion, having financial independence or having a good spirit. These parents didn’t say any condition for working women.

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): I agree with it….. I think they can work in any fields they like and have especial knowledge….Social, educational, medical, managing and even as a minister they can work…..

Sample no. 6 (a housewife from lower middle class with low education): No, it’s better to be out (working out), they can have better spirits, and they’ll remain fresher. At home there’s nothing more than cleaning and cooking. It ruins our life, exactly like mine which ruined. When they go out can promote their spirit.

Sample no. 27 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Yes, it’s better to work ... No; I started to work after my divorce and I took my children….Yes, it’s better to have a job….. Yeah, they can work every where. If the woman be good she can work every where. She can work with men. It depends on herself…..

4

5

6 Fathers belonged to this group only a few compared to mothers, and from middle and upper classes; they are either householder or participant breadwinner.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): In my opinion it shouldn’t be different (social roles of men and women) but it is. Women are at least half of our society population and they should be effective as men. They should have the same facilities as men. In fact we are so far from this equality. This is slogan that may come true after many years. This is an unjust that women don’t have the same facilities as men. ... In fact they do the house chores better than housewives. There are lots of these cases around us. I accept that there is more pressure on them but for now there is no other way. I think the solution is to have more supplementary educational facilities and more kindergartens. Men should learn to help with house chores. Although men don’t help, employed women grow up their children better and even manage their free time with family better. They’re not comparable with home makers. Actually, because home makers don’t have any social roles even with well educated ones, can’t have effective role in bringing up children, and actually don’t do the house chores as good as those women who work out. ...

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): I think it’s a private issue (women working out). In my opinion there is no problem. …..In my opinion they can work in cultural, hygienically and official fields. They can work in banks, different state and independent offices…..

2 – Group conditional, the parents who mentioned some special fields or some appropriate places or some special conditions for working women. Some lower classes mothers of this group who themselves are housewives, mostly stressed on this subject that they don’t want their daughters work out in the inferior jobs as cleaner or worker. In fact they let their girl to continue their study to have a promising job in future.

7

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Yes, of course (letting her daughter to work out) ...A promising job, not whatever they find. ...Education is better. If she finds a job related to her major, she can go but not working as a worker. …

Some mother with traditional ideas stressed on the limitation in the working places appropriated for women:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): Yes، that’s good to earn money and have fun…. No ،I can’t work out…. Yes ،working is good, especially in hard situations it’s good to have a job and do some thing and helps the house. ... No, she can’t work in some places. There are some companies that they can work as an accountant or secretor. Or they can work in factories. ... .There are some limitations for women ،there aren’t lots of jobs for them

And some woman pointed to the physical strength differences that make difference between men and women appropriate jobs.

Sample no. 34 (an educated – high school diploma and participant breadwinner mother from lower middle class): Hard jobs are referred to the man. Women’s job must be easier. Some jobs are done common, it makes no difference socially, doesn’t matter a man or a woman……They (women) can work like men. In our office women work just like men…..They can give ideas but don’t know practical wise. A woman can’t construct building or something like. This is men’s job but women can give ideas. There are no differences in mental works.....

8 Fathers belonged to this group made the majority of them and are from middle and upper classes. Since fathers from lower class of this study have made the third group, disagreeable, so if there were others not belong to the third group, they most probable belong to this group. They are either householder or participant breadwinner. Fathers belonged to this group, emphasized that women could work out, if they could arrange housework firstly; or they wouldn’t be proud of themselves; or it’s better if they work in some appropriate jobs and environments like educational or health fields:

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father of middle class): There isn’t a special problem. Actually some jobs are specialized for women and that’s a heavy responsibility, like looking after and bringing up children, if they can do it so there’s no problem. I mean manage somehow to do both of them. There’s no problem, as my wife has a job. ...Cultural fields or medical branches are more suitable; I think they can’t work in industrial fields. They also could be in services. ...

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from upper class): If it doesn’t make any problem for the family life, there will be no problem. ... Depending on their education some occupations are more suitable, for example teaching and also some places that they spend little time with men and also not distant places. ... I cannot tell you a specific difference. But depending on the situation some issues are forbidden for women. That’s natural; because they’ve got different sex. ... For example when our daughters are buying something, we tell them: don’t haggle don’t discuss. Avoid trusting on men. But we don’t tell our sons. We make them to get used to hard situations. But we try to avoid involving our daughters into these issues.

Sample no. 10 (A householder father from middle class with low education): That much that they don’t be proud of themselves. ... It means that they shouldn’t think they are superior in comparison with men. It means that they shouldn’t hammer their husbands

9 because of their income. ... I prefer that they don’t work in physical and mental fields. They can be secretary or work with computer. They shouldn’t work as a manual labor. ....There’s no problem (to be a manager).....

Sample no. 9 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner of upper class): It’s positive (women working out)….In social and cultural professions (suitable fields for women)….In any field they’re capable to. But I prefer that women operate in social and cultural fields, because these grounds are suitable for them. …

3 - Group disagreeable: Mothers and fathers belong to this group, small number, all with low education and from lower middle or lower classes. Mothers of this group although are all themselves employed and some of them family head, but declared they have to work because their husbands don’t earn enough money or he’s absent (divorced, or widow):

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): Yes, it depends on the situation. I didn’t like to work out in the past but life forced me to work. I don’t like now either, but I have to. ...Yes, I started to work after getting divorced because children came to live with me, I don’t like to work but I have to. ...

Sample no. 35 (a participant breadwinner mother from lower class with low education): I prefer that the man works outside and bring money to the home and the woman takes care of the children and their studies. ….

10 Fathers, who expressed their opposition against women working out, said they don’t like it because of their believes or because it causes many problems in family life:

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class and with low education): No... It’s bad. I’m just talking about Turkish. It’s difficult for us. I don’t let them work one hour cleaning the other people’s house; washing the clothes… an official work, there’s no difference. ...No, it’s difficult (letting her daughter to work out).

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): As I pointed out before it’s not good (women working out)...I told you about it before. The women that work in the office that I used to work before had usually problems with the work of their houses when they go home from the work, they will have argument with their husbands about cleaning the house and cooking food. They order the other one to draw tea. Both of them tell the other one that I am tired. I’ve just arrived home. Therefore they will have problems.

General findings

1 – In general, most mothers of this study agreed with women’s employment for different reasons like earning money, social promotion, or even for having fun out of the house, even housewives who themselves never worked outside, wished that for their daughters. This group of agreeable mothers has been from different social classes with different level of education. They are either employed mother – participant or head – or not, a housewife who preferred employment for their girls. 2 – Some fathers, educated from middle or upper classes agreed with working women out of the house and considered it as an advantage in women’s life to promote socially or personally. These fathers are either householder or participant breadwinner (it means they have housewife or employed wife).

11 3 – In a comparable view, while women agreeable are from all social classes, men are from middle and upper. So by the same way while women are either educated or not, all men are educated (mostly higher educated). 4 – Group conditional included the majority of fathers and several mothers of this sampling .They expressed something as a condition for women working outside. Among this group, some mothers and fathers mentioned some special fields of profession appropriated to women like field of education or health or office works. These works are sometimes gender separated or their working time could be short – a useful situation for women could arrange both their work in and out of the house – And some other parents referred to the physical strength differences of men and women which affect their appropriate jobs differently. 5 – An important condition was mentioned for women working outside by many fathers. These fathers asserted housework – all kinds of them including mothering, cooking, cleaning …- must be done properly by women if they want to work outside. Actually in their minds, housework is a womanish issue, anyway she must arrange it. 6 – Some fathers said that if women are not proud of themselves, they could work and earn money. What’s the meaning of proud in these fathers’ opinion? It seems these fathers are anxious about the women autonomy resulted from her working and earning, not to be a good obeyed wife any more. 7 – It’s important to remind that the both conditions men asserted for working women – housework having done well and not to be proud – are not referred by any women in this way as a condition, even if they have them in their minds.. 8 – Mothers of group conditional are from different social classes that mean they have different level of education, primary till university education; also they are housewife, or householder or participant breadwinner. But it’s important that most of the fathers belonged to this group and accepted working women with some limitation, are educated –mostly with higher level of education. The difference between number of university educated mothers and fathers in this group are tremendous; and this is while they referred to different conditions in some cases. 9 – While the majority of mothers belong to the group agreeable, majority of fathers belong to the group conditional.

12 10 – According to the upper fact, while university educated women mostly are from group 1, agreeable, university educated fathers mostly are from group 2, conditional. 11 – Group disagreeable with working women out of the house, include mothers and fathers from lower and lower middle classes, almost all low educated. It’s so interesting to know mothers of this group, who opposed to working women, are themselves employed even employed householder. The Important fact about this disagreement is these mothers have been forced to work because of their strong need to money to cover main expenses of their family life, while their husbands doesn’t provide it for some reasons (sickness, addiction, unemployment…) or he is absent (he is dead or divorced).Since these mothers are low educated, the job they could afford, is kind of unskilled, mostly hard physical ones with low wages, and at the same time all the housework is on their shoulders; while these situations are not the fact for their counterparts from upper middle or upper classes since those women either employed or housewife, enjoy from some kind of help in doing housework whether they have servants or they could benefit of ready made foods or kindergartens or…: “Greater financial resources facilitate the purchase of domestic services that, presumably, relieve a share of task burden that otherwise would be performed by the wife. Income also captures class differences, where lower or working class men & women appear to be less egalitarian in their values …” (Brines, 1994: 671); so it could be understood why they wish to be a usual housewife with a good incomer husband in a safe family life: “…working class men and women may have interests in common that working class women do not share with middle class women or white women with black women …” (McDowell, 1999:248). 12 – Two householder fathers belong to this group, from lower class with low education represented a very traditional patriarchal perspective to the subject of working women out of the house and assert their strong opposition to it.

Category no. 2: Attitudes towards women financial independence

- What's your opinion about financial independence of women? How much do they should participate in family income and living costs?

13 Considering the answers, they could be divided to the same three groups: 1 – Group agreeable with women financial independence. 2 – Group conditionally agreed with… 3 – Group disagreeable with…

1 – Group agreeable: In fact for women, there aren’t other groups. All of mothers even those who disagreed with working women out of the house, placed in this group. The advantages they refer to, range from helping to secure part of the house expenditures to having independence to buy whatever they want or the nice feeling of autonomy. In all cases, their authorities are important either in spending money for the house need or whatever.

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – housewife from lower middle .…class): Yeah، that’s (working out) well for their spirit. They can think and decide better Yes ،now I should wait till my master (husband) gives me money. Woman can be independent. My neighbor works herself and buys what ever she wants. ...

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from upper class): It’s really important but I realized it too late. It gives you a nice feeling even if it’s just one thousand Tomans. It’s not good for a woman to borrow money from others. If a woman wants to buy something for her mother or her family, she must ask her husband for many times till she gets money, not all men are like this but I lived in this special situation. Maybe 50 percent of people are like me and have this financial problem. ...Even if she doesn’t need, at least when you want to buy something you can say that it’s my own money. No one can reproach you about the things you buy. Hope that it happens to all women.....

Some women stressed on the importance of feeling of independence itself:

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): It’s very important. Even it can be effective in developing children’s characters and also it’s so affective in the

14

15 ، feelings of self confidence and independence of women in the marriage relation. I think it’s effective to the different points of view. .

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): It’s really necessary for the women. A woman should have occupation and has her own income, even if she is financially provided. Men also have shown that they respect these kinds of women more but she shouldn’t be proud of herself if she has independence.

Even those women, who opposed against women working out, but expressed financial independence of women as an advantage.

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): It’s better for women to be independent financially. They can buy things for themselves without asking their husband to give them money; it can sometimes help the family’s economy….It helps really. It also helps the children but I like being a housewife. ...

The women who secure parts of the house expenditures, they usually spend their money on the side parts not the main expenditures of the family:

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Actually both of us put our money in the same drawer….Now I am retired and just get half of it. Now I pay 1/3 and he 2/3, because he has a job…..I used to some shopping, but he used to pay the major ones as the building monthly charge and meat and… but for example when the worker comes for doing house chore, I pay.....

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from

16 upper class): My husband provides most of the expenditures. I provide the extra expenditure of the life. For example the journeys we want to go or extra means of the life. Expenditures like this other than daily expenditures are on my husband.

Some mothers both from upper class mentioned this fact even if they believe that women should spend their money on the family needs, but the law (Islamic law) hasn’t put the securing of expenditure on their side. This is their awareness to their legal rights in present situation, even if they don’t accept it:

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): It depends on the situation. It’s our law that men should provide expenditure and he’s responsible. We don’t ask women to spend their income on family’s expenditure but you know there’s a family and this is their income. They should agree about the way they spend it.....

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): I believe that they should have income and that’s necessary….. A lot (sharing in expenses)…. There isn’t an obligation, it’s better to pay because according to the law there isn’t a must for her…... If she could, she should be shared. I ideally think there is no difference.....

Fathers belonged to this group and expressed their agreement with financial independence of women, also agreed with their sharing in expenditures:

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): There’s no problem, it’s good. ...From 0% to 100%; they could have no income and the husband afford all of it and I think it’s her right; she could have a job and afford 100% of it. ... It depends on her, if she likes. ... No, shouldn’t if it’s not needed, she doesn’t need to pay the expenses. ...

17

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): This independence has positive effects on their life and is great. This financial independence is effective on other aspects of their lives, too. It’s great. ...It’s not an obligation so husband pays 50% and the wife 50%. I can’t set a limitation for that. They both should try to solve the family financial problems, as much as they can. ... Certainly (agree), 100%

2 – Group conditional: This group doesn’t include any mothers within. Some of these fathers said that they agree with women having financial independence, only if it doesn’t cause immorality and vanity for women or they don’t feel artificial independence:

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder father from upper class): It’s good till they don’t feel undesirable independence and it doesn’t hurt their morale. ….

Sample no. 10 (a householder father from middle class with low education): As I pointed out before, that much that she doesn’t feel superiority to her husband (head of the house). Each person has her/his own capacity. One person maybe proud of herself and feels that she’s superior because of 100000 tomans income and another one may not because of 1.000.000 Tomans. ...

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class): If it doesn’t make arguments and vanity is good. For example she says that it’s my money. It’s my car… financial equality is good. Even if women’s income is more than men’s, there’s no problem but if it causes arguments I don’t agree with it although it’s her right. Because I prefer close relationships; jobs may cause cold relationships. ...It depends on our initial agreement, it couldn’t be said it’s equal.

18 Maybe 60% to 40%. 60% the man provides and 40% the woman provides. If you are financially provided, you may not demand women’s income. ...

Several men declared that women’s money mustn’t be spent on family expenditure. They know themselves responsible to provide all the life expenses. They are master of the house, so they must earn enough money to cover family needs.

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated and householder father from upper class): I believe that as much as women’s financial independence increases, they can have better live, they can feel less pressure but I don’t accept that women participate in family expenditure…..

Sample no. 9 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner of upper class): All women should spend their money completely in their own issues and they shouldn’t contribute to the family economy. ….They should have economical independence…..

And a religious man expressed it as a religious law, and as advantage to women:

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): Yes, I do .but man doesn’t have any proportion in woman’s money. She has the right to work but if her husband gets her money, it’s illegal. When he agrees with her working, the money is her own. Man has to support the woman. He should be very cruel to get his wife’s money.

3 – Group disagreeable: Those few fathers (and not any mother) who explicitly expressed their opposition to women financial independence.

19

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): No, it’s not good. A woman who works out of the house and earn money is really bad….. I’m Turkish. Fars and Lore people can do whatever they want. But I’m Turkish. It’s bad for me. If my wife works somewhere and earns money, it’s bad. It’s not possible. I cannot accept it. It’s really bad.

General findings

1 – All the mother interviewees expressed their positive opinion about women financial independence. They counted various advantages for that: from having their own money to spend on what ever they want – house expenses or personal needs … - without any other’s argument, to psychic effects of it like self confidence, authority and autonomy in family relations …. It seems while earning money to cover much better family expenditure is a reason for women to work outside home, but having independence and authority in family is the important issue for many of them. 2 – While women all included in group agreeable, men expressed different perspectives to the issue of women financial independence. 3 – Most of The fathers who agreed with financial independence of women and women participation in family expenses and seem to be equitable in this aspect of family relation, have university education and are from middle and upper classes. 4 – Group 2 of fathers, the largest group included those who accepted women having their own money conditionally; some fathers asserted that women financial independence is acceptable if they are not proud, if they don’t argue with their husband about this money …. In fact they don’t like their patriarchal authorities and the resulted relations within their family to be altered; the peaceful situation that is the consequence of their absolute authorities in family relations not to be changed. Some others declared that women could have their own money but they don’t like to spend women income in life main expenses. At first, this seems an advantage to women to spend their money for themselves not for shared expenses, but the internal concept is the same with the first conditional group; there isn’t any difference between previous group and this one,

20 because this notion doesn’t accept women autonomy resulted from their parts in covering life expenses neither. It seems this belief unconsciously expresses the same anxiety about alteration in men’s power in family as the master of the house who is responsible to provide all family financial needs. This issue under the definition of masculinity or masculine identity is very well deliberated in article of Julie Brines, 1994, Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. 5 – This belief has its route in Islamic rules too that now is legislated and accomplished. 6 – These fathers that accepted women financial independence conditionally are distributed all over fathers’ social groups of study, from lower middle class to upper class, it means from low educated to university educated. They are either householder or participant breadwinner. 7 – A few fathers from lower and lower middle class expressed their strong opposition to the issue of women financial independence. They expressed very conservative notion towards the existence patriarchal gender relationships among some social groups of society.

Category no. 3: Attitude towards social role of women and men in society

– How is your opinion about social roles of men and women in society? Do you think they are different or not? - What's your opinion about girls and boys training? Do you think that it must be different or not? If yes, in which cases? – In your opinion, what is the best social role for women in society? - In your opinion, what is the best social role for men in society? – What's your opinion about the time that women must appropriate to the home, homemaking, caring children …? – In your opinion, do women or men have a main duty? – What are your ideal woman and man in society?

This category includes 7 questions that investigate two main subjects about differences between men and women social roles – comparing private and public roles in and out of the house – and differences between girls and boys training.

21 The main important point related to this study and whole questions, and especially this category is that the interviewees are mothers and fathers of at least 2 young children, so they had a relatively long experience of taking care of and bringing up their children with all affections to them during this period that still continuing. Regarding the questions like this: what is the main duty of women in society; strongly all the answers relate to: mothering. Considering house works, mothering is totally different from other house chores like cooking or cleaning … she or he responding to this question faces her or his child with all his responsibility and feelings. Lack of appropriate public institutions like free or low cost kindergartens is an obstruction for mothers also fathers could pass from full time mothering in their notions. So in specifying answers to different groups, there would be no group with preferences of women working out to taking care of their children (sometimes they have said about housework in general that it includes mothering within). It’s possible to imagine the opposite preferences for those who don’t have any child which are not included in this sampling (for example, look at the research about importance of mothering for women in Filipino: Delia D. Aquilar, 1996, Filipino women & the work of mothering). In general, the groups of answers are distinguished as followed: 1 – Group agreeable with women and men balanced social roles and balanced social training of girls and boys. 2 – Group conditionally considers dual roles in and out of the house for men and women, and asserts originally main separated roles for them. 3 – Group disagreeable with balanced gender roles who asserts strongly separated roles for men and women in society.

1 – Group agreeable: Those parents who could imagine equal social roles for men and women in and out of the house; some of them referred to obstacles making it impossible in present situation. Mothering always is an exception, considering house works. These parents mostly look at their girls and boys training in similar ways. Mothers belong to this group, mostly employed, educated and from middle and upper class:

22

23

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner from middle class): No, even some of the women are superior. Unfortunately the law is always against us but fortunately the family is more important and is the basis that I think women turns it. But you know, nothing was of benefit to us. We've gained everything with lots of efforts and again we should persist and reach whatever we want. These laws may some days be of benefit to us and we may change the laws....The woman (ideal woman) who is independent from the points of economics, mentality and……I think although she has flexibility, she should have her independence. I mean that she should accept the right issues. Athleticism is a worthy issue for me. I think that physically healthy woman can have these issues. Flexibility is more in sportsmen. The people, who love nature and spend more hours in the nature, can learn lots of things from the nature. I think like this....She can arrange her time in order to do the house work more rapidly if just she is experienced and trained in a way that is in my mind. For example it has been many times that I didn't request leave of absence for my children and now I'm regretful. Because I was a teacher and there were times that I went to school the whole week instead of 3 or 4 days a week. It was when my children went to elementary school but I was at home at 11 o' clock when my children came back. My time was for my children although I loved my work and I didn't take even one day off….. It was good for me. My husband would always stay at home when my children had problems because he knew my work is preferable and he had accepted it. Well, you know, I was a little self-centered. I'm now retired but I still work because I love my work and I don't like to stay at home because I tolerate it those days that I felt there was lots of pressure on me and my children needed me more. I did all the tomorrow's works like cooking food for everyone, cleaning the house and providing the children's diapers and clothes at 2 a.m. I carried them to the kindergarten and I did sports. Therefore sometimes I got so tired. I had to go out alone during one year and so did Ahmad because one of us should take care of the children. You know, their age distance is few. We agreed about it but it was very difficult for us in the first few years but now we think that it was correct because they're so friend with each other. ... Yes, women who work out of the house should arrange everything. ...Yes, they (men) should help. Actually it's not a help. It's their duty. We should have this viewpoint. Unfortunately we say help but they are one of the members of the house and it's their duty. Unfortunately some women say that we dislike our husband wash the dishes. We don't like to wash the dishes either. Or for example some men say that we like a situation that when we enter the house, the dinner is ready and the house is clean. Well, we also like when we enter the house somebody serves us. Who dislikes it? …..Anyway, I think it's necessary to offer great importance to the men of the house. The children notice their mother's behavior and it has

24 got great influence. If the relationship between the parents is not good and the mother doesn't pay enough attention to the father, the children will exactly understand it. The children pay attention to their parents' behavior not to their words. Advice is not useful at all. There have been many times that we had talked with them. But they don't listen to advice. It's our behavior that has influence on the children. ...No, there is no difference at all. Both of them are the same. I have always thought about it and I told Ahmad that although we treat them exactly the same, Roja is somehow different from Pouya and that's because of the society. The society trained them wrongly. ...Incidentally Roja was more independent. I didn't have enough time to be careful about everything of Roja and the result was great till the age of 5 and 6 in the kindergarten and……. Her independence was very good. Great. Well, Roja has gone to kindergarten since she was only 7 month but my mother took care of Pouya till he was one year old. Roja was really independent but since she has gone to elementary school, I felt that her character differed a lot. I think they got a lot from the society...Well, affection and fondness to her husband and children are very important and she should also love her job. I mean that if a woman has a good and useful family, she also plays a positive role in her job. She should realize that loving children and taking care of them is the basis and it's preferable to everything. If she weren't able to take care of her children, she should quit her job. But if she were able to arrange her time for both of the works, that would be very good. ... Working is very important and basic for men. It's the economical role of men that provide most of the expenditure but they should also notice to their family. They should spend some hours in their families. They should love their families. They should spend energy for their families but their work is preferable. We can understand that their job is preferable but the family is the basis. ....

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from upper class): I have told my son that you should help your wife in housework in future because she is likely to work outside. No difference. They should both work inside and outside. That’s fare, not that all the works are for the woman….There are lots of them who help and who learn how to help....I’ve tried to educate them the same as each other. I think that’s because of their different characters or maybe their different gender that they behave differently..... Maybe if they were both girls it would be different. They take after parents. My daughter is very self- made. I don’t forbid anything for her, but she is more independent than my son, he accept everything that I say but not my daughter, even if I trained them the same way they are different....No, the same (way of training).... A good

25 woman should be active in every part of her life; she should bring up her children well so that they can trust her. A woman is stronger than a man. I lived in a way that my children always fell that I am present and strong. It’s so difficult but must be stand. As far as I can, I provided everything for them, inside and outside the home. I try to provide everything for my children so they can live happy....There isn’t any ideal man.....No difference. Both man and woman should be responsible and logical. They should be as good as their words. In our culture man is the head of the family but you see woman’s conduction behind.....Very much. I think if a woman as a mother is not at home, it seems half of the house is in a mess. She is in charge of everything. Children mostly turn to the mother especially when they are younger and their father is out at work. I was a housewife but even if a woman works children still rely on her. They usually solve their problem with the father through her. It is very important for the woman (the mother) to be at home and to behave properly.....

Sample no. 8 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from middle class): No; the woman who works out, should be equal with her husband at home. The man should accompany her at home. Not when they both come back home, the man sits and the woman works! Where job conditions are equal, they should work equally at home too. When women have income and spend it at home the house chores should be shared too..... It (training) shouldn’t be different; but society makes some limitations for girls, otherwise a grown up girl or boy can do her/his jobs alone. But well because of social limitations girls can’t do lots of things..... Yes; for example a girl can’t stay out with her friends till 11 or 12 o'clock but if there be suitable situation and security; there’s no difference between them. ...A woman, who isn’t goofy, doesn’t need anyone; acts independently are very ideal. Who can make decisions independently, who isn’t dependant on others. And a man who isn’t selfish is ideal..... The responsibility as a mother is the main one. She can’t share that with others. She should do her mother duties alone.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): There should be no difference (social roles of men and women). …The same as working out, they should work together. The house chores should be shared….In some cases about their sex should be different, but in general they both have some needs and trainings that should learn....They both (ideal) should have good education and good job. They should be active....

26

Fathers belong to this group are a few ones comparing women; all are educated and participant breadwinner from middle and upper classes. They are included in this group of agreeable to gender balanced roles although they don’t speak equitable about the issue as women explicitly speak:

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): It doesn’t differ in upper levels. If it differs it surely can’t be equal. In superior fields and important decision it doesn’t differ. ...In superior fields (consider it in a university) it could be the same but not in inferior fields. Consider a hospital which needs a nurse. This is preferably the role of women not men and it’s not the same in this case. It differs in different levels. ....It should be different. ...Yes. Everybody has his/ her own place. ...It’s (training) different. You can bring up some issues with boys but not with girls. But both of the parents have important roles. Especially mother for girls and father for boys but some of them are joint- responsibility. ....In choosing friends. In social issues. ...Educating her children and having wide viewpoints. Conduct the family well (the main social role of women). That’s the case in our family. ...Educating children and working out of and in the house. ...In the society women can do whatever men can do. In my opinion there’s no limitation. But there are limitations. They can be manager if freedom exists. There was a programme on T.V that shows a woman who established a turnery factory and managed it. She was very successful. Women have got this capability. In my opinion they can develop in medical, hygienical, educational and managing issues. ...There’s no difference. For example women weren’t allowed to be a lawyer or police before hand but now they come to this conclusion to use women’s capability. ...That much that is necessary. She may spend all her time at home.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): It differs but it really must not. … This difference is historical and cultural. You know better where they have come from. It shouldn’t differ means it shouldn’t be unequal. Particular situations shouldn’t be provided just for men or just for women..... Except biological roles others are some conventional roles that we have made ourselves.....Well, just to that extent. In my opinion when a woman gives birth is just like amen who has

27 broken his leg for 3 months or suffers from cholera. ....Or for example she gets some virus. You might say that is once in a while and this one is something alternative which repeats. That doesn’t matter. It’s much better. ....No, I mean it’s because of physical condition not the body physiology which she gives birth and he doesn’t. Actually she doesn’t have the ability to do the job …..Exactly right. Also it happens that a lot of women have the ability. Maybe they aren’t trained physically but a trained one is like a man any how...... Of course it’s more natural no objection, but a lot of men are stronger than women.....See, this is the true story: in my opinion things said about women’s physiology or the things that happen and don’t let them do every thing; fall into two categories: excuse me of course! One is menstruation and the other is delivery of the child and nothing else. They have got used to the menstruation gradually. They are now familiar with it and it’s not like before to make a scene. We see a lot of women going to work and pass this period without any complain. They might say we have a headache once in a month, something like migraine. Since they are aware, they become less annoyed. That doesn’t disturb their job. Although they have a lot of problems during that period it doesn’t ruin their job, just like catching a cold. The delivery of the child is left, which every woman who enters society might experience it once or twice in her life. They are busy and involved with this case twice and each time 4 or 6 months so they are out. But to this respect you can’t say for whole life. There are a lot of who don’t have even once. ....They want to become a mother naturally but some people think that more than two times is unusual. It might be three times. So you can’t deprive the woman from other activities because one day she wants to give birth to a child. Or you can't prefer men to women and give all of situations; doesn’t matter, if she is off for 6 months or a year. A man also some times needs to rest.....Yes, but they don’t have to keep busy all of the time. It’s just an excuse. You might go back to the time which they delivered one baby each year so they didn’t have enough time but now is different. If a woman wants to deliver 10 to 15 children you can’t give her other things to do. Taking after her children is the biggest favor but now days every thing has changed. ...I don’t know. It is a difficult question (ideal woman), for example a woman with social activities. If you ask each man about an ideal woman he will talk about temper, behavior and such things. ...

2 – Group conditional included most of the mothers and fathers; these parents considered the possibility of dual roles for men and women in and out of the house, but emphasized on the main duty of men as main breadwinner and women as the main housekeeper. So as the consequences men could be helper in the housekeeping and women as minor breadwinner out of the house. These parents presented a moderate view

28 to the girls and boys training and told about some differences. The majority of women interviewees also men belong to this group. The mothers of this group are either housewives from any classes or low educated usually from lower classes. This is true for most of the mothers. It seems either education or employment are the major conditions for mothers to think openly about social roles of men and women.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife mother from upper class): In this situation in Iran a woman who has a job and also a child is under doubled oppression, because she has to do the house chores and out works. There are just few men who believe when their wives work, should share the house chores equally. Women are really under pressure. We’re the passing generation, maybe the next generations would be better, or may not with this way of men’s thoughts. ...Well, I think no, but our society is somehow that’s very difficult and we’re under pressure. That makes difference between them. When a boy comes home late, you don’t say anything, just give some advices but for a girl… if you bring them up the same way then will face some problems. I don’t want but it happens or if it’s being like other cities, in Iran you can’t. ...When they both have jobs, their duty is the same, but if the woman is just a housewife it’s different. The woman has to manage the house and the man earns money. Poor the woman has to work and do the house chores. She has to do either men’s job or housework. ...A (ideal) woman who brings up good children, the main role of women is this. If a woman has a great job and education and has social promotions but doesn’t have good children, has destroyed them. She has direct responsibility to children training, or she shouldn’t have children. ...The same, he should manage his work. If he just looks for money and don’t pay attention to his children is not good. Children don’t have any mistakes. He’s successful when he could balance between them. ...Participating in different social fields according to their talents and educations (main social role of women).....You are not talking about one special woman. You are talking about women in general. One of them has studied medicine; she should work in her field. The other one is a painter. She should also work in her field.....Being good mother, being good wife and being good citizen....In my opinion economic development and social welfare is men’s responsibility.....Economic development in the society benefits the families...... The one (man) who has family, naturally first he protect her family and after that the domains develops and come in to his city, country and all his environment...... Cultural and educational issues are the most important issues for me......

29 3 - Group disagreeable: These parents strongly disagreed with women dual roles and reject women working out; they could imagine men participation in the housekeeping as the help. The training of girls and boys are totally different and usually they referred to girls’ training more important than boys’ that implicitly present more controlling on girls. This group includes a few low educated householder father from lower and middle class and no mothers within:

Sample no. 10 (a householder father from middle class with low education): Basically it should be different. …. Surely. Boys should be educated in the field of society. He wants to enter the society. He should learn how to communicate with other people. How to behave; as I told you before about the park, when he goes to the park, when he enters public places he should be educated. Because they go out more and also he should supervise the family after some years. When a girl gets married she’s in control of a person. That person should be so much predominant in order to control his family. That’s the case in our society. I don’t know other societies. ... They (women) should adapt themselves to the old view points about family even it’s traditional. It means they shouldn’t be 100 percent obedient to the society. They should be a little adapted to the old view points about family.... First she should pay attention to her duty about her family; she should do her housework duty. ....At first, companion and agreement with her husband (What’s her husband’s demand) then educating children in the welfare of the family environment. After that if the social work doesn't cause harm to these duties, she could work out of the house. .... Paying attention to his family (major role of men) . He shouldn’t be self determined for example, he shouldn’t eat kebab or… outdoors and tell her family that my financial situation demands that you eat potato and bread, paying attention to the family’s issues. ... She should spend all her time at home. ...Till the time she doesn’t have a child is paying attention to her husband and after that both educating the child and paying attention to her husband. ...She should be obedient; her husband may make mistake in some issues; she should think logically, she should raise her social understanding in order to understand the necessities of the life.

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): Yes, in my opinion women should work at home….Yes, it (men and women social roles) should be different. Men’s should be different…..She has been called woman and she has been

30 called man. Therefore each one of them should have specific role…….Yes, girls and boys are different.....Girls should be trained by their mother in the fields of Hejab and house working because in the future they should know how to behave with their husbands and children. Boys can be also trained by their mother.....I don’t know but I know that you should train girls more...... Social role of their husbands (social role of women)....Women’s parents and husbands tell them what to do and it’s the same about men...... I don’t know (out of the house)...... They should cook food, clean the house, take care of their husband and train their children. It’s their role as a house woman.....Show lots of affection and kind ness to the children. Take care of them. Teach them not to waste their time on useless issues...... That’s the same. She should take care of her children......

General findings

1 - Mothers who expressed equitable balanced perspective to the issue of gender social roles for men and women are all educated, have high school diploma or university education. Fathers of this group all have university education. All the parents are from middle or upper classes. 2 – Most of women belonged to group agreeable are employed either participant breadwinner or head of family. 3 – The number of women who expressed their equitable notions to the issue is clearly more than men. 4 – The majority of mothers and the majority of fathers belonged to the group 2, conditional, parents whose opinions to the gender social roles are semi open, semi conservative. While they accept dual roles for men or women, both in and out of house, but they believe men and women have originally separated domain for their activity. Men are the main breadwinner and women the main housekeeper. They could help each other by activity in other’s domain. They have a moderate view to the boys and girls training and referred to some differences. 5 – Mothers belonged to this group are from any social classes with any level of education; They are all either housewife from all social classes, or householder from lower and lower middle classes. At the same time no educated participant breadwinner is included. It seems natural that housewives because of their own situation present semi conservative notions to the issue of gender roles as these housewives even educated from

31 upper class included. As it’s said they accept dual roles for each gender but basically they counted main separated roles for each of them. As it’s mentioned before, some employed householder mother from lower classes belonged to this group presented some conservative notions to the working women because of the hard situation in their working lives. Anyway except their opinion in this relation, they presented semi open notions in other aspects of this category. 6 – The fathers of this group as usual, have some differences in their characteristics. They are educated (secondary diploma or higher) men from middle and upper classes. 7 – The group 3 of disagreeable, included only fathers presented very conservative thoughts to the separated social roles of men and women in society and strongly rejected women involving in men’s domain. They also believed that boys and girls training are totally different. These fathers are all low educated from lower and middle class.

Category no. 4: Attitude towards existing social differences between men and women

- How much do you agree with the differences there are in our society between men and women?

Considering the answers to this question, again three groups could be found: 1 – Group agreeable with differences existed in society at present time. 2 - Group conditional, accept some differences and reject some other parts. 3 – Group disagreeable.

1 – Group agreeable: Actually, only one man obviously expressed his notion accepting the different values exist in society between men and women:

Sample no. 10 (a householder father from middle class with low education): It’s

32

33 very much right now. You can find lots of differences between girls and boys. The parents pay more attention to their sons because they see their future in them. They see themselves in their sons. Idiomatically girls take money, because they should have Jahaz (some things of furniture that a girl takes to her husband's house after marriage). But boys bring money. That’s why they pay more attention to their son and I agree with this view point right now. ...

2 – Group conditional: This group includes a few women from lower and lower middle classes and more men from different classes, mostly householder means having housewives.

Sample no. 35 (a participant breadwinner mother from lower class with low education): No they can’t (girls can't go anywhere in the city)….Not that much. If you limit the girl a lot she will later want to do it more. Not that much control and not that much freedom…..Yes, of course (decreasing differences), she is a girl and wishes ….

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife from lower middle class): No ،never. Because boys have more physical power and are more aggressive. That’s better for girls to be more closed, but there aren't many differences. Girls are smarter. My daughter prefers to be in public. We usually marry with our relatives and just recently marry with guys out of our relatives. I don’t agree with differences ،as a woman I my self know where to go and where not to go. I don’t agree with these many limitations....

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner from lower middle class): Lots of differences exist between girls and boys in our society. It’s not the same in the families. For example if a boy calls home and tell his parents that I went to Isfahan his father may get sad but he would say that my child likes to go. But it’s not the same about girls. ...70% to 30%. In social relationships girls are more

34 limited. For example a girl cannot go to the stadium because of obscene words, boys more and girls less. I agree this level. ...

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): In my opinion there are lots of differences, especially in permitting to advance their talents. There is less opportunity for girls in our society. For example they have less opportunity to choose their jobs in comparison with boys. When they want to employ an employee man has preference. I think 90% of this situation that now exists in the society should be ruined and 10% of it should remain.....

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated and householder father from upper class): Now there are some differences. There is about 30% difference between them. In fact girls don’t have their positions according to their capability. Boys are in advanced. This 30% is a gap that girls can jump over it…... The differences should be according to their merit not their sex....There shouldn’t be difference. But these freedoms shouldn’t breach our religious believes; up to this limitation, it’s ok.

3 – Group disagreeable: This group includes majority of mothers from any classes - it means educated or low educated - housewife, participant breadwinner or householder. While many women referred to the insecurity and corrupted situations existed in society prevent women from using urban spaces freely, educated mothers also referred to lack of urban facilities for women, dominated public culture and existing rules and regulations.

Sample no. 22 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): No, it’s not right; but it’s a really bad time. When a girl is free it’s difficult to bring her in right way again. ….

35

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): No, they should be the same; but they aren’t the same in action just in words. ….

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): The girls put aside the differences; they have got most of their rights. But of course the women’s rights (sport, amusement) are ignored in the society. ... Unfortunately in our society lots of bad issues are not forbidden, but some issues that there’s no problem with them like riding bicycle are not allowed. The women can get on the motor cycle but they can not ride bicycle......

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): For example in our social class in education there isn’t any difference they have equal opportunities. About work, I don’t know what limitations have in the offices. In some fields and managing they may not employ women….. There are. At the beginning of employment there isn’t difference between them. In medical majors anyone who studies well, can improve.... No, society doesn’t look at them equally. There are lots of differences....Yes, in our society it’s a lot. There’s a culture of preferring boys..... Yeah, the first one is about wearing scarves. A boy can make his hair what ever he likes but a girl can’t..... There are these differences in our society but I don’t have it in this house..... I don’t agree with it in any way......

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from upper class): I don’t differ between them. Just my daughter complains that she should be at home at 10 but her brother at 12. It’s just because of her safety because girls are weak. We should always bear in mind that we are living in Iran. It’s not safe and people talk a lot....

A few mothers referred to the values and believes internalized by women themselves as the major obstacle:

36

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): I don’t agree, I think they both should use all the facilities equally, according to their talent and improve. Some people think there are no facilities for girls, they have nothing; I don’t accept it at all. A girl who has lots of abilities can have promotions. It’s not like that they don’t have anything and everything is for boys....

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from lower middle class): It seems everybody has got used to these. Women don’t feel safe. That’s a bad culture. As an example a man and a woman go to an athletic complex. There, they pay attention to the appearance. The more handsome you are the better service you get. That’s why families don’t like their girls going to these places. Women have fewer facilities....We are too primitive in these cases. We should change ourselves......

The fathers of this group all educated and participant breadwinner from middle or upper class:

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner from middle class): This viewpoint (of equality) doesn’t exist in our society now, so we use a woman as a manager but finally we will come to that conclusion. Now differences exist but the society viewpoint is to use women’s capacity more. ...The differences that exist in our society make limitation for women. Men’s limitation is less in comparison with women. I do believe that developing atmosphere should exist for them especially because they’re young. Some recreational places and gymnasiums should exist for women, just this. ...They should be the same. ...They should be the same. But first we should remove obstacles, first we should make safe atmosphere. I believe that they should be the same but that’s not the case right now. ...Yes, in safe atmosphere. It’s very important. ...

37

Sample no. 9 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): In general and in the current situation of our society ،boys are given more advantages and girls are less frequent involved in social issues. I believe that 20 percent of the people who are involved in social activities are women and the rest is men. Generally ،I agree with the equality between girls and boys, because both of them have... intelligence ،education and awareness and both of them are human and there is no difference between them.....

General findings

1 – Majority of Mothers from very different social positions in society – regarding class & breadwinning status – expressed their disagreements about social differences existed in the city. They referred to the limitations and obstacles existed in city against women social promotion and women using freely urban facilities. Two main groups of limitations pointed: 1 - many mothers pointed to the issue of insecurity and spoiled situations in the city that limit their girls using urban facilities freely in different times of day or night. This unsafe situation is the consequence of different complicated social reasons; the heterogeneous residences living in the metropolitan from the point of cultural and socio economical aspects are one of their presentations. 2 – The other important limitation pointed by some mothers was the dominated cultural atmosphere against women’s presence in public spaces and rules and regulation that made some limitations special for women like wearing Hejab, restriction in going into some places like football stadium, or….and the weak practicing of laws against insecurity which must protect women properly. This second point mentioned mostly by educated mothers from middle and upper class. 2 –Some of these mothers educated referred to the shortage of urban facilities for women. 3 – Few fathers belonged to this group disagreeable with social differences between girls and boys, are all educated from middle and upper classes.

38 4 – Few mothers from lower and lower middle classes and majority of father interviewees from different social classes agreed with some social differences existed in society and reject some others. 5 – Only one low educated man from middle class agreed with social differences between girls and boys and made the third group.

Category no. 5: Attitude towards appropriate educational level for boys and girls

– What's your opinion about the appropriate level of education for girls (women) and boys

(men)?

Now a day in Iran especially in urban areas, there is a widespread atmosphere dominated on families and youngsters to continuing education in universities. University education has become a very strong social value and a great wish especially for urban middle classes to get better job in future and cross social class. There is a very hard competition to inter to university. Each year a central difficult exam is hold for the whole pre university students of the country. So passing through this competition has become a very important challenge for students – girls and boys - and their families in Iran And it’s important to note within the last several years, the percentage of the girl student accepted in universities getting higher than boys and more than 60 percent. So, answers to this question should be seen within this social atmosphere, then it could be found why most of the answers to the question – what is the appropriate level of education for girls and boys – are like these: till infinity, or as much as they want or … for both of them. Considering the answers, despite mentioned response from the majority of interviewees, there is two other small groups of answers. So in general: Group no. 1: those parents who mentioned an equal level of education for their girls and boys. Group no. 2: those parents who mentioned the importance of higher education for their girls.

39

40 Group no. 3: those parents who mentioned the importance of higher education for their boys.

Group no. 1: parents belong to this group made the majority of respondents, expressed the same high level appropriate for their girls and boys. These parents belong to different social classes, fathers or mothers, employed or not.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The more, the better. They are the same. Girls also get married and want to bring up children. No difference. ….It affects the children. Doesn’t matter if she doesn’t work, it’s better for them. It’s good for the mother. She knows different people. She learns how to speak and realize others. When she goes to a doctor, can speak fluently and relax. She knows how to speak nowadays knowledge is more important. ...

Sample no. 35 (a participant breadwinner mother from lower class with low education): No, I like all of my children to study and to be the same. If I had studied more now I could have helped my children better. I couldn’t guide my elder son because of my lack of knowledge so he chose the wrong way. He wanted to continue electronics but I prohibited him. I thought it was a dangerous major and he couldn’t satisfy me so I didn’t let him go. He actually has a special talent in that. He repairs everything. It was really my fault but I don’t know how to compensate. I like them to study to be able to help their children and be useful for the society......

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): It depends on them selves if they study, they will have education and if not, they won’t have education. …. No, there’s no difference for me. They must have suitable situation and common sense. How much they want, they could. It's on their own how much they study.

Sample no. 6 (a housewife from lower middle class with low education): No,

41 there's no difference. They both should study as they can, and it’s parents responsibility to pay it....

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): They both need studying. As much education they have, can improve their knowledge, can live better and have better relationship. They can save themselves better.

Sample no. 10 (a householder father from middle class with low education): There’s no limitation. They should continue their studies according to their abilities. There’s no difference between girls and boys….

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated and householder father from upper class): I think the suitable level is B.A for both of them……

Group no. 2: these few parents emphasized on their daughters to have higher degree to have better life and independence. They are educated mothers and fathers from middle and upper classes.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): The educational facilities should be provided for both, the same. I believe it should be even more for the girls because boys in this society naturally have more chances to become educated .but there are some things allocated to special sexes. ….For example they shouldn’t think that the boy has to improve and the girl shouldn’t. To get more personal, girls should be more trained and should have more facilities to be able to be

42 independent and less dependant. If I had an apartment, I would surely give it to my daughter so she won’t be under pressure because of not having a place for her self. The society conditions are such that if the boy doesn’t own an apartment he is not under that much pressure. I believe he should have such condition that becomes more self – made.

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma – householder mother from upper class): I myself didn’t have anything. I got my diploma after I had got married. I gave birth to my daughter when I was 18. I think a girl should educate so far she would be able to manage everything. She should be independent especially financially. For a boy license is important and after that he should start working. Men can do every kind of job but not women. The higher degree she has, the more money she gets. But the job shouldn’t be beneath your dignity, but for men knowing a job is more important.....

Sample no. 12 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from middle class): No, it should be equal….The days are gone that women shouldn’t study or couldn’t have high level degrees. Nowadays girls should be well educated to have the first word to say and they shouldn’t think of be hold down. If my son has master, my daughter should have PHD.....

Group no. 3: These few parents from lower and middle classes preferred their son to get more education to have better job and income to act their responsibility in their family because they will be householder in future:

Sample no. 4 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): The more they study, the better. For boy it’s more needed in order to build their future but Somayeh (her daughter) got married while she had a high school diploma…

43

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): The level of their education could be the same….I think few differences should exist. ...Men (higher). …

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): We try that our sons continue their educations. When our daughters got their diplomas, there would be no need to continue their educations…

General findings

1 – Most of the parents (fathers and mothers) expressed the same appropriate high level of education for their daughters and sons; this willing as a social value distributed all over urban social classes and social groups: “children’s education has become an important need for all classes of people; parents admire education for their children, regardless of gender” (Aghajanian, 2001: 19). 2 – Few educated and well informed parents from middle and upper classes stressed on the importance of girl education in society. They declared since women and girls don’t have proper social support (of any kind, cultural, legal …) so they themselves must be enough strong to support themselves and education is the main way to be prepared: “Access to education seems to have an immediate, tremendous impact on women’s perception of themselves, their reproductive and sex roles, and their social mobility expectations (Mernissi, quoted by Moghadam, 2004:152). 3 - Few other parents from middle and lower classes said that boys need education more than girls because they will be the householder in the future and if they want to have a good job and earn enough money then they need education. 4 – The fact about group no. 1 & 2 is that group 1, those who assert same level of education for their daughter and son and group 2, those who mentioned the importance of girl education in society, both believe in presence of women in society and relatively dual

44 roles for women at least. The traditional gender roles if it hasn’t broken completely in their mind, but it has changed in a way, but parents in group no. 3 (mostly lower and lower middle) who expressed their preferences about boys’ education seem to support mentally the traditional separated gender roles.

General Groups of gender attitudes

Now, in order to provide a general summarized perspective to the respondents’ gender identity, by precision on each interviewee and putting all her – his – answers to the five categories together, a general knowledge could be provided to her – his – attitude comparing to other interviewees’. These notions as their general perspectives to the gender issues regarding to the table no. 6, could be arranged in four groups:

1 – Group of “open – informed”

These parents presented a very equitable notion to all or most of different gender issues – five mentioned categories. Addition to their equitable view, they analyze issues very well from an intellectual perspective. The importance about first group is they are able to imagine, illustrate and analyze the ideal situations well. This group of attitudes belonged to a few parents, mothers and fathers all of them educated (almost higher educated) and employed from upper classes or upper middle classes.

2 – Group of “open”

The second range of gender attitudes belongs to the parents who also presented equitable notion towards gender issues. The difference between this group and the first one is the consciousness and clear knowledge the first group have about equal gender relations; the first group presented an obvious well analyzed notion about gender issues. This second group included mostly of mothers – employed or housewife - from different social classes, of course mostly educated from middle and upper classes. Only one father could be considered in this group.

45

46

47 3 – Group of “semi open semi conservative”

Third group, the largest in this study, includes much differentiated social characteristics mothers and fathers. These parents while in actual daily life passed from traditional way of living, but in mind, they still support traditional men and women social roles so they presented open gender notions towards some issues and conservative ones towards some others. The mothers, are employed or housewife from lower and lower middle classes, and housewives from upper class. Of course well educated ones from upper class have more developed way of living in the city; these housewives activating in the city much more than housewives from lower classes. The fathers are either only breadwinner (householder) or participant; mostly have university education from middle and upper classes.

4 – Group of “conservative”

Fourth group, these parents expressed very closed perspectives to the most of the different gender issues and clearly supported the divided public - private spheres appropriated to men and women presence and activities. The mothers who belong to this group, having high school diploma or lower; they are from lower middle or lower class; either employed or housewife. The fathers of the fourth group are from different social classes, educated or low educated, and all of them are householder (the only breadwinner).

Conclusion

This conclusion tries to illustrate main findings of this section, gender identity or gender attitudes, as the independent variable. This conclusion presents some different changing processes of gender attitudes which could be found through deliberation on the categories’ general findings and the general gender attitudes as well. As a social fact,

48 distinguishing these processes, means that they are main dominated trends in society – of this samples of course; mentioned processes are repeated again and again within different categories of study and confirmed by this study itself, so they are major social facts of society. And the important point is that there are several quantitative surveys in Tehran which their findings could be regarded here, since they confirm findings of this study in other ways. Findings of those quantitative researches will be referred in appropriate places of this chapter or others, also the final conclusion of study. The major independent variable of study is “gender identity” which its mutual associations with “spatial identity” is on focus .For this measuring, “gender identity” considered to be changed by three indicators: “sex”, “social class”, and “employment” (or “breadwinning status”); they made 15 groups of “gender identity”. Now here, before entering to the main discussion of “spatial identity” (and its relationship with “gender identity”), at first “gender identity” itself should be understood through its variation within mentioned 15 groups. In other words, in present discussion, focus would be on the changing of “gender identity” as dependent variable according to three variables of “sex”, “social class” and “employment” as the independent ones.

1 – “Sex”

This variable makes two main groups of fathers and mothers. In general and by deliberation on the analyses within different five categories of gender identity, mothers comparing fathers in all social classes, all educational levels, and in all family breadwinning status have explicitly presented more open equitable thoughts about gender issues. The majority of mothers - of this study - expressed their agreement about woman working out of the house (category no. 1), women financial independence (category no. 2), and their disagreement with existing social differences between men and women (category no. 4), while inversely the majority of fathers expressed their conditional agreement with women employment and women financial independence and their partial disagreement with existing social differences. Furthermore kind of referring fathers asserted as the condition for women employment are so different from the mothers’. There isn’t any woman disagreeable with women dual roles it means women working out of the house (categories no. 1 & 3), neither any woman disagreeable with

49 women financial independence and nor agreeable with existing social differences; this is while there are some men in those groups. Distribution of fathers and mothers among different groups of “general gender attitudes” presents most of the women in groups of “open” and “semi open – semi conservative”, while most of the men in groups of semi open – semi conservative and conservative. This fact means women’s relatively more consciousness about their benefits and social rights, at the same time men relatively more conservations towards existing gender relations: “…women have been much more prepared than men to reject traditional gender role attitudes” (Oriel Sulivan, 2004: 213).

2 – “Social class” and its connected variable “education”

Social class considered by three classes of lower, middle and upper. The base of samples selecting has been their residential districts which made the initial concept about their social classes. Base studies in Tehran – presented in the last chapters – revealed different characteristics of Tehran districts regarding their socio – economic & cultural aspects; it was mentioned that educational level as a factor changes by social class, changes within districts too; as much as the social class getting upper among the districts, the average of educational level getting higher. Mentioned social characteristics of different Tehran’s districts have been confirmed by several quantitative researches in universities (Rabie, 2004; Maleki, 1996; Afrough, 1998; Ansari, 1996; Biabani, 2002; Mahmoodi, 1999). Regarding to the samples characteristics, this fact is confirmed here by this study too; samples of study selected from various districts of Tehran confirmed those characteristics again, so selected samples followed the before mentioned characteristics of socio – economic & cultural aspects of the districts; and the educational level’s association with social class confirmed either. Now to deliberate relationships between “social class” and “gender identity” two social facts about their relationships have been found important to be mentioned: First, according to mentioned social association between class and education this sampling showed that more open equitable notions belong to the more educated people who socially belong to upper classes (middle and upper); and inversely more

50 “conservative” gender notions belong to the lower educated people, usually belong to lower classes (lower & lower middle). In category no. 1 (working women issue), there is a trend of belonging more sample mothers from middle and upper classes (educated) to the groups of agreeable and then conditional, so only one from upper class belong to the group conditional. Those middle class mothers belong to the groups disagreeable and conditional are mostly low educated. Although there are some lower class ones in group agreeable (it shows women’s relatively more consciousness in all social classes), but most of mothers of this group are from middle and upper classes. For fathers too, lower class fathers (low educated) belong to the group disagreeable, and group agreeable include only middle and upper or educated fathers. But educated fathers from middle and upper classes mostly place in the group conditional (it shows more conservative notion of fathers). Category no. 2 (women financial independence) doesn’t show any differentiations among different social classes regarding to mothers, since all mothers of any social classes agreeable with women financial independence (relatively more consciousness of women) but fathers mostly from upper & middle classes belong to groups of agreeable and conditional and fathers from lower and lower middle classes to group of disagreeable. In category no. 3 (gender social roles and social training), mothers and fathers who considered equal gender roles and balance social training for men and women, are all from middle and upper classes (educated). Although there are educated (from middle and upper classes) ones (fathers and mothers) in group of semi balance notion to the issues but there is no educated one in group of unequal notions towards gender roles; the only father of middle class belong to this group is low educated. In category no. 4 (attitudes towards existing social differences) there is no sample (mother or father) educated from middle and upper classes in group agreeable with these differences. Mothers from all social classes included in group disagreeable with social differences and it means women consciousness to their benefits; but fathers from all social classes included to the group conditional that means relatively more conservative notions of fathers towards issue. And of course only fathers from middle and upper classes (educated) belong to the group agreeable.

51 Category no. 5 (comparing between girls and boys educational level) while basically shows equitable attitudes towards issue in all social classes also speaks about presence although weak of some conservative notions towards issue among educated people from middle class. But the most important table, concluding table of no. 6 that shows distribution of interviewees among different groups of “general gender attitude”, is more considerable in this relation. It presents mentioned situations of association between social class (or level of education) and gender identity clearly with the mentioned differences between mothers and fathers’ so more number of mothers comparing fathers from lower classes and lower education seen in more “open” group of gender attitudes. In general mother samples’ distribution tends to “open” groups and inversely father samples’ distribution tends to “conservative” groups. This situation as mentioned before is the consequences of more consciousness among women comparing men to existing unequal gender relations. According to the four gender groups of table if we consider group of “semi open semi conservative” gender attitudes that is the largest one as the representative of moderate and most general situation of whole society (this seems true because this group is the largest group of sampling and includes samples from any social classes, table no. 6 & 7), two extreme groups are in two side of this group (meanly “open” and “open informed” in one extreme and “conservative” group in the other); distribution of mothers shows only mothers from lower and lower middle classes that non of them have university education in conservative group of gender attitudes and most of university educated mothers of middle & upper classes in “open” and “open – informed”. The moderate group of “semi open semi conservative” of mothers while includes mother of all social classes and all educational level, but domination of lower classes is obvious. But for fathers this distribution differs so we see university educated fathers from middle and upper classes in all gender groups not only “open” groups; it’s interesting many of them in “semi conservative semi open” group. Of course the same process of women distribution relatively could be seen here again with some differences, it means “open” groups only included from educated fathers from upper and upper middle classes (while for women low educated from middle even lower are included) and “conservative” group mostly

52 included from low educated fathers of lower and lower middle classes (higher classes fathers are also included but not among mothers). Generally relating to mentioned relationships between “gender identity” and “class” and combination of those relations with the relationships between “gender identity” and “sex”, following trends could be drawn that in each social classes, number of open minded women (towards gender attitudes) are more than men; it is so that many lower educated from lower classes’ mothers presented open notions while many higher educated from higher classes’ fathers showed conservative notions. This situation could be found in other way according to different gender groups too, so that, except that mothers’ distribution tend to open groups and fathers’ distribution tend to conservative ones, regarding to conservative gender groups, while they are included mostly from low educated mothers from lower classes, but this is not the fact for fathers; many educated fathers from middle and upper classes included; and inversely regarding to open groups while only educated fathers included, many low educated mothers included too. If we consider “semi open semi conservative” group of gender identity as the middle and moderate situation of society, mentioned differences between mothers & fathers are presented in the best way. Despite the upper mentioned dominated social trend that people from upper classes generally belong to open gender attitudes and inversely people from lower classes generally belong to “conservative” gender attitudes (These class relationships among Tehran’s residences have been confirmed by the quantitative social researches, for example Biabani, 2002, that made her study according to other social variable, religious modernism), deliberation on the sample distribution among different gender groups presents some conservative notions among people of middle and upper classes and inversely some open gender attitudes among people of lower and lower middle classes. This social situation could be revealed better when we focus on “educational level” as the base of comparison rather than the “social class” (in this study “class” defined by three variables of “economic income”, “employment social status”, and “educational level”). This relates to the subject of next perspective to the issue: Second, when we change our perspective from focus on analysis based on majorities to other point to see the minorities too in each “gender” groups then we see other feature

53 of the social relations. These minorities speak about the opposition trends about belonging of upper classes people to “conservative” notions or belonging of lower classes people to “open” gender notions. In this way we could follow the social existence of parallel gender notions across the society. From this viewpoint according to the tables no 6 & 7, “conservative” gender attitudes exist throughout social classes from lower to upper and of course because of the first upper mentioned trend these traditional kinds of thoughts have more appropriated members from lower middle and lower classes and more members among fathers comparing mothers. By the same way, “open” and “open informed” has also distributed across social classes but by more strength in higher classes and among mothers. It’s mentioned before that “class” usually considered as a multi layer variable composed of three component of “economical income”, “employment’s social status” and “educational level”, it’s the same in this study too. We saw the parallel changes of “educational level” with the “class” among the samples in most of cases; it seems normal when the economic income gets more, the “educational level” getting more either as a consequence of more convenience that more income provides, and also its reciprocal relations that better education leads to better income; this is the usual and mutual connections between “economical income” and educational level” which is the fact in most of the cases (Ansari, 1996: 359), but not all the cases. Among samples sometimes there have been cases of upper classes means well off incomers with appropriate social status of their employments but with low education – at most, till high school diploma – these samples are exactly those with conservative gender attitudes; it seems more connection of “gender identity” to “educational level” than to the composed variable of “social class”. Now considering two extreme gender groups means “conservative” in one end and “open informed” in other, if we focus only on educational level rather than the social class, it could be found that “conservative” gender notions not existed in level of university education – the only one higher educated conservative sample has military education which totally differs from other usual university fields – also “open informed” group has no member of low educated (lower than high school diploma) samples. This fact about “open – informed” group followed by the “open” group but only among fathers; mothers have members from all educational level in this group.

54 So, while traditional view to the gender relations crossed all social classes (from lower incomers to higher incomers) but not crossed all educational level, it hardly could find a member in higher educated people of any social classes; in other words, while appropriate place for extreme patriarchal traditional notions is among low educated people of lower classes, but when we separate economic aspects of social class from its educational, we observe that “conservative” thoughts exist in all social classes including upper class but not in all level of education. It is the same for “open informed” gender group; there are only higher educated (high school diploma and higher) samples in this group of gender attitudes. No need to remind its different strength among different educational groups. In “open” group of gender attitude, while mothers included samples from any educational levels but fathers included only higher educated one. Other than mentioned extreme gender groups of society – much open and much conservative – there is group of “semi conservative semi open” gender attitudes which’s the most including among samples; it seems dominant situation of gender attitudes among society. It’s the largest group of social attitude towards gender relation. Members’ distribution of this moderate group presents comparable equal members of either all social classes or all educational levels. It means that large number of people of this society are living by gender values between those two extremes; they seems conservative in some of their gender attitudes and seems open in some others. This group also has equal members among mothers and fathers although they are differentiated by their social characteristics as mentioned earlier. So in general, when our scale is “social class”, we could find conservative notions in all social classes including upper classes too, and also open notions in all social classes including lower classes either; but when our scale base changes to “educational level”, then there would be no “conservative” attitude in higher lever of education, and no “open - informed” gender notions in lower level of education. It seems here level of “education” could be more implying than the “social class”. Two quantitative researches in Tehran one about differentiation of lifestyle and social identity (Chavoshian Tabrizi, 2002), and the other about relationship between lifestyle and social class (Sazegara, 2003) confirmed that cultural capital - and among it level of education -

55 shows a strong connection with the lifestyle and its associated values and attitudes – gender values either – while the “social class” and “level of income” don’t. In the first study, Chavoshian follows an assessment about the relationship between people “lifestyles” – which includes gender relations and attitudes too – from one side, and the “social class”, “economical capital” – level of income - and “cultural capital” – which includes level of education too - from the other side. Among these, more meaningful relationships exist between people “lifestyle” and people’s “cultural capital”; then “social class” presented more connection to “lifestyle”, and at last there would be no meaningful relationships between “lifestyle” and “economical income”. It seems again when “economical income” as an important indicator of “social class” causes on “cultural aspects” of “social class” - here level of “education”, it could change the effect of “social class” on “lifestyle”, otherwise it couldn’t effect on that. In other study, Sazegara investigates about two different sub classes of Tehran’s middle class, old and new stratums (layers). These two groups, while they have similar “income” and “employment social status” among middle class, but they are totally differentiated according to their “lifestyles” and “cultural capital” or - “level of education”; here again association between “education” and “lifestyle” confirmed in other way. “Gender identity” and its differentiations among society is one special aspect of strong contradictory social powers existed between modernity and tradition in this society. This sampling explored one important area of this contradiction related to “gender” attitude. In the next chapters these contradictory powers would be looked for their possible presentation on the “space”, different domains of “space” from private to public. And now, according to the relationships discussed in this part between “gender identity” and “social class” and considering before mentioned association between “social class” and “location in the city” – various characteristics of Tehran districts – it could be concluded that: “gender identity” in Tehran differentiated by the place in the city: :" Gender is constituted differently in different places, in part because residents in those places differ in class or racial or other social variable …” (Pratt, Hanson, 1994: 11-12). This differentiation in Tehran follows the North – South line of the city: “The

56 North – South divide in the city of Tehran shows a very clear social and spatial segregation across economic lines” (Madanipour, 1998:235).

3 – Breadwinning status in family

Which itself includes three status in family as householder (or only breadwinner), participant breadwinner, and housekeeper. It seems this variable (status of breadwinning in family) influences differently for men and women, also its effect is totally different within social classes. In category no. 1(attitudes towards working women out of the house), while there are employed mother in all groups of agreeable, conditional and disagreeable, but it’s important to note employed mothers (mostly householder) of group disagreeable are all from lower middle or lower classes who are working by force. Except these women, it seems logical that women, who selected to work are agreeable with working woman and it is the fact for middle and upper classes’ employed women either householder or participant. Housewives distributed among groups agreeable and conditional. It seems these women who worked never or for a short time wish to change their situations or at least their daughters’ situations. The fathers who are only householder or participant breadwinner and not housekeeper, with these two positions in family distributed among different groups, of course with the tendency of more participant in group agreeable and less (actually no one) in group disagreeable. It’s important that many participant breadwinner fathers expressed their conditional agreement with working woman and it means partially hard situation for these working woman in their families and partially men conservative notions towards issue. Category no. 2 (financial independence of women) shows distribution of mothers in all positions only in group agreeable (women consciousness) and fathers within different groups with the tendency of more participant in group agreeable and less in group conditional and no one in group disagreeable; and the contrary trend for the householder men. Category no. 3 (attitudes towards gender social roles) shows all employed (participant breadwinner or householder) mothers of middle and upper classes who work

57 by their willing in group agreeable with balanced social roles; and all employed mother from lower middle or lower classes who work by force, in group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles. It also presents almost all housewives from any social class in group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles. This category presents that group of fathers agreeable with balanced gender roles only contains participant fathers from middle and upper classes; and group agreeable with unbalanced separated gender roles only contains middle and lower householders. Group agreeable with semi balanced gender roles include mostly householder fathers. Category no. 4 (attitudes towards existing social differences) doesn’t show any meaningful differences between groups of mother employed, participant, or householder since mothers mostly disagreeable with social differences; but for fathers, group disagreeable with social differences only includes participant breadwinner father (of course from middle and upper classes since there isn’t any lower class participant at least in this study) and group agreeable and group conditionally agreeable with social differences mostly includes householder fathers. Category no. 5 (attitude towards girls and boys level of education) present no meaningful differences between groups, since most of the parents included in group who asserted same level of education for their girls and boys. Distribution of interviewees among different groups of general gender attitudes presents a tendency of placing more participant mother (of course from middle and upper classes) in groups of “open – informed” and “open” attitudes; no housewife in “open – informed”; no participant breadwinner in group “conservative”; also housewives in different groups from “conservative” to “open” except “open – informed”. For fathers, group “open” and “open – informed” includes only participant fathers and group “conservative” only includes householder father. In general, breadwinning status in family influences gender attitudes among social class so being an employed mother – participant or householder – when they work in a usual situation and by their willing, means at least accepting dual roles for women, then more open attitude towards gender issues: “Women’s employment has been almost as important as women’s education in changing the position and self perception of women, and in altering the patriarchal gender contract” (Moghadam, quoted by Moghadam,

58 2004: 155). There is an exception for lower employed mother who work by force in a situation of harsh financial difficulties while at the same time, householders of these lower classes bear the cultural burden of being a lonely mother, so they wish to live in a peaceful situation of a housewife mother with a good husband incomer (a patriarchal formation of family with divided gender roles). For fathers who have a housewife or an employed wife, there are some differences in their gender attitudes, so participant fathers often show more open and less conservative attitudes towards gender issues and inversely householder fathers showed more conservative and less open. Since there isn’t any lower class participant father in this study (it shows few of them in society), so the mentioned tendency belong to the middle and upper classes. So, it could be said employment that means for mothers being a participant breadwinner or a householder in their family has a positive affect on their gender attitudes to get more equitable notions; it’s especial for middle and upper classes. And for fathers who are all employed, being a participant breadwinner – having an employed wife – has positive effect on their gender attitudes too to get more open and equitable notion It’s while that inversely householder fathers, who have a housewife, mostly presented more conservative gender notions: “The conclusion is that there are now more equal or more nearly equal couples, particularly among couples wherein both parents are full – time employed” (Sullivan, 2004: 216).

Internalization of discrimination

Important point implicit within the discussions having done above, about gender attitudes of different groups of people, is the concept of “consciousness”, here means consciousness towards unequal gender relations. The social fact have been shown by the sampling is that people think differently about the same social phenomenon of unequal gender relations of patriarchal system dominated over society. In fact it’s the same about other social phenomenon as the gender relations. It’s the fact that people live by different values and believes in society.

59 Although the patriarchal social system is dominated throughout the society, but people live differently within; they experience the society differently. In fact there are subsystems of living within the same patriarchal social system. Among these subsystems of living people think differently, feel differently and practice differently. People practice differently because they feel or they think differently or inversely they feel or think differently because their experience is different. These differences present different identities; and one important aspect of identity is gender identity. These subsystems of social (or gender) values and social (or gender) practice, as they have been investigated in sampling, include people who believe in their group‘s gender values and practice and reject other groups’ gender values and practice. In fact as these values make their identities it means they are internalized in their identities, so people think about those values as their very deep and natural fact of their existences; those values are vital and essential. Since people live naturally on their essential values, they are not conscious to those values; in fact they couldn’t look at them as outsider, because they are insider. So those groups who their gender identities associated with unequal gender relations they obviously internalize unequal discriminated gender relations as their very essence of identities; it means for them these kinds of patriarchal relation are natural and honorable, even sacred. Sampling presented different groups of gender identities differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status”. According to above discussion, these gender groups from “conservative” attitudes to “open – informed” attitudes internalize discriminated gender relations by different level from “deep internalization” to “complete externalization”; or in other words from “completely being insider” to “completely being outsider” towards unequal gender relations. A good example of this issue is groups’ attitudes towards the issue of women and men’s social roles and social training. When they presented their notions towards women’s employment or this issue that who is responsible for housework or family expenditure when both parents are working outside home, we have seen that different groups differentiated by sex, social class and breadwinning status presented different consciousness towards the unequal separated domain of a housekeeper and an employed

60 person. There are kinds of attitudes, very insider to the subject of traditional social role of men and women in one end (like Sample no. 31: Yes, in my opinion women should work at home….Yes, it (men and women social roles) should be different. Men’s should be different…..She has been called woman and he has been called man. Therefore each one of them should have specific role…….Yes, girls and boys are different.....Girls should be trained by their mother in the fields of Hejab and house working because in the future they should know how to behave with their husbands and children. Boys can be also trained by their mother.....I don’t know but I know that you should train girls more …) and kind of attitudes, very outsider to the issue in the other end who deal with the issue consciously (like Sample no. 21: I agree with their (women) financial independence….If they both work, and they both do the house chores, they should be equal in financial affairs. I think there’s no difference that one pays more (for expenditure). Men usually have more income, any way they both should pay as much as they can...). In general, internalization of oppression in different social groups follows the same distribution as gender identities; it’s getting less in “open” gender attitudes or getting more in “conservative” gender attitudes; it also means that internalization of oppression gets less in women’s thoughts compared to men’s (variable of sex) and by social class gets upper means getting more education (variable of social class), and by employment (variable of breadwinning status).

61 “Gender” & “Private Space of the House”

Introduction

This chapter is to deliberate gender aspects of the private space of house, the association there is between gender and space as it is presented within different domains of the house. For this, as it’s pointed before, Parents attitudes towards the way children use different spaces of the house are investigated. All the questions of this chapter intends to reveal gender aspects of spatial organization of the house and children’s (with different sexes) practices in using spaces; those aspects that present gender values associated with this system. Again, questions generally test the before mentioned spatial division of “public – private” spheres as the manifestation of gender relation between man and woman (girl and boy). In fact they are testing how space of the house is gendered; how this old gender division of public man and private woman is manifested in space; this time “house” as the most private space of the city is in focus; different houses, the residences of different social groups in capital city of Tehran in present time. Although “house” itself is a private space, but within has different domains of privacy; in fact these different domains created through house spatial organization and associated circulation, different kinds of connection spaces hold with “outdoor” space (through window, door … ); also different ways of using and moving within these organized internal spaces. These are domains except those attached external ones that connect house space to the outdoor space, like staircase, balcony, roof … - they are considered as “semi private – semi public” spaces in this study, which would be examined in the next chapter. Six categories (presented in different questions) considered here for investigation about house spaces and its different domains which could present gender relations. These categories include either spatial organization of the house or type of space’s using by individuals (here children). In this relation, Parents attitudes towards these categories are studied. In fact parents preferences about how their children use spaces, reflect their

62 values and among them gender values are in focus. These six categories which considered to present parents gender values are as followed: 1 – Parents preferences about their children necessity to private room. 2 - Parents preferences about the closeness of children’s room to parents’. 3 – Parents preferences about the position of children’s rooms whether they are overlooked by (or overlooking to) other places or not. 4 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls open the apartment door when somebody unknown knocks at the door. 5 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls answer the phone. 6 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls entertain non – mahram guests.

1 – Parents preferences about their children necessity to private room

Question: In your opinion, which one of your children is preferred to have private room? Why?

Or: If you could afford only one private room for children, which one of them is preferred to have it?

In general, both questions try to draw parent’s preferences towards their girls and boys neediness to private room (space). In some cases first question couldn’t draw their preferences, so second one helped to make it clear. Having a private space means differently among different responses. Some parents refer to it as an advantage for their children to have authority to a special space to do whatever they want; but some also pointed to the necessity of privacy each of their children needs more or less. Among 38 parents who responded to these questions (table no. 1), three different responses are found: 1 – Group no. 1, parents who preferred their girls to have private room. 2 – Group no. 2, parents who didn’t make preferences between their daughters and sons to have private room. 3 – Group no. 3, parents who preferred their boys to have private room.

1 – Group no. 1 (girl preferred):

63

64

65 Parents who preferred their daughters to have private room, made the majority either among mothers or among fathers. This distribution is much clear among fathers. They declared that their girls need to privacy much more than their boys because they have something to do in privacy like changing clothes, sleeping freely in their sleeping clothes … in fact some things related to their body. This assertion is found throughout different social groups of any kinds, different social classes, different status of breadwinning in family, and different sexes, therefore they belong to different groups of gender identities from “conservative” to “open – informed”:

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): I prefer my daughter. Because she needs a place where feels security in it. There should be no bothering when she does her private works for example when she changes her clothes. ...I prefer to give it to my daughter.

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower class with low education): My daughter. Two boys can get along with each other but the girl should be separated. ...Boys can stay in the same room and sleep there but the girl should have a private one.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): All of them. ...If it’s possible all of them, if not, in the age order. Of course the girls first who should be separated .it is based on sexes; if there’re two boys and a girl, boys together and the girl alone; and if there are two girls and a boy, girls together and the boy alone. As far as I see, the age situation is also important. If the child doesn’t sleep with his parents it’s suggested that some one sleeps in his room to the age of three or four. It’s mostly because of fear, illusion and loneliness. This is for sleeping but during the day if he wants, he must have a private room. ...Yes, if there are limitations, between girls and boys, girls have the chance.

66

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class and with low education): There’s no difference for me. Either my daughter or my son doesn’t differ. .. I would give it to my daughter. ...Because the children sleep in their bedrooms. Therefore it’s better that my daughter sleeps alone.

The implicit fact about mentioned issue is that if there are limitations in space, girls preferably use private one and boys, common ones like sitting room and … Although suitable covering for women defined differently among different social groups, but it seems there is common sense about women body and its affairs to be covered compared to men. Of course providing a private space for girls in the house makes them comfortable in their private affairs, since they themselves feel inconvenienced to do their private affairs in front of male members of family:

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The girl. It s better. ...Of course it s better for both of them to have a private room but I prefer the girl. That s because she will be more comfortable, the boy is always out. He has the freedom outside. ...Then she knows what to wear, how to sleep because the boy is free he can wear whatever he wants and sleep.

Sample no. 13 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from middle class): My daughter. ...I think she is more inconvenienced (when she lives in shared room). (In this way, she could be more comfortable).

2 - Group no. 2 (neutral, no preference):

67 Those parents who didn’t make differences between their girls and boys necessities to private space are almost all mothers – only one father presented in this group. These mothers clearly asserted equitable notion to the issue and reject preferences between their girl and boys neediness to private space, so it could be said that they don’t emphasize on the necessity of covering women body as the first group; they must be have neutral behavior in training their girls and boys :

Ms. Rahbar (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Both of them, there’s no difference. ...I don’t know. There’s no difference. I prefer them to share it and each one can have some part for them selves.

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from lower middle class): They both like to have, but because of financial problems we just have one bedroom for all….I have educated my children in such a way that they get along with each other. Although they are a girl and a boy, they put everything together in one room. ...No, they are very friendly. They never say this is mine and never close the door to the other one. ...I don't see any vital need. Some families think that the girl should sleep in the room and the boy shouldn't be there. We don’t always pay attention to being a boy or a girl. You don't need them. You are a human and everyone should regard his limitations. When you say "A boy!" or "A man!” you think that there must be something.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner from middle class): I think that it doesn't differ. Our previous house had two bedrooms and they have a very close relationship with each other. But we felt that independence is more necessary for them. They would like to invite their friends and they are not acquainted with else's friends. Sometimes they want to be alone. Finally, although we had lots of problems we decided to change the house and I think that they're more comfortable now. They didn't have any problem with each other in our previous house either but their friends. ...It

68 depends on their agreement. I think I cannot decide. ...Yes, they should talk to each other and decide which one is preferable to have the room and in this way they have adaptation with each other and they agree.

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle): There’s no difference between the first and second child to me and their father. Also there’s no difference between my son and daughter. Although our house isn’t very big, we gave the only two bedrooms to them… equally.

Among these mothers, although there are some from lower class with conservative gender attitudes, but this group of mothers mostly belongs to “open” and “open – informed” groups of gender attitude; it means they are mostly educated mothers from middle and upper class, either employed or not.

3 - Group no. 3 (boy preferred):

These mothers and fathers who named their sons to have private space, asserted that their boys wanted it to have or they need it more:

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): My elder son. ...No, I prefer all of them to have a private room, nowadays youngsters like to be independent. But according to the atmosphere in our house my elder son should have one. ...Because he sometimes can’t sleep and wants to listen to the music or watch T.V, this way he won’t disturb others and it’s better.

Mothers of this group belong to lower and lower middle classes with “conservative” or “semi conservative” notions towards gender issues. Among them there are those householders or participant breadwinner mothers presented their opposite notions

69 towards working women. It’s interesting to point that most of mothers of this group are householder women from lower classes; it seems these unsupported mothers with all their social hardness need their son to support the family in place of the absent father, so they willingly or not, consider for their sons more authority in the family and its especial space, in the house. The other reason seems appropriate for their preferences is small spaces they have to allocate for sleeping, and it seems natural in absence of father, mothers share their sleeping place with their daughters and if they have other room, it would be for their sons. The fathers of this group, all householders belong to the same groups of gender attitude as mothers (“conservative” and “semi conservative – semi open”) but different social classes – it’s pointed before of presence of some upper class fathers in conservative groups of gender identity:

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): In the name of God. Generally children like to have a private room so that they can do what ever they like in their room. Alireza (his son) reads the holy “Quran” in his room alone. He has this habit from his childhood because he doesn’t like to show off. A child with these thoughts should have a private room , if not he would give up doing these good works that wants to stay hidden or he some times wants to read a book and doesn’t want me to know . I remember he was a freshman of medicine, one night I was praying in his room. I realized that his book had a bad photo, I turned it over. At that time I thought he should have a private room because of his major and work. It all shows that both children and parents feel more comfortable if they have private rooms .the opposite is also probable. Children some times take undue advantages of private room. They start bad relationships .parents should be aware of their children thoughts and give this freedom to them according to their behaviors. ...The one that needs it more. It depends on their work. My son is studying medicine but the other is a pupil. My son should have a private room because of his books. It doesn’t matter a girl or a boy, their needs are important.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): We

70 have three children and they all like to have their own rooms. But if I have to name one, my son, Ali, prefers much more to have his own room. ...Ali, my second child, the first child is my daughter and the third one is a son.

It seems conservative gender attitudes which consider much authority in the men’s part, also claim it in the house spaces, so they consider this authority for their son too. Some parents said that they couldn’t sleep with their young boys in one room (this saying has repeated by a father from lower class in response to other question). This assertion belongs to those parents from lower classes who have only one or two rooms in their house and experienced sleeping all family together in one room, now they need to separate from their young boys in sleeping time. It might be because of more eagerness of young boys to sexual affairs comparing young girls:

Sample no. 35 (a participant breadwinner mother from lower class with low education): My elder son. He likes to have his own room. ...He is young, it’s difficult to sleep in one room, and they are grown ups boys but we have to sleep in one room so my husband could sleep in other room because the children watch T.V from 7:30. ...To my two sons so that they can be separated.

General findings:

1 – Majority of parents either mothers or fathers asserted their daughters needed more to have a private room (space) for their private affairs such as changing clothes or … specially in sleeping time; in fact issues related to their body in the situations might be seen without proper covering. This point of view presented throughout different groups of gender identity from “conservative” to “open – informed”. 2 – Having a private room for girls is an advantage, since they themselves feel inconvenience to do many of their private affairs in common spaces.

71 3 – Some mothers all from groups of “open” and “open – informed” gender identity presented a neutral attitude towards their boys and girls necessity to private space. Actually they presented neutral attitudes towards using of house spaces like their neutral attitudes towards gender relations. Some parents, who expressed other effective factors in this relation like “age” and “education” requirements, considered in this group of gender neutral too. 4 – Several parents with conservative notions about gender issues – groups of “conservative” & “semi conservative - semi open” asserted their boys neediness to private space for doing whatever they want. It seems as before that they considered more power for men in gender relationships they also manifest those relationships on the spaces of house. 5 – The important point about mothers who named their son for having private space is that most of them are lower classes householder mothers who had to run family with all difficulties and problems a lonely mother faced in this condition (they presented their opposition with working women before) so it seems natural they need their son responsibility as their men from one side and so their authority in the family and house from the other side to support the family. It’s while most of these mothers live in small houses with small numbers of bedrooms at the same time there isn’t need to parent’s room so it seems normal mother sleep with daughter and son sleep separately. 5 – Some parents from lower classes claimed private space for their son from the other point of view; they said their boys (comparing to their girls) is preferred to be separated (having private space) from parents in the sleeping time. It must be because of more sexual drives of their young sons in this age to be controlled. It doesn’t need to point that in a patriarchal society, they are men which their sexual desires seen normal to be developed to that extent then they must be controlled from possible bothers for others.

2 – Parents preferences about the closeness of children’s room to parents’

Question: If your children have their rooms, whose room would you prefer to be closer to yours?

72 This question in fact intends to present parents’ more attention or supervision is for which one of their children. Responding to this question (table no. 2), it’s interesting that no one preferred their son’s room to be near to their room. So there are two groups of answers: 1 – Group no. 1 – parents who preferred their daughter’s room to be near to parents’ room. 2 – Group no. 2 – those who didn’t make preferences about closeness of the children’s room.

1 – Group no. 1, girl preferred

Most of the parents of both groups (mothers and fathers) expressed that their daughters’ room preferred to be near their room. They declared that girls need to be cared more than boys who are to practice to be independence and their future role as the head of family:

Sample no. 27 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): My daughter, I should go to her during the night, but my son, as you know is a man and he’s more independent.

Sample no. 13 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from middle class): Yes, the girl. ...Because they‘re (sons) young and don’t afraid of anything but girls fear more.

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): My daughter’s

73

74 room; now she’s near mine. I thought it's better, because of her sex. And my sons are farer, they’re next to each other and she is alone and near us.

Sample no. 10 (A householder father from middle class with low education): Generally the youngest daughter is better to have their rooms close to ours.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): I personally prefer the girl especially the youngest one. I mean if the girl wasn’t the first, the smallest one. If the girl is elder the biggest room or the room with good geographical situation should be hers. Now I mostly look at my own children’s order. The room which is almost private belongs to the girl. ...The smallest children closer to us but if the conditions are equal, it is better for the girl to be closer.

There is another reason in this relation that some parents referred. They said that it’s better that boys’ rooms to be farer from parents’ room; they implicitly referred to the before mentioned reason about necessity of parents’ sexual affairs not to be noticed especially by their sons:

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): Certainly girls. God has created woman in such a way that she isn’t curious and eager to look at bad scenes. But man is the opposite if he watches a scene he may do bad things. That’s why it’s better for the girl to be closer.

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): The girl. ... Because we cannot sleep with boys, it’s not possible it’s difficult.

75 Parents who preferred their daughters’ room to be closer are from any social groups of study therefore from any groups of gender identity, so it could be said that this issue is a people common sense like last issue of preferences about girls needing private space in the house.

2 - Group no. 2, neutral

Parents, who made no preferences about the closeness of their children’s room, are fathers and mothers who either declared no gender differences in this relation between their girls and boys or referred to other factor influencing the closeness of children’s room like age or…

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): It doesn’t differ. Because now they’re grown up ،but maybe when they were younger, I preferred the younger one has the room closer to ours.

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Each one of them who listens to loud music should have a room further from ours and each one who is quiet should have a room close to ours.

Some of these parents (mostly fathers) also referred to the same sexual – ethical factor that children’s room are better to be farer from parents’ room but this time for both of sexes:

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant

76 breadwinner of lower middle class): None of them. In accordance with the principles of morality and religious laws both of them should be far away from us. If both of them have private rooms both of them should be far away.

Most of the mothers of this neutral group are from open groups of gender identity but it is not the same for fathers who mostly from “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity.

General findings:

1 – No parent preferred his or her son having room near to their rooms. It seems boys are training their future roles as the head of family so they practicing independence and courage. 2 – Most of parents either mothers or fathers declared their girls’ room better to be closer to their room. They referred to two reasons; some said that girls need more attention and care – that means inversely for the boys - and some referred that boys’ room preferred to be far from parents’ room comparing to girls’ room; it’s because of an ethical reason that they want their sexual affairs not to be considered by their boys since boys are more interested in this relations than girls. This kind of reasoning means when both sexes of children have their own rooms, it’s preferred boys’ room to be farer and when all family have to sleep in one place in the case of lower classes, it’s preferred young boys to sleep in other room separated from parents (for example quest room). So again it’s a common belief in this society and it’s repeated by parents from any gender attitude group that they prefer their girl’s room to be closer to their room although they refer to different reasons. 3 – Parents with neutral notions towards this issue declared no preferences in closeness of their children rooms. They said either it’s better both of them to be far or there is no difference in this relation or referred to other factors like age influencing the closeness of children’s rooms. Most of the mothers of this group are open minded about gender issues, but not the fathers.

77 3 – Parents preferences about children’s rooms position whether they are overlooked by (or overlooking to) other places or not

Question: If the room is overlooked by other people – either neighbors or public – which one of your children is preferred to have it?

The intention of this question has been if there are possible external (strange) views to a room, which one of girls or boys preferred to have it. Most of the parents got the intention and answered to it. In some cases, parents considered the opposite position of a room having view to out (other people) and answered to it. Any way reviewing the answers and considering the conclusion make it clear that the important subject for the parents is the same. Although almost all parents’ responses could be set in group no. 1, boy preferred (table no. 3), but there are also two other small groups: 1 – Group no. 1, parents who preferred to give the overlooked room to their boys. 2 – Group no. 2, parents who preferred to give the overlooking room to their daughters. 3 – Group no. 3, and finally parents who asserted no preferences in this relation.

1 – Group no. 1, Boy preferred

Majority of mothers and all the fathers who received the main concept of question, that to which one of their children they prefer to give the overlooked room, said they give it to their boys since their girls room are not to be overlooked by others and should be in a secured position. This is again a common sense among people, like the one of girls needing a private room; while that time view of other male member of family was considered, this time strangers’ view is the matter:

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The one which aren't faced is given to the girl.

78

79

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): Of course my son (the overlooked one).

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): My son (the overlooked one). Because there are fewer problems, except if he is naughty and may make problems for the neighbors. We should decide considering all the situations. ... We always choose a house which its rooms are not overlooked by other places. We’re more comfortable in that way. Also the curtains could solve the problem.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Well, the not overlooked one is better for my daughter. But I think both of them should be in such a room, but if I have to choose one, my daughter is preferred. Maybe someone from other side, look at a girl’s room not a boy’s room.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class): The room which is not overlooked would be given to my daughter. It’s better that none of the rooms were overlooked. If the design of the house were in a way that the rooms were overlooked we can do nothing. But we try to prevent the problem by using curtains. If one of the rooms were overlooked I have to give to my son. My daughter’s room shouldn’t be overlooked; we try to make it better by curtains. Because of the differences between girls and boys in gender and the girls’ problems which are pointed in our religion, we’re more anxious for our daughter. For example if the boy went out and come 2 hour late, although we have anxiety we don’t think that something has happened for him. But our daughter shouldn’t come 2 hours late. Because of her differences in gender and the problems in society she shouldn’t be out late in the evening or she shouldn’t be with her mother or someone reliable.

80

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): Of course the boy (the overlooked one). The girl wants to sleep with night-dress.

2 – Group no. 2, Girl preferred

Parents (only mothers) who named their girl in this relation, mostly referred to this issue that their boy might make some trouble in relations with their neighbors in fact they considered the opposite position of room overlooking to other places not to be overlooked by other places. In this relation they are worry about their boy look at neighbor’s places to make problems. In fact both groups referred to the same social matter that they don’t want girls private room is overlooked by strange boys; either the girl is their daughter or the boy is their son. The important issue in both groups is that boys are aggressive and girls are under aggression. These mothers who worried about their boys are from lower classes and “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity:

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The girls (the room which is overlooking other places), if I see something I’ll advise them. ... When I tell them not to stare to that house, the girls will obey but the boy won’t. Since he is young, I don’t like others to tell us something. ...I have brought up my children so I know them. They sleep where they feel comfortable.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): I would try not to give the overlooked one to my son. ...Because he’s a boy and naughty .I’m sure about my daughters specially this one but my son is very naughty.

3 - Group no. 3, neutral

81 Mothers (a few and only) of this group said they don’t have any problem in this relation with their boys or girls, so there isn’t any preference about that. These two mothers are from “open” attitude group of gender identity:

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): I haven’t thought about it. But if you think about it maybe you come to this result that your daughter’s room shouldn’t be overlooked. In this way she’s more comfortable but this .issue is not important in our house. Because they ، themselves consider it

Sample no. 34 (an educated – high school diploma - and participant breadwinner mother from lower middle class): I think it depends on the way the child has been raised; doesn’t matter how the window is, if the child is not nice a small facing window is enough, if a child has a good behavior a facing window doesn’t make any problem. ...No difference, it makes no matter to my own children. As an example my niece is a university student now. She got the 4th place in the exam and got accepted in governmental university last year with a good rating. She didn’t go and took the exam again and got 600. She is studying in “Sharif” university now. Their dormitory is in “Baharestan” square. Her family live in Karaj, my sister says if my sons, Vahid and Javid, and Atena (niece) stay in a room I trust them.

General findings

1 – All the fathers and most of the mothers presented their preferences about considering the overlooked room for their boys. They are from any groups of gender attitudes, so it’s a common belief. 2 – Some mothers from lower classes and “semi open – semi conservative” group said they prefer their boys’ room not overlooking neighbor’s places since there might be some problems with the neighbors. In fact they referred to the same issue mentioned in no. 1, but from the view of the son’s mother. 3 – It seems the important issue for both group of parents – it could be said for all parents of this society – is that they don’t like their daughters being overlooked by

82 strangers in secured space of the house. While many fathers and mothers looked at the issue from the position of a daughter’s parent, only mothers looked at the issue from son’s mother views; it shows more consciousness among mothers. 4 – Few neutral mothers from “open” group of gender identity declared no preferences in this relation.

4 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls open the apartment door Question: When somebody unknown knocks at the door (or apartment door), in your opinion which one of your children is preferred to open it?

The intention of this question is that door of the house which is opening by a person by face to face relations not by the electric instrument either the apartment door or the main door of the house. The knocker is unknown and might be a stranger. Three kinds of answers are (table no. 4): 1 – Group no. 1, those parents who preferred their boys open the door. 2 – Group no. 2, those parents who preferred their girls open the door. 3 – Group no. 3, those, which didn’t make any preferences in this relation.

1 – Group no. 1, Boy preferred

Those who preferred their sons open the door made the majority of interviewees either among mothers or among fathers. They belong to different groups of gender identity from “open” to “conservative” ones. Some of them asserted they prefer their boys to open the door; some said that their boys do it or tend to do it and some mothers (from upper classes) declared it’s easy that boys open the door because they (mothers or girls) have to wear covering cloths and scarves and it takes time. All of these reasons make this preference a common social behavior:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother

83

84 from lower middle class): My daughter even doesn’t go near the door ،my son opens the door. She doesn’t like it. We were in a neighborhood for 28 years and my daughter didn’t know a supermarket. She doesn’t go shopping and out. In the morning she goes to the class (for university entrance exam) and English classes but she’s not naughty and doesn’t go shopping .she even doesn’t clean the stairs and her brother doesn’t let either. He cleans the balcony and stairs himself. He even doesn’t let me.

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): My elder son. I myself usually answer. I prefer my elder son.

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from upper class): Generally boys tend to open the door more.

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from lower middle class): If my son is at home, he feels responsible to open but he is after me. I myself go to open it.

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from upper class): No difference, my son usually opens because it takes time for my girl to get to the door so she says: Behnam (the son) open the door.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife mother from upper class): The boys are preferred. Wearing clothes is different in our country, according to be religious or not. I even don’t go to the door sometimes. It’s so easier for my sons to run to the door before I wear suitable covered clothes.

85 2 - Group no. 2, girl preferred

Those parents who said their daughters open the door make the minority. These families either their son are working out and are not at home most of the day time, so their daughters do the job, or their son don’t take responsibility (other characteristics) in the house. Also most of them are living in the small familiar neighborhoods of the south parts of Tehran that the acquaintance social security in neighborhood is high so they feel security their girl open the out door to the possible stranger. Almost all of these parents belong to “semi conservative” or “conservative” group of gender identity (one mother belong to open group of gender identity, her boy studies in another city and most of the time is not at home). Précising on their answers they mostly believe that opening the door is their son job they don’t do it because of some excuses:

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): My daughter. Even when my son is at home doesn’t take responsibility.

Sample no. 4 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): Somayeh (her daughter), because Mahmood (her son) is upstairs; it would take a lot of time.

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): My children open it….Most of the times my daughters are at home….My youngest daughter usually opens the door. ...There’s no difference. I told them to ask who’s behind the door and then open it and they always ask: who are you, whom do you want to visit, and then they would open the door. .

3 - Group no. 3, neutral

Parents neutral to the issue said there is no difference between their girls or boys opening the door.

86

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education): Any body who is closer, no difference; some believe that the boys should do it as we see in the old films; they want the boy to do it. But we don't want this manner.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): Again the elders. If the parents aren’t at home, children will ask every other until one of them opens the door.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): It doesn’t make any difference to me.

Sample no. 6 (a housewife from lower middle class with low education): There’s no difference, anyone be at home opens it, just if there is no one at home, I have to do that, there’s no difference who opens.

All the mothers of this neutral group belong to the group of “open” gender identity; they presented neutral attitude to the issue of opening the door as their attitudes towards gender issues. Although half of the fathers belong to “open - informed” group too, but half of them presented “conservative” notions towards gender issues. Deeper questioning was needed to make their attitudes more clear; there is this possibility that they might understand question asking about answering the door ring by door phone.

General findings

1 – There is a common behavior among different groups of gender identity towards issue of opening the door by boys of family since it’s kind of relationships with possible strangers. This common action observed among majority of interviewees belongs to

87 different social groups of society with different gender attitudes. It’s the same either parents preferred their sons do the job or their sons tend or feel responsibility to do this job or it’s easier that boys to do the job because women should wear a covering clothes; all present a dominated social phenomenon; an institutionalized act (although different social classes cleared its different aspects). 2 – The minority of interviewees (mostly mothers) asserted their daughters open the door; because their son either is not at home during day time or he doesn’t take responsibility. Anyway answering to this question people believed their son should to it but they have an excuse not to do that. These parents (mostly mothers) belong to “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity. 3 – Some of the mothers and fathers who belong to “open” and “open – informed” groups of attitudes towards gender issues, asserted no preferences in this relation either their boy or girl open the door. Except these parents who presented similar notions towards gender and opening the house’s door, there are some fathers in this neutral group belong to “conservative” group of gender attitude; more questioning needed to make clear their notion either they understood the question unclearly – they might consider the main door of house opening by electric instrument – or there is other effective factor.

5– Parents preferences whether their boys or girls answer the phone

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to answer the phone?

Reviewing the answers and précising on them it seems there are no meaningful relations between gender attitudes and kind of preferences parents made for answering the phone by their children and it seems other factors involved (table no. 5). Since answering the phone is not a direct relation to the out or with the strangers, people don’t feel worry about their children especially their girls – although some parents feel – so mentioned relation hardly could find.

88

89 6 – Parents preferences whether their boys or girls entertain the guests

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to entertain non – mahram (not closed relatives, friends or strangers; in fact those persons that female members of family must cover their body and hair in presence of them in Islamic tradition) guests?

In Iranian custom, serving the guests usually is kind of housework is done by female members of family offering something by a tray to guests. But that’s the moderate situation and it differs among different social groups and different situations even in one city, Tehran. According to the answers, it seems two different aspects are involved; both of them are gender aspects; one of them that serving the guest is kind of housework, as a womanish issue. The other that serving non – mahram preferred not to be done by women moving around, in front of non – mahram men of family or friends so it is a man job. Two trends act in opposition. So how these trends influence within different social groups, is the subject of this question. Four groups of answers are (table no. 6): 1 – Those that preferred their boys to do the job. 2 – Those that preferred their daughters to do the job. 3 – Those that preferred no one of them to do the job. 4 – And those without preference between them means both might do the serving.

1 – Group no. 1, boy preferred

These parents preferred or said that their sons do the serving non – mahram guests. These parents who preferred their boys do the serving, look at the issue from a religious and traditional notion that it’s preferred girls not to serve (not to be presented to) strangers or non – mahram relatives or friends. These parents belong to “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open” groups of gender identity:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother

90

91 from lower middle class): My son. Even when close relatives come for example their uncle. It’s a custom that the man does the reception, they don’t like women do that.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): I do it myself or my wife. Some times Alireza helps. Since they are non-mahram, I prefer that a man entertains them. We don’t want strange cultures.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife mother from upper class): It depends on our guests, because my own family is religious, but we don’t have much relation with them. If we are in my mom's house and all the guests are women, the girls do the reception, but if the guests are men and women, they believe it's better that boys do it....No, with the friends no difference but when relatives come, sons do the reception.

2 - Group no. 2, girl preferred

Parents, who preferred or said that their girls do the reception, look at the issue from different position; some declared that their girls do the serving with considering women covering clothes. These are parents who belong to “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open” groups of gender identity who have unmarried daughters at home doing the different housework and sons who are working out and not usually present at home; or maybe they don’t ask from their son do this kind of job (traditionally women jobs).

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): My daughters serve them but they have to have hejab (Women covering clothes).

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): My girl

92 does; of course she considers the situation. My daughter or I entertain. ...Yes, the older one (son) does but the younger never. He is the youngest and dearest.

Some mothers with “open” notions towards gender issues also included in this group. These mothers actually are neutral to the issue but it seems that their daughters traditionally do their job or their sons don’t like it characteristically. These samples are like the “open” minded mothers – of neutral group – will be mentioned later who inversely their sons do the task because their daughters are some how shy and not sociable:

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated and housewife mother from middle class): Usually Negar (her girl) serves our guests.

3 – Group no. 3, none of them

These parents, all of them belong to “semi conservative” or “conservative” groups of gender identity asserted they themselves do the reception not the children. They preferred their children not to participate in serving the guests. Although they are mostly semi conservative in their gender attitudes but it seems other family characteristics are also involved.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Not the older girl, not the younger one, only myself.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class): Their mother or I my self serve them. We try not to

93 tell the children to serve them. It’s not correct according to our custom. Maybe my daughter is inconvenienced. She prefers her brother do this work, if he’s at home. It differs from answering the telephone and opening the door. 90% of the times we do it ourselves.

4 – Group no. 4, neutral

The majority of parents either among mothers or fathers didn’t make preferences in this relation and said that there is no difference, both of them may do the task; they are mostly from “open” group of gender identity.

Sample no. 6 (a housewife from lower middle class with low education): There’s no difference. ...Yes, he does too. They’re moody, sometimes do and sometimes don’t do, they don’t bother themselves and ask me to do it.

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): My husband is kind of religious, but not so much that believes the girl should stays in bedroom and the boy does the reception. I usually wear scarf and long clothes when a worker comes to clean the house, the same as my daughter. Whenever we have guests, if they are religious we wear our scarves, if not, we don’t wear scarves and usually younger ones do the reception.

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): There’s no difference. Each one of them does some work.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): If they have extra time, there’s no difference between girls and boys.

94 And some parents of this neutral group referred to boys because girls are not sociable or are shy. These parents who think their daughters could do the serving but don’t do because of their personal characteristics, naturally belong to “open” groups of gender attitudes:

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The boys. Girls are shy and they usually don't come.

Sample no. 8 (an educated – high school diploma – and householder mother from middle class): My son. My daughter doesn’t come out (she doesn’t like). My son is sociable. He comes and does the greetings but my daughter is shy (lots of relatives have not seen her).

General findings:

1 – Traditionally, from one side, serving the guests included in housework and so it’s a womanish work then naturally referred to girls of the house comparing to boys; but from the other side for many families serving non – mahram guests (not closed relatives, also non relatives) is not preferred to be done by girls or women; these trends in combination create different situations in different social groups. 2 – Serving the guests in spite of its gender aspects, also influenced by other characteristics of children like how much they are sociable or interested to spend time with guests, or have time to do the job. 3 – Some parents with “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open” notions towards gender issues asserted they prefer their son serves the non - mahram guests because guests are non – mahram and it’s better girls not to serve them. 4 – Some parents with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender issues asserted that their girls do the serving non – mahram guests but with proper covered clothes. It seems they must refer it to their son similar with parents of the first

95 group, but maybe their sons are not at home most of the time (they’re employed) or boys are not willing to do this womanish job. 5 – Some “open” minded mother also said their girl do the job and their son don’t participate in this work, maybe they are not so sociable or not willing to do this womanish job; other characteristics might be involved. 6 – Some parents which belong to “semi conservative – semi open” group of gender identity said that they themselves do serving the non – mahram guests not the children. It seems other family characteristics might be involved too. 7 – Some parents who actually could be named neutral declared no difference, both of them do this kind of job. They mostly are from “open” and “open informed” group of gender identity. These parents neither consider serving the guests as a womanish job, nor pay attention to serving the non mahram guests as a male job. 8 – Some parents, actually neutral to the issue with “open” notions towards gender issues asserted boys serve the non – mahram guests, but this time because girls don’t like this job or they are not sociable. 9 – Therefore in general, it seem there isn’t a simple connection between girls and boys participating in serving the guest so that more conservative family refer it to boys and more open refer to girls or both of them. In fact from one side, serving the guest is a womanish work like housework, so as much as a family is open minded to gender issue, and then men and boys participate in this job too. But from the other side serving non – mahram guests for religious traditional family is a men job, so these two trends in combination with other factors related to children and family characteristics create different cases as mentioned.

Conclusion

The investigation having done in this chapter about different gender aspects of house’ spaces, cleared how spatial organization of the house and circulation within from one side, and kind of using residences make, from the other side could present gender values of this organization. In fact gender relations manifested in space of the house and influence its spatial organization and the living, moving and using of people within.

96 Regarding to the five categorical conclusions of this chapter about different gender attitudes of parents towards their girls and boys using spaces of the house in different situations, the most common attitudes in this relation which are represented by different gender (or social) groups of Tehran’s residences, could be drawn as followed: 1 – Girls need personal private space (room) for their private issues (related to their body) more than boys. 2 – Girl’s room (girl sleeping space) is preferred to be near to parents’ room comparing to boy’s room (boy’s sleeping space) for more caring or controlling. 3 – It’s preferred that boys open the door when an unknown person knocks to the door. 4 – The overlooked rooms are preferred to use by boys comparing to girls. It’s important to note that these kinds of notions penetrated all gender groups from “open” to “conservative” indicate tendency towards biased spatial attitudes against neutral ones in society; they present that dominated gender relations in society still dominated by patriarchal values based on more caring, preservation or controlling of girls specially when they connect to the “out” (opening the door, overlooked room); the situations in society is so that even groups of “open” gender attitudes presented the same notions; but important point about “open” groups is that although apparently they do the same behavior but they are more conscious about those practices. This subject would be discussed under the title of “internalization of discrimination”. Except these common gender believes towards space of the house, still there are other attitudes are represented by mostly some certain gender groups of people. It means that some spatial behaviors (or attitudes) represented mostly by “open” groups of “gender identity” and some other represented mostly by “conservative” ones. It should be noted that “semi open semi conservative” group of gender attitudes as the middle group shares their spatial notions with one of the “open” or “conservative” groups, sometimes with the first and sometimes with the other one and of course when there is general spatial notions, most of them belong to those ones. “Conservative” and sometimes “semi conservative” gender groups showed “spatial attitudes” are more associated with patriarchal gender relations:

97 1 – Boys need private room more than girls (in most of the cases boys claim room themselves or parents think they need it more). 2 – Overlooking room is better not to be used by boys (because boys might look at neighbors and bother them). 3 – Serving the non - mahram guests are done by girls because boys are employed and not usually at home or don’t do it (they do not do this womanish job). 4 - Serving the non – mahram guests done by boys because guests are non – mahram (girls should not presented to the strangers). 12 – None of boys or girls does serving the non – mahram guests; only parents do it (strict parents who also are conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes). This is while more “open” and sometimes “semi open” gender attitudes presented more neutral attitudes towards their boys and girls activities in private space of the house: 2 – No difference between girls and boys neediness to private room. 4 – No difference between girls’ and boys’ room closeness to parents room. 6 – No difference between girls and boys having overlooked or overlooking rooms. 8 – Serving the non - mahram guests are done by girls because boys are not sociable (in fact neutral spatial attitude). 10 - Serving the non – mahram guests done by boys because girls are shy and not sociable (in fact neutral spatial attitude). 11 – No difference between girls and boys serving non – mahram guests.

Therefore in this way the meaningful relationship between “gender attitude” and “spatial attitude” is revealed so as much as people are open in their “gender attitudes” most probably they think openly – neutral - towards the spatial issues regarding private space. Otherwise, as much as people are “conservative” in their gender attitudes, they show conservative notions towards spatial issues. Besides these relationships, there are some general spatial attitudes across all gender groups of society. These notions like covering women’s body although are apparently the same spatial practices but they have different meanings in people minds that are different in their gender attitudes.

98 Variables of “sex”, “social class”, & “breadwinning status”

After specifying general relationships seen between “gender identity” and “spatial identity” of private space of the home, also pointing to the general spatial tendencies among different gender groups, now it’s possible to point to various influences of three different variables of “gender identity” mean “sex”, “social class”, & “breadwinning status” - into “spatial identity”.

Variable “sex”

Distribution of mothers and fathers among different groups of spatial attitudes, regarding attached tables, in half of the cases seems to be relatively similar. According to the questions no. 2, “closeness of children’s room to the parents’”, no. 3, “allocation of overlooking room”, and no. 4, “opening the door”, mothers and father’s distributions among groups of attitudes are similar. This indicates effective factors other than “sex”, the same factors caused mentioned general attitudes across all gender groups, involved. Despite this similarity, in some questions mothers showed more numbers in open groups of spatial attitudes. In question no. 1, “having private room”, while there is only one father in “neutral group” – gender equality - of spatial attitudes, many mothers included. And in question no. 3, “allocation of overlooking room” there are only mothers despite their few numbers in neutral group. Also the numbers of mothers in “neutral” group of category no. 6, “entertaining the guests” are relatively high. This relatively high numbers of mothers in “open” groups of spatial attitudes inversely shows relatively higher numbers of fathers in “conservative” groups of the same categories. It seems normal that women comparing men as the inferior sex in patriarchal relations to be more equitable in their attitudes.

Variable “social class”

In spite of mentioned inclusive spatial attitudes within private space that obscure the relationships between “spatial identity” and “gender identity” and therefore three variables of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” either, but still those relationships could be drawn in some ways. Like the upper mentioned relations between “sex” and

99 “spatial identity”, relations between “class” and “spatial identity” could be pointed in different categories of private space. And as it was pointed before that “education” is an important indicator of “social class” and its changes associated with changes of “social class”, here it shows its influences again. According to the distribution of spatial identity groups, tables’ no. 1 to 6 present more educated parents from middle and upper classes in more equitable “open” groups of spatial attitudes and inversely more low educated parents from lower middle and lower classes in more “conservative” groups. In category no. 1, “allocation of private room”, neutral group included mostly educated parents from middle and upper classes. It’s the same in category no. 2, “closeness of children’s room to parents’”, category no. 4, “opening the door”, and category no. 6, “entertaining the guests”. And inversely in category no. 1, “allocating private room”, and category no. 6, “entertaining the guests”, numbers of lower and lower middle classes in more “conservative” group of “boy preferred” are relatively high. Within discussion about “gender identity” – last chapter – was pointed to the special meaningful relationships between levels of “education” – per se not as an indicator of social class - and “gender identity”. Here similar relationship between “education” and “spatial identity” could be seen only according to fathers and their distribution among “neutral” groups mean the most “open” groups of “spatial identity”. According to the tables’ no. 1 to 6, there are no low educated fathers among these “open” (neutral) groups (the exception of the category no. 4 was explained before). As always women of all social groups – all educational level, here – might show “open” attitudes. The opposite relations mean lack of association between higher educated samples within “conservative” attitudes haven’t been clear here, because of the same general inclusive spatial attitudes (of course if we precise on the samples’ referrings, we could find parents differences in those general attitudes too).

Variable of “breadwinning status”

100 “Breadwinning status” as one of the variables of gender identity has shown before relations with gender attitude. Now in this part, relations between breadwinning status” and “spatial identity” is investigated. “Breadwinning status” for fathers means to be either an only breadwinner (householder) or a participant (having employed wife) but for mothers means to be a housewife (unemployed) or participant breadwinner wife (employed wife) and at last only breadwinner or householder (divorced or a widow mother). If we consider mothers and fathers’ different positions regarding patriarchal family, the position of a householder father is related to a housewife, they have made a traditional patriarchal family. And a participant father with a participant mother, they have made a family with changed relations regarding patriarchal one. But a householder mother makes an incomplete patriarchal family. These parallel positions in family create parallel attitudes among fathers and mothers towards different issues; for example a householder father’s attitude might be similar to a housewife’s attitude and both of their attitudes are likely to be associated with patriarchal values; and two participant parents of a family might show changed gender values regarding patriarchal values… but the position of a householder mother and her attitude is not comparable with a father of any position. “Breadwinning status” in family according to the different private space categories’ investigations didn’t show a clear relation with “spatial attitude”; it might be because of the mentioned general attitudes among different social groups which attract majority of social samples to those general groups ; also influences of other variables like “social class” or “sex” might be considerable. Despite this, in category no. 1, “allocating private room” considering “conservative” group of “boy preferred” all the fathers are householder and most of the mothers are householder from lower and lower middle classes. In category no. 2, (closeness of children’s room to parents’) considering “open” group of “neutral” most of the fathers are participant breadwinner. Also in category no. 6, “entertaining the guests” considering “open” group of “neural” half of the parents are participant breadwinner.

101 Internalization of oppression

Internalization of oppression means being unconscious towards oppressive patriarchal relations, while they’re lived and practiced in society; it differs among different gender groups. As much as a gender group (differentiated by “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status”) is unconscious towards patriarchal relations and live or practice in society adapted to those relations, it means that group has internalized those relations and their associated oppressive values, by the same way. Different groups of gender identities as they are studied in this chapter presented different attitudes towards different issues related to private space of house. In fact they made different groups of spatial identities. And like their various consciousness towards unequal gender relations they showed different level of consciousness towards unequal spatial relations regarding their children’s spatial experiences. There are many examples of these different consciousnesses towards spatial issues could be referred like differences existed between these two samples who delivered their notions related to the question no. 6, “entertaining the non – mahram guests”. While the first one who named his son for entertaining non – mahram guests, pointed to his religious believes as the reason for this spatial behavior, the second sample referred to the social norms as the reason for her practice not her internal values and she declared she practices differently in other situations:

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): I do it myself or my wife. Some times Alireza (son) helps. Since they are non-mahram, I prefer that a man entertains them. We don’t want strange cultures.

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle): My husband is kind of religious, but not so much that believes the girl should stays in bedroom and the boy does the reception. I usually wear scarf and long clothes when a worker comes to clean the house, the same as my daughter. Whenever we have guests, if they are religious we wear our scarves, if not, we don’t wear scarves and usually younger ones (children) do the reception.

102 Good examples of these different spatial consciousnesses might be seen among different members of general spatial attitudes mean those spatial attitudes shared among different groups of society. Different member of these general groups apparently showed the same attitude towards the issue but in fact their notions are from different standpoints. While existence of these general notions as was pointed, indicates patriarchal values still dominated in society, but still there are differences between the “open” reasoning and “conservative” one. For example, among members of the spatial group of “boy preferred” in category no. 1, about “allocating private space”. Sample no. 1 referred to family believes (internal values) for separating daughter in private room, but the second sample pointed to daughter’s comfort and freedom (consciousness towards the differences) in having private room:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): My daughter. ... Their (my sons and daughter) studying and working’s things are all in a same room. My sons sleep in that room. And my daughter sleeps in the living room. We’re tenants; they couldn’t have their own rooms. We’re building a house for ourselves. She’s (my daughter) religious and doesn’t put the curtains away. Despite there are video and satellite in our house. My son (the older) is religious too. He doesn’t like to have a room with her sister.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower class with low education): The girl. It s better; ...of course it s better for both of them to have a private room but I prefer the girl. That s because she will be more comfortable, the boy is always out. He has the freedom outside. ...Then she knows what to wear, how to sleep because the boy is free he can wear whatever he wants and sleep.

It’s the same about selected two samples regarding to the reasons they delivered for “allocating overlooked room” to their sons. While the first one referred to basic gender differences in this relation, two other samples consciously referred to likely social situations for their selection.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class):

103 If one of the rooms were overlooked I have to give to my son. My daughter’s room shouldn’t be overlooked; we try to make it better by curtains. Because of the differences between girls and boys in gender and the girls’ problems which are pointed in our religion, we’re more anxious for our daughter. For example if the boy went out and come 2 hour late, although we have anxiety we don’t think that something has happened for him. But our daughter shouldn’t come 2 hours late. Because of her differences in gender and the problems in society she shouldn’t be out late in the evening or she shouldn’t be with her mother or someone reliable.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): I prefer especially my daughter's room wasn't overlooked because other people may bother her. You know we have depraved society. But they're comfortable and they don't feel this problem.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Well, the not overlooked one is better for my daughter. But I think both of them should be in such a room, but if I have to choose one, my daughter is preferred. Maybe someone from other side look at a girl’s room not a boy’s room. And the other example in this relation regarding the category no. 4, “opening the out door” is:

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma – and housewife mother from lower middle class): My daughter even doesn’t go near the door ،my son opens the door. She doesn’t like it. We were in a neighborhood for 28 years and my daughter didn’t know a supermarket. She doesn’t go shopping and out. In the morning, She goes to the class (for university entrance exam) and English classes but she’s not naughty and doesn’t go shopping .she even doesn’t clean the stairs and her brother doesn’t let either. He cleans the balcony and stairs himself. He even doesn’t let me.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife mother from upper class):

104 The boys are preferred. Wearing clothes is different in our country, according to be religious or not. I even don’t go to the door sometimes. It’s so easier for my sons to run to the door before I wear suitable covered clothes. In general could be said that in dominated relations of patriarchal social system in a society, there are people who consciously reject those values and practice differently in society as much as it’s possible. But majority of people who live among those dominated situations and apparently practice the same, don’t have the same consciousness towards the situations they live in. Some of them consciously understand the conditions and know that they might act differently in different conditions, while some think about the dominated patriarchal relations as the normality and essentiality

105 “Gender” and “Semi Public Semi Private Spaces”

Introduction

“Semi public semi private spaces” are those spaces attached to the house, either used only by one family like balconies or private courtyards or used by some neighbors like roofs or staircases or shared courtyards. Neighborhood spaces like alleys or common spaces of residential complexes are other kinds of “semi public semi private spaces” considered here; all of these spaces have common uses with small number of other neighbors and if they haven’t common use still they have neighbors’ view to them. Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use or should use these kinds of spaces are focused in this chapter. Nine categories as they have been presented within questionnaire will be investigated as followed: 1 - Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use space of courtyard 2 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use overlooked balcony 3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use semi public spaces of neighborhood 4 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children do the local grocery shopping 5 – Parents preferences towards the way their children take the garbage out in the evening 6 – Parents preferences towards the way their children water the flower bed in the courtyard or in front of the door 7 – Parents preferences towards the way their children clean shared staircase 8 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use the roof of the house 9 – Parents preferences towards the way their children hang the clothes up in courtyards, balconies or roofs

1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use courtyard space

Question: Which one of your children does some activities in the courtyard (the overlooked or shared one)? Or: Which one of them uses courtyard more?

106

Courtyards in Tehran houses differ from private courtyards of single unit houses (they might be overlooked by neighbors or not; these houses could be found mostly as over expensive villas of upper classes in north parts of the city or as small houses in small plots of lands in south residential parts of lower classes) to the shared courtyards of apartments (dominated features in most parts of the city) and as common spaces of towers or residential complexes. No need to mention that in two last kinds of courtyard since there is common use of the place by neighbors so surely there is overlooking situation towards the place either. There are some other kinds of courtyard, not important because of their small numbers. So the important point in this question is the overlooked yard or shared one in its using. Parents’ responses to this question could be placed in three groups:

1 - 1 – Group of “limitation for both”, or “both don’t use it”

The largest group in size included those parents who declared that neither their children are willing to use the yard nor they prefer that children use it. Apart from this issue that many activities have been done before in the yard, now transferred to the internal spaces of the house, so yard has lost its old main roles and except that people in Tehran and many other large cities, are more interested to the internal space’s activities like watching TV, satellite programs or possibilities that computer presents, the reason for many of them is to protecting family’s boundaries from the neighbors’ interferences. This issue must be considered within the trend of urban individualization and depression of social and specially neighborhood relationships. This trend fortified within inhomogeneous society like a metropolitan of Tehran and within its more inhomogeneous neighborhoods, from one side and within apartments’ residences from the other side; the form of shared yards of apartment is such that people rarely use this shared spaces.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Q: Do your children go to the yard?

107

108 A: No, not very much. We go to the park. We go outside. But we don't use the yard very much only when I want to walk with Roja at night. I haven't gone out with Pouya yet. It's only seven month that we are here. It's not a long time. But we go to the park. Our neighborhood is like a village.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Do your children have permission to use the yard, for example be with their friends? - Never, not my daughter nor my son. - Do you have a balcony? - No. - would you let them use, if you had? - No. Our neighborhood is not such a place that girls come and go freely. It doesn’t have a good atmosphere and they can’t be free. They can’t make friendship with anyone, or freely go to the balcony. My son doesn’t have any friends here. He has brought up like this; I’ve never let him make friends in the neighborhood. I always have a fear of making him addicted or take him to bad places, Although I always was very careful his job atmosphere’s have effects on him and maybe his friends there had bad influences on him but in our neighborhood he doesn’t have any friends. -Don’t they even go to the alley to be with school friends? -No.

Facilities and entertainments in closed spaces of house like television, satellite and computer are the other reasons for children’s unwillingness to use courtyard:

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Q: Are your yard faced by neighbor's house? Do you use it? Can children spend time or read books with their friends there? A: We don’t have anything to do there. They don’t go there to sit or play. Q: You mean none of them? A: No Q: Don’t they have something to do there? A: If they have, they go but not for playing. Q: Do you let them?

109 A: They don’t have the time to spend time in the yard playing.

Except mentioned reasons seen in different groups of society, conservative parents in their gender attitudes don’t like their children use the shared and overlooked space of yard either:

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): If the yard be overlooked, do you let them spend sometime there? I try not to let them do anything there. I prefer if they want to study or sit, don’t be in such a place. Do you mean it’s being in a private place which isn’t overlooked? Yes, it shouldn’t be in an overlooked place. There’s no escape of these things. Do they have permission to use the shared yard? In this place that we live, until now, they never used it. They didn’t spend time there. Do you let them, if they have time? See, there’s no obstacle to use it but I think it causes some inconveniences to the complex, hence I prefer not use it.

1 - 2 – Group of “neutral” or “both use it”

Parents of this group are mostly mothers and mostly with “open” gender attitudes (and from middle and upper classes):

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): - If you r private yard were overlooked – nowadays most of the apartments have public yards – would you let your children use it, for example to sit there and read a book. .Yes ،they used to utilize the yard in our previous house where we had private yard - - Was it over looked? - Yes.

110 - Were your children in the same age? No ،they were younger. Actually it was ten years ago. They were in primary and - guidance school. They used the yard for playing and studying. And I think if we had that .yard now ،there would be no problem to use it

Sample no. 6 (a low educated housewife from lower middle class): is the yard overlooked? no, it’s not if it was overlooked, would you let them go there and spend time? there’s no difference. I don’t have any problem with it. We are not like those people even. Before the republic we were like this either.

Sample no. 9 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): - If your apartment has a shared yard, do you permit your children to spend their time there? - There‘s no problem.

1 - 3 – Group of “limitation for girls” or “boys use it more”

They are mostly parents – more fathers included – with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender issues (and mostly from lower and middle classes) who said that their sons use yards more or their daughters use yards with limitation like covering clothes:

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): If the yard of your house were overlooked by the windows, would you let your son or daughter use it?

111 -Yes, they use it. But they have to have proper clothes. They cannot go to the yard without scarf and proper clothes. -How do they spend their time in the yard? -They are not always in the yard. They go there when they want to clean the yard or water the flowers. That’s why they go to yard other wise they won’t go. -Do your children have permission to spend their time in the shared yard, if you have so? -There is no problem if only there would be no non- mahram. If there were bothering for them, I wouldn’t let them.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Q: Does the yard belong to you? A: Yes Q: Is it faced by anywhere? A: No, just a little Q: Are the children allowed to study in the yard or stay there? A: Yes, no problem Q: What if a lot of people could see your yard? A: If my daughters recognize, they won’t go themselves. The children tell me not to go without scarf, someone might see.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper diploma of high school - and participant breadwinner father from lower middle class): If the yard of your house is overlooked by other neighbors are your children allowed to use it? - We don’t have yard but because now a days most of the people live in apartments, I let my children go to the yard to study and play, because inside the house there are lots of limitations. They should be trained in a way they were able to protect themselves. - Which one of your children can use it less? - It is the same as social activities. Girls go to the street, cinema… less than boys it’s not because of our permission. We don’t tell them that you should go there and you shouldn’t but automatically boys go out more. There are some reasons (ball, friend, and bicycle) that bring the boys out. But girls surely don’t go out for these reasons. If her

112 friends come to our house, she would invite them inside the house not to the yard. Therefore boys can use the yard more but if my daughter wants to go to the yard, there is no problem.

Other than these three groups, parents of group “not related” are those who either have not been asked about this question, or they don’t have such an overlooked or shared yard.

General findings

1 - Parents who responded to this question presented their notions in three ways. Some said that neither of them uses yard space and some of them neutrally said that both of their children use space of courtyard, overlooked or shared one. Last group said that their boys use yard more freely than their girls. No one declared that their girls enjoys from space of yard freer than their boys. 2 – The largest group, parents who said neither of them uses space of courtyard present different social trends. The first one seen among different groups of society (gender groups too); since yard in many cases is a common place shared by neighbors – in apartments specially - and since there is a trend of individualism and reduction of social closed relationships among people specially within neighbors of urban areas, so there is an unwillingness towards neighborhood connections; it’s against people interference towards family lives and then there is reduction in using common spaces of neighborhood or being overlooked in those spaces while doing something. This trend is fortified in heterogeneous neighborhoods from one side and by attractive activities of closed space of house like watching television or satellite programs or computer uses from the other side. 3 – The other trends among this group of parents –both don’t use - belong to those conservatives or semi conservatives who don’t like their children connections to the neighbors from the point of gender issues. 4 – Parents of neutral group which their both children use space of yard are mostly mothers with open or semi open gender attitudes – from middle and upper classes - towards gender issues.

113 5 – Some parents who belong to the group of “limitation for girls’ and are mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender issues – and mostly from lower and lower middle classes - asserted that their sons do some activities in yard more than their daughters or their daughters wear covered cloths while have something to do in courtyard.

2 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children use overlooked balconies

Question: Which one of your children does some activities in the balcony (the overlooked one)? Or: Which one of them uses balconies more?

Many respondents are missed in this question because their houses don’t have an overlooked balcony or they haven’t been asked about this question. Despite this situation and despite this fact that urban residents rarely use balconies as a recreational space and its use limited to some few ones like hanging cloths up or storing something – it’s the same about yards and roofs - others answered to this question and anyway balconies’ limited uses at present time have been considered. Like often, three groups of respondents are those who neutrally said both of them could use balcony; and those who declared none of them use balcony; and at last some said that their sons use balcony more.

2 - 1 – Group of “neutral” or “both use it”

Except one member, all of the parents of this group – mostly mothers - are either open minded in their gender attitudes or well off people from upper classes with semi open gender attitudes. It’s important to point those upper class’s parents of this study who presented semi open semi conservative notions towards gender roles, asserted neutral attitudes towards their children’s using of different spaces.

114

115

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): In front of our house is an open area with a villa. The terrace is very big, it’s like a yard. Do you use it? The kitchen is very small, so I put the freezer and washing machine there. By using I mean sitting there. Yes Isn’t it overlooked? It is overlooked by the upper stories, but they aren’t such people who look down. And we usually go in the evening which is dark. The other part is the flowerbeds and green area. Which one of the children uses this place more? My daughter loves the environment so she’s there most of time. My son likes agriculture a lot but from when he’s gone, I do the watering.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Do they have permission to spend time in an overlooked balcony? Even they are seen? 100%, there’s no problem

2 - 2 – Group of “limitation for both” or “both don’t use it”

Despite this fact that some parents of this group pointed to the inappropriate space of balcony – small space or ugly and polluted view – that caused no one like to use it; but many of them said they prefer that none of them use this space referring to gender issues. These parents are mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative gender identity.

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma- householder father from upper class):

116 If your balcony was overlooked by your neighbors’ house or the alley or the street, would you let your children use it? No, they’re not comfortable themselves and also they draw other people’s attention.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): We have but we don’t use it because it faces other places. Alireza (son) is prejudice. When some one rings the bell Alireza puts on track suit and the girls wear scarves. We used to grill meat in the balcony when meat was cheap. The kids were small and came near us.

2 - 3 – Group of “boys use it more”

This group includes only mothers within, and except one who referred to the situation as her believes, others referred to the atmosphere of whole society and their neighborhood the same, which necessitate boys could freely use public or overlooked spaces either, and girls use them with limitations (although all of these mothers didn’t point to this condition here in this question but it’s been cleared from their other responses generally). One of these mothers pointed to the issue consciously:

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): - What about the balcony that is overlooked? - We have it. - Do they usually use it? .Yes ،they do - What about if you had a balcony that you could put chairs in it and sit there ،and of - course it were overlooked? That’s different. If our balcony were that much big that we could do that ،I wouldn’t prefer to do it. It’s not comfortable. - You would let none of them use it. Is there any preference?

117 - No, it’s not really different for me. Generally girls are more limited to use these kinds of places. They‘ve learnt it themselves. And they themselves make limitation. Boys are freer. - Actually the culture that exists in different groups of people limits us, even if we don’t want it ourselves. - That’s right. For example when somebody knocks the door and Behman (son) wants to go downstairs and open the door, he goes with the cloth that he was wearing before but Negar (daughter) has learnt to change her cloths.

General findings

1 – Near to half of the samples missed in this category. Either they have not been asked about this question or their houses don’t have an overlooked balcony. The other respondents made the same three groups. 2 – Those parents – mostly mothers - who asserted neutral notions towards using of balcony by their children are mostly either open minded in their gender attitudes or semi open but from upper classes. It’s important to point that some upper class parents of this sampling despite their semi open semi conservative notions towards gender roles showed neutral notions towards the way their children use different spaces. 3 - Parents who asserted that none of their children they prefer to use space of balcony – they either referred to the gender issues or not - are mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative notions towards gender relationships and from any social classes. 4 – Mothers who made third group – more free boys - and said that their boys use overlooked space of balcony freer, they pointed to the issue from different perspective. Middle or upper class’s open minded parents towards gender differences said that they have to consider social situations. Beside this view, one conservative mother asserted this difference as her internalized belief. Since this category lost near to half of the samples, so that seems the reason for the existence of only mothers in this group.

118 3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children use semi public spaces of neighborhood

Question: Which one of your children allowed to spend time in the alley or neighborhood spaces? Or: Which one of your children spends time in neighborhood spaces more?

Activities of semi public spaces of neighborhood considered here, include walking, talking or playing with friends in one hand and car washing – that is usual in many neighborhood – in other hand. Shopping from neighborhood shops, and watering flower bed or trees of this space near to the house, as other activities of this kind considered in independent other categories. Fortunately all the respondents answered to this question, and like most of the time made three groups of answers:

3 – 1 – group of “neutral” attitude

As it seems normal, most parents – that most of them mothers - with open gender attitudes from middle and upper class and some well off parents from upper class despite their semi conservative gender attitudes included in this group. The important issue to be pointed is this fact that most neighborhoods in Tehran have lost their social and familiar characteristics and social relationships of neighbors have been decreased generally; in other hand, young people are mostly interested in closed space activities like watching TV, satellite programs, and using computers; despite this, neutral attitudes of parents are clear in this relation. But at the same time, some rare neighborhoods in Tehran still enjoy from those qualities, so families living there feel some kind of security and their children use neighborhood spaces relatively free compared to other parts of the city (Sample no. 4).

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): - Do your children use the alley, for example with their friends?

119

120

.No ،not here - - You come to this house when your children couldn’t find any friends in the neighborhood. - No - Generally our children don’t use the alley’s space very much. - Yes - Our neighborhood is not a good neighborhood. - When we were living in Apadana complex, the children were very comfortable. They use all the spaces a lot. - Did they go and come back? Yes ،for riding bicycle ،walking and …. For example when their friends come, they - easily went out with each other. - Both of them? - Yes

Sample no. 4 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): Q: What about neighbors? A: They are comfortable to come here (her home). We don’t have any man (she means that they are not at home during the day). But other neighbors that live in an apartment come out when it’s too hot. When Somayeh (her daughter) was single she used to go cycling in the evenings, because everyone knows each other here and it’s not too crowded. "Firooz khan" (one of old neighbor) doesn’t let any stranger in the alley. When strangers come to our area for cycling he refuses. Who ever comes, should belong to this area. Q: What about the youngsters? A: We don’t have a lot of youngsters in the age of Mahmood (son), he’s usually at home. His old friends have moved. No one disturbs the others. Somayeh was the oldest girl who got married. Yasaman (her grandchild) is in second grade and Fatima (neighbor’s daughter) is in first grade of guidance school. Niloofar (her grandchild) is in fourth grade of elementary school. Small boys spend time playing, hopping and if they get involved; it’s their own business.

121

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): - Is there any free space between the skyscrapers? Do they use it? - Yes, there are sport facilities. -Do they go and sit there with their friends? - No, they don’t have any relationships here, but maybe their friend from out. Last year one of Hamed's friend used to come and walk in the back yard, there were just them. Now they don’t go anymore. - Doesn’t she go either? - Lives have been changed completely, especially because of the computer. Whenever we go on travel with friends, we go to the nature because there isn’t any computers there, so they go to the nature with friends but here they’re all the time in their rooms, listen to the music or watch a film.

3 - 2 – Group of “limitation for both”

These parents, most of them fathers with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes from any social classes prefer none of their girls or boys using neighborhood spaces easily.

Sample no. 35 (a low educated and participant breadwinner mother from lower class): Q: Do the children use the alley? A: No. Q: For example to go for a walk with friends? A: None of them go (the boys and the girls).

Sample no. 12 (An educated – high school diploma – and householder father from lower middle class): Do they have the permission to go to the alley? No, never. If they want to talk to a friend or study, it should be at home. They never go out together, just at home.

122

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma- householder father from upper class): Do your children have the permission to use the neighborhood space? No, if there’s a public park they have permission other wise no. Do you let them wash the car in the alley? No, because they make problems for the neighbors, if the place was only for our selves, they could.

3 - 3 – Group of “more free boys”

The largest group, those parents who declared that their boys use neighborhood spaces more easily than their girls, although includes parents from any social groups and any gender attitudes, but there are important differences in the way of their pointing to the issue. Some of them, more conservatives points to the issue as their own believes (like Sample no. 10), and some, more open minded (like Sample no. 15) pointed to it as the social conditions they must consider.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): A: No, none of them, they don t like it. .. Q: Do you have a car? Who washes it? A: Car wash and sometimes my son.

Sample no. 22 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Did they use the neighborhood space? My son used to go to the alley a lot. He played football

Sample no. 13 (An educated – high school diploma – and householder father from lower middle class):

123 - Are they permitted to go out to the alley and talk to or walk with other children? Not ،none of them use to • - Do they wash your car? • They do every thing - Your sons or daughter? • My sons ?You treat them equally in home ،so why doesn’t she wash the car - • My younger son usually does it my elder son seldom does. ?You mean that he ،himself likes it - • Yes - Have you ever wanted your daughter to wash it? No ،I’ve never wanted it •

Sample no. 10 (A householder father from middle class with low education): Are your children allowed to use semi- public places like the alley or parks in your neighborhood? (For example spend their time with their friends or wash the car) My son yes, because some of his friends are our neighbors. He can spend a quarter or the same amount of time with his friends in front of the door. Again I emphasize it should be short time. But my daughters are not allowed to; no never; if their friends come to our house they will enter the house. My daughters are not allowed to use semi- public places. But my son is allowed.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Can they use the neighborhood spaces for a walk with friends or cycling? For walking yes but riding a bike no because it’s impossible, there are lots of cars Who do you prefer? My son, he’s more relaxed Who do you prefer to wash the car? (For example in the alley, parking or yard) There’s no difference. Any one who wants we eagerly accept. Do they like it? Sometimes, not much

124 Who likes it more? My daughter

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): No, there’s no problem in my opinion. They can go there in any usual and common way….There’s no problem at all, but they have some limitations. For example if my daughter wants to go out at 9.00 pm, she may have some problems. Well, now days there are these kinds of problems in cities. There are Afghans people here, there is such a problem. There is some excusableness, so she doesn’t go out late, even sometimes she doesn’t like to go out alone. I don’t have any special anxiety except the ones for girls. ...If it’s safe, there’s no difference for me about their going out. Girls and boys aren’t different in going out.

General findings

1 – Despite the fact that many neighborhoods in Tehran have lost their old familiar characteristics so their neighborhood activities have decreased in general but still there are different perspectives to the issue. As usual, three groups of respondents answered to this question. 2 – Most of the parents of group “neutral” are mothers and with open or semi open gender attitudes from middle and upper classes. 3 - Group of “limitation for both” made mostly from fathers, conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes but from any social classes. 4 – Regarding to the neighborhood spaces, parents from any social classes and any gender attitudes included in group of “limitation for girls” or “more free boys” (the largest group), but the way that parents referred to the issue is totally different. Educated open minded parents referred to the social conditions as the reason make limitation for girls in using neighborhood freely; but more conservatives pointed to the situation as necessities of normal situation, as their internalized social values.

125 4 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children do the grocery shopping

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to do the grocery shopping in the neighborhood? Or: which one of them does it?

Parents responding to this question made four groups:

4 – 1 – Group of “boys do it”

Absolute majority of parents among mothers and fathers made the group of “boys do it”. The important factor involved in this situation, is the time of day or night. It means many of those that at first declared no differences between their girls and boys, after that they said their son is preferred to do the shopping during the dark time. While this is a widespread common attitude in society and all different groups of parents are included but this time again there are differences between those parents who clearly pointed to the social situations as the factor and those who unconsciously explain the issue:

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): My son, my wife and I do the shopping.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Q: If you want to buy something from the nearby store, which one of your children do you prefer to go there? A: I prefer my son, because he should carry the loads but he's so lazy and I myself do most of the shopping.

126

127 Q: Just to the point of loads? A: Yes, just because of carrying loads. When I tell Roja she doesn't go. She seldom goes. Q: A: But Pouya (son) is better because either he can carry the loads better or he can compromise with the shopkeepers. Q: What about at night? A: Pouya have to go at night but he doesn't.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): -Which one of your children would you prefer to do the house shopping from the nearby stores? -Both of them do it but I prefer my son does it. -Why? -Anyhow parents should consider the girls’ limitations in the society? -Is your daughter allowed to do shopping during nights? -No

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): - Who do you prefer to do the grocery shopping? - There’s no difference, anyone. - If it’s late in the evening? - In the evening, my son.

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): During the day (when it’s not dark) there’s no difference between Nima (son) and Nazanin (daughter), the one who has less work to do. There’s no difference but during the night Nima does the shopping.

128 4 – 2 – Group of “neutral”

This group of parents, who declared no differences between their girls and boys, are mostly open minded parents from middle and upper classes or semi open parents from upper classes. The important point about upper class is their financial possibilities they provide for their children equally like personal car or cell phone that in this special relation make for both of them, parent and child the feeling of security.

Sample no. 6 (a low educated housewife from lower middle class): Which one of your older children does the grocery shopping? There’s no difference, anyone who obeys. On Friday we didn’t have fruit and whatever I asked Maryam to do the shopping, she didn’t go, then we had some guests and I asked Reyhaneh (the younger daughter) to do the shopping.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): If the boys go is better, but it doesn’t make difference. When they were younger we used to ask the boys because they are more relaxed in wearing clothes. But now she has the car and recently she does the shopping even more than my sons, whenever we have guests she buys the fruits and sweets. Now it doesn’t make any difference it depends on them, sometimes some one obeys or have more free time. There’s no difference between girls and boys.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): A: No, it happens rarely and if they like to go it’s just because of their own shopping. If some one asks them to do they won’t be very pleased for example they buy chocolate for themselves. Q: Doesn’t matter who does the shopping more? A: No, it doesn't. Q: You mean none of them?

129 A: No

4 – 3 – Group of “both don’t do it”

This group mostly includes mothers, specially householders from lower and middle classes with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes. It seems these householder mothers with financial limitations try to do all financial tasks of the family themselves with their control.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): - Who does the shopping for groceries? - My daughter used to do until was younger, first or second grade of secondary school, but now I don’t like her to go to the shops, because the situation here isn’t good for a girl to go shopping. My son never does the shopping. I do it myself.

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from lower middle class): Q: Who does the shopping? A: They never go. I don’t remember.

4 – 4 – Group of “girls do it”

Only two employed mothers from lower and lower middle classes despite their semi conservative attitudes towards gender issues said that their girls do the local shopping instead of their boys. It might be because of the neighborhood whole social security that they feel safe towards their girl shopping in local neighborhood (of course during day time).

Sample no. 35 (a low educated and participant breadwinner mother from lower class):

130 Q: Who does the local shopping? A: My daughter. Q: Is the shop near? A: Yes and she does a better job than the boys. Q: Does she have more experience? A: Yes, she was smart from the beginning.

General findings

1 – Different interviewee parents presented their spatial preferences towards the way their children do the local shopping in four different ways. 2 – There is a general widespread preference in whole society among different groups of gender attitudes that “boys do it”, the local shopping, especially during the dark time. Of course there are differences between those parents of “open” gender attitudes who pointed to the social limitations for freely moving of girls in society related to this spatial category, and those “conservative” attitudes that look at the issue as the social normality. 3 – Some parents with “open” gender attitudes from middle and upper classes and some parents with “semi open” gender attitudes from upper class asserted no differences between their children related to this issue. For many upper class family financial facilities they enjoy, like personal cars and cell phones that allocated to each of their children, provide more security while moving in the city, so they could present neutral attitudes to the issue more easily. 4 – Those parents who declared none of them do the local shopping are mostly conservative or semi conservative householder mothers with financial difficulties in their lives. 5 – Only two (employed) mothers from lower & lower middle class despite their semi conservative gender attitudes said their daughters do the job instead of their boys; it might be because of the social security of the neighborhood they live there so they could permit their daughters do the local shopping instead of their sons.

131 5 – Parents attitudes towards the issue that which one of their children take the garbage out in the evening

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to take the trash out in the evening? Or: which one of them does it?

Garbage disposal system in Tehran is changing gradually but at the time of sampling, in most parts of the city, garbage is gathered at the houses’ doors and carried by special tracks to the special places. The time of gathering the garbage is usually at nine o’clock in the evening, so people put the garbage out of the house’ door in early hours of the evening. Parents of this interviewing presented their views to the issue among three groups:

5 -1 – Group of “boys do it”

It could be approximately asserted that putting garbage out of the house is a masculine task; absolute majority of interviewees said their son put the garbage out if one of the children is to do the task The reasons are certainly related to the place the task is to be done, “out” of the house, and of course to the “time” of its doing, during the dark time. In some few cases mothers do this job too and it’s because of the changed situation of married woman from a single girl.

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Q: Who usually leaves the garbage at the front door? A: I do it. My younger son never does. Even if he eats something he doesn’t clean. My older son who is working sometimes helps. Sometimes my husband does, but my younger son never does.

132

133 Q: Do you just put it in front of the door? A: I leave them in front of the door at 8:30 and they take them at 9 o’clock.

Sample no. 27 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Who puts the trash out My son, he’s our man.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): -Which one of your children is preferable to put the garbage in front of the door during nights? -Of course my son.

Sample no. 10 (a householder father from middle class with low education): Which one is preferable to put the garbage in front of the door? The boy of course, it’s clear.

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): Who do you prefer to put the trash out? My elder son does it himself.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): I prefer Mohsen (younger son) but since he doesn’t do I do it myself.

5 – 2 – Group of “none of them do it”

134 This group, a few parents and mostly mothers, but all of them employed – householder or participant - said they do the job instead of their children.

Sample no. 4 (a low educated and householder mother from lower middle class): Q: Who puts the garbage out? A: Since the children forget, I put. Q: Don’t the boys do that? A: If I tell them, they do but if they forget I’ll do.

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): I myself do it.

5 – 3 – Group of “neutral”

Only two “open” minded mothers asserted that their girls might do the job like their boys.

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): - Which one of your children would you prefer to put the garbage in front of the door if they do so, does Negar (daughter) do the job? - Yes, Negar also put the garbage in front of the door but…

General findings

1 – At the time of interviewing with samples, in most part of the city, the system of garbage gathering has been in this way that people put their garbage in front door of the house in early evening and they were gathered at nine o’clock or later by special tracks.

135 The “place” and “time” related to this job – putting the garbage out – mean “out” and “darkness of the night” are two definitive factors associate this job with men. 2 – So, according to mentioned relations, absolute majority of parents made the group of “boys do it”, means boys preferred to put the garbage out. 3 – A few mothers (all employed) and one father, mostly from lower and lower middle classes said that they do it themselves instead of their sons. 4 – Only two middle class and “open” minded mothers asserted their girls like their boys might put the garbage out.

6 – Parents preferences towards their children watering the courtyard’s

flower bed or the flowerbed in front of the door

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to water the courtyard flower bed (shared or overlooked one) or flower bed in front of the door? Or: which one does it? Several parents are absent in this category because their house didn’t have the flowerbed in or out of the house or they haven’t been asked about this question. In many cases they don’t have any flower bed, the yard’s flower bed and the one in front of the door. It’s the fact that Tehran’s houses and neighborhoods are loosing their green spaces of private or public areas because of increasing urban density and reducing its open spaces; also prevailing apartment houses in the city reduces the relations between residences and open spaces of the courtyards or their flower beds so people rarely enjoy from private green spaces. Other parents made four groups of answers:

6 - 1 – Group of “none of them do it”

Most of the mothers (incidentally) included in this group. Two different situations seem to be involved; one that in upper class houses usually there is a custodian to do this kind of jobs. In other families parents do the job, not their children; sometimes there is gender issue, so boys consider it as a womanish job and don’t do it; girls neither do it as an outside job.

136

137

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Q: Do you have a flower- bed? Who waters it? A: I have a tree. I water it myself. Q: Who washes the yard? A: Myself Q: What if you weren’t there or supposing that you were sick? A: My older daughter (is married) is kind. My younger daughter looks like boys. The older one is kind.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): A: It is all done by Maryam, my spouse. The watering flowers…. Some times I do some of the harder jobs. Because she has her own taste, I don’t want to interfere. Q: Who waters the flower-bed in front of the door? A: There are just two trees located by the stream. They don’t need watering.

6 - 2 – Group of “boys do it”

Only one mother but many fathers - actually most of the fathers - are included in this group. They are mostly conservative or semi conservative fathers.

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): who’s preferred to water the plants in the flower-bed (If it’s overlooked)? My daughter never does; if we have to, my sons, me and my wife who’s preferred to water the plants at the door? Again my sons What about your daughter? No, just if there is necessity.

138

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Who do you prefer to water the semi- private yard? May be the younger son. It’s never happened till now. What about the one at the door? Outside? The same, younger son

6 – 3 – Group of “neutral”

These parents, mostly mothers, asserted no differences between their daughters and son doing the task. These parents are mostly from middle and upper classes, open or semi open in their gender attitudes.

Sample no. 35 (a low educated and participant breadwinner mother from lower class): Q: You said you don’t use the yard. What about the flower bed outside? A: No, we don’t. Q: If you had a flowerbed would you let the children water it? A: Yes, of course.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): - Do they water the flowerbed in the yard? - Sometimes, seldom - Which one? - There’s no difference. - What about the one at the door? - The neighbor who lives on third floor does, he doesn’t let others. - If it’s possible for you, who’s preferred to do that? - There’s no difference.

6 – 4 – Group of “girls do it”

139 These parents are mostly from lower classes residing in lower district of the city in single unit houses so their yard is mostly private. They have mostly employed sons that are not home during the day so their daughters might do different tasks of the house even those related to overlooked spaces but the condition is that they wear covered cloths. Except this kind of situation, one open minded mother said that her girl do the job because she likes it; it seems that this mother actually belongs to the “neutral” group; it means she doesn’t prefer that her son not to do the task.

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): - Which one of your children would you prefer to water the flower-bed of the yard? -My daughters (as I talked about them before) water. They usually water the flowers when my wife wants to clean the yard. They are 15 and 20. They do house work because they are at home. -What about if your yard is overlooked? -They can do it with proper clothing. -Who waters the flowers in front of the door? -My wife. When she cleans the front part of the house, she waters the flower-bed too. -What about if your children have to do it. Which one of them would you prefer? -No, my children won’t do it because they won’t go out. -Wouldn’t you permit them? -No, I wouldn’t permit them. They are girls I won’t let them go out to water the flowers. -What about your sons? -My sons work out of the house and they’re usually out.

General findings

1 – There has been a trend of increasing mass density in Tehran and inversely decreasing of open and green spaces especially those related to houses, flower beds in courtyards or in alleys so this question has lost many of interviewees because their houses don’t have any flower beds. There are also samples which haven’t been asked about this question. 2 – Many parents, among them most of the mothers – it seems accidentally - placed in the group of “none of them do it”. While in many complexes especially of upper

140 classes, there is a custodian doing these kinds of jobs, in other cases these are parents to do the job. It sometimes considered as a housework that usually children and specially boys are not interested to do it; it might be because they are busy with their studies and the reason among others is might be related to the decreasing of open spaces activities in general and increasing of closed space ones as it mentioned before. While considering watering as a womanish job prevents boys to do it, for girls its relation to out might be the reason too. 3 – Group of “boys do it” includes mostly fathers with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes and from middle and upper classes; they asserted their preferences if the task is to be done by their children. Lower class fathers belong to other group as it will be mentioned later. 4 – Group of “neutral” parents includes mostly mothers with “open” or “semi open” gender attitudes from middle and upper classes. 5 – Group of “girls do it” includes parents mostly from lower classes who live in single unit houses so they have private yards (of course it’s overlooked) and since their sons are not at home during the day (they’re employed), so their daughter do these kinds of housework – like watering flowerbeds - of course with covered clothes. Beside this there are mothers that their daughters do the job because they enjoy it; they actually belong to “neutral” group.

7 – Parents preferences towards their children cleaning shared staircase

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to clean the staircase of apartment? Or: which one does it?

About three quarters of interviewees didn’t have an appropriate respond to this question; the important reason is that in most of apartments – prevailing kind of house form in Tehran – a worker cleans shared parts of the apartments like staircase. Many of answers presented this fact; and it’s why in many cases this question hasn’t been asked at all since the question had been inappropriate in interviewer’s mind. Furthermore in some

141

142 houses, single units, there isn’t a shared staircase at all. These houses are seen in lower parts of the city as small units or inversely in upper parts as large villas. So with this few numbers of answers it seems right not to be entered to analyze them, although they confirm previous findings.

8 – Parents attitudes towards their children using roof of the house

Question: Which one of your children allowed to use the roof for some activities? Or: which one does something there?

During the past time when people lived in single unit houses and the roofs was private; and when the urban density was low and urban air was clean, residences of Tehran use the roofs for many activities, among them and most important ones sitting and sleeping there in summer during dark and cool time. But now, roof uses limited to placing cooler set, TV, and satellite antenna and in some cases hanging up the clothes. Very seldom people use it for sitting or sleeping. So in this relation the appropriate question to be asked from samples, should be the one asking about who goes to roof for setting the cooler or antenna or hanging the clothes up (like the next question about hanging up clothes)? But unfortunately the way the question has been asked that who uses roof for some activities caused wrong impression in interviewees’ mind about activities and in most cases people said no one use roofs; in few cases samples referred to occasional activities related to antenna or cooler setting. In this way the answers to this question were not appropriate and couldn’t present the situation, so it seems right not to be entered to its analyzing.

9 – Parents preferences towards their children hanging the clothes up in courtyards, balconies or roofs.

Question: Which one of your children do you prefer to hang the washed clothes in the yard or balcony or roof? Or: which one does it?

143

144 Conventionally and traditionally (hand) washing clothes and hanging those up are a womanish housework having done during day time when men are out for their jobs. Using wash machines while women got employed gradually changed the way and the time of doing this task little by little, so in few cases men also participate to do this task but still it’s a womanish job like cooking or cleaning the house; even employed women in most cases do these kinds of house works individually by their own.

9 - 1 - Group of “none of them do it”

Parents of this group (largest one) actually present upper mentioned fact that mother do this job as housework. Samples of this group are mothers and fathers from any social groups of gender identity or social classes:

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Where do you hang the washed clothes? I use the clothes rack in the apartment, if there be a lot I’ll take them to the yard. Do you take them to the yard or your children? I do myself, they can’t hang them. My daughter doesn’t like house chores... and I’m scrupulous, they may fall the clothes on the floor, they can’t.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Q: Hanging up the laundry in the balcony or yard is with your children or not? A: No, I do it myself. They seldom cooperate in the house work, because Roja has to study. They rarely participate in house work. Q: That's because we ourselves usually do the house work and they've got used to it. A: Yes, I made this mistake. You know if I tell them, they will do the job. They don't object but I prefer to do the job myself. Because I'm more at home and I prefer instead of telling them to do this or do that, they themselves do it.

145

146

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - and householder father from middle class): My wife in summer in the balcony does it. Children don’t help.

Sample no. 3 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper class): No, some times. If we tell them to hang the clothes on the roof they do but it’s not some thing routine.

9 - 2 – Group of “girls do it”

Second large group includes mothers and fathers who said that their daughters help their mothers in the housework like this. Although fathers of this group all represent conservative gender attitudes, but mothers are from any group of gender identity but mostly from lower and lower middle, so it present again in general this task- hanging up the laundry – as a womanish housework that mostly girls help their mothers doing that. At the same time, this situation specially is related to lower and lower middle families or conservative ones - fathers of this group mostly represent them - whose daughters don’t continue education in universities and are at home till marriage so they are expected to do housework more than those girls who continue their studies in universities.

Sample no. 35 (a low educated and participant breadwinner mother from lower class): Q: Where do you hang the clothes? A: On the roof. Q: Who usually does it? A: I and most of the work is on my daughter. She is in charge of everything. Everyone tells me not to let her marry and keep her for myself.

147

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): My daughter or my wife.

Sample no. 34 (an educated - high school diploma - and participant breadwinner mother from lower middle class): Q: Where do you hang your clothes to dry? A: On the roof. The under wears are in the yard but the rest on the roof Q: Do you ask the children to hang them? A: No, of course my daughter helps. Sometimes she washes and hangs them herself. Q: Does she take them to the roof, too? A: Yes, she does.

Sample no. 11 (an educated- high school diploma - householder father from upper class): Which one of your children would you prefer to hang up the laundry in the balcony or in the yard or on the roof? The daughters with suitable clothing do the job.

9 – 3 – Group of “neutral”

This group of parents, only mothers as often and mostly “open” minded from middle and upper social classes asserted no differences between their daughters and sons; some of them said although there isn’t any difference but still their daughters participate more doing this job:

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Who do you prefer to hang the washed clothes in the balcony?

148 My son does, my daughter does too. There’s no difference. It depends; sometimes each one washes his/her clothes with the washing machine and hangs him/her self. But in fact I myself do that. In general they help a lot; because I had a job they habit to do lots of house chores.

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): What about for hanging up the laundry in the balcony? Each one of them hangs up their own laundry and Maryam hangs up the family’s laundry too.

9 – 4 – Group of “boys do it”

Only “conservative” or semi conservative parents could assert that their sons do a womanish job since it’s related to an overlooked space.

Sample no. 5 (an educated housewife – high school diploma - from lower middle class): • Myself or my son.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner father from lower middle class): - Which one of your children do you prefer to hang up the laundry in the yard, balcony? - Most of your questions have the same answer, boy. As it’s possible we don’t let our daughter hang up the laundry. Because hanging up the laundry has special movements. Most of the time my wife or my son does this work.

149 General findings

1 – Hand washing clothes and hanging those up, as housework is usually done by women even if it is related to overlooked spaces like courtyards, balconies or roofs. Women, who care about covering their bodies, do this job with suitable covering clothes. Since doing housework has changed during last decades, this job has also changed and in some cases men help women doing this job. 2 – So the largest group belong to those parents asserted that it’s mainly mothers who do this job. These parents belong to any social groups of gender identity. 3 – The second large group includes those parents who said that their daughters help their mothers doing this job, hanging up clothes. In many families children even daughters don’t participate in doing housework; they usually are studying in schools or universities, in families whose daughters don’t continue study anymore, they usually participate to help their mothers and this is mostly seen in conservative families – fathers of this group mostly – and lower or lower middle classes (mothers & fathers). 4 – Group of “neutral” parents is only “open” minded mothers as usual that asserted both of their children participate to do this job. Some of them said their daughters do it more and it present that most of the housework are still done by women even in “open” groups of gender identity. 5 – Parents who preferred their son hang up clothes in overlooked spaces are mostly fathers with “conservative” or “semi conservative” gender attitudes.

Conclusion

Now in this part, according to the general findings of different categories related to this chapter – activities in “semi public semi private spaces” and “gender identity” – the most important social spatial trends among different social groups in fact gender groups – here, among parents with different gender identities - would be extracted.

150 At first it’s referred to the most general trends, those which might be found among all gender groups of society. Then it’s pointed to those spatial attitudes found among some certain groups of gender identity for example “conservative” gender attitudes. Now at first, the most general attitudes towards spatial uses of “semi public semi private spaces” seen among parents from different gender groups:

1 – Parents from different groups of gender identities asserted that their girls use “semi public semi private” spaces less than their boys or with more limitations. This conclusion made on the basis of former findings related to different categories of this chapter:

– finding no. 4, general findings of category balconies. - finding no. 4, general findings of category neighborhood. - finding no. 2, general findings of category local shopping. - finding no. 2, general findings of category garbage.

Comparing different spaces of the kind, semi public semi private, it’s cleared that some of these spaces are more public like neighborhood spaces and some of them are more private like space of balcony. The important point about upper mentioned attitude is that it’s mostly related to activities in more public spaces of these kind means activities in neighborhood like local shopping in neighborhood, and putting garbage at the out door. (This last activity although it’s a short time one but it’s done in the dark time. Those two first activities in the neighborhood are surely done by boys during the dark time too). It’s obvious that insecurity in outdoor spaces is an important factor involved here. So activities in this kind of spaces getting more masculine while spaces getting more public; it’s why parents from different gender attitudes placed in this group or why this attitude is a general one dominated in whole society. The other important point is the different references different gender groups made to the issue. As it’s pointed before, parents look at the issue by different values so more conservative parents think it’s a normal situation of society that girls should connect to pubic spaces of neighborhood more limited and by more controlled ways while more

151 open minded parents look at this existed situation in society as social inequalities to be altered. It’s the important issue of internalizing the social spatial discriminations as values and believes.

Now, the attitudes mostly seen in more conservative groups of gender attitudes:

1 – Parents from “conservative or semi conservative” gender groups asserted that none of their children do something in semi public semi private spaces or they prefer so. These conservative parents more probably are fathers. This conclusion made on the basis of following former findings of this chapter:

– finding no. 3, general findings of category courtyards. - finding no.3, general findings of category balconies. - finding no. 3, general findings of category neighborhood. - finding no.4, general findings of category local shopping.

2 - Parents from conservative or semi conservative gender groups asserted that their boys use semi public semi private spaces more than their girls; or their girls use those spaces with more limitations. Comparing this attitude – prevailed mostly in conservative groups - with the one of general attitudes – prevailed in most of the social groups – actually they are the same; the only fact could be found why some of these cases which referred to “more free boys”, are general and the others is associated to only conservative groups is that the general cases are related to the more public of this kind of spaces like neighborhood. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings has been made before during study on different categories of semi public semi private spaces:

– Finding no. 5, general findings of category courtyards. – Finding no. 3, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. – Finding no. 5, general findings of category hanging clothes up.

152 3 - Parents from lower and lower middle classes with conservative attitudes towards gender issues asserted that their girls do some of the housework even in semi public spaces (overlooked ones) of house like balconies, yards or roofs with proper covered clothes. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings pointed before:

- Finding no. 5, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category hanging up clothes.

And at last, attitudes have been seen in “open” group of gender identity:

1 - Parents with open attitudes towards gender issues who are mostly mothers asserted neutral notions about their children in using semi public semi private spaces most of the time. This conclusion made on the basis of following former findings:

– Findings no. 4, general findings of category courtyards. - Finding no.2, general findings of category balconies. – Finding no.2, general findings of category neighborhood. - Finding no 3, general findings of category local shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category garbage. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category watering flowerbeds. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category hanging up clothes.

In this way there is a meaningful relationship between “gender identity” and “spatial identity” in “semi private semi public spaces” so parents with more conservative gender attitudes presented more “conservative” or “unequal” spatial attitudes and inversely more open gender attitudes asserted more “open” or “neutral” spatial attitudes. Furthermore there is a tendency towards “conservative spatial behavior” in using “semi private semi public spaces” throughout society. We emphasize on “behavior” instead of “attitude” here and it points to the mentioned differences between open minded

153 parents and conservative ones; while they are all placed in the group of “unequal” spatial identity, in fact they presented different reasoning for their behaviors.

Analyzing “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status”

“Sex” Looking at the differences between mothers and fathers, following relations have been repeated in different categories of this chapter about fathers that: 1 – In different categories, most of the time fathers’ distribution tends to the group of “conservative” or “semi conservative” attitudes towards the issue (like group of limitation for girls). This is clear in categories no. 1 (yard), 2 (balcony), 3 (neighborhood), 4 (local shopping), 5 (garbage), and 6 (watering flowerbeds). 2 - In “conservative” or “semi conservative” spatial attitudes, most of the time, the weight of the parents distribution tends to the fathers. This is presented in categories no. 1 (yard), 2 (balcony, 3 (neighborhood), 6 (watering flowerbed), 9 (hanging up clothes). And inversely the most important fact about mothers is that in repeated situations: 1 - Most of the time, number of mothers in “open” groups of spatial attitudes, relatively has been considerable. This is the fact about categories no.1 (yard), 2 (balconies), 3 (neighborhood), and 9 (hanging up clothes). 2 – In “open” groups of neutral, the weights of interviewees have been towards mothers. This fact has been the case in all categories. So in general, mothers, in opposite to fathers in different situations have shown relatively more “neutral” or “open” spatial attitudes. And the opposite conditions are the fact for fathers.

“Class” During debates on nine categories of this chapter (except categories no. 7 & 8), and on relationships between “spatial identity” and “gender identity”, and according to the tables no. 1 to 9 (except no. 7 & 8) of this chapter, it has been pointed in different

154 categories that: educated parents from middle and upper classes have mostly presented equitable “open” attitudes towards spatial issues and inversely low educated parents from lower middle and lower classes have mostly presented more “conservative” notions. This has been concluded according to following points: 1 – Groups of neutral parents made mostly from educated samples from middle and upper classes. 2 – Educated parents from middle and upper classes who are seen within conservative general spatial groups, most of the time were those “open” (in their gender attitudes) minded parents within conservative spatial groups – like groups of “more free boys” - they were analyzing the social conditions as the reasons for their conservative spatial behavior. 3 - Again these educated parents from middle and upper classes who rarely belonged to group of “both don’t use” or “limitation for both”, are those “open” minded parents which other reasons except their gender identities had been the motives for their spatial behavior for example compare these two sayings from two mothers who are opposite in their gender identities but both placed in the same group of “both don’t use” courtyard:

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Your yard is overlooked by other neighbors. Are your children allowed to use it? -They are allowed but they don’t use it themselves. They don’t like to use the yard. -What’s the reason? -It’s so small. Maybe the reason is that it’s not beautiful perhaps if it was built more beautifully, they would prefer to spend if it was built more beautiful. It’s not big either. Therefore they wouldn’t think about it.

Sample no. 5 (an educated housewife – high school diploma - from lower middle class): ?Q: If you had a shared yard ،would they use

155 A: No ،now we can use the roof but my son doesn’t go there. He thinks maybe our neighbors .(don’t like it. My husband even doesn’t go near the windows ،causes a problem (for neighbors

4 –Several parents from upper classes despite their semi conservative attitudes (actually semi conservative) towards gender issues showed open neutral notions towards spatial issues related to their children in different cases. It seems financial possibilities they have and their more connections to the modern culture of western world make the situation so that their both children connect to public spaces more freely even than the children of “open” minded parents. 5 - “Conservative” group of “limitation for girls” or “boys do it”, most of the time included more parents from lower or lower middle classes, these parents showed internalized values towards the issue. 6 – Those activities in semi public semi private spaces of the house which considered as housework are done by covered daughters helping mothers mostly in lower and lower middle classes. It’s based on traditional division of gender roles. To précising these parallel changes of “social class” and “spatial identity”, or “educational level” and “spatial identity”, as was pointed in the discussion related to “gender identity” also of “private space”, two last chapters, we could see the mentioned parallel existences of “open” and “conservative” spatial identities in each social classes (although by different strengths), in other words, parallel existences of these opposite notions throughout society. Distribution of different spatial attitudes would be better explained by the “educational level” than the “social class” since the “social class” is a multilayer variable composed by not only “educational level” but also “income” and “employment”. If we set aside two last variables and only consider the “educational level”, it would be cleared that while conservative spatial attitudes are seen throughout social classes including upper classes too, but the most conservative claims never seen among higher educated people. The opposite trend means distribution of “open” spatial group also excludes “open” spatial attitudes from lower educated samples (of course not mothers). For presenting how “educational level” could be more implying than the “social class”, we could compare these two answers of two fathers which although they placed in the same middle class, also the same group of “boys do it” – in category of watering

156 flowerbed - but they actually have different level of education along with their opposite gender identities and different attitudes to this spatial issue:

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class):

Because of the situations here, my son usually does it. Not because I have problem with it, just for the atmosphere of here.

Sample no. 10 (a low educated and householder father from middle class): Which one of your children has the permission to water the flower bed of the yard? The boy Who waters the flowerbed in front of the door? None of them. The municipality would do. But if it was necessary, my son does it. Sometimes I myself water the flowers too.

And the same is about these two fathers of upper class placed in two opposite spatial attitudes:

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Do they have permission to spend time in an overlooked balcony? Even they are seen? 100% there’s no problem

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from upper class): If your balcony was overlooked by your neighbors’ house or the alley or the street, would you let your children use it? No, they’re not comfortable themselves and also they draw other people’s attention.

These two fathers while both from upper class they presented opposite notions towards this spatial attitude. They have different levels of education and different kinds

157 of gender attitudes either. So it confirms again the more importance of “educational level” than “social class” to imply “gender spatial identity”.

Breadwinning status

Generally since there are small numbers of samples within different groups of gender identity – considering 15 groups of study – while in this chapter near to half of the samples missed for many questions and probably because of the other influential factors like “sex” or “class”, also existence of general spatial attitudes in society, a clear relationship couldn’t be seen between gender identity and breadwinning status.

Internalized discrimination

This matter was pointed for different times meanwhile this chapter’s discussion; internalized discriminations could generally being interpreted as being unconscious towards unequal gender relations. This issue is a relational situation which has been referred previously in different parts as followed” - In general changes from “conservative” spatial attitudes towards “open” spatial attitudes, means a ranges of people from whom they are unconscious to those who are conscious towards existing unequal gender relations. - This different consciousness was seen among each spatial group of “boy preferred to do the job” or “none of them preferred to do the job”; these groups against “neutral” groups apparently seem to present a conservative attitude towards using different spaces, while in fact samples within each group presented different consciousnesses towards the situation, since they delivered different reasoning for their attitudes or behaviors. - The variables studied here as they influence on “gander identity” or “spatial identity”, mean “class”, education”, “sex”, and breadwinning status, all of them should be considered as influential to “gender consciousness” either.

158 “Gender” and “Public Space”

Introduction

In this chapter questions related to public spaces of city will be investigated. Through these questions mothers and fathers of young girls and boys expressed their opinions about how their children (boys and girls) should use different public spaces or how their children use those spaces in their real practice which both reflect parents’ attitudes towards studying spatial issues. Ten questions in this general subject made ten categories of public space here that are examined from a gender perspective:

1 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children go to educational spaces. 2 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could drive in the city. 3 - Parents attitudes towards the way their children do their personal shopping. 4 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children spend their free times in the city. 5 - Parents attitudes towards the ultimate time in the evening their children could stay out of home. 6 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could cycle in the neighborhood or the city. 7 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could ride a motorbike in the city. 8 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could educate in other city far from family. 9 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children do official or banking affairs. 10 - Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could work to earn money.

159 1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways their children commute to educational spaces

Question: Since when have your children gone to school or university alone and how? Or: Do you let them go to school or university alone? (Table no. 1)

Responding to this question, all parents expressed either equal situations for both of them or declared more dependency of their girls in going to and coming back from school (or other educational space). It means that there is no group who expressed more dependency of their boys. Considering distribution of interviewees between these two groups, it seems no meaningful relationships between interviewee gender identity and the way that their children commute to school. It means some other important effective factors except gender identity influence the situation for example some conservative parents let their girls and boys equally commute to school alone by foot; or some open minded parents send their both children to school by school services or accompany their girls but let their boys commute alone. Of course this doesn’t mean that there isn’t gender difference in this relation, but that gender differences don’t show a direct connection with gender attitudes (identity). It seems social characteristics of the neighborhood; distance between school and house, also urban form (plan) of the neighborhood make the effective factors in this relation. Some old neighborhoods of the city or those ones of residences of the more homogeneous and contiguous groups of people – mostly found in southern parts of city and sometimes in the middle regions - present the specific safe characteristics so people in these neighborhoods have strong familiarity and relationships with each other and the social security in the neighborhood is high so children could use different spaces of the neighborhood more easily and so could go to near by school alone safer. Distances between house and school whether it could be paved on foot or not is another effective factor here. In these neighborhoods people use close distance school more than far distance ones. At last urban plan of the neighborhood and that the route between house and school whether it crossed by streets ( fast or slow passing automobiles ) or not, in fact safety

160

161 condition from motor traffic, is the other affective factor for parents to let their children go to school alone or not.

Equal situation

These general conditions in some parts of the city caused some parents even with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes let their children even their girls commute to school alone (on foot).

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): I took them when they went to elementary school. They went themselves from guidance school….Yes, both. ...No (using a taxi). ... Yes (it was near), but now which they are in pre- university course they take a taxi and go everywhere themselves. They go out early in the morning. They have lots of things to do. They know the city. Everywhere such as Tajrish, Azadi, Nezam Abad. They go themselves.

Many parents from other groups of gender identity who live in these neighborhoods also presented the same attitudes. In these cases there is no difference among parents with different gender attitudes.

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): Elementary school. The children used to go to school and come back since they were in elementary school, because their school was close to our house…. It was a small street. I helped them to pass the street or I was waiting in one side of the street and observe them till they were crossing the street. This situation was only for the first four months. After that they went to school alone. ...After that their school got really distant. ...No ،Bahman used to go to high school himself. ...So did her. ...Yes ،I can say that they somehow used to go to school themselves.

Parents who expressed their neutral attitudes towards this issue, except those who live in a secure neighborhood and enjoy of close distance of school, some conservative parents make the same controlling for both of their girls and boys (Sample no. 11), and

162 some parents from different groups of gender identity who have grown up children and are asked by the second form of question (stressing in present time that children are mostly teenagers studying in university even work out of the house) declared that both their young children commute independently. In this case because they are older gender difference between their girls and boys considering their independency decreased. This time, gender differences presented in the kind of vehicles they use and in the time of day and night they move in the city (Sample no. 10, Sample no. 29). It must be pointed that while in most cases the question asked in the first formation (Since when have your children gone to school or university alone and how?) in some of the cases it’s asked in the second formation (Do you let them go to school or university alone?) so answers in the second form considered the present time of children.

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma – householder father from upper class): If they want to go to university, they can go alone, but if they want to go to high school or elementary school, they have to use school bus, both girls and boys.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): 100% certainly they can (go alone).

Sample no. 10 (A householder father from middle class with low education): Yes. ... They (daughters) shouldn’t use taxis but they can use subways and buses. My oldest daughter goes to her sister’s house alone. Although it’s far away from our house, there’s no problem. My youngest daughter works out of the house and she goes to distant places alone. Hamed (his son) is also a man and he can go wherever he wants. More free boys

Inversely, in lack of upper mentioned condition in the neighborhood - in almost whole city - parents don’t feel security in letting their children specially their girls commute to school alone without any control; this causes many parents not only

163 conservative people but who think openly about gender issue, couldn’t let their girls compared to their boys go and back independently to school:

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): My daughter’s secondary & high school was far and I used to take her and pick up. Although my son’s secondary school was far, he used to go alone.

Parents whose girls commute to school with more controlling, except those who themselves presented conservative notions towards gender issues, are those parents who are worry about their girls using public spaces of the city without control because they don’t see city as secure for girls as for boys.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): My daughter uses the shuttle bus, and if one day she is left by it I call for a taxi service, I don’t let her goes alone. ...The walking way is somehow that I’m afraid of letting her alone. She should walk across the cemetery. I’m afraid of it. I let her go with a taxi service, but when we were in another neighborhood and my elder daughter’s school was near there, used to go by a taxi, of course after the secondary school. During the elementary school I used to take her. My younger daughter always had a service; I go with her by the car. ...From third grade of secondary or first grade of high school (son, going alone). I didn’t let him go and come alone before that. I was worried. Maybe other mothers aren’t like this....Even now that my daughter is married when she calls to come here, because she comes alone, feel anxiety. I think maybe something bad happens. Although she’s married and her responsibility is with her husband, I am worried all the time.

Many families in Tehran use school transport service especially when school is far. This advantage used thoroughly by many families but increases going to the north and to the residences of more well off groups which use far distance school more. While it makes comfort worry parents from accompanying their children, it doesn’t mean that children go to school independently; in this way there is other kind of controlling. And the important point is that while boys in general begin to go to school alone in younger

164 age by the same way they leave this service much sooner. Girls usually use school service till the end of high school but boys rarely continue using school services till that time. They usually leave it during secondary school or after that in high school.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): They use the shuttle bus for a while. My son went to the guidance school alone….He used to go by a taxi or bus. I think for one year he used the shuttle bus. My daughter used the shuttle bus most of the time; until the high school she used the shuttle bus and for one year she used to go with her mom. Her high school was near our home so she used to go alone.

Other important point in using public transportation is that not all of them have the same level of security. School services has the most level of security, then public bus and minibus, then official taxi, then phone taxi and at last informal taxi have different level of security in ranges. In this relation, boys use different kinds of public transportation more easily, while girls use them with this priority of safer ones, and from older age.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper high school diploma - and participant breadwinner of lower middle class): Their guidance schools were far away from our house. Therefore they used to use school bus. But after that my daughter used bus and other public transportations. She prefers not to use private car. My son uses public transportations too. But if it’s so late he can use private car. My son used to go to guidance school alone and with public transportation. Maybe 7 or 8 times he used private car because it was late. Now both of them use public transportation (bus).

General findings

1 – Responding to this question, parents expressed their notions in two different ways: those who presented the same attitudes towards their both girls and boys according

165 the way and conditions they commute to educational spaces; and those parents who let their boys commute to school more independently than their girls. 2 – Considering this issue (the way of commuting to school), some strong factors except gender attitude involved: - The neighborhood social security - The plan of neighborhood and its safety from motor traffic (safety conditions of the route between house and school considering motor traffic) - the distance between house and school. These factors strongly influence the condition of independency of girls and boys in the way they go to and back from school and obscure the influences of parents’ gender attitudes into the using of space considering this issue. 3 – Mentioned conditions – social security, safety from motor transportation, and short pedestrian distance to school – if happened in neighborhood, the situations could be so that parents feel security and let their children even their little girls go to elementary school independently. In these cases the influence of gender attitude that makes differences among different gender groups of parents is weaken so different parents of different gender identity groups could be seen in the same group who asserted the same condition of independency for their boys and girls in going to school (group of equal situation). 4 – “Age” is other affective factor which influences the independency of girls and boys. In fact, as much as they are getting old as teenagers or older, they go to university or their job more independently. In this situation differences between girls and boys in the ways of commuting to university or job presented in the kind of vehicle they use (from the point of their personal safety) or the time of day and night they move in the city (it’s the subject of other question). 5 – Except upper mentioned conditions in the city or neighborhood which could provide the same safe situations for both girls and boys, many parents from different social classes or different gender identity groups expressed more dependency of their girls compared to their boys: parents accompany their girls going to school more than their boys; when they both using school services, boys leave this kind of vehicle service in younger age sooner than girls usually during secondary school, while girls continue till the end of high school; boys use different systems of public transport more easily but

166 girls use the safer ones. This is all because of the insecure situations in the city caused girls commute to school in a more controlled way. 6 - In fact gender differences existed in practice in society considering this issue of commuting to school is strongly influenced by social reality of insecurity for women too. These situations like the urban structure and neighborhood social security obscure the parents’ gender identity as an affective variable here as it is seen in other cases of this study, so the meaningful relations couldn’t be seen between parents’ gender identity and the way of children’s commuting to school (spatial identity). 7 – As conclusion, there are two social trends regarding this issue of commuting to school, both general and distributed among different gender groups; first trend is that in secure situations in the neighborhood caused from urban structure and social factors or short distance to school, parents let both their children go to school independently; and the second trend is that in insecure situation – caused from motor traffic and social factors too - dominated in many parts of the city, girls commute to school under more controlled ways. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” - Since “gender identity” couldn’t present its influences here, its variables of “class”, “sex”, and “breadwinning status” don’t show meaningful relations with the “spatial identity” neither.

2 – Parents attitudes towards the conditions their children could drive in the city

Question: Which one of your children could have or drive private car in the city? (If you could provide a private car for your children, which one of them is preferred)? (Table no. 2)

According to the answers, parents responded to the issue differently in three ways. Parents who declared that both of their girls and boys equally drive or could drive in the city; parents who points their boys; and who they pointed their girls in this relation.

Equal situations:

167

168 Those parents who presented their neutral attitudes towards their children driving in the city make the largest group – among mothers and fathers - and they are from a range of those with open minded gender attitudes to semi open – semi conservative ones. Most of them are educated parents from middle and upper class. Although there are parents with semi open – semi conservative notions towards gender issues, but there isn’t any conservative parent in this group. Parents who pointed to one of their boys or girls because of their older age, also considered in this group.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from upper middle class): None of them have the driver’s license, but if they take it, it doesn’t make any difference to me. They both can use.

Sample no. 7 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): There’s no difference between a girl & boy for us. Boys can’t have their driving license till finishing their military service. But my daughter after her diploma took some driving classes and took her license. But the traffic jam is so load that we prefer not to use our car and call for a taxi… in order not to have anxiety.

Girl preferred:

Most of this group of parents presented the same perspective about issue that their girls need more to use personal car for her moving in the city, because it provides for them more safety. These parents are mostly from “open” or “semi open, semi conservative” groups of gender attitudes; also they are mostly from middle and upper classes.

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low

169 education): The one who can handle. All of them are allowed. The car is for use and must be used. ...First my daughter. ...They (girls) are safer with a private car. There is less danger for boys.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): No (using family car)….Yes, but with limitations, not a lot (using family car). ...Now, none of them have the driving license. But it is more necessary for my daughter because if she wants to go out in the evening, I feel more relaxed if she has the car.

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated and householder father from upper class): The oldest one….There’s no difference between girls and boys… I should tell you about the previous question that if I could provide only one car for one of them in Tehran, my daughter is preferable, because it’s safer in that way....All of them. They shouldn’t go to forbidden places. They all have their driving license. It’s not possible to drive a car without driving license. They should observe the driving regulations

Boy preferred

Parents who preferred their boys using the private car mostly belong to conservative group of gender identity specially fathers of this group. The reason repeated by some of them, is that boys need it for their commuting to their work (this is the fact specially in lower classes that many boys employed after finishing high school or sooner while girls are student or homemaker before marriage). Parents who let their girls driving in the city but mentioned some limitations for them considered in this group too.

Sample no. 4 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low

170 education): To Mahmood (his son) as he needs it for his job. He pays for about 10 to 20 Tomans (10,000 to 20,000) a day. Morteza likes and he has his driving license but he is not a good driver.

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): My sons. ...If they were alone, it wouldn’t make any problem either. ...My sons. My sons who work and the one who is a soldier go out with private car. ...No, those who go to work tell me that they can’t reach there on time with bus and the one who’s a soldier uses the car because there’s no bus till there.

Sample no. 10 (A householder father from middle class with low education): There’s no difference. Both my son and my daughters can use it. It depends on whether they have driving license or not….The son can also use the car during the nights but the daughter can seldom use the car during nights. If she weren’t alone (for example her mother or her sister were with her) she can use the car during the nights, too....My son and my younger daughter. If I were able to provide only one car, I would give it to my son….

General Finding

1 – Regarding the issue of driving in the city, parents expressed their attitudes in three ways: those who declared no preferences about their girls or boys driving in the city; the second and third group are those who mentioned one of their girls or boys in their preferences. 2 – The largest group belongs to those who presented a neutral attitude towards the issue; they are mostly educated parents from middle and upper classes that distributed among different gender groups except conservative parents. 3 - Some parents – few ones – mentioned their girls in their preferences. The important point about their reasoning is that they pointed to the more safety using the car could provide for their girls moving in the city especially during the dark time. These parents are mostly from upper class and “open” groups of gender identity.

171 4 – Those parents who mentioned their boys in their preferences, implicitly referred to their sons’ employment as the reason that they need a car for easier commuting to their job. This is the fact especially about lower and lower middle classes that their sons work very soon after graduation. Furthermore these parents are mostly conservative in their gender attitudes; this is clear especially for fathers; all the conservative fathers and most of the conservative mothers belong to this group. 5 – So in general, there is a trend of parallel changes between “gender identity” and “spatial attitude” that when “gender identity” getting more open, “spatial attitude” towards the condition of children’s driving in the city getting more neutral (or in this case towards girls’ benefits). Existence of parents with semi open, semi conservative gender attitudes in different groups of spatial attitudes from open to conservative shows again the duality of situations this largest group of society lives in. 6 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” (variables of gender identity) – Distribution of fathers and mothers (variable of sex) among different groups of “spatial attitudes” presents relative equality. “Social class” shows a parallel changes in relation with “spatial identity”; it means that distribution of parents of different social classes among different spatial groups is so that the class goes higher where the spatial group tends to “open” notions (means “neutral” notions towards girls & boys’ driving and for this case means group of “girl preferred” too) and inversely. In other words, the numbers of upper classes (upper class and upper middle class) samples getting more when spatial group getting “open”; inversely in “conservative” group of spatial attitudes (group of “boy preferred” here), the number of lower classes (lower class and lower middle class) samples getting more. This relation, seen within changes of “spatial identity” and “social class”, is the same as relation between “spatial identity” and “gender identity” mentioned before, since “social class” is one variable of “gender identity” and the main among them. Deliberation on sample distribution, also shows other mentioned fact about social classes that: despite the process of arranging more “open” spatial or gender attitudes in upper classes and inversely more “conservative” spatial or gender attitudes in lower classes, but also there are samples of different social classes in each of “open” group of

172 “neutral”, “girl preferred” and “conservative” group of “boy preferred”. This indicates second social trend of coexistence of “open” and “conservative” notions along, in one “social class. “Breadwinning status” shows most of the householders (fathers and mothers) in conservative group of “boy preferred”; and most of the participants (fathers and mothers) in open group of “equal situation”.

3 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children do their personal shopping

Question: How do your children do their personal shopping, with parents, or friends or alone? (Table no. 3)

Interviewee parents responding to this question said that their children do their personal shopping in different ways. Some said parents accompanying children (both) in their shopping; and some parents said that children do it independently - lonely or with friends - at last some of them asserted more dependency of one of them (mostly girls) in their shopping to parents (or other relatives). Except those few parents who asserted their girls are more independent in their shopping, three other groups are distributed balanced in their numbers.

More independent girls

This group of parents, only some mothers mostly from upper class and belonged to open group of gender identity expressed that while their daughters are independent in their shopping, but they themselves or their daughters do shopping for their sons. The reasons are other than gender issues like age or sociability or other personality characteristics of their sons.

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): Kaveh (her

173

174 son) does his shopping in the township himself but here he thinks he’s a guest. I have to buy for him….

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma - and householder mother from upper class): My daughter alone. My son mostly goes with his uncle but if he needs something special he first tells me. ...No, he doesn’t know how to buy. He asks his sister’s idea to choose a hat. But Bahareh (her daughter) has been independent for many years now.

Equal independency

Parents, who expressed their children both do their shopping independently – lonely or with friends – are almost all from upper or middle classes. In upper class, this group includes members from open group of gender identity and also semi open, semi conservative, while for middle class it includes only open minded members; and it means for upper class people, shopping is not the job that strongly needs parents’ supervision; it seems that in upper classes financial comfort allows children to spend much money for their personal shopping helps for more independency of children.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): It's now some years that they buy cloth alone for themselves. They accepted my style before, but later they preferred to do the shopping themselves. They go alone or with their friends. It's also better for me.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): All of them are possible, but they usually go alone or with friends, less with parents….

175

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Nima (son) is able to do his shopping alone but he would prefer I do it for him even without his presence. Sometimes he does the shopping with his friends, too. But I go for shopping with Nazanin (daughter). She has never gone for shopping alone because she’s not old enough to do it alone but when she gets older surely she is allowed to go for shopping alone.

Equal dependency

Parents of this group asserted that children both do their shopping with them or one of older member of family. These parents are almost all conservative or semi conservative towards gender issues; although some upper class parents are included, but they’re mostly from middle and lower classes. As it mentioned, it seems except than gender attitude, social class as an independent factor (not as a variable of gender identity) is involved in children’s way of shopping; so in middle and lower class when the budget for children’s shopping is limited, it will be done by parents’ supervision.

Sample no. 35 (a participant breadwinner mother from lower class with low education): Both girls and boys with me.

Sample no. 27 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): They come with me; I go with both of them.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): We try to go out all of us together but…They are usually with their parents.

More independent boys

176 Some parents mostly from lower and lower middle classes (no one from upper classes), belonged to either conservative or open groups of gender identity, asserted that they accompany their girls but their boys do their shopping independently.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): The girls like their older brother’s taste. They go with him….

Sample no. 34 (an educated – high school diploma) and participant breadwinner mother from lower middle class): Themselves (the sons), they just ask for the money they need. ...She goes shopping with me.

Sample no. 31 ( a householder father from lower class with low education): My daughters do their shopping with their mother or with me but my sons do it alone. ...Two brothers may go with each other but not with their friends. Sometimes they go with their mother too but most of the time they do it alone.

General findings

1 – Regarding the issue of children’s shopping, parents asserted four different kinds of attitudes: some parents said one of their girls or boys are more independent in their personal shopping; some said that both of them are independent and some declared that both of them do their shopping with parents or other member of family. 2 - Considering the interviewee distributions, it seems this issue – shopping – is strongly influenced by financial possibilities of social class so in those upper middle or upper classes with more budgets for shopping, children do their shopping more easily and more independently; and inversely in lower middle or lower classes with limited budgets, shopping is done by parents’ supervision in more cases.

177 3 – Few mothers mostly from upper class and all open minded in their gender attitudes asserted that their daughters do shopping independently and sometimes do it for their sons too, while their sons depend on their families in this relation; and the reasons except family gender attitudes, seems to be related to age, personal characteristics or sociability of the sons. 4 - Those parents who let both of their children do shopping independently are either those parents from middle classes belong to open gender attitude groups, or upper classes parents either open or semi open – semi conservative towards gender issues; in fact for upper class, financial possibilities and the money spending for the children needs make the situation so that semi open - semi conservative parents of this social class let both of their girls and boys doing their shopping independently. 5 - Controlling parents who accompany their both children in their shopping are mostly those from lower and middle classes that either they have presented before conservative – or semi conservative - gender attitudes or they have limited money to spend for children’s shopping (lower class). 6 – At the same time, some parents mostly from lower and lower middle, either conservative or open said that they (mostly mothers) accompany their girls but not the boys in their shopping. It presents more dependency of girls to mothers in their shopping in some families. Existence of some open minded parents in this conservative spatial attitude is in the result of social insecurity for women that closes this spatial behavior to general one and caused these open minded parents to be influenced in their spatial behaviors; of course these parents are more conscious to their behaviors. 7 – The important point is that all householder mothers from lower and middle classes belong to those two groups of “equal dependency” and “more independent boys”. It means more conservative spatial attitudes towards their children both or their daughters only. 8 – So in general regarding this issue of shopping, there is a general association between “gender identity” and “spatial attitude”; a parallel change of “gender identity” with “spatial identity”; it means while “gender identity” getting more open, “spatial identity” getting more neutral and even towards girls independency in this case.

178 Also there is a strong influence of financial possibilities of social class regarding this issue of shopping. 9 – Influences of “sex”, “social class”, and “breadwinning status” – While mothers have more members in two “open” groups of “more independent girl” and “equal independency”, fathers have more members in two “conservative” ones of “equal dependency” and “more independent boys”. “Social class” firstly presented its influences in upper mentioned process in last paragraph as a variable of “gender identity”; secondly it presents its influence this time stronger because of the association between financial possibility and shopping; more upper and middle class samples seen in two “open” spatial attitudes (“more independent girl” and “equal independency”), and more lower and lower middle class samples in “conservative” groups of “equal dependency” and “more independent boy”. Third important point about social class is that regarding “conservative” spatial group of “both dependencies”, samples with “conservative” gender attitude from all social classes are seen; it presents of existence of conservative notions either towards gender or space in all social classes; of course as it was mentioned in chapter of “gender identity”, “conservative” notions haven’t seen in higher educated people from any social classes. Higher educated people at their most conservative situation are placed in “semi conservative, semi open” group of attitudes. The opposite relation means lack of association between low educated parents with “open” spatial attitudes is true for the fathers not the mothers. The meaningful relation of “breadwinning status” with spatial identity is seen in the association of all householder mothers (except upper class householder) and “conservative” spatial attitudes; and including of most participant breadwinner mothers in group of “neutral”.

4 - Parents attitudes towards the ways their children spend their free times in the public spaces of city

179

180 Question: 1 - How do your children spend their free time in public spaces of city (like cinemas, parks, restaurants, sport centers …), with families, friends, or alone? 2 - Do they spend most of their free time out or at home? (Table no. 4)

There are again four groups of respondents to the question. Two groups include those parents who asserted the same conditions for both of their children; one of them asserted the same dependency for both of them to their family in the way of spending their free time in the city and second group presented the same independency of both of them. Third and forth groups are those who pointed to dependency of one of their boys or girls and independency of the other child.

More independent girl The only one mother, who pointed to dependency of her son, actually referred to his personality not the gender differences in this relation.

Equal independency

Parents of this group said that both of their girls and boys spend most of their free time out of the house with their friends. They are only middle and upper class parents and mostly mothers; and it’s important that most of the upper class parents belong to this group. Middle class sample of this group are open minded mothers that consider the same freedom for their boys and girls. But for upper class as mentioned before, the material facilities – personal automobile, most important among them - their children enjoy, make them more comfortable in moving within & using city spaces and being safe out of the house, so even semi conservative members of this social class seen in this group too.

Sample no. 6 (a low educated housewife from lower middle class): There’s no difference, but my daughter usually goes out with her friends.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): They’re more with their friends. I don’t know is it the same for everyone or not. When they grow up

181 prefer to come with us, with their friends and also us. And soudeh (daughter) is getting better too, but Hamed (son) just comes to the parties or places that his friends are; it they aren’t, he doesn’t like to come. Maybe when he grows up, become better, maybe not....It depends on them. Sajad (older son) used to stay home till he was in second year of university. They’re all like this, first prefer home, then like going out. Sajad goes out less than soudeh. She’s all time with her friends, in their houses or they’re here, or go out. She’s more sociable and doesn’t like to be alone.

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper cla ss): With their friends. ...Most of the time Nima (son) does it and that’s because of his age.….They’re usually at home, both of them.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Most of the tim e (their time in outdoor spaces) with friends, then family. They prefer to be with friends….Most of the time (their free time) at home.

Equal dependency

These parents asserted that both of their children spend most of their free time in the city with family. Against the last one this group mostly made by fathers. And it includes parents from different social classes, lower, middle and upper, so in spending free time in the city dependency of girls and boys to family are seen within different social classes but it decreases among upper class. Regarding the gender attitudes of the group’s members, relatively more conservative and semi conservative are seen; but the presence of some open minded parents in this conservative spatial attitude seems in the result of family characteristics.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): We go all together . ... never. Their father doesn’t let them and they haven’t got used to it…. The

182 older ones go to work and the younger ones are at home. They don’t go to the alley. They’re usually home. My son never goes. He goes to his brother’s shop or his aunt’s house with bicycle but never stays out.

Sample no. 13 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from middle cl ass): No; even if my son wants to go out ،he comes with us ،we go out all together. My sons don’t stay at their aunt’s or uncle’s places for a night. ...Very seldom, it’s about 4 or 5 years that we didn’t go to a movie….No. …None of them. . No. ...No ،they .sons) some times go to a restaurant nearby….Yes ،they don’t like it)

More independent boys

The largest group includes those parents who expressed more dependency of their girls to their families and more independency of their boys in spending their free time out of the house, so it’s a general trend in society whether families are doing it on their believes unconsciously or they doing consciously because of the social situations. These parents are mostly from lower and middle social classes. As mentioned before upper class girls mostly enjoy from being out of home like the boys of this social class. Although most of the conservative parents seen in this group but there are also others from open groups of gender identities that are conscious people towards social gender issues. The other important point about this group is that all householder mothers (naturally not from upper class) placed in this group and it might be because of the before mentioned fact about this group of mothers who presented more conservative notions towards different social issues especially related to their girls.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): My son go es mountain climbing with his friends every Friday, they get together 7-8 or 10- 15, and it differs. My daughter goes out with her elder sister. Whenever she goes out with

183 her husband take her, too. Sometimes she goes on an outing with school. If her sister or brother doesn't take her out I take her to the park near-by. ...Yes (most of her time at home). ...Just on Fridays he goes to the mountain, the other days he straight comes home from work or goes to her sister’s house. He doesn’t go anywhere special.

Sample no. 31 (a householder father from lower class with low education): They (sons) are either alone or with their friends. Now they don’t go out with their parents. If we want to go to the park they will come with us. 2 of them work out of the house and poor the other ones are jobless. He is usually in the alley with his friend or in the nearby park. ...If they work out of the house, they’re usually out but if they’re at home, they spend their free time at home too.

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): In the park with friends and sometimes with the family....No, my daughter doesn’t go out alone, usually with me or her sister. I don’t put her under pressure, she can go with friends if she wants but she mostly goes with us....At home….The ones who work are at home in their free time. They rarely go out with friends. They are at home.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle cl ass): My son usually spends it out because his duties in the university are with his friends and comes home late, but we’re not worried, because we know that where he is. My daughter in fact, spends it at home; of course it depends on her mood. Girls aren't relaxed in society to go any where they want.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper diploma of high school - and participant breadwin ner father from middle class): It depends on the seasons. For example in the winter they come to the cinema or mountain with us. My daughter is usually with us and in summer we go to the park. My son goes to park and in summer we go to the park. My son goes to park and stadium with his friends depending on the season. ...My daughter

184 spends 90% of her free time at home and my son spends90% of his free time out of the house. He goes to the park, stadium and do sport and football.

General findings:

1 – Parents attitudes towards the ways that their children spend their free time out of the house could be placed in four groups; group who asserted equal dependency for their boys and girls, group who expressed equal independency for them, and two groups who asserted more dependency of their girls or boys to their families. 2 - It’s worth mentioning that only one mother said her girls go out more to the city than her boy and it’s because of son’s personality. 3 – Group of equal independency who asserted that both daughter and son spend most of their free time out of the house independently with friends, mostly includes upper class parents – semi open or open in their gender attitudes – and open minded mothers from middle class. The important point about upper class is that their children have got different material facilities for using city spaces more easily and safely like personal cars or personal cell phones, so even parents with semi conservative notions towards gender issues let their children both spend time out of the house with more peaceful mind and less anxiety. 4 – Parents from different social classes – with decreases among upper class - and mostly fathers made the third group of respondents that asserted the same dependency of their children to their family in spending time in the city. Although there are open minded parents within group but relatively this group included more conservative attitudes towards gender issues. This is the fact especially among fathers. 5 – The last group belongs to largest group of parents (mostly mothers) that presented more independency of their sons in this relation, that boys going out and use public spaces of the city more easily and more often than girls; although they are mostly from lower and middle classes with semi conservative or conservative gender attitudes, but upper social classes and open gender attitudes are also included., so it is also a general notion among society. Among this group more conservative parents expressed the situation as social normality, and parents who pointed to the social abnormality that cause

185 girls couldn’t use city as free as boys and to be more dependent on their families (they are conscious parents with open attitudes towards gender issues). This largest group shows the general situation in society that girls comparing to boys use public spaces of the city with more limitations, either girls themselves don’t use city freely or couldn’t use or they are not allowed. 6 – The other fact about this group – more dependency of girls - is that all the householder mothers from lower and middle class belong to this group. As pointed before, these lonely mothers live in the city without proper social support and with more anxiety towards their situations in society, so it’s natural that they worry about their girls more and try to save them from the dangers of the city. 7 – As conclusion, this issue again shows the parallel changes between “gender identity” and “spatial identity”; it points to the increasing of samples with “open” gender attitudes in two groups of “more independent girls” and “equal independency” and inversely decreasing of those samples in two groups of “more independent boys” and “equal dependency”. The other fact is shown by this issue is the more insecurity for girls and women in society that cause general spatial attitude in society regarding the “more dependency of girls”; of course there are differences among “conservative” and “open” samples pointing to this notion according their consciousness towards gender differences. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” –Mothers comparing fathers have more members in two open groups of spatial identity (sex). Despite this, total numbers of fathers and mothers in conservative group of “more independent boy” are high and near to each other; this show the situation resulting from social insecurity in the city. “Class” shows its influences strongly in placing most members of upper class in group of “equal independency” and all lower class samples in conservative spatial attitudes (“more independent boys” and “equal dependency”); so as before, class influences seen in parallel with gender identity changes within different spatial attitudes. Secondly regarding to two conservative groups of spatial attitudes having members from different social classes, it reflects the social insecurity specially for women from

186 one side, and it presents spatial conservative notions as the general notion in all social classes of society from the other side. “Breadwinning status” (being housekeeper or householder or participant breadwinner) doesn’t show meaningful relations with “spatial identity” except that conservative householder mother from middle and lower all belong to conservative group of “more independent boy”.

5 – Parents attitudes towards the ultimate time in the evening their children could stay out of home

Question: How long after darkness (till what time) could your children stay out of home? (Table no. 5)

Distribution of the samples – parents – among different groups of answers, this time presents three groups: those parents who required later time in the evening for their boys coming back to home than for their girls, those who set the same limitation (short time after darkness) for them, and those parents who defined the same freedom (relatively long time after darkness) for both of them to stay out of home. There isn’t any sample that set longer time for the girl instead of boy.

More freely boys

Looking at the table and précising at the samples distribution, it’s found a strong general trend among different groups of society who pointed to the insecure conditions of the city and more freedom and safety for their boys to be out of home instead of their girls. They make majority of samples. This general attitude includes both those parents, more conservative ones, who look at the situation as natural and essential fact of society and social relationships between genders that generate insecurity for the girls (Sample no. 16, Mr. Ardabily); and also those parents, more open ones who look at the issue as the social abnormality that could be changed to appropriate situations (Sample no. 1, Sample no. 15, Sample no. 37).

187

188

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): They work till 9 or 10 o’clock. After that they come back home....My daughter is at home. ...We go with each other. She goes out with me, or with her mother. We take her out and bring her back.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): According to the school regulations that it ends at 2 o’clock, they should be home until 2:30 when the university finishes they should be home these are all about girls. The boy has more freedom because girls are more endanger than the boys. There aren’t such limitations for boys: - Where were you? - I was with my friends just walking....If Neda (daughter) comes late my wife waits in front of the door. Narges (younger daughter) likes Alireza (son) a lot. When he comes late she turns pale and repeats: “He didn’t come” .if Alireza wants to come late he will let us know but this is for boys only, for girls this is impossible. We don't have such a case for girls.

Sample no. 15 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): He usually comes home around 9:30 or 10. If he doesn’t come by that time gives us a call by his cell phone, if not we get worried. We’ll call him to know why he didn’t call. By 10 pm we should know where is he, other wise get worried. She never goes out alone, because we are anxious. If she goes out and we know where she is, it’s ok. She comes home at 7 from the university, if not, we become worried. Those anxiety that is in society, is for my daughter, too.

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from upper class): My daughter till 11, we don’t have safety in the streets. I don’t go myself. They go out with their university classmates, with car or without. I tell my son not to be out more than 11 or 12, if he wants, he must tell me. My daughter is at home until 10- 10:30. It has happened that the film in the cinema has finished at 12 or 1 and I haven’t let them. She complained that I can’t do anything, that’s the film. I said: when you get married

189 you will be able to be out with your husband whenever you want. I trust them but the society is unsafe.

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): They must be home by 8 or 9 but my older son sometimes comes at 10. The younger one is home usually at 9….She is always at home. If she goes once, she will be home by 8:30 to 9.

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Roja doesn't come late but I told Pouya to be at home till nine o' clock and sometimes he doesn't come back on time but he phones and tells us that he would come later. But, you know, any way I'm worried. ...Boys and girls are not different for us. I try to think in a good way and avoid being worried. There isn't any solution at all.

Sample no. 12 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from middle class): My daughter is always at home and my son has a cell phone and we try to be connected most of the time, but we all try to be home by the sunset.

Equal limitations

Parents, who declared equal limitation for both of them, they are more conservative or strict parents (Sample no. 11, Sample no. 33) from any social class; most of them are fathers. Although some parents with open gender attitudes are included but mostly they are semi conservative or conservative ones.

Sample no. 5 (an educated – high school diploma - housewife from lower middle class): By 7 or 7:30 they’re home.

Sample no. 11 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from

190 upper class): It depends on the length of the days. But they can stay out at most 2 or 3 hours after sunset, both girls and boy. They should be at home earlier in the summer; because it gets late (days are long).

Equal freedom

And those few parents who consider relatively more freedom equally for both of them, they are from upper class. Even if they presented semi conservative notions towards gender issues, but their material possibilities allow their children to be out of home more comfortable and safer (Sample no. 29, Sample no. 26).

Sample no. 30 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): We talked about it, at first it was till midnight, now they have permission to stay till 1 or 1:30 AM….Well they know that can stay till 12 or 1 AM. If they go shopping and I’m expected them to be home at 8:00, then if it’s 10, I’ll be worried. ...It depends. There’s no time, if they go shopping at 2:00 PM, I’ll get worried at 5....Yes, they always let us know. They should be home by 1 or 1:30 AM.

Sample no. 29 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Until midnight. ... No (any difference between girl and boy). ...They should ask for permission. When they go out, we say that, they should be home by 12.

General findings

1 - Different interviewee parents presented their notions towards the time in the evening their boys and girls should be at home in three ways; some set the longer time for their boys could be out, some set the same limitation, short time after darkness for both of them could be out, and at last some parents allow both of them to be out for longer time after darkness.

191 2 – There aren’t any parents who allow their daughters stay out of home for longer time than their boys. 3 - The absolute majority of parents allow their boys come back home later than their girls. This attitude distributed among all social groups of society, within mothers and fathers, different social classes, different position of breadwinning in family, and also different groups of gender identities. So again social insecurity for girls provides the same condition for all groups of society and obscures the influences of other variables. But the important point here again is the way that parents point to the issue so that conservative parents think about this issue as a natural and normal fact of relationship between genders that make unsafe situation for girls so they try to make secure situation for their girls by not letting them to be out after darkness and let their boys experience their dominated situations. While open minded parents most of the time refer to the issue of insecurity for girls as the social abnormality that could and should be changed to ideal one in that every one like women feel safe and move in the city freely. These parents while preserve their daughters from dangers of the city, they believe that their boys should be learned to behave in society in a right way to provide secure situations for all. 4 – The important point about mentioned group – more freely boys – is again that all the householder mothers of any social class belong to this group who are worry about their girls. 5 - Some strict parents, mostly fathers and mostly with conservative or semi conservative gender identity from middle and upper classes asserted the same limited time for both of their girls and boys. 6 –A few parents, only from upper class considered the same time relatively long for both of their children. These parents instead of their gender notions, semi open – semi conservative, because of their material facilities - providing private car or possibility of using private taxis or having cell phone - for all of their young children could let them to be out of home safe for longer time. 7 – Here, two social trends could be seen; one trend, general and strong included in most of social & gender groups and resulted from the insecure conditions for the girls in the city especially during dark time that caused more limitations and more limited time for them staying out of home. As before, kind of referring different groups of gender

192 identities did to the issue is totally different and it again indicates parallel changes of “spatial identity” and “gender identity”. These situations of insecurity in the city caused some more strict parents specially fathers make limitations for both of them. Second trend only seen in upper classes that letting their both children staying out for long time and it’s possible because of their financial facilities. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – As mentioned, social situations of insecurity for girls especially during the dark time provide the same general attitudes among samples towards the issue but among this general attitude relatively more mothers (sex), more educated people of middle and upper classes (class) and more participant breadwinners (breadwinning status) expressed their open analysis towards the issue. This is beside the conditions of some upper class people who could provide same secure situation for their children by their material possibilities (influence of class); also this fact that the father’s numbers in strict group of “equal limitation” is clearly more than mothers (influence of sex).

6 – Parents attitudes towards their children’s cycling in the neighborhood or the city

Question: Which one of your children could cycle in the neighborhood area or city? (Table no. 6)

At first it’s useful to refer to some important point about cycling in Tehran. In general cycling as a means of transportation hasn’t been regarded in Tehran’s urban planning and it’s not a usual vehicle for transport. Mostly it’s considered as a dangerous vehicle. Although in last time of Tehran it was using, but it’s been forgotten and car and motorcycle has got its place during the time. Now, its uses are mostly limited as a recreational facility – and some times as the athletic facility used in special places. Sometimes children – more often, boys – use it in some safe neighborhoods. Only in some residential complexes of the city, or in a few parks, special bicycle routs have been designed and implemented. And in some of them, although there isn’t a special rout for cycling but it’s possible ( it has less dangers) only because of the limited and controlled

193

194 traffic of automobiles. Also in some old neighborhoods of Tehran, form of the passages and alleys allows cycling safer than other places of the city and still cycling could be seen by some people especially young boys and children. Except upper mentioned condition that make cycling dangerous in the city and make its using very rare, there are other social conditions make it mostly a male vehicle. It’s so strange if you see a female – young or adult - cycling in the city; maybe some little girls, or in a few neighborhoods. Cycling for girls in public scenes of the city socially and culturally is forbidden. It’s kind of presentation of women in public space which regarding to the Islamic & cultural view, should be as covered as it could be. Now, considering mentioned facts, the interviewees’ answers to the question could be analyzed. Parents presented their notions about their young boys and girls cycling in the city in some different ways. The distributions of samples within different groups of notions are relatively balanced in numbers.

Both allowed

These parents accept their girls as their boys cycling in the neighborhood or the city but if they don’t let them or if their girls don’t like to do it, is the result of the external conditions not because of their attitudes itself. In some cases when the conditions allow for example when the neighborhood sphere is suitable for their girls’ cycling or when there is proper safety from motor vehicles, their girls do it as their boys. These parents, clearly most of them are mothers; they are mostly from “open” & “open – informed” group of gender identity of middle and upper classes. They usually refer to different conditions of the society they live. Also there are few conservative or semi conservative parents in this group mostly belong to upper classes who asserted their children both allowed to cycle in the neighborhood if the conditions appropriated.

Sample no. 1 (a higher educated housewife from middle class): Yes ،really comfortable (other neighborhood they lived before); all the women rode bicycle. They did worm – up or other sports in the morning, yes ،that place was very good….They had made that place really suitable for riding bicycle. For example ،there was special route where

195

Sample no. 14 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from middle class): Yes, we go for walking and Roja usually ride a bicycle there and I agree with it….Yes, it's really easy to ride a bicycle here. Especially during the nights that is not crowded at all...No, there's no problem….No, here is a cozy place. They can play with a snowball and …

Sample no. 28 (a higher educated householder father from upper class): Yes, only my youngest child (his son) rides bicycle...-If the society lets her, there’s no problem. In my opinion there’s no problem.

Both girl and boy are not allowed

This group of parents rejected their young children cycle in the neighborhood or city. These parents mostly referred to the cycling in the city as a dangerous behavior for their children. The difference between these parents and those of the first group who also rejected it because of the situation in the city is that the first group parents might say if the streets are safe and social sphere appropriate, their both children would cycle in the city and in some cases they do it; but parents of this group definitely reject it and didn’t consider its possibility at all. Actually they didn’t deliberate the issue as the open minded parents of the first group. They reject it as a social taboo. Except referring to dangerous motor traffic, they actually internalized social values limiting their children cycle in the public. They said that their youngsters might cycle before when they were little child with parents or in safer alleys but not now. These parents are mostly conservative or semi conservative, but few open minded parents are included too.

196

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): My When they where younger yes, but now they’re grownup and don’t go. My son had a bike in childhood….-They don’t have a bike, if they had I would like to ride it for fun in Chitgar park (A park near to Tehran for cycling) I like them to ride a bike but not in the city.

Sample no. 12 (an educated – high school diploma - householder father from middle class): Never….- When he was a child he had a bike and we use to take him to special places for riding, also my daughter but, now they’re grown up and left them away.

Only boys allowed

This group of parents asserted that their sons might ride the bike in the neighborhood or city, but their girls never do it in the public scene. This notion is seen throughout the social groups of society by more strength in lower and middle classes, and the same in conservative and semi conservative gender attitudes.

Sample no. 38 (an educated – upper diploma of high school - and participant breadwinner father fromlower middle class): My son yes, but my daughter prefers to ride bicycle in parks and with us. When we go to the local park, my daughter brings her bike and rides it. But in the alley she doesn’t ride bicycle alone. We didn’t prevent her from riding bicycle but she doesn’t do it herself. But my son ride bicycle alone. My daughter rides bicycle only in park. ...Because of the society (not my children) my son can ride bicycle most of the times and my daughter is allowed to ride bicycle in the park if her parents or relatives be present there. I experienced it my self.

Sample no. 23 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Yes, my son does...She doesn’t, my son does and he goes everywhere with the bike….The route is good, “Khani Abad” which isn’t too far.

197

Sample no. 2 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): Mr. Kaveh (her son) chose riding bicycle as his sport before the entrance exam. We have cozy neighborhood and riding bicycle is very good for being far away from the house and breathing pure air….Maryam (her daughter) used to ride bicycle in our garden in Shahriar and also in Chitgar’ park. She used to keep animals and play with them in Shahriar too

General findings

1 – As introduction, cycling isn’t a kind of usual transportation vehicle in Tehran now days and the urban planning and design didn’t regard it to plan especial safe routs for cycling. So in general it’s not accepted as a safe vehicle in the city except as the recreational facilities in some rare neighborhood or in some special parks. From the other side it also considered as a male vehicle; from the point of cultural and social values, females are not usual to cycle in the city freely everywhere, except little girls or within some certain neighborhoods and parks far away from public scene. 2 - Parents attitudes towards their children’s cycling in the neighborhood or the city are distributed relatively balanced (total numbers of mothers and fathers) among three groups of notions: 1 - Parents who asserted that their both of their children allowed to cycle but there are some external limiting conditions. 2 – Parents who allowed none of them cycle in the city. 3 – And those parents who let their boys cycle but not their girls. 3 - Those parents of first group asserted that if the city is safe from the motor vehicles and if the cultural and social aspects permit, they certainly let their both children enjoy from cycling in the city. These parents are mostly mothers and belong mostly to the open and open informed groups of gender identity; they are only from middle and upper classes; they deliberate the issue very well. 4 – Parents of second group (both not allowed) definitely rejected their children cycle in the city. Despite apparent similarity with the first group they didn’t refer to the issue like them. Insecurity routes and limiting social values are something usual in their

198 notions not challenging with them. These parents are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. 5 – Parents of third group said their boys are allowed and cycle in the neighborhood or city, but their girls are not allowed or don’t do it. Samples of this notion although included few open minded mothers but they are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. Existing open minded parents in this group is in the result of the social and cultural limitations for girls’ cycling in the public that they didn’t refer to it clearly. 6 – Almost all householder mother from lower and lower middle classes belong to two conservative notions towards cycling in the city; it means groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed”. 7 – Again it could be seen a general trend relating the issue of cycling in the city; this strong trend shows changes in attitudes towards cycling associated with changes of gender identity that parents of the open groups of gender identity mostly like cycling for both girls & boys (if it was possible) while more conservative ones don’t let none of them or only their girls cycling in the public. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – Mothers comparing fathers (sex) include most of the numbers of group “both allowed” means open and conscious group of spatial attitude. Only upper and middle classes included in group of “both allowed” and only few upper class in conservative groups of “both not allowed” or “boys allowed” (class). Regarding “social class” again must be pointed that meanwhile the general associated changing process between “spatial” or “gender” attitudes and “social class” mentioned above, there are minorities of samples narrate about other process; it presents the existence of all social classes in each group of “spatial” or “gender” identity. In most of the cases like this category of cycling, there are samples of upper classes in “conservative” spatial attitudes; the opposite situation means existence of lower classes in “open” spatial groups are rarely and only within mothers observed; and as it will be analyzed later it’s because of the variable of education in “social class”. Most of participant breadwinner mothers belong to open group of “both allowed”. And almost all householder mothers from lower and lower middle classes belong to two

199 conservative notions towards cycling in the city; it means groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed” (breadwinning status).

7 - Parents attitudes towards their children’s riding motor bike in the city

Question: Which one of your children could ride a motor bike in the city? (Table no. 7)

This question has lost some of the interviewees’ answers because of the especial impression that interviewer had from some of the interviewees that this question doesn’t seem appropriate. Motor bike is one of the usual personal vehicles in the city of Tehran but it’s rarely used as a recreational or athletic facility. Many people especially from lower and middle classes use motor bike for their commuting to their jobs and sometimes it’s a main facility of their jobs for examples when they carry something by it for sell. It’s also used sometimes for family vehicle of transport which is so dangerous. It’s also the fact that people prefer to use the car instead of motor bike because of the more security it has; but people of lower and lower middle use motor bike because of its lower price. And it’s certainly a male vehicle; no women in the city ride a motorbike. This is so clear that parents responding the upper question, mostly referred only to their boys. Therefore sample parents made only two groups of respondents; those who disagreed with both of their children riding motor bike in the city because of its less safety compared to car; and those parents whose sons only use the motor bike in the city.

Both not allowed

Actually most of the interviewee parents disagreed with their sons – and their girls of course – riding motorbike in the city since it’s a dangerous vehicle; almost all the missing interviewees could also be added to this group, because they are respondents that interviewer had this impression which she knew their negative answers so she didn’t ask the question. It’s important to point that many parents responding to this question

200

201 considered only their boys and this is because motor bike is only a male vehicle in this city. Parents of this group are from any social groups or any groups of gender identity.

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): No. He doesn’t ride a motorbike, because I recommended him a lot.

Sample no. 34 (an educated- high school diploma - and participant breadwinner mother from lower middle class): I don’t let them because I don’t like it. They asked us to buy but I refused because I’m scared. They are young and naïve. Others will jerk the wheel and they want to compete. That’s why we didn’t buy it at all. And middle classes, and the same in conservative and semi conservative gender attitudes.

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): In no circumstances, never ever. I just rode it once or twice. ...Never ever.

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from upper class): I don’t like it. It’s dangerous. My son has tried it once or twice. His father used to ride. He should learn how to ride it but I don’t like. It’s not safe in the streets.

Boys allowed

All members of this small group which belong to conservative or semi conservative group of gender identity and mostly from lower and lower middle social classes declared that their sons ride or could ride motor bike in the city. The only open minded mother of

202 this group (Sample no. 36) actually referred to his son because of the social situations not because of her attitude to the issue (she presented her attitude in other question).

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): One of my children (sons) has motor cycle. They don’t have bicycle…. Yes, yes (he uses it in the city).

Sample no. 25 (a householder mother from lower middle class with low education): My elder son has one.

Mr.Rivandi (an educated – upper diploma of high school - and participant breadwinner father from lower middle class): In our society not only my daughter but also every one’s daughter cannot ride motorcycle but my son can do it.

General findings

1 - Motor bike is one of the usual vehicles of transportation in Tehran, only used by men and since it costs relatively lower so used mostly by lower and lower middle classes for commuting to work or as a facility of their job (carrying something related to their job). And it sometimes used dangerously as family’s vehicle of transportation. 2 - Most of the parents – from any social classes or any gender group - disagreed with their sons and of course their daughters ride motor bike in the city because of its low safety. 3 – Other few parents (conservative or semi conservative mostly from lower and lower middle social classes) said that their sons ride or could ride motor bike in the city. They mostly use it for commuting to their work.

203 4 – So there is a strong and general trend of refusing riding motorbike because of its low safety in all gender groups. Other trend presents boys’ riding bicycle in lower or lower middle classes usually with conservative or semi conservative gender attitudes. 5 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” - In first trend, since “gender identity” doesn’t show its influences, neither do its variables. In second trend only “class” shows its affect.

8 – Parents attitudes towards the condition their children could educate in other city far from family Question: In your opinion, which one of your children could continue her (his) education in university in other cities? (Table no. 8)

Questions no. 8, 9and 10, have lost some of the interviewees’ answers unfortunately because these three questions considered in the questionnaire later after some interviews having done. It’s pointed before about the importance of the university education as an important social value. This issue is obvious here again. The group of parents who permit both of their girls and boys continue their education in university in other cities clearly make the majority of the samples. Anyway there are three groups of respondents:

Both allowed

Interviewees of the largest group presented their eagerness for their children education in university even in other cities; Fathers of this group said that in this case parents accompany their children too. These parents are distributed in any social groups of study either social classes or gender identity groups. The important points are that the majority of samples of this group are mothers. From the other side, the majority of upper class samples and half of the middle class respondents belong to these agreeable parents and this shows not only the importance of issue for these social classes – as for other social classes – but also their financial possibilities to provide living and education costs for their children’s staying in other city.

204

205

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Yes, I always ask God to help them passing the university entrance exam, anywhere ….No, never, I won’t be worried for going to the university, I even can go and gets a house in that region to help them studying.

Sample no. 32 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): I don’t prefer because of the society situation. Fortunately both of them are admitted in Tehran universities. ...If they had to go to another city, we would also go with them during their education time. ...Unfortunately the situation of society is not in a way that, you permit your children to go to another city without any control. ...Yes, we would prefer to go with them. Even they shouldn’t use university dormitory. We would provide a house there.

Sample no. 21 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Yes, they both have the permission. They had it till now. Siavash (my son) studies in Mashhad. It was so difficult and we had so many problems that I think sending him was a mistake. I wish we didn’t do that. I don’t like my daughter to go to the province but if we have to I’ll let her. I prefer her to be in Tehran.

Both not allowed

Parents of this group, again mostly mothers, all conservative or semi conservative, presented two reasons for their disagreement with their children going to another city for university education; they said about their anxiety towards social environments. And some mothers from lower and lower middle referred to financial limitation they have to front in this case.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): No, my daughter was accepted in “Gonabad” (a city far from Tehran in East of Iran). She didn’t go. ...No, none of them, just Tehran.

206

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from lower middle class): We have financial problem so neither I wouldn’t let them nor they don't want. I knew they had to work. ...A student needs money. I couldn't afford it so I didn't suggest and they didn't either. My son wants to work but my daughter wanted to learn art or any other job.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - and householder father from middle class): Because of the atmosphere of the society, no. even I wouldn’t let Ali (his son). A consultant told him that he would be accepted in Tehran University they had changed the educational system in high school in that year. It’s not successful here because they don’t have good teachers. There is always some thing new to learn. When Alireza realized that he wasn’t accepted, he went into his room for three days and didn’t come out. A high – level employee of "Sanjesh" (Entrance exam organization of universities) was a friend of mine. He said we have given 16 percent of proportion to students of new system that’s why Ali failed. My friend, doctor Afshar was my friend. He said you must pay money and send him to Azad University. He was accepted in the medical school of the army but I didn’t let him go. I have been an army man, it's enough. . It takes your freedom. I sent Alireza to Azad university of Tehran, near “Dezashib”, northern university in Tajrish.

Only boys allowed

Most of interviewee fathers belong to this group; and majority of samples of this group are fathers too. They are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. Mothers of this group, householders as always are anxious about social situations especially related to their girls.

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): Yes, yes. But they (sons) don’t accept it themselves. I told them to quit their work and study but they didn’t do it and now they are regretful ... My daughter has her diploma and she’s at home..,... No, she was accepted in Isfahan. I didn’t let her go. ... No, they didn’t go.

207

Sample no. 37 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from upper class): I never ever let my daughter, Just Tehran. I don’t let her because of the things that I have heard. My son doesn’t like to go. He likes here.

General Findings

1 – Parents who responded to this question – not all the samples - made three groups of answers: those who let both their girls and boys continue their education in other cities; those who disagreed with this issue; and those who let only their boys go to other cities for university education. 2 - The largest group of interviewee that among them mothers made the majority, agreed with both of their children continuing their university education in other cities far away from their families. Large number of interviewee in this group shows again the importance of university education for both girls and boys in people’s mind from any social groups. 3 – While parents from any social classes and any gender identity groups belong to this group, and this shows the expansion of the notion among society, but considering the table no. 8, most of the upper class interviewees and half of the middle class respondents belong to this group of agreeable; and this shows either the importance of the issue for these social classes or their financial possibilities to make them able to send their children to other cities. 4 - Parents (mostly mothers) of the second group who presented their disagreements with their both girls and boys go to another city for their university education, conservative or semi conservative, either are anxious parents about unsafe society, or have financial problem in this relation (lower classes). 5 – Parents who said that they let only their boys go to other cities for education they expressed their anxious about social insecurity for their girls, lonely in other cities far from the family. This group made from mostly conservative or semi conservative parents. Most of them are fathers, and most of the respondent fathers belong to this group too.

208 6 – Although only half of the samples and fewer fathers among them responded to this question, but a general trend could be seen that shows parallel changes of “gender attitudes” with “spatial attitudes” towards the subject of education in other cities; it presented relatively more open gender attitudes in group of “both allowed” and more conservative ones in conservative groups of “both not allowed” and “boys allowed”. This trend seems to include gradually more and more from conservative gender group in neutral spatial group since there are some of them already; in fact within this trend, neutral attitudes towards the issue is more strong even now. 7 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – For this general trend mothers showed more eagerness towards the issue (sex); middle and upper class show more numbers that except than their gender attitudes it’s because of their financial possibilities (class). By these numbers of samples it’s seen no meaningful relation between “breadwinning status” and spatial attitudes”.

9 – Parents attitudes towards the way their children do family’s official or banking affairs

Question: Do you let your children (which one) doing official or bank affairs of the family? (Table no. 9) Responding to this question, there are four groups of answers:

Girls do it

The only mother – lower class householder - and only sample of this group said her daughter do this kind of job. It seems she doesn’t trust on his son because he’s committed some kind of social crime before, also he’s still young (15 years).

Both allowed

The largest group of parents asserted that both of their girls and boys are allowed to do (or they do) family official or banking affairs. These parents distributed in different social classes and different groups of gender attitudes, but with more members of middle and upper classes; although there are mostly mothers in this group but since this question

209

210 hasn’t been included all the samples, and many fathers among them, so it couldn’t be compared between mothers & fathers. Some samples that asserted their daughters don’t do the job because of her young age are considered in this group too.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): They both go. They have done it and know what to do.

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): There’s no difference. Soudeh (daughter) used to do all her jobs. Now, Hamed (younger son) has nothing to do but does all the affairs of changing his major at university, and traveling permission. Soudeh used to do all the things related to herself.

Sample no. 36 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner mother from upper class): Nazanin (daughter) is not old enough to do these works, but when she gets older she can do these works, too. There’s no difference. We can use her as a member of the house.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): Yes, they are allowed. It’s kind of training in their life…. Yes, especially if it depends on their own works

. Both not allowed (or don’t do) A few mothers, householder, semi conservative or conservative, expressed that they do it themselves because their children (sons) nagged or don’t do the job rightly.

211

Sample no. 18 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): No, they never do. My son can’t do anything right. But when he has something to do, asks from me.

Boys allowed

Some parents said that their sons allowed or they do their official or banking affairs. They are mostly conservative (or semi conservative) in their gender attitudes. Majority of fathers (although few numbers) set in this group.

Sample no. 27 (a householder mother from lower class with low education): Yes, my son usually does my banking affairs.

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): No (not my daughter), my son; no.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): Alireza (son) or his mother.

General findings

1 - Different sample parents presented their attitudes about how their children do family’s official or banking affairs, in four different ways.

212 2 – Only one householder mother said that her girl do the job instead of her son. According to her other sayings about her son that he has done some social crime, it seems she doesn’t trust her son for doing this kind of job. 3 – Majority of parents, mostly mothers said their both children are allowed or are doing the job, no difference. These notions belong to different social groups of gender attitudes and different social classes, of course with more members of middle and upper. In other words, some members of lower class, many members of middle class and all members of upper class included. Those who referred to the age of children as the involved condition are included in this group too 4 – A few mothers lower or lower middle class householders (conservative or semi conservative) said that their children don’t do the job, so they themselves do it. 5 – Some parents – more fathers among them and most of the respondent fathers in this group too – asserted their son do the job. They are mostly conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes. 6 – Although small numbers of samples included but a general trend could be seen. This trend shows relatively more open gender attitudes with more neutral spatial attitudes from one side and more conservative gender attitudes with more conservative groups of spatial attitudes – “both not to do” and “boys allowed” – from the other side. This trend meanwhile shows some conservative or semi conservative parents in group of letting “both do the job” and it shows that this trend – girls’ participating in social works like boys – is developing among more conservative groups too, gradually. It also indicates of relatively more women’s security in this official places. 7 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – Because of the small numbers of samples specially among fathers, it’s not possible to conclude about “sex”; only regarding mothers could be said that most of them placed in the neutral group of “both allowed”. “Breadwinning status” doesn’t present its affect because of the same reason, also because of the general trend in society about social practice of women. But social “class” changes parallel by “gender identity” in relation to “spatial attitudes” towards the issue. But the important point is that this trend changes gradually to be a general one included all gender groups in neutral group of spatial identity, it means more

213 and more gender identity groups of all social classes of society let both their girls and boys do this kind of job.

10 – Parents attitudes towards the conditions their children could work out of the house to have income

Question: Do you let your children (which one) work to have income, by which conditions? (Table no. 10)

Parents responding to this question, either let only their boys have a job, or let both of them work out of the house (naturally after graduation and before marriage). Answers to this question could be compared with parents’ answers to the same question (working women) related to them as mothers or to their wives in the chapter of gender identity.

Both allowed

Most of the parents who answered to this question and almost all of the mothers among them asserted that they allow both of their girls and boys work out of the house to have income. These parents are from any social class and any groups of gender identity. Some mothers of lower class stressed that their girls must work in an honorable and promising job; they pointed this because many women uneducated from lower classes work in the inferior jobs and they don’t like their educated girls do this kind of works. Also they pointed that it’s better for their girls doing their works in which places with a safe feminine characteristics. It’s important to point too that all three conservative mothers of this group, lower and lower middle classes householder who before wished to be a usual housewife instead of being employed and the householder of their family, expressed their agreements with their daughters to be employed and it might be because of difficult conditions of family lives at present time, so their girls could help the family in this way; it means the same reason for their work itself. Also it could be because they have to follow the changing society; they accepted before their daughters educate, now it’s normal to let them to work in society; it’s the social trend their children change and

214

215 they couldn’t stop them. The other important point is that all the semi conservative fathers of this group are participant breadwinners; it means they have experienced the situation before; they had an employed wife.

Sample no. 19 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): Yes, of course. ...A promising job, not whatever they find.

Sample no. 17 (an educated – high school diploma - householder mother from lower middle class): Yes, they have to because I can't work eternally. ...No, they have managed (to work).

Sample no. 26 (a higher educated housewife from upper class): Yes, it was a little difficult for us to accept she works somewhere else. It was important where she goes, or goes to a familiar person. Her father was so severe about it and at least she went to his father’s office. For a girl there should be more rigors....Yes, first she worked for two years for her father; she worked well and her father was satisfied.

Sample no. 33 (a higher educated and participant breadwinner father from middle class): Yes, there’s no problem but if depends on the special situation whether they like their job or not.

Boys allowed

Parents of this group, almost all conservative and householder fathers from lower and middle class declared that only their boys allowed working out of the house. These fathers expressed their discriminatory gender notions about working woman completely as a natural fact of society for example one of them said his daughter doesn’t like to

216 work; another father said that it’s not necessary for her girl to work; and more interesting that the other one didn’t point to his girls at all. The only mother of this group, a housewife from lower class is an open minded woman who expressed before her agreement with working woman, this time said that her husband and sons don’t let her girl work out of the house. It seems her respond is under conditions of her family atmosphere not from her believes itself (it’s the same for her respond to last question too).

Sample no. 24 (a householder father from lower class with low education): No, she doesn’t like to work.

Sample no. 16 (a higher educated – military education - householder father from middle class): There was no need for girls but Alireza (son) was allowed to teach.

Sample no. 20 (a housewife from lower classes with low education): No, I didn’t. Their father and brothers don’t let (the girl to work) either.

General findings

1 – Responding to this question, parents’ answering made only two groups; those who permit both of them to have a job in society and those who permit only their boys to work. 2 – Majority of parents and almost all the mothers allow their both children working out of the house, so they are from any social groups of gender attitude or any social classes. This general notion towards the issue of working girls rather than its social – economical necessities, it seems influenced by more safety of this kind of official working places for women comparing to other public spaces. It seems the same regarding the last category about banking or official works.

217 3 – Mostly lower class parents of this group (agreeable) and semi conservative expressed some kind of condition for their working girls, something like a good feminine environment, or a promising and honorable job. 4 – All the householder mothers included in the group of agreeable with working girls. Those conservative householder mothers from lower and lower middle classes that presented before their unwillingness to their employment – they have said before that they work because they have to, in absence of their husbands – this time said their daughters are better to work. It seems again that the financial conditions of the family force them to live opposite to their wishes. Also it’s the social changing trend that they couldn’t stop following it; they have accepted before their girls continue their education at least till graduation of high school; now they couldn’t stop their girls to get benefit from their education, to work in society, being independent and having income. 5 – All the semi conservative fathers of this group, agreeable are participant breadwinner and have employed wives; so it seems that even if they have some conservative notions towards gender issues, but since their wives are working and they have accepted it before, so they let their daughters work too. 6 – Group disagreeable with working girls that let only their boys work outside, are almost all householder conservative fathers. 7 – Although this question like two last ones included half of the samples and less fathers among them, but a general trend could be seen in society accepting girls employment out of the house more and more, only some conservative householder fathers from lower class and a few from middle class refused their daughters’ employment. 8 – Influences of “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – regarding the subject of employment, relatively more mothers (sex), more middle and upper classes (class), and at last more employed mothers and more participant fathers (breadwinning status) are included in more open attitudes towards employment (group of “both allowed”).

218 Conclusions

In this section, main spatial attitudes concluded from the chapter’s ten part discussions about the parents’ attitudes towards the preferred way their girls and boys use public spaces of the city, the general findings and the main trends defined in each ten sections. At first it’s pointed to those general attitudes of society that’s expanded in almost all social groups of gender identity; they certainly include as much more of parents of different social classes, fathers and mothers, and parents with different status of breadwinning in their family (three variables of sex, class & breadwinning status considered in this study for gender identity as the main independent variable of study). Then it’s referred to those attitudes belong to some gender groups of urban society of Tehran. It means attitudes mostly seen in, for example “open” group of gender identity or those of “conservative” groups. It’s important to note that “semi conservative – semi open” groups of gender identity have always a position shared with one of the “open” or “conservative” groups. In fact this binary position between those two groups is the logic of their name. In the next part, consideration would be towards the three variables – “sex”, “class”, and “breadwinning status” – of “gender identity and their relations with “spatial attitude”. Finally there would be a discussion about important issue of “internalized discrimination”. Now at first, the most general attitudes:

A - The most general spatial attitudes

These are notions which are seen throughout different social groups of the study, it means different groups of “gender identity” from “open” to “conservative” groups of parents. It also means almost all gender identity groups with their changes by social class, sex, and breadwinning status:

A - 1 – Parents by different gender identities believe that their girls should use urban spaces of the city with more limitations and by more controlled ways:

219 The common point among all following cases is issue of insecurity for women in the city that in some cases added by social cultural understanding of the issue. This conclusion made on the basis of some general findings of different ten section discussion in this chapter: – Finding no. 5, general findings of category commuting to school. – Finding no. 6, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home.

A – 2 – Parents from different “gender identities” believe neutrally towards their

boys’ and girls’ some activities in society.

In addition to the upper mentioned attitude – more preservation of girls in society – as a common attitude in society, there is other general notion in different gender groups which look at some girls and boys activities in society in similar way. In most of these attitudes, some other strong conditions in society influence the situation and weaken gender differences and push it to other areas. According to four following cases and except the first finding, others indicate the general process of society towards equal gender relations. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section discussion:

- Finding no. 2, general findings of category motorbike riding. - Findings no. 2 & 3, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category banking and official works. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category employment.

B – Attitudes mostly seen in “open” groups of gender identity

These parents are mostly educated from middle and upper classes.

220 B – 1 – Parents of more “open” group of “gender identity” believe neutrally towards their girls’ and boys’ activities in public spaces of the city. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings of ten section discussion of the chapter:

- Finding no.2, general findings of category driving in the city. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no.6, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category cycling.

B – 2 – Parents of more “open” groups of “gender identity” believe they should consider more facilities for their girls’ safety in society.

This conclusion made on the basis of one following case of ten section discussion:

- Finding no. 3, general findings of category driving in the city.

C – Attitudes are mostly seen in more “conservative” groups of gender identity.

These parents, “conservative” or “semi conservative – semi open”, although seen in different social classes but they increases by social class getting lower and uneducated.

C – 1 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” present more dependency of their girls to family or more limitation for them compared to their boys in using public spaces and inversely more freedom for their boys This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings of ten section discussion in the chapter:

- Finding no. 5, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category education in other cities.

221 - Finding no. 5, general findings of category banking or official works. - Finding no.6, general findings of category employment.

This attitude of more “conservative” parents has been pointed before as a “general” attitude. By precision on the base findings of each attitude, it would be found that while cases of “general” attitude, mostly referred to recreational activities in the city like shopping, cases included in “conservative” attitude referred to official daily jobs like banking jobs of family which are more secure regarding women presence.

C – 2 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” consider some

facilities for their boys because of his employment or breadwinning role

These parents are naturally from lower or lower middle classes. Conclusion made on the basis of following findings:

- Finding no.4, general findings of category driving in the city. - Finding no. 3, general findings of category riding motorbike in the city.

C – 3 – Parents of more “conservative” groups of “gender identity” control both of their girls and boys in their social activities and caused their dependency on the family

These conservative or semi conservative parents are much controller and make limitations for both of their children. They mostly belong to lower or lower middle classes or some times middle class. It seems for these parents who make limitation for both their girls and boys, besides their gender conservatism, other factors like social pessimism are also included. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section discussion:

- Finding no.5, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category the time in the evening to be at home.

222 - Finding no. 4, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category education in other cities. - Funding no.4, general findings of category banking or official works.

So regarding to mentioned spatial attitudes appropriated to different “gender identities”, there is general conclusion that: “spatial identity” gets along with “gender identity”.

Variables “class”, “sex”, and “breadwinning status”

“Sex”

In fact differences between mothers and fathers regarding their spatial attitudes. Different findings distinguished that: Mothers presented more “open” spatial attitudes in many cases and inversely fathers presented more conservative spatial attitude in many cases. This conclusion made on the basis of following findings of ten section discussions:

- Finding no. 3, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no. 9, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category ultimate time being out. - Finding no.8, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 5, general findings of category education in other cities. - Finding no. 2, general findings of category employment. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category employment.

223 “Class”

Regarding to the different social – spatial trends defined during general findings of ten section discussions and the debates about three variables of “gender identity” in those ten general findings, a general common trend could be concluded that indicates: the parallel changes of “social class” with “spatial attitudes”. As it was presented before, it’s the same relation between “social class” and “gender identity”, this time again: more parents from upper and middle classes presented more open spatial attitudes and inversely, more parents from lower and lower middle classes presented more conservative spatial attitudes. “Educational level” is the most important variable involved to these kinds of class differences. While educational level usually changes by multi variable of “social class” and so confirms the upper mentioned relation about parallel changes of “social class” and “gender spatial identity”, But it has independent influence on “gender spatial identity”; as mentioned in the discussion about general “gender identity” groups, samples belonged to the “conservative” gender attitude, are no one higher educated; they have at best level, high school diploma even when they are from upper classes; (the only higher educated father of this “conservative” group, Sample no. 16, has military education which its general conditions are completely different from a usual university education). In fact, this difference between social classes is associated with variable “education” which is differentiated among “social classes” and usually goes up with social class, so when ever “education level” doesn’t follow the “social class”, whatever the reason is – there would be a general discussion about this issue in the last conclusions - then “gender attitude” doesn’t present the same association with “social class”; it means that “gender attitude” or “spatial attitude” here, doesn’t tend to “open” when “social class” tend to upper and inversely it doesn’t tend to “conservative” when “social class” tend to lower. This social condition indicates other social process; it suggests that each social class embodies parallel powers of “open” and “conservative” notions towards “gender” or “space”; in other way it means: there are two parallel social – spatial powers of “open” and “conservative” attitude throughout society that changes along educational level; these parallel powers change their balances in society as educational levels change so in

224 lower educated members of society this balance deranges in favor of “conservative” notions and inversely in higher educated ones, it deranges in favor of “open” attitudes. Other important aspect of “social class” is its economical condition which directly influences “spatial attitude” strongly. This kind of affects was mentioned in the case of financial facilities upper classes giving their children which causes them to practice in the city more easily, to shop independently, to spend their free time in the city with their friends safely, to educate in other cities comfortably, to drive in the city, and to be at home later in the evening; it means their open attitudes towards their children’s using urban spaces. That is while the opposite financial possibilities of lower classes cause the opposite tendencies in the same cases. The appropriate example is case of householder women from lower classes in their conservative notions towards spatial issues regarding their both children; this will be pointed later in next parts.

“Breadwinning status”

While in many cases, meaningful relations haven’t seen between “breadwinning status” and “spatial attitudes” because of the small samples in this relation, but still there are some conclusions related to the issue.

1 - Participant breadwinner mothers and fathers presented more “open” spatial attitudes. This conclusion made on the following bases:

- Finding no. 9, general findings of category shopping. - Finding no 8, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 8, general findings of category employment.

2 - Householder fathers especially from lower and middle classes presented more “conservative” attitudes towards spatial issues:

225

- Finding no. 6, general findings of category driving. - Finding no.6, general findings of category employment.

3 - Householder mothers especially from lower and lower middle classes are more conservative towards their both children’s or girls’ activities in society

Householder mothers especially low educated from lower and lower middle classes who are conservative or semi conservative in their gender attitudes, in many cases presented conservative notions towards spatial issues related to their children too (and this is except than their girl employment because of the same reason about their employment themselves). Their “conservative” notions towards gender – spatial issues are not only because of their social position as a lonely mother with double pressure regarding their responsibilities and cultural pressure of being a divorced or a widow woman, but is also because of their economical pressures of their social class too. This conclusion made on the basis of following general findings in ten section’s discussions:

- Finding no.7, general findings of category personal shopping. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category spending free time in the city. - Finding no. 4, general findings of ultimate time in the evening to be at home. - Finding no. 6, general findings of category cycling. - Finding no. 4, general findings of category official or banking affairs.

So while being an employed wife – a participant breadwinner in the family - has a positive effect towards equality in gender – spatial attitude for both mother and father, being an only householder for mothers and fathers has different meanings. A family with participant breadwinner parents means changing position from patriarchal family towards equalized family, which surely has its effects on parents’ attitudes, but an only householder father in a family with a housewife means a patriarchal formation of family and it has its patriarchal influences on parents’ attitudes too; and a family with a householder mother while has broken the patriarchal formation of family, but in this hard

226 social situations push much pressure, material and nonmaterial too, on the part of householder woman specially when she is from lower classes (in lower classes, cultural pressures too ,on lonely householder women are much more than upper classes).

Internalization of gender – spatial oppression

During the discussions made in this chapter, attentions paid to the issue of “internalized gender values” in some cases. As mentioned before, gender differences practiced in society in everyday lives, those presented in different social activities, or those which parents expressed their notions towards them in this study, are social phenomenon that different groups of people look at them in different ways, and by different values, in fact from different social standpoints. For different people, social gender differences mean differently; these differences have been the focus of this study. During this study pointed to the relationships existed between “gender attitudes” and “spatial attitudes”: how different groups of people who presented different attitudes towards “gender issue”, now express their notions towards “spatial issues”? Are there relations? Upper part of this conclusion pointed to these relations between “gender identity” and “spatial identity”; now in continue, it would be pointed to the issue of “internalized spatial values”. The claim is that people while internalize gender social relations as their values; they internalize spatial relations caused from gender relations by the same way. This notion has been cleared during deliberations on parents’ attitudes. The study presented that this relation – internalized spatial values - is not the same for different groups of “gender identity”; it presents different meanings. In fact those “open” groups of “gender identity” analyze spatial differences between genders very well most of the time, from a conscious mind. They are outsider to the issue. They refer those differences to the social conditions which could be changed, while for the more conservative notions, those spatial differences between girls and boys are natural and essential. They are insider to these differences.

227 These differences are especially clear in those common attitudes spread among all groups of gender identities; while there is an apparent similarity among different members of one certain spatial notion, but in fact, there are differences among the ways they look at the issue. For example in that common attitude towards the issue of using public spaces of city in free time that there were a commonsense that boys use those public spaces independently more than girls, parents of “open – informed” attitudes pointed to social limitations for girls must be changed so girls could benefit of them too; while more conservative ones refer to the situations as social normality, as fixed natural existing. This different attitude caused “open” gender groups present neutral attitudes towards the spatial issues that their equalities could be possible in reality while more conservative ones reject this equality as social deviation. It means limitations for girls equal social activity with boys, are mostly in their mind not in reality in society, otherwise these activities are possible in practice. Like driving or shopping having done independently by both girls and boys of educated middle and upper classes (mostly open minded), while for these conservative families are not usual. So, either limitations for equal social activities of girls & boys are in conservative minds of people (in these cases, limitations acted only for their girls and boys of their social groups otherwise girls and boys from other social groups practicing more equally) or those limitations act in society for all social groups (social insecurity for women or other social reason) the consequence is the same. Those both kinds of limitations have been internalized in their minds as their internal values.

228 Questionnaire

Questions about “private spaces":

1 – In your opinion, which one of your children is preferred to have private room? Why? Or: If you could afford only one private room for children, which one of them is preferred to have it? Or: Which one has it now? 2 – If your children have their rooms, whose room would you prefer to be closer to yours? Or: Which one is closer now? 3 - If the room is overlooked by other people – either neighbors or public – which one of your children is preferred to have it? Or: Which one has it now? 4 - When somebody unknown knocks at the door (or apartment door), in your opinion which one of your children is preferred to open it? Or: Which one opens the door? 5 - Which one of your children do you prefer to answer the phone? Or: Which one does it now? 6 - Which one of your children do you prefer to entertain non – mahram (not closed relatives, friends or strangers; in fact those persons that female members of family must cover their body and hair in presence of them in Islamic tradition) guests? Or: Which one does it?

229 Questions about “semi private- semi public spaces":

1 - Which one of your children does some activities in the courtyard (the overlooked or shared one)? Or: Which one of them uses courtyard more? 2 - Which one of your children does some activities in the balcony (the overlooked one)? Or: Which one of them uses balconies more? 3 - Which one of your children allowed spending time in the alley or neighborhood spaces? Or: Which one of your children spends time in neighborhood spaces more? 4 - Which one of your children do you prefer to do the grocery shopping in the neighborhood? Or: which one of them does it? 5 - Which one of your children do you prefer to take the trash out in the evening? Or: which one of them does it? 6 - Which one of your children do you prefer to water the courtyard flower bed (shared or overlooked one) or flower bed in front of the door? Or: which one does it? 7 - Which one of your children do you prefer to clean the staircase of apartment? Or: which one does it? 8 - Which one of your children allowed using the roof for some activities? Or: which one does something there? 9 - Which one of your children do you prefer to hang the washed clothes in the yard or balcony or roof? Or: which one does it?

230 Questions about “public spaces of city":

1 - Do you let your children go to school or university alone? Or: Since when have your children gone to school or university alone and how? 2 - Which one of your children do you preferred to have or drive private car in the city? (If you could provide a private car for your children, which one of them is preferred)? Or: Which one does it? 3 - How do you let your children do their personal shopping, with parents, or friends or alone? Or: How they do it now? 4 - How do you let your children spend their free time in public spaces of city (like cinemas, parks, restaurants, sport centers …), with families, friends, or alone? Or: How do they spend their free time out of home? 5 - How long after darkness (till what time) do you let your children stay out of home? Or: How long do they do now? 6 - Which one of your children could cycle in the neighborhood area or city? Or: Which one does it now? 7 - Which one of your children could ride a motor bike in the city? Or: Which one does it now? 8 - In your opinion, which one of your children could continue her (his) education in university in other cities? Or: Which one does it now? 9 - Do you let your children (which one) doing official or bank affairs of the family? Or: Which one does it now? 10 - Do you let your children (which one) work to have income, by which conditions? Or: Which one does now?

231 Questions about “gender identity”:

1 – What's your opinion about women employment out of home? – If you agree about women employment, which areas of employment are appropriate for women? Must they be different for men and women?

2 - What's your opinion about financial independence of women? How much do they should participate in family income and living costs?

3 – How is your opinion about social roles of men and women in society? Do you think they are different or not? - What's your opinion about girls and boys training? Do you think that it must be different or not? If yes, in which cases? – In your opinion, what is the best social role for women in society? - In your opinion, what is the best social role for men in society? – What's your opinion about the time that women must appropriate to the home, homemaking, caring children …? – In your opinion, do women or men have a main duty? – What are your ideal woman and man in society?

4 - How much do you agree with the differences there are in our society between men and women?

5 – What's your opinion about the appropriate level of education for girls (women) and boys (men)?

232 Questions about personal and familial characteristics (sex, age, education, breadwinning status)

1 – Your sex (male or female)? 2 – Your age? 3 – Your marriage status? 4 – Your number of children, their age and sex? 5 – Are you employed? Which job? 6 – Is your spouse employed? Which job? 7 – Which one of you is the main breadwinner? How many percent of living costs is provided by each of you? 8 – Which strict of Tehran, do you live in? 9 – Which neighborhood (street), do you live in? 10 - What's your degree of education? 11- What's your pause's degree of education? 12- What's your children's degree of education?

233