Ahmad 1

The Thunder of Their Roar: The Women’s Rights Movement in Iran

Interviewer: Catherine Ahmad Interviewee: Mahnaz Afkhami Date: 2/13/13 Instructor: Mr. Haight

Ahmad 2

Ahmad 3

Table of Contents Interviewee release form…………………………………………………..2

Interviewer release form…………………………………………………..3

Statement of Purpose……………………………………………………...4

Biography…………………………………………………………………5

Historical Contextualization……………………………………………...8

Interview Transcription………………………………………………….25

Audio Time Indexing Log……………………………………………….61

Interview Analysis………………………………………………………62

Appendix………………………………………………………………...70

Works Consulted………………………………………………………...76

Ahmad 4

Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project was to learn more about the women’s rights movement in Iran and to focus on how the establishment of the Islamic Republic impacted the cultural changes that were already underway. The interview with Mahnaz Afkhami provides the perspective of a woman who helped enact many different innovative changes prior to the Iranian Revolution of

1979. It is my hope that the readers of this project will be left with a better understanding of the women’s rights movement within Iran and the historical context of the events. In this way, they might be able recognize many different historical misunderstandings and challenge those stereotypes.

Ahmad 5

Biography

Mahnaz Afkhami was born in 1941 in Kerman, Iran. From some time, she lived in a large house with her grandparents and some members of her extended family. When she was eleven, her mother separated from her father. Soon after, she came to the US with her mother and two other siblings and lived in Seattle and San Franciso. She would go on to study at the University of Colorado, where she received a M.A. in English Literature. Mrs. Afkhami followed her mother’s example and worked various jobs, including as a sales clerk at a dime store to finance her education. In 1959, she married and would later have a son. By 1967, she decided to move back to Iran and became a professor of Literature at the National University of Iran. Two years later she became chair of the Department of English. She founded the Association of University

Women and was drawn into Iran's women's movement. In 1970 she became the Secretary Ahmad 6

General of the Women's Organization of Iran. She remained at the head of the WOI for ten years during which she worked for Iranian women's rights. She worked with tens of thousands of women throughout the country to help discover and advocate women’s needs and priorities, and map out an efficient strategy for success. Steering through a difficult terrain between the growing fundamentalist movement, the patriarchal government bureaucracy, and the aspirations of women who wished to achieve rights but did not want to abandon their cultural and religious roots, they succeeded in putting women’s issues at the forefront of national concerns. Following a year of activism during International Women’s Year in 1975, she was asked to join the cabinet and hold the newly created national-level post of Minister for Women’s Affairs—the second woman in the world to hold that position after Françoise Giroux of France and the first in the

Muslim world. Using her new position, she helped create legislation that advanced and combined the achievements of the family laws of 1967. At the time of the revolution, Mrs. Afkhami was in

New York negotiating the terms of the contract for the establishment of United Nations

International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) in

Iran. The revolutionary government confiscated her house, her papers, her pictures, and mementos. The Ayatollahs put her on the death list, charging her with “corruption on earth and warring with God.”

She wrote a book, Women in Exile, on the lives of twelve women from different regions and different socio-political, cultural, and religious backgrounds who were forced to leave their country. She later joined the advisory board of the women’s division of Human Rights Watch.

She helped build the Sisterhood Is Global Institute, which she served for over ten years as vice- president, executive director, and president. The manuals she co-authored on human rights Ahmad 7 education, “Claiming Our Rights: A Manual for Women’s Human Rights Education in Muslim

Societies and Safe and Secure: Eliminating Violence Against Women and Girls in Muslim

Societies”, use culture friendly materials and dialogue-based methodologies. When her term at

Sisterhood is Global Institute was completed in 2000, supported by colleagues and friends, Mrs.

Afkhami founded a new organization– Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development, and Peace (WLP). In 2001, she co-authored “Leading to Choices: A Leadership Training

Handbook for Women”. This handbook being used as a tool to bring awareness of individual human rights, the importance of believing in the individual’s capacity to impact his or her environment, and the need to work with others to change life conditions for oneself, one’s family, and community. In 2002, Mahnaz published an anthology of articles entitled “Toward a

Compassionate Society”, which addresses issues of conflict resolution and peace building. Her books Faith and Freedom, Muslim Women and the Politics of Participation, In the Eye of the

Storm, and Women and the Law in Iran address the social forces that bind rights, freedom, and gender equality with politics, religion, and culture. Mrs. Afkhami currently lives with her husband in Bethesda, Maryland.

Ahmad 8

The Dawn of Freedom: Women’s Rights in Iran

During the time of her execution, Farrokhroo Parsay, the first female cabinet minister of the Iranian government, wrote a letter to her children. She wrote, “I’m a doctor. I know what it means to die, that it takes only a minute. I’m not afraid of that. What I’m afraid of is to be pressured into denying 50 years of service to women” (Afkhami : Executed but not Forgotten 2).

Farrokhroo Parsay died shortly thereafter in 1980 at the period of time when the women’s rights movement in Iran was coming to a halt due to the people in power. The women’s rights movement in Iran began around 1905 and has gone through many periods of progression and digression within the last 100 years. In the beginning of the movement, women worked to establish organizations and newspapers but as time went on, their influence began to grow and change. Soon, women began to participate in international conferences and become members of

Parliament. By the 1960’s to the 1970’s, women were finally able to achieve many different political rights but many were soon lost to the establishment of the Islamic Republic. To comprehend the women’s rights movement in Iran, especially during the Islamic Revolution, one must examine the period of 1905-1941, events that took place during 1942-1965, and lastly look at what occurred during the 1966-1983 timeframe. It is also necessary to consider the external influences of Iran during the 1800s which serve as a backdrop for the Iranian women’s movement.

During the 19th century, Iran began to become heavily influenced by European power and society since European forces, advisors, and goods began to infiltrate the country and alter the mindset of Iranian ideology. As a result, a Constitutional Revolution within Iran began to create a sense of order. As Iranians became more exposed to European ideals and customs, educated Ahmad 9 men and women began to recognize the oppressive conditions of women and acknowledged that their own societal practices were in need of revision. Constitutionalists like Mirza Aqa Khan

Kermani, Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi, Mirza Malkum Khan and Mirza Fath Ali Akhundzadeh wrote about women’s right to education and the ills of polygamy and seclusion. Similar ideals about such topics were also raised through Qurrat al-Ain (Tahereh) which was a part of the Babi movement that flourished during the mid- 19th century.1 As this was taking place, women became involved in organized political movements for the first time when food riots occurred.

These protests concerned the opposition to the Reuter concession of 1872, and the Tobacco

Protest (1891–1892). The Tobacco Protest was the first organized political opposition by Iranian merchants, intellectuals, and clergy to the Qajar dynasty and foreign domination of the Iranian economy (Mahdi 427-428).

These protests signaled the change that the Iranian people had undergone and sowed the seeds of the Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911). In her account of the Women’s Organization of Iran, Mahnaz Afkhami summarizes the life of an Iranian woman and the reasoning behind their desire to achieve equal rights by writing, “The life of the Iranian woman at the turn of the twentieth century was a maze of regulations and limitations meant to keep her cloistered existence beyond the reach of any but her immediate kin. As an infant, her birth brought disappointment to all, even the midwife who lost a gift coin that the birth of a boy would bring her…At the age of nine she was considered mature.” (Afkhami : An Introduction 2). In the midst

1 In May 1844, two men, Mullah Husayn and Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad met in the outskirts of the southern Iranian city of Shiraz. The former was a religious leader of high standing and the latter was a 24-year old merchant with notions of himself as the bab (meaning gate) who would usher in a new cycle of prophecy, and maybe even the end of the world. Mullah Husayn was so impressed by him that he became his first disciple. The Bab won thousands of followers and in 1848 they proclaimed their total break with Islam. By July 1850, when the Bab was executed by government firing squad, a new religion had been born. Before long, the Babis themselves split, with the majority going on to become Baha'is. (Amanat 1)

Ahmad 10 of the Constitutional Revolution, women begin to become actively involved the political process and work to obtain more tangible rights. Their political activities ranged from circulating information, participating in demonstrations, and going as far as taking up arms in protest.

Although the revolution established a constitution and a parliament, it still denied the suffrage to women along with minors, the mentally ill, and criminals. Instead, women were told to limit their education and training strictly to the topics of raising children, home economics, and preserving the honor of the family.

As a result, the Women’s Freedom Society was founded in 1907 and included 60 female members, including Sedigheh Dowlatabadi and Taj ol-Saltaneh, the daughter of Naser od-Din

Shah (Noshiravani : Era of Modernization 1). Shortly afterward, the organization began holding meetings at which men and women discussed politics and social issues. After only meeting a couple of times, the Women's Freedom Society barely escaped a mob attack when news of its activities reached conservative clerics in the bazaar. Furthermore, students and teachers of girls' schools were harassed and attacked on the streets, and several schools were shut down within weeks of opening (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center 3). However, the new Shah of Iran,

Muhammad ‘Ali on Sha’ban, ratified some supplementary laws on October 7, 1907. In Article 8 of those revisions, it states, “The people of the Persian Empire are to enjoy equal rights before the Law” (Iran’s 1906 Constitution 6). In 1911, a representative from Hamedan2, proposed a bill in Majles that would grant women the right to vote and establish their own associations. But the religious leaders disagreed with these notions since they believed such rights to be contrary to

Islam. Two major figures opposing women’s liberation at this time were religious figures

2 Hamedan is the capital city of Hamadan Province of Iran. Hamedan is believed to be among the oldest Iranian cities and one of the oldest in the world. Ahmad 11

Shaykh Fazlullah Nuri and Seyyed Ali Shushtari, believing that schooling for girls was disadvantageous to women’s status and against religious principles (Mahdi 428).

Starting in 1910-1932, the women’s rights movement in Iran can be viewed as an era of advancement with the growth of women’s associations and publications. At this time, women founded a number of organizations and published many weekly or monthly magazines focusing on issues specifically related to the conditions of women’s lives. Some of these publications included Daanesh (Knowledge), Jahaan-e Zanaan, Shekoufeh, Zabaan-e Zanaan (Women’s

Voice), Zanaan-e Iran, and Naameh Baanouvaan. In the mid-1930s, there were 14 women’s magazines discussing women’s rights, education and veiling. Amid these early developments, the movement continued to be dependent on the supportive efforts of influential male intellectuals. By means of their writings and offices, these intellectuals promoted education for girls, freedom of women from seclusion, and the abolition of polygamy (Mahdi 429).

As Reza Shah began to rise to power during the 1920’s, the women’s right’s movement in Iran began to slow down due to the restraints of a newly emerging dictatorship. Being another patrimonial despot, Reza Shah had no tolerance for any independent and non-conforming organizations, let alone anti-patriarchal women’s groups. While he did favor some changes in women’s rights, he encouraged women to stop focusing on political demands and instead, concentrate on educational and welfare activities. The persistent opposition to women’s activities by the ulama3 and the government forced many women’s organizations into closing to the point that in 1932, Reza Shah banned the last independent women organization, Jamiat-e Nesvaan- eVatankhaah-e Iran (The Patriotic Women’s League of Iran) which was nominally headed by his own daughter (Mahdi 430).

3 The body of Mullahs (Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law) who are the interpreters of Islam's sciences and doctrines and laws and the chief guarantors of continuity in the spiritual and intellectual history of the Islamic community. Ahmad 12

The state then established vocational and secondary schools for girls and began to admit women to Tehran University in 1936. Reza Shah never outlawed polygamy or temporary marriage, and women were not granted voting rights during his reign. But he did encourage and later order unveiling4. During 1936, Reza Shah ordered kashf-i hejab, a policy that required women to unveil. He had ordered urban men, other than clerics and theology students, to adopt

Western dress in 1928. These policies were created to force Iranians to behave in what were considered modern Western ways. Women were beaten for wearing veils, shops were prohibited from selling goods to veiled women, and buses as well as baths were forbidden to provide services to veiled women (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center 4).

This new law proved to be a difficult transition for many women in Iran due to their own religious values and fear of being assaulted by religious zealots. The policy was not popular and its forceful implementation remains a stigma on Reza Shah’s reign. During a 2010 oral history project, Shahla Sadeghi was interviewed on this topic and asked how she felt about the legislation that Reza Shah put into place. She argued, “What he did culturally forcefully was wrong. Some people didn’t like it. Because anything by force is not appreciated. It should be a woman’s judgment. It should not be up to some man leader” (Sadeghi 23). Nevertheless, its effect as a mark of freedom and equality took root and many women remained unveiled after

Reza Shah’s abdication and exile. In 1937, The Marriage Act of Iran was added to the Civil

Code of Iran and eased the ulama’s hold on the family by making it a requirement to register marriages, divorces, and deaths in state notary offices. Furthermore, it outlined punishments for

4 Traditionally, when outside the home, urban Iranian women wore chadors-a loose-fitting dark colored cloth that was held by hand at the chin and covered the entire body. Complete coverage was achieved by the addition of the rubandeh (long face-covering similar to a burqa) worn by Muslim and Jewish women. Actual veiling practices were diverse throughout Iran. For example, rural and tribal women often wore colorful and loose apparel that allowed them to carry out their chores, and poor urban women often wore a loose chador without a rubandeh (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center 4). Ahmad 13 those who failed to observe the minimum age of 15 for women to marry (Noshiravani: Era of

Modernization 3).

As World War II began, the women’s rights movement in Iran began a new chapter. The country became occupied by the Allied Forces and Reza Shah was forcibly abdicated from the throne in 1941 and was soon succeeded by his son, Mohammad Reza Shah. These events weakened the government and created the opportunity for the development of political parties and organizations. Once again, several new women’s organizations emerged, of which the following were the most influential: Tashkilaat-e Zanaan- e Iran (The Organization of Iranian

Women), Hezb-e Zanaan (Women’s Party), and Jamiat-e Zanaan (Women’s League). There were also political parties that were associated with these organizations such as the

Sazmaane Demokraatike Zanaan (Women’s Democratic Organization) of Tudeh Party, Nehzate

Zanaane Pishro (Women’s Progressive Movement) of Society of Iranian Socialists, and

Komiteh-ye Zanaan (Women’s Committee) of Nation’s Party of Iran (Hezbe Mellat).

Women’s calls for freedom, education, the abolition of polygamy and the veil received enthusiastic support from intellectual men such as Mohammad Hejazi, Sadeq Hedayat, Ali

Dashti, Mahmood Beh-Azin, Ahmad Sadeq, and Bozorg Alavi (Mahdi 431). This affiliation with various political parties, in addition to their independence from the government, was the women’s organizations’ most important feature during this time period. The Women’s League, which was associated with the communist Tudeh Party, was the most organized with branches in many major cities. In this process the Tudeh Party had a significant impact by enlisting young women from student and other social groups at different organizational positions. Tudeh publications pointed to commonly held prejudices against women and assured a bright future under socialism, but the process was hindered by the systematic and persistent demotion of Ahmad 14 women’s social, economic, and political rights to the demands and priorities of ideology

(Afkhami : An Introduction 3). Women again became active in the national struggle against foreign forces and were even involved in the political events of 1945 in Azarbaijan. A new development in this period was the participation of younger females in the student movement in universities. Many women joined student organizations and took part in repeated demonstrations related with political events in this period.

During the 1950s, the number of educated women had increased and they were becoming more and more aware of women’s progress in other countries. In 1951, two influential women,

Mehrangiz Daulatshahi and Safeyeh Firouz, met Mohammad Reza Shah and appealed to him for electoral rights. In 1952, various women’s organizations again sent petitions to Prime Minister

Mohammad Mossadeq, the Majles, and the United Nations demanding equal political and economic rights, especially enfranchisement. In all cases, these demands were met with silence in fear of opposition by the ulama. After the CIA-engineered coup d’etat of 1953, the young

Shah began to assert his power more aggressively. He eliminated all oppositional and independent political parties and organizations. Since most of the women’s organizations in the

1940s were attached to various political parties, they became subject to elimination by default.

However, women’s organizations controlled by the central government continued to live and influence the nature and direction of women’s activities in the following three decades (Mahdi

431).

During this period, the government centralized women’s organizations, unified their leadership, and de-politicized their demands. From this time, the women’s rights movement entered an institutionalized and legitimate sphere of activity in which demands were still made to the authorities, but in these instances women’s organizations did not make demands that could Ahmad 15 not or would not be met; their activities were quite harmonious with the government’s stance.

However, during 1956, the central committee of the Women’s League of Supporters of the

Declaration of Human Rights met with Mohammad Reza Shah (Afkhami : An Introduction 3).

“The Shah, who was impressed with their request for political rights, promised three seats in the municipal council. Immediately a delegation of over eighty mullahs warned His Majesty against taking any favorable action for the women, saying ‘if you act, you may not be here to carry out the action.’ The Shah did not act.” (Afkhami : An Introduction 3). Following many different endeavors to unite the women’s movement and various experiments in establishing a federation of women’s organizations, women leaders began to seek high-placed support in their efforts to gain such a franchise. In the end, these leaders went to Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, the Shah’s twin sister to ask for her support in the movement. In response, she created a fifty member organizing committee to prepare the articles of association for a new federal body called the High Council of Women’s Organization in Iran. The High council came into being formally in 1959 with a membership of seventeen organizations interested in women’s issues (Afkhami: An Introduction

3).

Although a lot of progress and improvements had been made, women in Iran were still without some basic legal, social, and political rights during the 1960s. They could not work or travel without their husband’s written permission. They could not begin divorce proceedings except in extreme cases of the husband’s illness, insanity, imprisonment, or desertion. Women could not become guardians of their children even after the father’s death since a paternal grandfather or uncle preceded the mother. They could not serve as judges or become career diplomats. Furthermore, women were not able to transfer their citizenship to their children. In fact, their citizenship went into jeopardy if they married a non-Iranian. They could only inherit Ahmad 16 half as much as their brother had received from their father’s estate and from a husband, a woman could only inherit one-fourth if there weren’t any children and only one-eighth if there were children. Furthermore, their husband could divorce them with or without their knowledge by stating a simple, autonomous statement and they could be faced with the possibility of a second, third, or fourth wife in their home at any moment (Afkhami : An Introduction 3).

During the 1960s, it had become easier for women to organize and to communicate their concerns and ideas (Afkhami: An Introduction 4). Women were more organized and politically vocal, capable of lobbying the Shah, the government, and the more moderate members of the clergy. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s six-point reform program included a revision of the electoral law to grant women the right to vote was approved by national referendum on January

26, 1963. However, it should be noted that granting the right to vote was not that monumental since “neither men’s nor women’s vote had any impact in the context of the Shah’s monarchy.

Many female activists were imprisoned and tortured” (Bahramitash 558).

This change caused some members of the clergy, including Ayatollah Khomeini, to react violently and lead a series of uprisings in Tehran and Qom. Ayatollah Khomeini was later exiled to Turkey following the bloody clashes between the Shah’s army and demonstrators. Soon, six women were elected to the Majlis and one woman, Hajar Tarbiat, to the senate. This brought about further encouragement and optimism among the movement. Moreover, the reforms were followed by an important change in the composition of the cabinet. Younger, more educated men and women assumed leadership positions in ministries related to social, cultural, and economic changes. These changes affected the relationship between women activists and government leaders. In the past, the government’s initial reaction to women’s demands had been negative and Ahmad 17 guarded. Although they were still cautious, they became more positive and began to cooperate with the women’s organizations.

The rapid growth of the movement and the expansion of the organizational ability of the High

Council of Women’s various associated groups in the next few years caused a reorganization of the umbrella body to be made.

In 1966, the High Council of Women took the initiative of holding an election of a 5,000 member assembly of women representatives from all regions of the country. The assembly, held in Tehran on November 19, 1966, soon approved of a charter that created the Women’s

Organization of Iran (Afkhami: An Introduction 4). The organization lasted until the Pahlavi reign ended in 1978. The organization established branches in major cities with numerous smaller health and charity offices under its guidance. These organizations were merged into the government establishment and were basically involved in charity, health, and educational activities. The only political demand these organizations made was that of women’s suffrage — a right granted to women by the government in 1962 in the face of opposition by the ulama.

Women’s political activities, like those of men, were banned and violators were punished with harassment, imprisonment, and even execution.

From 1966 to 1977, women’s organizations and associations, as they were officially acknowledged and openly in existence, became apolitical, charitable, educational, and professional units under the watchful eye of the state. However, the state remained the major source for change in the status of women. Access to education and work outside of the home was made easier for women, despite the lack of any serious efforts to create job opportunities for them. In 1967, the Shah expanded his White Revolution programs to allow female graduates to serve in education and health corps (Mahdi 432). A Family Protection Law was passed that set Ahmad 18 tougher conditions for polygamy, raised the age of marriage for girls to 18 and to 20, and allowed both men and women to ask the courts for a divorce.

Furthermore, the courts would grant custody of the child to the parent that they believed would provide the best environment for the child to grow up in. The courts also determined the amount of child support payments. In terms of limiting polygamy, a man could now only marry a second wife by permission of the courts and obtaining the express consent of the first wife. It also became necessary to give a valid reason to the courts in order to gain this permission.

Additionally, the wife was also given the option to obtain a divorce from her husband should he take a second wife. As a result, polygamy was regulated by the permission of the first wife and by the order of the court, under specific guidelines (Khorasani 1).

In 1975, Mahnaz Afkhami became Iran’s first minister of state for women’s affairs.

Although these changes that resulted from the Family Protection Law were important, the appointments of female ministers remained mostly symbolic overall. Further emphasizing this point, The Passport Law which required women to obtain their husband’s permission before traveling abroad took effect during 1976 (Noshiravani: Era of Modernization 5). Although some progress had been made during this period, many men and government officials that were still power treated women as second-class citizens. In 1977, the Family Protection Law was modified to ease previous penalties against abortion, and provide free abortions on demand if the woman was single, but if she was married, she still needed the permission of her husband (Noshiravani:

Era of Modernization 4).

In the last 20 years of the Pahlavi reign, the number of women in managerial positions in the government never exceeded 2.8 percent (the same has been the case in the past two decades in the Islamic Republic) (Mahdi 433).The developments that occurred during the final years of Ahmad 19 the Pahlavi reign, took place in an atmosphere of contradictions between women’s freedom and patrimonial repression. The women had executive positions in a government that still possessed a male-dominated culture which prohibited them from independent thought, especially on political thought or political activities. These executive positions that women held came with restrictions on social freedom and political docility. Although at the end of the Pahlavi era, 333 women were in local councils and there were 24 in the two houses of parliament, but there were also 323 female political prisoners serving time (Mahdi 433).

As the anti-Shah sentiment grew in Iran, women in Iran once again became a force of change for the movement. Aware of their influence and power in numbers, religious activists worked closely with Ayatollah Khomeini to plan out methods to attract the religious women who had always been in support of their ideologies but had remained in their homes. The ulama implemented religious themes and rituals that focused primarily on two women, Fatima Zahra

(the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter) and Zaynab Kobra (the Prophet Muhammad’s grand- daughter) to arouse these women to go to the demonstrations against the Shah. Another motive for women to protest against the Shah had to with the SAVAK who “continued to torture feminists activists and repressed any feminist organization not associated with those created by the state, Khomeini tempered the reactionary position he had taken in the 1960s vis-à-vis the role of women and began to appeal equally to men and women” (Bahramitash 558).

The younger, secular, unveiled Iranian women, upon seeing the substantial amount of women protesting against the Shah, began to wear the chador (veil) not only in opposition to the

Shah’s Westernized regime, but also in camaraderie with women’s demonstrations. It is important to note that women of all classes participated in these protests. Some young women actually engaged with armed conflict with police and military forces while the older women Ahmad 20 usually chose to offer the young female demonstrators support and protection against the police brutality.

The older women were also generally a part of various underground political organizations like the Organization of Iranian People’s Fedayee Guerrillas and the Iranian

People’s mujahedin Organization, both of which were established during the 1970’s. The

Women’s Organization of Iran was abolished during the Iranian Revolution as its Secretary

General, Mahnaz Afkhami went into exile. However, there were several new women’s organizations that were established and a few old ones that re-emerged. These included the

National Union of Women, the Committee for Solidarity of Women, the Organization of Iranian

Women, the Women’s Populace of Iran, women’s branch of National Democratic Front, the

Association of Women Lawyers, the Women’s Society of Islamic Revolution, and the Muslim

Women’s Movement. The latter two, along with a number of small but influential other associations affiliated with the Islamic Republic Party and other Islamic charities, represented

Muslim women loyal to the Islamic revolution and the newly established Islamic Republic.

As soon as it began apparent that the ulama were in complete control, they started to create the building blocks for an Islamic Republic and soon after, they began to limit women’s rights.

Ayatollah Khomeini demanded the abolition of the Family Protection Act, commanded the implementation Sharia laws in the country, and issued a decree demanding women dress

“properly.”

There were numerous boundaries that were created to divide men and women in society:

“males and females were separated in higher education classes that were once coed, females students were barred from 69 different fields of study, women were banned from some professions such as the judiciary and singing groups, and female students were barred from Ahmad 21 certain disciplines in the universities, such as engineering and agriculture. A decree dismissed all women judges and barred female students from law schools. Women were forbidden to participate in some sports and not allowed to watch men in sports fields (Mahdi 434).”

Furthermore, the new Sharia laws provided men with the unconditional ability to divorce their wives without having to produce any justification. Child custody laws were also altered in favor of men. Once they were divorced, women could only keep their boys up to the age of two and girls until they turned seven. As soon as they surpassed these guidelines, the father had the right to full custody. Legislation was also passed in 1983 called the Qesas (the Bill of

Retributions) which “assigns 74 lashes to women who fail to observe veiling rules and lowers the official value of a woman to half that of a man, including in adultery cases that involve death sentences” (Noshiravani: The Islamic Republic 2).

These were not the only instances of women being subjected to discrimination and abuse.

A women’s judgment as evidence in court was declared to be worth half as much as a man’s.

Blood money for a murdered woman was set to be half that of a man5. If a murdered woman’s family demanded retribution in kind, her relatives would be obliged to pay the killer’s family the full blood money in compensation (Mahdi 434). Knowing the dangers of implications that

Ayatollah Khomeini and other religious leaders had made, women took to the streets of Iran in protest. Two reporters from the New York Times described the protests and marches that the women took place in. Gregory Jaynes, one of the reporters, wrote on March 10, 1979, “At the largest demonstration today, 15,000 protesters took over the Palace of Justice for a three-hour sit in. A list of eight demands was read. They included the right to choose the attire that best suited women and the country’s customs; equal rights with men; no discrimination in political, social

5 Blood money is compensation paid by an offender (usually a murderer) or his kin group to the kin group of the victim. In many societies, blood money is used to prevent the continuation of hostilities between families. Some customs allow the injured party the choice of punishing the murder by blood vengeance or by blood money. Ahmad 22 and economic rights, and a guarantee of full security for women’s legal rights and liberties”

(Jaynes 1).

The following day, reporter Youssef Ibrahim described the continuing protests going on in Iran, “The confrontation between Islamic leaders under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and their secular opponents grew more intense today around the issue of women’s rights. The violence that met a protest by women yesterday against the Ayatollah’s call for all women to wear the veil-as well as the vehemence of the protest itself-took the Government by surprise and brought several conciliatory statements today from the Iranian authorities and from religious leaders” (Ibrahim 1). During 1978-1979, women’s organizations pressed for equal wages, the right to choose their own dress, the revival of protective measures in the previous Family

Protection Act, and the right to work in legal professions. The regime, however, opposed all of these demands and created counter-strategies to separate the women’s movement and counteract their efforts. Next, the regime begin to overpower the women’s movement, eradicate all women’s organizations, force women into the chador, segregate women in public places such as universities, schools, and government offices, and reduce women’s presence in public life by firing and retiring practices.

Secular women who opposed the veil or the Islamic Republic were fired from their jobs, while the active participation of religious women in supportive and “female” occupations was encouraged (Mahdi 435). However, there are some who point out that the rate of female employment actually increased when the Islamic Republic was established (Bahramitash 555). It had been due to the differences among the social classes; “many low-income families in either urban or rural areas relied heavily on the income that women brought in, and a change of state ideology or dress code could not force these women out of their jobs as easily as it did for the Ahmad 23 other classes. In addition, certain industries could not survive without high female participation”

(Bahramitash 559). The Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example of a government that assumes complete control of women’s legal, social and political rights under the guise of religion.

Following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran fundamentally changed into another country. Based on articles and laws that are in place in country, women’s rights have become very much limited from this point forward. A statement that Bahramitash agrees with, stating

“Muslim traditions can and, in many cases, do have a negative impact if they are translated into law and practice in a conservative way” (Bahramitash 552). The Islamic Republic of Iran proves that when religion becomes a part of the government, women’s rights will become limited.

Unfortunately, for the past thirty years following the regime change, the women of Iran remain as second-class citizens and live in a very much male-dominated world without any public women activists inside Iran who can fight for their rights. The men who hold high positions of power within the government do not want to have women to have equal rights not only because they believe that they are above them but because having more people (i.e. women) involved in government would mean that they would have less power as a result.

As recently as 2009, the women’s rights movement was revived and women began to take to the streets to protest in favor of equal rights but due to the police and military forces within Iran, the demonstrations quickly came to an end. But in August of 2012, 36 Iranian universities announced that women will be barred from certain fields of study in the upcoming academic year. Seventy-seven programs ranging from English language and literature to political science to engineering will now be open only to men. Many universities have also replaced the

“Women’s Studies” program with “Women’s Rights in Islam.” Under the new laws, it is Ahmad 24 expected that women’s enrollment will drop below 50% (Nobel Women’s Initiative 6). Until action is taken against such measures, women’s rights in Iran will continue to be limited to such a point that their rights will be the equivalent of a woman growing up in Biblical times.

Ahmad 25

Interview Transcription Interviewer/Narrator: Catherine Ahmad Interviewee: Mahnaz Afkhami Location: Women’s Learning Partnership, Bethesda, MD Date: December 12, 2012 This interview was reviewed and edited by Catherine Ahmad

Catherine Ahmad: This is Catherine Ahmad and I am interviewing Mahnaz Afkhami as part of the American Century Oral History project. This interview took place on December 12, 2012 at

4:15 in Bethesda, Maryland. Let’s try this too (turns on other recording device). Alright. Can you tell me about a favorite childhood memory?

Mahnaz Afkhami: (recording device is moved forward) The earliest childhood memory that I have is of my brother and I lying down in beds across the room and our nanny, Nanny Fatima, sitting down to tell us the stories of Amir Arsalan. Amir Arsalan was a prince, and he was a very feisty prince. He had a lot of adventures and met a lot of princesses and fought a lot of thieves or evil people and it was sort of like watching, many years later, watching a television series. Every night we could hardly wait until the next night and hear the next adventure. That was really a very sweet part of the day and it was a great adventure. We learned a lot from Nanny Fatima and her version of the stories, because at the end of every story, every night, she would always begin with, “it was a long, long time ago…” and she would always end with “and the moral of the story is…” (both laugh) and it would go on to the next night. We learned a lot about at least

Nanny Fatima’s version of the moral of the story (both laugh). That comes to my mind immediately.

Ahmad 26

CA: When you were growing up, you were surrounded by many powerful and brave women on your mother’s side. Your grandmother left her husband to become a seamstress and your mother left your father and moved to the US with her three children, and was able to raise them and attend college at the same time. How did this affect you and your opinions of women as a young adult?

MA: My grandmother and mother and even actually going before her, my great-grandmother; they were all very strong and independent-minded women and very vocal in expressing their opinions and very obsessive about their independence which is sort of unusual with the image we now have of people in the Middle East. This was a small town we lived, in Kerman which is the southern part of Iran, and it is a desert city and a small city at that time, it was a town actually. I learned a lot from them. I learned that they wouldn’t compromise with their ideals and they wouldn’t be pushed around and they wouldn’t let others make decisions for them and if it were a choice that involved some hardship or some price that was rather high, they nevertheless would pay for it. For instance, when my grandmother decided to leave her husband, she had to start a business on her own. She was one of the first people to be an independent, single mother business woman. It was difficult but very soon she had about 35 people working for her and she was very successful. But of course it’s difficult to raise a child and have a business of your own and be responsible for people you employed as well. But she took the chance, she did the hard work, and she succeeded. My mother also was one of the first women who went to university in

Tehran but in her 2nd year, she met my father and they fell in love and she left college came to

Kerman with my father. My father had a life which was sort of a feudal kind of life, he owned farms and he was very religious. The family really was absentee landlords. They had a lot of Ahmad 27 people working for them. People lived in estates next to each other. A lot of children, a lot of goings on, a lot of parties. She really didn’t take to that kind of life. She wanted something more serious, she wanted to be more independent, she wanted to finish her college education. When I was eleven, she separated from my father and came to Tehran and then left for the United States.

She went to San Francisco and then she had us go there and join her. Here again, she didn’t have much money. She was going to school and working at the same time. Going from that kind of a background that was sort of aristocratic and very well-off and then suddenly plunging down to almost poverty level. Working in the canning factory, in the cannery, it was difficult. But she actually succeeded in getting her degree. She got a good job. Then, each of us went to school and finished college and graduate school. Then, I went back to Iran but she stayed in America. The influence of these women and the choices they made and the values that they aspired to had a big effect on me. Of course I must say that my father also always thought I ought to have a higher education. At that time in Iran, everybody aspired that their children would be either engineers or doctors (both laugh).

CA: It doesn’t change. (both laugh)

MA: You could either be an engineer or a doctor. I was supposed to be a doctor. I didn’t do so well in these fields. I wasn’t that interested in science and so I couldn’t say no to what was intended for me. I decided to go maybe into a shorter period of study of medicine and I thought about being a dentist. There was this gentleman who had been in school with my mother at the

University in Tehran and he had stayed in touch and had been a friend of my mother’s and was sort of like my godfather. I had communicated with him and told that was what I wanted to and Ahmad 28 he said, “Are you crazy? You have literary ambitions and you always had an interest in writing.

When you were a kid, you were writing stories and so forth and so why don’t you just study literature?” This sort of freed me because this was an older person, he was almost a father figure who was saying that it’s ok not to be an engineer or a doctor so I chose to study literature. Of course in later years, it has both helped me and not. Of course in the professions that I have chosen, I could have used a little bit more economics and finance (both laugh). But actually literature in some ways is very helpful because it helps you put yourself in other people’s place because you imagine other people’s lives as you see them in stories, novels, poetry. In some ways it helps communication, which is always important when you are doing public work and when you are doing management or that kind of thing. That’s how my early education developed.

CA: You mentioned this before, once you took a teaching job at the National University and soon thereafter became the chair of the Department of English and would go on to found the

University Women’s Association. As a result, you established a connection with the Women’s

Organization of Iran. Looking back, how did you feel about this period of your life?

MA: It was a very exciting period because I was a very young woman then. I was just 27 and I was teaching English Literature at the National University in Iran. The students were pretty good by the time they got to me in language. They were studying literature from the same books that I taught with as a teaching assistant at the University of Colorado where I getting into graduate school and they just read less. They didn’t read as much as the American students but almost ¾ as much and they understood and they were very interesting. But the thing that was fascinating to Ahmad 29 me was that the way a poem is seen by someone in one culture has quite a different feel to people in another culture. That the interpretations are quite different, depending on what allusions come to your mind, what images bring another images and so forth. It was always very fascinating to see. For instance, Dylan Thomas, read a few lines and the American students would thinking of some ideas and what it means and the Iranian students would be thinking of an entirely different

(laughs) set of connections. But the thing that was even more fascinating to me was in the prose, in the stories, when we read stories about women who would make these decisions, who decide whom marry and who decide what to do with their lives and so forth, move on place to another, and they traveled, and whatever. Here were women who didn’t have those many options and they were constrained on their movement, on their decision making, on dealing with the opposite sex, and so forth. Very soon dialogue started with these students as to how do you have some of these freedoms and the same level of independence without losing your cultural views, without losing your ties to Iran, your family, your ties with your friends, your ties with your traditions, and so forth. That became a basic theme around which we worked with the students with whom we had started the University Women’s Association. This became basically a conversation about modernity and about tradition. We asked people to come and speak about to us about modern poems and about new poetry and about old poetry. We had people talk to us about music. The new music which was so different, and the classical, ancient music. We talked about all aspects, even religion. We once asked a religious leader to come and talk about some of these rules that you talk about. For instance, in terms of Muslim prayers, you are not allowed to have nail polish or any kind of covering over your face, your lips, or your fingernails. Lips and face is easy but one girl said “Okay, if I remove my nail polish every day to do prayers, it tends to discourage me.” (both laugh) “Would you say that it is better to pray with my nail polish on or not to pray at Ahmad 30 all?” I was shocked when the religious leader said it is better not to pray at all because it doesn’t count if you have your nail polish. It seems so ridiculous to me and to some of the students. But in any case, it was a way of sort of obeying the letter of the law so far as the religion was concerned and instead of the spirit of it which was an entirely different thing and values, what was important, what is not to relate and how do you relate to religion because we almost unanimously agreed that God would not agree with this cleric (both laugh). God would much rather we pray and speak to Him whether we had nail polish or not. At any rate, these things that

I am mentioning to you, that these tension between modernity and tradition. The tension between religious practice and this very rigid format or understanding the spirit of the religion and interpreting it for yourself. The tension between what you want to get from other cultures but how do you relate that with your own roots. You don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is some really good stuff in your own culture that you should hang on to. Maybe other people will also value it. There are also some other good things in other cultures that you can possibly when it’s possible, when it fits your surrounding. This became a theme of our work.

Of course, years later when the revolution happened and I came outside and I starting working internationally, a lot of my work was in developing countries in what we called the “global south”; Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It still is the same. We are still talking about how to adapt universal principles of rights with implementation which is cultural specific, which means it fits the local culture. Actually, it’s amazing and we find that out constantly as we go on because we meet regularly. We work with 20 foreign organizations in foreign regions and we meet at least once a year, sometimes twice a year to review our programs together and so forth.

It’s amazing how from everywhere, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe to Brazil and Lebanon and

Jordan and Kyrgyzstan, that they are very different visual and the surface of it, customs and Ahmad 31 traditions are different but the essence of human relationships and challenges, especially with regards to gender, are so similar. That throughout these countries, and also throughout their history, women have somehow been placed in almost exactly the same position, which is complementary to men and women have been in the private space and men in the public space.

Now, the ways of limiting that movement of women has been different. In some places, they have veiled women, in some places, like in China, they have foot-binding, in some places, they even go further and they have female genital mutilation. Some places, they have veiling that covers women top to toe. But it is all meant in terms separation of space. Of course, we come to these conclusions in our conversations, it is all give and take, it’s not because men have been bad and they have been bothering women. It’s because the way a human situation was at the particular time, some women were having children constantly. They were either pregnant or they were feeding their children or they were raising them and taking care of them. Sometimes women had nine or ten children or so many of them that they even died. The movement outside of their home was very much limited. Someone had to take care of this piece and someone had to go out and have [Interview interrupted by telephone call made by Layla Najjar] Is this ok?

CA: I am so sorry. I have no idea why. She’s a friend of mine. I don’t know why she calling me right now. This is why you don’t use phones. (both laugh) [buzzing continues] Oh my god.

MA: Don’t worry about it.

Ahmad 32

CA: Ok. Let me just make sure that it is still recording. I think it stopped recording, hold on.

(plays recording device) Ok, it had recorded the first part. I was worried that it was lost. (both laugh) That would have been annoying. Sorry about that.

MA: It’s ok. Basically, I was saying that the arrangement of duty and spaces between men and women was due mostly to the conditions of the times. Women were basically in one place and men were in another and the duties fit the possibilities. When we had the pill and people could control their child-rearing and the number of children and the spacing of them, especially when more freedom was possible for women and also when a lot of stuff got taken care of so that physical power was not all that important. Whether it is was preparation of food or whether it was moving from one place to another, or whether it was even war, no longer was it important to have physical strength which most women were less strong than most men. Then, there began to be a sharing of responsibilities inside and outside. The fortunate part of it was also that men got to take of children, they got to cooking, they got to do a lot of things that women only had the possibility to do, some of which were really wonderful stuff that we got to do that men didn’t get to do. All I am saying is that we learned why things had been got to be one way in the past and are getting to be different in the present and we also learned that the challenges across the world are very similar, even though they sometimes appear to be very different, essentially they are the same challenges. The strategies to change these can be similar but they always have to be adapted to the language, the culture, and become internalized in a way that is natural to people around the world. These are lessons that I learned from my students early in life and it has served across time in the work that I do in other countries and in other places.

Ahmad 33

CA: In a previous oral history interview, Shahla Sadeghi, an Iranian commented on the policy of

“unveiling” that Reza Shah put into pace. She said, “What he did culturally forcefully was wrong. Some people didn’t like it. Because anything by force is not appreciated. It should be a women’s judgement. It should not be up to some man leader” (Sadeghi 23). What is your reaction to this opinion?

MA: I think that this piece of it is absolutely true. You don’t want to force anybody to veil or unveil. However, Reza Shah served the women of Iran extraordinarily well because it was not just the veiling. It was the fact he started almost everything that you could almost think of in terms of major modern elements, from railroads, to banking, to universities. These were all things that he brought to Iran and the university especially, the University of Tehran, which he opened, was extremely important and from the very beginning, women were allowed to enter the university. He sent people outside to study and to learn from other cultures and societies. Science and the various fields of study and come back to Iran and serve their country. Women were among the first that he actually sent outside. He served the women a lot. It wasn’t as if he forced women to do that. The fact was that even before he actually had the decree, there were a lot of women who had already started unveiling. Among them, Sedigheh Dowlatabadi who had gone outside to an international conference and had come back without the veil. Things sometimes because of the Iranian revolution, a lot of things have sort of been a revision of history and some things have been blown out of proportion. Ataturk did the same thing in Turkey and of course, it continues to today by force which is something that our partners in Turkey are very much against. They are right. There’s no reason why a parliamentarian who has been elected and wears a scarf, cannot go to the Parliament. Of course, there are limits to these things and the way that they do things. But Reza Shah served Iranian women a great deal and helped a great deal. Of the Ahmad 34 women that he helped send to Europe, the first group, are the same women who came back and became leaders of the various areas of public service, both in the Parliament and at the university and in other areas. Even though it’s not the best choice to force people to unveil, I think that at the time when something like 97% of Iranian women were illiterate and the clerics were very backward and opposed every step. For instance, as simple, like the Taliban now, as simple as sending a girl to school to read and write, even that was considered encouraging corruption. You needed that to confront that kind of domination and strength and power. You needed someone to back up the women. Very few who did have ideas of freedom and ideas of participation. They needed some kind of support. Of course, he went too far in this area but you mustn’t forgot how much he actually served not only women but the entire nation.

CA: I also wanted to ask you, Ali Akbar Mahdi, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University, wrote about the women’s rights movement in Iran. During the mid-1970’s when women were being appointed to executive positions in the government, he stated, “While important, these appointments were symbolic and minuscule in their scope. In the last 20 years of the Pahlavi reign, the number of women in managerial positions in the government never passed 2.8 percent

(the same has been the case in the past two decades in the Islamic Republic). All these developments took place in an atmosphere of contradictions between women’s freedom and patrimonial repression” (Mahdi 433). What is your reaction to this statement?

MA: I think again there are a lot of comparisons that don’t make sense. For instance, in this country for most of the 20th century, we had about the same percentages of women in Parliament, in congress. Women had not moved from the 19th century into the 20th century, it means that it Ahmad 35 takes time for people to move forward. Right now, I think we had something like 14 senators, there are more now. There are 100 senators, less than 20-

CA: In Iran?

MA: Here in the United States. That doesn’t mean it’s always symbolic and a token. Nobody can tell you that Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi is tokens. They are of course a very small minority but that doesn’t mean that they are tokens. The same thing applies to Iran. We had 22 women in parliament at the time of the Revolution. We had women who were governors; we had women in every area of activity. From engineering to entrepreneurial work of various sorts, to science, to everything like that. I myself was a top token that you can have (both laugh). I was the only woman in a cabinet of 20 men. But by heavens, it was a very important thing to be. Not only because I learned because I was very ambivalent when I first joined the cabinet. I was extremely ambivalent because this was 1974 to the end of 1975. Most of my colleagues in the women’s movement, not only in Iran, but everywhere else, in the United States, in Europe, everywhere, they thought that the women’s movement was a resistance movement. That you were supposed to stay independent, that you were supposed to be outside, and you were supposed to shout and yell and demonstrate, and remain pure and change stuff and some didn’t. Sweds, for instance, decided that that was not going to work and that they had to be inside in order to make changes.

They focused on political participation and political participation is a difficult field because you have to negotiate, you have to compromise, you have to learn that there is this ideal, but there are also these people who don’t agree with that ideal and at some point, you have to learn how to compromise. You have to learn how to be leaders and how to be managers. The Sweds have Ahmad 36 almost been equal for many decades while the Americans and some of the others who went the other root and are still struggling and are just coming to the conclusion. Now, I had went in with the same attitude. Is this the right thing? My goodness, is it the wrong thing? Then I learned that it is absolutely the right thing because if you are not at the table, if you are not speaking to people as peers, not as somebody who is whining and asking and crying or objecting. Now, I do not want to undervalue the struggle. The struggle is very important too if it’s done strongly and if it’s not done as a victim-kind of situation but from a position of strength with conviction and good organization. That has its place but then it doesn’t replace being at the table, being in powerful positions, speaking to decision-makers as peers and being able to negotiate. Of course, the other thing is, the little girls who see you on television, the little girls seeing you standing up and making decisions and giving orders to others. They go, “Yeah, tomorrow, I’m going to be like that” which makes a huge amount of difference and then it makes everybody understand that

“yes, it can be done.” That there’s nothing weird about that, that some women can do these things. So, I am all for tokens. But that doesn’t mean you have to stay a token, you have to get more and more in there. But right now, for instance, the work that we are doing in Women’s

Learning Partnership, we are thinking now that we have learned these things and now that we are on our way and now that in many countries, this has been accepted more or less. This is because of the whiners, and the criers, and the victims that I was just sort of speaking of a little critically, it is because of that. They have done a lot in terms of raising consciousness. Now that we have done that, now is not the time to go for 50/50, we don’t want that necessarily, we are not completely satisfied with being 50% of these structures. We want different kinds of structures, kinder, gentler, more compassionate, more efficient, and less corrupt structures. Not only are we wanting to have equal opportunities with men but we want to form a different vision of how Ahmad 37 systems should work and how our worlds should look because we look around and our world is a pretty big mess. We are excellent in terms of all of the technological, scientific advances that have been made but we could do away with everything; with all of the diseases and with all of the poverty and with all of the environmental issues in the world but we don’t because we can’t make decisions because we engage in all sorts of conflicting interactions and we don’t know how to make decisions where the good of all is a goal for us. Anyway, 50-50 plus is what we are looking for and I think what Dr. Mahdi is saying that is on one hand true, but on the other hand, is not taking into account what has gone into that and what goes into change so that you can have a woman be a minister or a woman be a governor or a woman be a professor at the University or a surgeon or a pilot. All of this will have to come just about 30 or 40 years after the time when you weren’t even allowed to have a girl in grammar school learning how to read or write.

Historical context is very important and to compare that with 30 years later with the Islamic

Republic is also quite inappropriate because 30 years before, you have to see what was going on in other countries. Compare the year 1980 with the year 2013. Women were somewhere else.

Women running for president of the United States and almost winning would have been impossible to contemplate in the 1980s in the United States and elsewhere as well. Thirty years had made a lot of difference and Iran unfortunately has been completely paralyzed for thirty years because of having a theocracy of fundamentals taking away all of the women’s rights.

CA: I know you were the Secretary General of the Women’s Organization of Iran, once you decided to become involved with the organization and gender reform, many of your friends and colleagues warned you that the system would not allow you to function independently or achieve a great deal. How did you react to these comments? Ahmad 38

MA: It scared me. (both laugh) Here I was, somebody who had studied literature and here I had taught at the University and I had a good position and the university professors were very admired in Iran and anyway, people were supposed to learned and were very admired and so it was a cushy job. You had a few hours to work and a good reputation and a pretty good salary. I wanted to take on something that was very complicated with a lot of forces. Almost everybody was against the women’s movement. The men in general didn’t take it seriously. The religious people, conservative people which were the majority of the society didn’t see eye to eye with the women’s movement. The women themselves had different ideas and views about what needs to be done and so forth. There weren’t that make well-educated and skilled women who were ready to take on the positions in the government or elsewhere. It was a complicated situation and the

Women’s Organization was headed by Princess Ashraf, who was the twin sister of the Shah, and so it did had that kind of weighting over it. It was very helpful in terms of getting some areas of opposition more careful about opposing. But overall, the leftist organizations especially, and the oppositions to the regime were very dismissive of the organizations so it was scary to take that on. But at the same time, I thought, here was an opportunity, an opportunity to do something.

One of the things that really made a difference to me was that I went one day to open an account for my son at the branch at the bank nearby the University and they told me that I couldn’t open an account with my own salary without my husband’s permission and without him actually opening the account and I couldn’t put in the money, women couldn’t do that. It seems so extraordinarily unfair to me. It’s my money, it’s my son, and I couldn’t open an account for my son. I was becoming aware of all these discrepancies, all these issues that women were facing and I thought that if there is a chance, if one could go something about this, why not? I also Ahmad 39 wanted to have the opportunity to the notice came in at my office at the University that the

Minister of Education was giving a speech so I went down to the place that she was speaking, this was the first woman minister, Mrs. Parsay and I was very impressed with her. She was a teacher and she was a doctor and she was a very impressive woman and she was talking about the condition of women and what the difficulties were and that also impacted me a lot. I thought

I would try it and if it doesn’t work, I’m at the University but if it does work and if there is the possibility of it working and to do something, why not? Of course, I had had that experience with my women students and the small (?destroyed?) that we had started with them which had brought me closer to them, and brought me to ideas about gender, and about women.

CA: I actually have a question based on that. After you were appointed Secretary General of the

Women’s Organization of Iran, women activists like Farrokhru Parsay and Hajar Tarbiyat offered you guidance and support as you adjusted to your new position. Can you tell me a little more about that experience in your life?

MA: One of the things that was very touching for me was that when I first took on the position of the Secretary General, the Women’s Organization was very young still and with my new job and I really was sort of still I was learning a lot about how to do these things and pretty serious business. There was a lot of complicated and nuanced kind of decision making. Ms. Parsay who was minister at that time, was very powerful woman and very important woman, came to visit with me to pay a courtesy call, which was so sweet of her anyway to come and visit me and congratulate me. There I was able to talk to her about some of the things concerning women and

I thought that she maybe could help. One of the things was on the question of veiling. Veiling Ahmad 40 was on one hand not significant at all because it’s a person’s dress but it is also a very important thing because it symbolizes a woman as something that has to be hidden because there is nothing in Islam, there is nothing in the Koran that says women should cover themselves. It is only the patriarchal attitude men have about women and they only see women as their property. Their behavior and their appearance being part of their sense of honor. In that sense, it is a very important thing because unless you are free to be yourself physically and reveal yourself in every other way outside in a public space. What are you talking about? It’s not possible to be who you want to be. I was talking to her about veiling because at that time, during like the Reza Shah period, people did whatever they wanted to. They wore the chador or they didn’t. They wore the chador as they pleased. But a lot people in the smaller towns, in the rural areas and lower income areas, they did wear it. Some of the women wore it not because they were dying to wear the chador, especially the younger women, because there was a lot of pressure on them from family, from parents, from neighbors, and so forth. A lot of teachers had told us that they would rather not do that especially inside the school where there are a lot of girls. They were staying that if they gave a directive from the ministry, they would have something that they would say to their families and so forth. I asked if she could do this and at that time, she wasn’t ready to accept that.

But she said let’s talk about it and so forth. The other thing that I asked her about was if the schoolbooks could change so that the image that they gave women would not be that the woman was always causing trouble and the man solving the problem. There were pictures of a little girl throwing the ball up in the tree and the little boy going up and bringing the ball back down. (both laugh) The man coming home with the briefcase from work and the woman with the apron on in the kitchen. It was always reinforced the separation of roles of women. The private sector for the women and the public sector for the men. I was thinking that we should really do something Ahmad 41 about this and change this because a little girl who sees the woman only in the house and only with an apron on and only cooking. She is not going to have the possibilities that might be open to her and have the aspirations to be something else. These were the ideas and she said and I remember exactly what she said, “I’ll do what I can but you have to remember my dear that I am not the Minister of Women, I’m the minister of Education which actually very interesting because it reminded me at that point that, “Hmm.. why not? Maybe a ministry of women would not be that bad to have (both laugh).

CA: That’s true.

MA: That would be her job. Anyways, that was part of our conversation.

CA: She would have been very good and so would have you. (both laugh) Can you tell me more about the Women’s Organization of Iran and some of its accomplishments during its establishment such as the Family Protection Law?

MA: Of course the family laws in the Muslim-majority countries were the most important as far as women are concerned because everything regarding women is in those laws. It is interesting that in a lot of those countries, they have modernized laws and constitutions. They have laws about commerce and institutions, about international affairs, science, wherever. But when it comes to women, they stick to religious law and family law is always based on some aspect of

Sharia law and the problem is that whether you can have a job, whether you can have any control over your child’s life or future, whether you can have guardianship of the child if the father dies, Ahmad 42 whether you can have inheritance, what the inheritance portion would be for a woman, or whether you can be married without somebody else’s permission or whether you can get divorced. All of this has to do with family laws and they are the hardest things to change. It took a long time to change these laws and we had a lot of advice from all sorts of groups and we negotiated with judges, with the ministry of justice, and it was an ongoing process. The pioneers of the process were before me, there were Senator Manuchehrian and Congresswoman

Dowlatshahi who had done two different versions of the family laws. Manuchehrian’s was more radial and Dowlatshahi’s was more sort of middle of the road and finally, Dowlatshahi’s version passed the Majles. When I became the Secretary General, we became ready for the revision of those laws. I, of course, thought that the revision made a lot of difference because the previous law still had polygamy in it. We did away with polygamy except in exceptional circumstances like when a woman was very ill or couldn’t have children and with the permission of the first wife and there would be grounds for divorce by the first wife if she did not want to deal with it.

Polygamy was almost eliminated, women could hold guardianship of their children and a lot of all the stuff like a woman not being able to hold a job that her husband did not approve of was done away with. It was a very progressive law compared to the Muslim-majority societies. Even today, all these years later, three years ago, our partners in Morocco were able to pass a very progressive family law. Even now, the family law that passed at that time is still more progressive than some thirty years later than the one that the Moroccans were able to pass and I had been talking about time, how much more possible things are when you have had time to follow these various ideas and strategies. The other things we were able to do by passing flexi time, which is a concept that is very new nowadays in America. But in the 1970’s, it was something that was considered here. What it was if a woman had children younger than 3 years Ahmad 43 in age, they could work part-time and have full-time benefits and they could also have flexible hours. It causes different difficulties for the system of course. But the idea was if you are going to have the employment of women, and if you are going to have women in the position where they don’t have to leave their work, their jobs, and then stay home and raise children and then come at some later time and lose all of their seniority and all of their opportunities. If you want to give equal opportunities to women, society has to support the initiative. It takes a village as it was said. You can’t just have that burden be taken solely by women. We were able to do flexi time for women and work with full-time benefits and childcare on the premises so that the woman would have to leave her child at the child care center in the city and picking him at the end of the day. That it would be on the premises of the workplace. All of that was very helpful to improve employment. The most important thing that we had, we were also very active internationally with the United Nations because we thought that external pressure is very important. Of course, nowadays, it is not as significant because nowadays the United Nation has been weakened a lot and at the same time, there are actors now who aren’t governments but they are fundamentalists and very conservative and anti-women’s rights. The situation has changed so governments are not as responsive to pressure from the United Nations but at that time, the countries of the region, Middle East and North Africa, wanted to give the impression that they are pro-women’s rights and pro-human rights. If they did stuff or if they had things on their laws which were not supportive of women’s rights or humans’ rights, they would be embarrassed.

They wanted to fix it somehow which is very much different from now. People like the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt or people like the Islamic Republic of Iran, they take pride in not have equality for women. They think that that’s the way to be so they are not ashamed of inequality.

The Iranians never say equality; they always say complementarity. Even the Tunisians and the Ahmad 44

Egyptians who had had equality as an aspiration now they have lost that too. Now the Tunisian constitution that talks about complementarity and Egypt is going to be even worse. What I am saying is that we did this work with the United Nations, both strengthening the United Nations because there was three things that Iran did during that period which was very important. We started the SCAPS Center which was for women in research and development which is in the

Asia Pacific, Iran is geographically part of the area with the Asia Pacific. We actually donated funding to the United Nations so that we would make sure that we would have that center set up by the United Nations in Tehran. We also suggested and the general assembly accepted the setting up of INSTRAW, the International Overview, and the center for research and development training for development. INSTRAW was supposed to come to Iran and it was approved and actually the institution of INSTRAW was actually what saved my life because I came to the United States in order to sign the contract for INSTRAW and I took a little longer to go back. Otherwise, I would have been arrested and I would have been like Mrs. Parsay, my colleague. INSTRAW was other thing that we set up and at the 1980 conference, the UN conference, was supposed to be in Tehran and the world plan of action for women in development was something that we, the Iranian delegation, had prepared a draft for. At the

Mexican conference, the first United Nations conference on women and it passed the general assembly. It was sent to the various governments to do their own National Plan of Action and it redid the National Plan of Action and reproduced that plan of action by putting together all the demands of the women from across Iran. From economic, environmental, and educational standards, in jobs, possibility skills building, legal reform, and all of these various areas. Then, we made the plan of action and we had all of these various local counsels study it and give their feedback. We had various branches of the women’s organizations, through some 700 meetings Ahmad 45 across Iran to study and mostly just for (buying) and other for ideas. Our plan of action was a model as far as the United Nations was concerned. One of the things that it did was that it actually made my position one of the instruments of implementation. That is, the prime minister was supposed to head a committee of twelve ministers who were actually supposed to make sure that the resources and the programs of their ministry includes ideas about the inclusion of women and the participation of women. These were the ministries such as labor, agriculture, rule development, planner organization, health organization, and labor, and so forth. The prime minister headed the ministers’ meeting and then every month, I, on his behalf, had a meeting with the senior deputy minister to make sure that we are on the right track and that women are being integrated. This was an extraordinary step, it had never been done anywhere even since.

The only place that has done this is the United States and the presidency in interagency council during President Clinton and now again being revived during President Obama. That the difference between what we had and what is here is that we had, in effect, authority because we did have the deputy ministers and the deputy was coordinators of women. We had the authority to report to the cabinet and make changes. The interagency council is more a coordinating body that an implementing body. It doesn’t have the kind of implementation possibilities that ours had.

This shows a commitment by the government by that to this particular program. It’s not to say that that government of twenty men was awfully feminist or that the Shah, the main head of the country, was in any way a feminist. It was just that the country was committed to development, it was committed to change, and it was committed to science and to modernity. It was possible to say that there was nothing modern about half of the population not having opportunities for education or there’s nothing possible if half the population does not have the skills to take part in the building and the development of the country. That argument could easily be made. If you are Ahmad 46 talking to a country that does not believe that the goal of the country is to pursue development, and progress, and science, and modernity, then what are you going to argue. You think that God wants women to be in the home and wants men to be out there so there’s no lobbying opportunity. That’s why in the last thirty years, nothing has passed in terms of support for women. Almost nothing whatsoever.

CA: After Khomeini came into power, he abolished the Family Protection Law, which was a piece of legislation that had been put in place to secure women’s rights. Soon after, women were barred from different fields of study, were no longer allowed to become judges, and were banned from law schools, and forced women to dress “properly’ by wearing the hijab. As you watched these events unfold, how did you react?

MA: As you know, it’s on one hand, it’s extremely painful. It was like a shattering of your world because I had traveled every part of Iran. I had sat with women across these various towns and villages. We had discussed issues. There had been so much energy, so much hope, and so much change, and so much excitement. This feeling that was you could get whatever you wanted if you worked hard enough and if you believed it hard enough and if you worked together and if you weren’t petty and if you weren’t competitive amongst yourselves that it could be done. Then, all of a sudden, in a very short time, everything that you worked for completely became null and void. It was extraordinarily painful but part of the thing that made it bearable, I suppose this is what happens. There was so much that you feared and so much that you had to worry about that it all sort of became like a hazy thing that moved and we had to make every tale out of it. For instance, my husband was in Iran and I was outside. I had no money. My son was outside with Ahmad 47 me. What are we going to do? Everything that I owned was inside. They confiscated whatever that we owned, not only just the house or the property, it was the things that give your life meaning. All of the mementoes, all of the photographs, or the little gift that President Sadat, for instance, had given me to give to my son. All of these little things that make life and your past part of your present. All of that, and every day, friends would be killed, or the newspapers would have pictures of, let’s say, Prime Minister Hoveyda, who was really a nice, kind, eloquent man.

Other colleagues who were just ordinary public servants who had been working so hard. Their bodies were all over the paper. Then, my husband was in hiding inside Iran. Would he be able to get away? Would he be able to survive? There’s a lot of these things going on as well the dismantling of the all of things that not only me, I’m a small part of it. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked for decades to bring about. It’s not me. All of that is extremely painful. But then, you see that the first group who stands up and demonstrates while they are being knifed and they are being stoned and whatever. The first group that went in and said down with Khomeini were women. He came back in February and on March 8th, all of the women were out. The first group. I don’t know how it took men to be able to get their act together. But the women were out there. In a way, it showed that the work was not in vain. They were there, they were strong, they were conscious, they knew how to show their opposition. They knew how to take care of themselves. Of course, when you are being treated so aggressively, it’s not easy. But the thing is there and you see it even though the legal status of women has gone down to the lowest in the world, except for Saudi Arabia and Sudan, I would say. But from being one of the best in the developing world. In spite of that, the women are doing so much. They are making films, they are writing books, they starting businesses, and the things that doesn’t not have to do with the government. They are doing it. It shows how much energy, creativity, and consciousness has Ahmad 48 been imparted and has taken shape. I have no doubt that as soon as there is a possibility for change, Iran would be way head because they have the background, they have the know-how, they have the skills, and they really will go ahead. Sure it’s both extremely painful but at the same time, I don’t think that it has all been in vain by any means.

CA: During the 2009 Presidential Election, many watched as Iranian women took to the streets to protest the regime that was in place. As these events unfolded, how did you feel and do you believe that this is a sign of hope in terms of women reclaiming and improving upon their rights in Iran?

MA: I defiantly feel that the Iranian women are. I feel that my work with the Women’s Learning

Partnership, we create these curriculums that are adapted to many different languages and traditions and of course, we had Persian. We brought a group of women in 2005 to Thailand and our partners willingly took place also in the Association of Women’s Conference. We had these partners from these twenty countries out there and I thought it would be a good idea to bring some Iranians up there and it was during Khatami that there was possibility. We had representatives, heads of organizations, come to Thailand for a week and we gave them training about some of the things that others had been learning, how to organize, how to create networks, how to use the ICTs to get your message out, how to do coalitions and negotiations, and all of these things. When they went back in Iran in 2005, they did workshops and it was really cute because sometimes they couldn’t do some of the things that they could do in other countries’ freely. For instance, to have an argument and we would do a fishbowl exercise where two people would argue two sides of an issue and then there would be a larger group commenting on that Ahmad 49 and taking sides and sort of negotiating those issues. They couldn’t have workshops. What they told us that, through safe emailing communication, what they were telling us what they were doing was that at the bus stop, two would start arguing and acting out this fishbowl thing and then all of a sudden the people waiting for the bus were participating and making comments and taking this side or taking the other side. The police came back and they were taking sides and they were participating in this exercise (laughs). They did it in their own way, whatever they could. Some formal workshops and some informal ones. We were proud to have some of these main organizations being part of the creation of the One Million Signatures campaign which was not only giving shape to the heart of the women’s movement but also in bringing in men because this was 30% of the population bringing in one million signatures campaign, which was one million signatures that they were trying to give back for the reform of family laws that they had lost but they did faces to face neighborhood meetings, they went to places where women gathered like hairdressers, restaurants, and they tried to explain why these laws had to be changed and they tried to get signatures. But it wasn’t to get one million signatures; it was actually to get people aware. It was actually to make one million protesters, not just one million signatures. They had a great role in mobilizing for that. If you look at the films of the Green

Movement at that time, you will see that the women were just all over the place. Even if you compare it with Tahrir Square, for instance, it is not comparable. Tahrir Square hardly shows a woman even though the media was searching for a woman and going to every woman that they found. If you look at the mass, there was a few hundred women, but if you look at mass, it is more than half the population. They were very good at simple platforms; they were very good at taking the platforms through all of the presidential candidates. They were very good at getting the presidential candidates to change their position. For instance, CEDA, the convention under Ahmad 50 the discrimination of nations against women, it was one of their demands. All of the candidates said absolutely not, that this was against their religion so they worked to convince them. Every one of them changed except for one, Ahmadinejad. They changed a 180 degrees and took the women’s position because they saw the women spare. It was something to be proud of, not because of the decades of work that had been done by the pioneers since the turn of the 20th century which at the back of all this. But also the recent work that we had done with them.

Against all odds, in Thailand, giving them the material that they needed to organizing and communicating with the others, with the Balkans, with the Lebanese, with the Jordanians, and be able to get ideas from them as well.

CA: Following the revolution, a different branch of Feminism rose in popularity. Do you believe that feminism and religion can be successfully combined and what were your thoughts concerning the use of Fatima Zahra and Zaynab Kobra as role models for women during this period?

MA: I think that in general, feminism is not a complement to or a sub-category of any other ideology. With the Marxist feminism, whatever feminism, or Jewish feminism or Muslim feminism or anything like that, feminism is feminism. Feminism basically has at the core of it the center of it, maybe simplistic even. At the core of it, an aspiration for equality between human beings and the inclusion of all human beings in decisions that effect their lives. It is not a subcategory of anything so you can’t put into the framework of some other ideology because once you do that, you have to take that ideology as the given and squeeze then this into it. It just doesn’t work. We think that in feminism, you can be a Muslim and a feminist of course. I am Ahmad 51 one. Or you can be a Catholic and a feminist. You can be a Marxist and a feminist. You can be a capitalist and a feminist. But feminism is not a sub-category of any of these categories. It is actually a way of, in effect, reducing or constricting feminism. It’s not a helpful category and we don’t use it at all. We think all religions have wonderful values, many of it is shared that women can use to their own benefit. But because there are ancient traditions associated with it, some of those ancient traditions do not work in our world. But different characteristics have to be altered.

Both men and women can understand the word of God, if they are believers, and the texts that they work with perfectly well. They do not need intermediaries. They don’t need other people to tell them what it is, especially since these people have such contradictory their views. I think

Islamic feminism is a contradiction in terms. But of course, they are great Muslim feminists and have been leaders. In terms of using figures of role models, it depends on how you define it.

Khadija, the prophet’s wife, is a great role model. She was a businesswoman, she was independent, she hired the prophet. The prophet worked for her. Also, she was the first Muslim.

She was the first person to believe in the prophet and believe in Islam and that I call a feminist.

(both laugh) That symbol is very useful. But to talk of who has died as a victim and completely passive. It depends on which women. A religious figure who was a role model like Khadija, why not? It is a great role model. It depends on how you use them, not to limit women, but expand their horizons.

CA: Just this past summer, it was announced that in 36 Iranian universities, women will be barred from certain fields of study in the upcoming academic year. Seventy-seven programs- from English language and literature to political science to engineering-are now open only to men. Many universities have also replaced the “Women’s Studies” program with “Women’s Ahmad 52

Rights in Islam”. Under the new laws, it is expected that women’s enrollment will drop below

50%. As a result, Shirin Ebadi, the noble peace prize laureate, wrote in a letter to the UN

Executive Director, “The feminist movement is one of the strongest civil rights movements in

Iran and it has witnessed a significant growth in the past two decades. The movement, which opposes discriminatory policies and laws, considers democratization of the government as the key to overcoming the problems. To achieve its goal, the women’s movement has been seeking alliances with other civil rights movements, such as students, workers, etc, in the past few years.”

Do you feel that the women’s movement in Iran has been making any progress since Khomeini came into power?

MA: I think that for one thing that the laws that you mentioned were the ones that were set up at the beginning of the revolution because at that time, the Islamic Republic was set up under the guardianship of the Ayatollah. When I went to Paris, this was supposed to be limiting women in the private space as much as possible. When they kicked out a lot of women out of the government service, when they closed 140 majors to women, they did everything possible. They segregated schools, they segregated all public places like cinemas, theaters, and anything like that, and even buses. They tried to do that but you just can’t do that to people who are seeing differently and being different and have a different consciousness. It’s absurd to them to do that.

They generally had to push back and generally, they had little by little push back and in some ways, they succeeded. During Khatami, things got a little bit better. But this is again going back to that because the idea is that women should not study these fields because once you study them, then you get jobs and that job takes you to offices where you have interactions with men or you have to travel for jobs so segregation would become more difficult. It does harm women a Ahmad 53 great deal and it does limit the possibilities a great deal. But the fact that women have been able to organize themselves and both in the private sphere, in terms of the non-governmental sphere, they have tried individually or in groups to be active and do important things are exceptional.

But what is a shame is that this extraordinary force, this extraordinary dynamism and talent and education is just not allowed to serve the country or serve the individual or serve the community.

It is just the most egregious damage to the national well-being that women are just limited at every turn, at every possibility and this government has always done this. The only time that something came about that gave a little bit of hope was when Khatami was there for a period and he tried to do one small thing. He tried to increase the age of marriage which had been 18, the minimum age of marriage, during the previous regime. It had dropped to 9 and actually 8 if you count the lunar calendar. He tried to bring the minimum age of marriage up from 9 to 13. Even that he did not succeed on because the Guardian Counsel said that it wasn’t Islamic. It is absurd the kind of things that laws exist. At every point, even if you are 40 or 50 years old, you can’t marry without some male giving you permission because you are technically a virgin and if you are a virgin, somebody- your father, your uncle, your brother, your cousin has to give you permission. If you want to go abroad to see or study or if you want to travel anywhere, somebody has to give you permission. It’s unbelievable how limiting it is.

CA: That’s sort of like the passport law that was happening around the late 1960’s and 1970’s.

MA: It’s basically a horrendous situation for women but given the circumstances, they may have done wonderfully well and have shown that once consciousness is erased, it cannot be undone.

Ahmad 54

CA: I actually have this picture of you. (Picture shown in Appendix 6) This is when you were at the 1975 UN meeting. I don’t know if-

MA: This was in March 1975 when sixteen countries were invited to work together for two weeks in New York to prepare for the first United Nations conference on women in Mexico City.

I was at that time representing Iran and we had already prepared the draft plan of action for the discussion which then changes came to the Mexico conference and then came to the general assembly and was approved. We did this round-about thing. We came to the UN and they basically approved with the changes and then the General Assembly and then it was given to the government of Iran and to go right ahead and now implement it. (both laugh) It was supported by the UN and at the time, we were the recipients of the order to implement, which then ended up with the plan that I mentioned to you and also the governmental backing that we got with the prime minister and two other ministers.

CA: I think you were also at the UN when the Islamic Revolution was taking place. When did you first receive word about what was going on and how did you react to that, especially given the fear that you had and you husband being in the country.

MA: Actually, during that period when I was at the UN we were sort of fiercely trying outside to see what could be done. At the same, we were negotiations with the UN, I was seeing what we could do with some others how we could do anything to help the situation. Of course, the propaganda was so extraordinary in the US because it was a time where the Confederation of

Iranian students who were leftists and who were very much influenced by the anti-Vietnam Ahmad 55 movement. They had wonderful, young people, my sister was one of them, but they were just completely unconnected to the reality of life in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and what the situation was like. But they were very earnestly passing on this view of Iran and of course, there were policy makers in America also who seemed to think that an Islamic Republic or an

Islamic kind of government or the green belt around the Soviet Union would be protected. They somehow thought that an Islamic government would be anti-Marxist, and therefore pro-US. I remember the first in Iran, I read this in Time Magazine about the policy of the green belt around the Soviet Union and I shuddered because it was oblivious. It’s the same thing that we see right now. We think that, for instance, that these guys who are fighting in Syria are the liberators or democrats. Assad is a dictator and it is a closed society but these guys when compared to

Saddam Hussein, and Assad are probably going be a nightmare, not only to that country but to those that surround it. You have to think exactly what kind of a country are you envisioning, what are the possibilities of getting that vision, and what is the buy-in from the population, and is the capabilities to produce that, and what does it take to be able to do that. Now, revolutions are not a nice thing. They have never been. Look at what the French Revolution brought about, the

Russian Revolution- I don’t know why they glamorize so much because they brought so much death and destruction and misery and it could so long for those countries to get to where they were before. Anyway, it was very difficult during that period in New York to be able to do anything that would be meaningful. But we tried. Then, of course, once my work was finished, I was planning on going back to Iran but then my husband called me and told me that I better not come back. The Shah was still in power but the Queen had spoken with him and he had said that

I was planning on going back and he was among the group of young people who were advising the Queen on her projects and she had said that she better not back right now. I knew that if she Ahmad 56 is saying that, that means that they are going to arrest me when I go back. It was the same thing that happened to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Parsay, who were later captured by the revolutionaries and then killed. It was a horrendous time, it was a very difficult time but actually, this is probably your last question, isn’t it?

CA: I might have one more. I am almost done.

MA: I was going to say that actually one of the ways that I sort of dealt with that question is that

I spoke with a number of women from other countries who had also gone through a number of these similar experiences and it was a very interesting thing for me to do because I learned a lot.

For one thing, I had stopped feeling sorry for myself (laughs) because compared to what they had gone through, in Vietnam and Cambodia and Soviet Union and elsewhere, my story was perfectly cushy (laughs). But also, the spirit that they had, the strength that they had and also, most importantly, for me, to realize what a blessing it was to be in the United States and it just takes you in and allows you to work hard, to achieve, to go after your dreams. They won’t hold it against you that you were born somewhere else. If you are willing to work hard and if you have an idea, you can do it. We were all blessed. These women, also that I interviewed, they all came here to this country and they made a life for themselves and made a life for their families because it could be done here. It was a wonderful thing and it is why I wanted going to give you this book that I wrote called “Women in Exile”.

CA: Thank you. I am looking forward to reading this. I actually had read the preface of this and just the very beginning. Ahmad 57

MA: Of this?

CA: Yes. It’s very well-written, especially since you have a degree in English. It’s just very beautiful.

MA: Thank you.

CA: I am looking forward to finish reading it. My final question is, in terms of, your sister trying to join the Confederation of Iranian students, which was involved in overthrowing the Shah.

What do you think convinced other women to believe in the words and ideologies of Khomeini so much so that they were willing to overthrow the regime that was in place? You could especially see that with very religious and devout women and started the movement because

Khomeini and other clerics and then, they stripped their rights away.

MA: My sister was 10 years old when she came here and she only went to Iran once, back in the summer and just for a couple of weeks. She did not know very much about Iran and it was some sort of dream, some sort of propaganda about what the country was really like and some dream about it could be like. She also told me once, that’s why I laughed at the vision, that she went back in, she gave a speech to the working people, the laborers, in the south of Iran, in the less advantaged part of Iran and they were lots of them listening. She gave a speech in front of a large crowd. It was full of Marxist jargon and she said, that after she finished, it was so foreign to them that one of people who were working for the people listening, turned around and said “Bye. Bye” Ahmad 58

because it seemed like an entirety foreign (both laugh) person and she was saying all of these things that did not make sense. She felt this distance. She was not really a religious person at all.

She was a Marxist. She and a lot of the young people were left. You have to realize that Iran had been under the influence of the Soviet Union for so long and we had miles of border with the

Soviet Union. Iran and the warm waters of the gulf were something that the Soviets dreamed of all of their lives. They had a huge influence and a lot of propaganda and their party had infiltrated the entire country. Most of the people who had were intellectuals, who were people who were opinion-makers, were very much with that ideology. What make Khomeini palpable in the West was people like my sister who were wonderful, articulate, idealists who were thinking about an Iran where anybody is equal and imaginary because if they paid attention to what the

Marxist countries were like, they would not have particularly wanted to duplicate it. But the idea of a Marxism and they thought that once the revolution happens, they go in and take over. They didn’t know that the religious people were at the base. The funny thing is, the government also thought that the danger was with the left because they were so afraid of the Soviet Union. They did not of religion as being the threat. Of course, all of the countries are more aware of that but ours was the first. It was the first religious revolution. Khomeini was the first. It was all a surprise to them because as soon as they went back, Khomeini at the beginning first said that everybody came back, that everybody is welcome, that it is a big town, as soon as they all went back and they knew the language of the West. They knew how to talk and how to make themselves. The matters of them demonstrating. They tied themselves in chains to the Statue of

Liberty and saying that we want to be free. It was very eye-catching and interesting and so forth.

This was the mistake that everybody made. No one thought that this would be the outcome, that this conflict. Everybody thought that something nice was going to happen. Of course, after they Ahmad 59 killed her husband, and she had to come, eight-months pregnant, over the mountains of Turkey on horse-back and came out. Then, of course, things began to change and she began to see how they were misled. Of course, she started working at the World Bank and later at the IMF, and she began to look at the world in a more global sense and she was the one who drew my attention to the fact that in the ‘70’s, almost 80% of the world was either authoritarian or dictatorial, Latin

America, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Soviet satellites and in the entire block there. Places like

Indonesia, and Singapore and Asia. In the ‘80’s, it began to change. In places like South Korea, it was some like Iran because it was pushing for industrial development for developing a big middle class before trying to decentralize and became politically more inclusive. Some succeeded when they went through that process and they all changed and became more democratic. But Iran just unfortunately hit a perfect storm of all these various influences happening at the same moment and then, a leader like Khomeini. If you didn’t have a Khomeini, there would not have been a revolution. All of this provides a good lesson for people in other places. Although, when I speak with my friends in Middle East who are all involved in these transitions, they all say, “Oh, we are not going to be like Iran. It’s going to be different.” (both laugh) The only reason you aren’t going to be like Iran is because you don’t have a Khomeini.

(both laugh) If you had a Khomeini, then you would be just like Iran because that’s how to happens. Anyway, I hope that they won’t become like Iran and that Iran will become something that it deserves to become.

CA: Is there anything else that we didn’t get to that you wanted to talk about?

Ahmad 60

MA: Well, your questions were excellent and you were very through and you have done a huge amount of research which I am very proud of because usually people come here and they say,

“Tell me about it”. (both laugh) You have done an excellent job and as one oral historian to another, I congratulate you.

CA: Thank you.

MA: Thank you. But if you think of something else that you want, I would be glad to do a follow-up but I think you have covered it all.

CA: Alright. Thanks. (begins to turn off recording devices)

Ahmad 61

Audio Time Indexing Log

Interviewer: Catherine Ahmad Interviewee: Mahnaz Afkhami Date of Interview: 12/12/12 Location of Interview: Bethesda, Maryland- Women’s Learning Partnership Format: MP3

Time Topic 5 Her mother’s education and personal life decisions

10 Differences between Iranian and American students went it came to literature

15 The difficulty of combining other cultures with your own

20 The challenges around the world are similar

25 Unveiling

30 Women being appointed to executive political positions in Iran prior to 1979

35 Her reaction to her friends warning her about being the Secretary General of WOI

40 Memories of Ms. Parsay, Minister of Education

45 Family laws in Muslim-majority countries

50 Society has to help provide equal opportunities for women

55 Iran’s National Plan of Action

60 Watching Khomeini hinder the women’s rights movement after the Revolution

65 Association of Women’s Conference

70 Feminism

75 The laws set up by the Islamic Republic that limited women’s rights

80 Being at the UN in 1975

85 Living in Exile

90 Marxism’s impact on the Revolution Ahmad 62

95 Closing remarks Analysis Paper

When Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Shirin Ebadi was asked about women’s rights, she once said that, “Whenever women protest and ask for their rights, they are silenced with the argument that the laws are justified under Islam. It is an unfounded argument. It is not Islam at fault, but rather the patriarchal culture that uses its own interpretations to justify whatever it wants (Nobel Women’s Initiative 1).” Through the oral history project, the student is able to learn about events that have impacted current events and policies. Without looking back at past occurrences that led up to a historical event, one would not be able to completely understand the importance of it. Furthermore, oral history allows different viewpoints and lesser known facts to come to light. In this way, future historians can better comprehend the decisions and actions of the people in the past. But it also allow for such historians to refute some stereotypes or misunderstandings that result from a lack of information. Overall, oral history allows us to not only better perceive the past but helps us comprehend the world that we find ourselves in.

Through this interview of Mahnaz Afkhami the oral history project, the work of women activists in Iran was highlighted and displayed. While all of their goals and hopes may have not been realized, it was a successful movement prior to the events following the Islamic Republic.

Topics discussed during the interview included feminism in Iran, the influence of Islam, and various laws that were passed during Mahnaz Afkhami’s tenure at the Women’s

Organization of Iran. Ms. Afkhami began the conversation by discussing women and Muslim prayer. When she worked for the University Women’s Association, a religious leader spoke to her students regarding the rules of prayer that prohibited the wearing of makeup or nail polish

(Afkhami Interview 29). When a female student asked him if it was better to pray with her nail Ahmad 63 polish on or not to pray at all, the cleric told her that it was better not to pray at all. From this event, she noted the “tension between modernity and tradition”, which was beginning to become a challenge for educated women to balance since they wanted to hold on to their culture, and not just some aspects of it.

As this sentiment began to grow, a conflict of gender roles began to arise. Women were placed in the “private” space while men remained in the “public” space (Afkhami Interview 31).

Mahnaz Afkhami tried to combat these attitudes in different ways. She met with the Minister of

Education, Mrs. Parsay, to discuss both veiling and images in schoolbooks. In terms of veiling, it was a symbol of being a man’s property and not being able to reveal yourself in a public place.

She wanted girls, especially in schools, to have the opportunity to be able to be independent so she asked if it would be possible to have a directive from the Ministry of Education that would allow women to unveil (Afkhami Interview 40). At the time, Mrs. Parsay could not do that.

Another aspect that she wanted to be altered was in regard to the schoolbooks. These books contained many different images that displayed the women as the trouble-makers, the ones who always needed to be helped, or doing housework. Afkhami knew that these images would shape how little girls would perceive themselves and their role in society. Mrs. Parsay told her that she would do what she could to make these changes possible but asked her to keep in mind that she was not the Minister of Women.

Later, as Secretary General of the Women’s Organization of Iran, Afkhami worked on the revision of the Family Protection Laws, focusing mostly on eliminating polygamy. They were able to revise the law so that it could only occur in the most exceptional circumstances and there would be the option of divorce as well. She also worked to establish flextime employment in Iran as well (Afkhami Interview 42). Realizing that working women may have children to take Ahmad 64 care of, she worked to establish flextime which allowed women to work with full-benefits and have childcare on the premise so that women did not have to drive all the way to the city and leave their children at the daycare center there.

Afkhami also worked with the United Nations to establish three different initiatives to bolster women’s rights. First, the SCAPS Center was established for women conducting research and development in the Asia Pacific, a region that Iran is a part of. Afkhami also worked to establish the creation of INSTAW, which was called the International Overview, and the Center for Research and Development Training, which was supposed to be established but was interrupted by the events of the revolution. Lastly, Afkhami worked with the United Nations worked to create the National Plan of Action that combined all of the demands of women throughout Iran. Their plan was considered a model by the United Nations’ standards at the time

(Afkhami Interview 44). Although Afkhami does point out that the Government of Iran was not particularly feminist, but that the country was “committed to change...and to modernity.”

However, once Khomeini came to power, all of the plans and work that Afkhami had done began to unravel, which made watching the events of the Islamic revolution all the more difficult. But she does note how women in Iran are still working to establish their rights either through publications and books, running businesses, or producing films. Furthermore, she worked with a group of Iranian women in Thailand during a 2005 conference to give them methods of working to establish their rights amid strong patrimonial repression (Afkhami Interview 48). Although the feminist movement in Iran has weakened since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, there is hope for the future.

Additional issues raised in the interview included the policy of unveiling, the power of women ministers, and the revision of the Family Protection Law. The unveiling policy was Ahmad 65 implemented during Reza Shah’s reign in 1936. It was very controversial due to the fact that no leader had ever banned women from wearing the veil before. “The ulama used the decree as proof that the women’s movement had no other aim than “making women naked” and “showing their bodies in public” — acts contrary to Islamic ethics” (Mahdi 430). However, the government’s persistence to implement the decree, even though the public and religious leaders did oppose it, persuaded many early feminists to support it (Mahdi 430). This policy also displayed the shift between modernity and tradition that Reza Shah was trying to establish. He worked to develop the country so that it would have the same customs, values, and systems in place as that of its Western counterparts. Afkhami noted this in her interview, “…Reza Shah served Iranian women a great deal and helped a great deal. Of the women that he helped send to

Europe, the first group, are the same women who came back and became leaders of the various areas of public service…(Afkhami Interview 33)” During the time of the Pahlavi reign, the leaders helped support women through their endeavors so that they could work to gain equal rights among society.

While Reza Shah did implement a significant amount of positive change to the country in terms of modernizing transportation, education, and laws, he was not a feminist in any way. He banned the last independent women organization, Jamiat-e Nesvaan-e Vatankhaah-e Iran (The

Patriotic Women’s League of Iran) which was nominally headed by his own daughter; he never outlawed polygamy or temporary marriage, and did not grant women the right to vote during his reign. Furthermore, when the policy of unveiling was issued, the methods that were used to implement the policy be implemented were extreme. Women were beaten for wearing veils, shops were prohibited from selling goods to veiling women, and buses as well as baths were forbidden to provide services to veiled women (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center 4). Ahmad 66

The policy had not been popular and remains a stigma on Reza Shah’s reign for its forceful application. However, there were many women who supported the policy of unveiling and did so without the decree of the Shah. Furthermore, the women’s rights movement was in its early stages when Reza Shah came into power. By the time his son succeeded him, the new Shah worked with women to help improve their rights more significantly. This can be seen with the granting women the right to vote, and once he allowed women to become members of the

Parliament, they were able to pass laws like the Family Protection Law, the legalization of abortion, and the virtual elimination of polygamy (Noshiravani: Era of Modernization 5).

Since Afkhami was the second appointed female minister in Iran, it was important to discuss the issue of the power of women ministers in Iran. During the late 1960’s, the government continued to increase the number of women in executive positions, enhance their opportunities in the public arena, and appoint women as judges — a practice condemned by Shia theologians. During the mid-1970’s when women were being appointed to executive positions,

Mahdi wrote, “While important, these appointments were symbolic and minuscule in their scope.

In the last 20 years of the Pahlavi reign, the number of women in managerial positions in the government never passed 2.8 percent (the same has been the case in the past two decades in the

Islamic Republic). All these developments took place in an atmosphere of contradictions between women’s freedom and patrimonial repression” (Mahdi 433). However, as Afkhami points out, “They are, of course a very small minority but that doesn’t mean that they are tokens…we had 22 women in parliament at the time of the Revolution. We had women who were governors; we had women in every area of activity…I was the only woman in a cabinet of

20 men (Afkhami Interview 35).” Although the women’s rights movement in Iran during the

1960s-1970s was not able to implement all of the goals that feminists wanted, it was during this Ahmad 67 time period that a vast amount of positive legislation for women was passed. Women were given the right to vote, the Family Protection Law passed, the legal age of marriage was raised, polygamy was almost completely eliminated, and abortion was made legal with the consent of the husband. Without women as ministers, or senators, or parliamentarians, it is unlikely that men would have adopted this legislation on their own. There were many instances in which women’s organizations tried to work with men in power but they did not work continually and aggressively to pass legislation for women’s rights because they did not recognize the importance of them as much as the women did. In 1963, the first groups of women are elected to

Parliament and bring about these measures within 15 years. This is not an easy task to accomplish. Women in the United States, for example, were granted the right to vote in 1919 but abortion was not made legal until 1973- a period of about 50 years. Although the changes in Iran were not long lasting, they displayed the emergence of women’s rights within Iran that would have continued had Khomeini not come into power. Furthermore, through the oral history project, Afkhami was able to emphasize the importance of women in executive political positions in Iran. Mandi did not take into account the amount of legislation passed with the work of such women ministers and also did not value of what was established but instead focused on the amount of women in Parliament which was impressive given the fact that it was during the

1960s and 1970s.

Lastly, the issue of the Family Protection Law was discussed and it was a piece of legislation that helped secure women’s rights. The Family Protection Law increased the minimum age of marriage for women to 18 and for men to 20. The right of divorce, which had been completely in control of the husband prior to this legislation, now allowed both men and women to ask the courts for divorce in a similar manner. Furthermore, in terms of child custody, Ahmad 68 the courts determined whether it would be more beneficial for the child to live with the father or the mother. In the Family Protection Law’s 1975 ratification, a man could no longer marry four wives and have a large number of temporary marriages. Now, a man could only marry a second wife only by permission of the courts and after obtaining the express consent of his first wife.

Concurrently, the wife was given the right to obtain a divorce from her husband in case he took a second wife.

Doreen Hinchcliffe wrote that the Family Protection Law was “one of the most important statutes to be enacted in the Islamic world (Hinchclifee 516)”. Afkhami, who worked to improve the law in 1975 said, “It was a very progressive law compared to Muslim-majority societies…Even now; the family law that passed at that time is still more progressive some thirty years later than the one that the Moroccans were able to pass… (Afkhami Interview 43)” The

Family Protection Law was one of the best pieces of legislation passed during this time period because it allowed women to have more control over their personal lives. Before, they did not have a say in their marriage. Their husbands could simply divorce them and gain custody of the children, leaving the women without a real support system in place and possibly without financial security. As a result of these laws being passed, women were able to have a voice without the fear of their husbands trying to intimidate them. This would have had a greater impact on society had the law been in place for a longer amount of time. If women were able to have an equal voice in their marriages, then they could no longer live in fear of being dominated by their husbands. Soon, men and women could treat each other as equals and the idea of women just living the private sphere and men in the public sphere would fade away. As a result, women would be free to choose the life that they wanted to live. Unfortunately, the law failed to make sure an impact due to its repulsion after the Islamic Republic was founded. Ahmad 69

Through the experience of the oral history project, I was able to learn about the women’s rights movement in Iran and their struggle for equality. Being of Iranian descent and a woman as well caused me to recognize how fortunate I am to be born in a world that allows me to vote, to get an education, and travel wherever I want without the written permission of a man. Studying this movement has also made me more conscious of women’s rights in Iran today. In 2009, when women took to the streets to protest the results of the presidential election, I did not fully comprehend its significance. By doing research and meeting with a woman activist who helped secure rights for women during her lifetime, I better understand feminism and the real-life struggle that still occurs for many different women throughout the world. Furthermore, I learned about the amount of work and effort that it takes to change a society’s viewpoint. One cannot just stand up and say that women are being mistreated, you have to convince people that the issue is worth fighting for, which can be hard to do when the majority of the people in the government are men and have not experienced the same kind of mistreatment. After meeting with Mahnaz

Afkhami, I better understand her frustration and pain over the revolution which caused the deaths not only of many of her friends and colleagues, but also the destruction of many years of work.

But her perseverance through that challenging time and her continuous work in women’s rights displays that there is hope for the future. Based on what I have learned about the strength, ability, and persistence of Iranian women, I have no doubt that one day that they will be able to receive rights worthy of Iranian women.

Ahmad 70

Appendix 1

A picture taken from a newspaper called Alam-i Zanan.

Ahmad 71

Appendix 2

A picture taken of Zaban-i Zanan (Women’s Tongue) which was the first women’s newspaper in Iran and was published by Sadigeh Dawlatabadi

Ahmad 72

Appendix 3

This picture is taken in Zan-i Ruz (Today's Woman) between 1978-79 that promised women a "third way" against the evils of both capitalism and communism. An ideal Islamic society could be formed if everyone joined the revolutionary movement and condemned the "infidel" and "imperialist" feminists.

Ahmad 73

Appendix 4

This cartoon was published by the Philadelphia Daily News and was created by Signe Wilkinson. Ahmad 74

Appendix 5

This political cartoon was created by Dana Summers and was published in Orlando Sentinel. Ahmad 75

Appendix 6

This is a picture of Mahnaz Afkhami during the 1975 UN Conference. This image was used during the interview.

Ahmad 76

Works Consulted

Afkhami, Mahnaz. "An Introduction to the Women's Organization of Iran."Foundation for Iranian Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. .

Afkhami, Mahnaz. "Executed but Not Forgotten: Iran's Farrokhroo Parsay". Interview by

Liane Hansen. National Public Radio. 23 Aug. 2009. Radio.

Afkhami, Mahnaz. Personal interview. 12 Dec. 2012.

Bahramitash, Roksana. "Islamic Fundamentalism and Women's Economic Role: The

Case of Iran." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. 4th ed. Vol. 16. N.p.:

Springer, 2003. 551-68. JSTOR. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Droksana%2Bbahramitash%26fromHomePage%3Dtru e%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff>.

Hinchcliffe, Doreen. "The Iranian Family Protection Act." The International and

Comparative Law Quarterly. 2nd ed. Vol. 17. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, n.d. 516-21.

JSTOR. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

.

Ibrahim, Youssef M. "Foes of Khomeini Focusing on the Issue of Women's Rights." New

York Times. N.p.: n.p., 1979. N. pag. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

P%3BPROD%3Bx-article- Ahmad 77 image%3B112871455&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%

3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-citation%3B112871455>.

Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

.

"Iran's 1906 Constitution." Foundation for Iranian Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

.

Jaynes, Gregory. "Iran Women March against Restraints on Dress and Rights." New

York Times. N.p.: n.p., 1979. N. pag. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

P%3BPROD%3Bx-article- image%3B112867507&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%

3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-citation%3B112867507>.

Khorasani, Noushin Ahmadi. "Reform and Regression: The Fate of the Family Protection

Law." Foundation for Iranian Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. .

Mahdi, Ali Akbar. "The Iranian Women's Movement: A Century Long Struggle." The

Muslim World. Vol. 94. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 427-48. Print.

Nobel Women's Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

. Ahmad 78

Nobel Women's Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

.

Noshiravani, Reyhaneh. "Iranian Women and the Islamic Republic: A Chronology."

Foundation for Iranian Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. .

- - -. "Iranian Women in the Era of Modernization: A Chronology." Foundation for

Iranian Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. .

Sadeghi, Shahla. Interview by Hannah Shahabi. 12 Dec. 2010.