About six months ago, James Howard Kunstler, the author of "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" was here in Spokane. He gave a lecture at Gonzaga University. The following is what I wrote after I had attended his lecture:
“It may be easy for people to misunderstand where I am coming from. I am certainly not a science writer per se. I’m a—really I consider myself a prose artist who went into journalism and then became a novel writer and then returned to journalism. My first eight books were novels, and then I re-embarked on a journalism career. And I wrote several books about the fiasco of suburbia, and where that came from was my experience as a young newspaper reporter in the ‘70s and I covered the OPEC oil embargo of 1973—right on the ground, and I watched the people fight on the gas lines while I was waiting on the lines. The whole spectacle made an impression on me, that this was a serious problem and probably a dress rehearsal for a much bigger problem later on. Although at the time I knew nothing about the scientific modeling that has come to be known by the name of its originator, Hubbert’s Peak. It was also obvious to me at the time that suburbia was a tremendous problem—an economic problem, an ecological problem, and a spiritual problem. And that it was connected, obviously, to the energy issue.” (From an interview with Robert Birnbaum on the online magazine, the Morning News[1], 24 August 2005)
American geophysicist King Hubbert predicted that the US oil production would peak between 1965 to 1970. U.S. oil production actually peaked in 1971. He also predicted that the global oil production would peak in the year 2000. This did not happen mainly due to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, which led to a temporary but effective reduction of dependence on fossil energy in the few years that followed. However, "fossil fuels currently supply most of the world’s energy, and are expected to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. While supplies are currently abundant, they won’t last forever. Oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries.” (The International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2004) This means that the global peak has already happened though not exactly in the year that Hubbert said it would.
It is based on these facts that Kunstler draws a grim perspective of the future that is awaiting the United States and the world. He predicts that unless a change in the way of life is attempted, Americans will not be able to sustain their present standard of living for much longer.
Although he had to leave his speech at SFCC rather incomplete due to time circumstances, he did make it clear that the current standard of life in the U.S. is not sustainable even if new sources of energy can be found before the world runs out of fossil energy. Oil is not only the source of the energy that is currently running our factories, lighting and warming our houses, and transporting merchandise and people from place to place, but it is also the basis of petrochemical industries without which industrial production, transportation, and construction of residential homes and businesses will be rendered impossible.
Solar energy, wind and tide wave energy, and even nuclear energy may be able to run our cars and light and warm our houses, but they will not give us the rubber that we use in our tires, or the plastic products that are used in almost everything that we find necessary for our way of life today.
Kunstler argues that either we have to urgently change our way of living by minimizing our dependency on oil and oil-based products, or soon witness the decline of our standard of living.
Kunstler’s seems to be strongly critical of the globalization process. He favors a trend towards localizing production and a belief that, with the gradual trend towards the scarcity of oil, it will be more and more difficult for communities to depend on merchandise that is imported from faraway places.
Kunstler blasts the urban structure of American communities and calls for the “deconstruction” of the suburbia. He argues that aside from being ugly and impractical, the suburbia puts a heavy strain on the community’s resources in terms of urban services such as utilities, waste management, transportation, etc. not to mention that this sort of urban sprawl forces the constant retreat of nature as people demand more and more residential space.
Kunstler strongly favors the introduction of public transportation – city and inter-city transportation - as a way of conserving in energy consumption and reducing pollution. In his SFCC speech, he compared public transportation in Europe to that of the U.S. He made the point that while Europeans have maintained and expanded their public transportation system, in the U.S. the trend has been the contrary: public transportation has systematically lost grounds to the ownership of automobiles.
Kunstler predicts that, at the present rate of fossil energy consumption, giant retailers such as Wal-Mart will not be able to remain in business much longer since it will become more and more costly to transport merchandise from remote places.
Deglobalization, localization, and deconstruction of the suburbia seem to be quite reasonable suggestions in the face of diminishing fossil energy reserves. What Kunstler seems to be leaving out of the argument is the type of political system that will be capable of putting these goals on its agenda. With the present political structure in the United States, I seriously doubt that Kunstler’s ideas can ever be systematically realized before a decline in the living standards actually demand them, although, as Marx would put it, economic realities will eventually determine political decisions.
[1] http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/birnbaum_v/james_howard_kunstler.php
Monday, May 29, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Brokeback Mountain - a Gender Story
Brokeback Mountain
Directed by Ang Lee
Heath Ledger: as Ennis Del Mar
Jake Gyllenhaal: as Jack Twist
Against the backdrop of the awe-inspiring and rugged expanse of Brokeback mountain in Wyoming, in the summer of 1963, while tending a herd of sheep, two young men – a cowboy and a ranch hand – forge a relationship and a bond that will change their lives forever. Ironically the formidable challenges of Brokeback mountain turn into the most welcoming and accepting aspect of the men’s lives as they escape from the unfriendly societal laws and norms to resort to the place where they first met and renew their bond.
By the end of the summer, when the two men say goodbye not knowing if their roads will ever cross again, against their rough upbringing, they are both visibly morose. Ennis Del Mar, who is supposed to marry soon, hides behind a wall and starts crying noisily, only to be reminded by his socialization that “men don’t cry” when a passing man stops to find out what is wrong.
The two men continue seeing one another once or twice a year despite both being married and having children now. They marry because that is what the society expects them to do. That is what they should do as men. That is what they have been socialized to do. Though they don’t seem to be consciously aware of it, they both know unconsciously that marrying a person of the opposite sex is not what they really want. They both know deep within them that they love each other. They keep testing the invisible conformity wall of the society. And eventually they both fall victim to the harsh and unyielding realities of the norms of the society. Jack Twist is lynched on the way to Mexico where he sometimes goes to seek homosexual intercourse. And Ennis Del Mar’s marriage breaks up in acrimony when his wife finds out about the nature of his relationship with Jack.
Though the movie portrays the doomed love of two homosexual men, you cannot but shed a few tears at the end when Ennis buries his head in the bloodied denim jacket of his murdered lover and voraciously takes in the scent of the body that he has so dearly loved for so long.
I went to the movie with an open mind, as a person that is very tolerant of homosexual behavior. I truly think of gays and lesbians as a minority that should be protected by civil rights laws. But let me be honest with you; even I was initially taken aback by the explicit love making of two men. One thing is certain: being gay is not equivalent to being effeminate. “Contrary to common myths about gay male effeminacy, masculinity also plays a powerful role in shaping gay and bisexual men’s identity and behavior” (Don Sabo 547). Throughout the movie, one can observe many manifestations of masculine socialization in the behaviors of Ennis and Jack: the Rough-and-Tumble play, aggression and violence, and control and domination.
A very controversial movie because of the subject that it presented, it instigated a wide variety of responses in the society. The conservatives vehemently dispelled and condemned it reasoning that it is detached from mainstream America. The liberals and gay and lesbian community welcomed it as a movie that can bring awareness about homosexuality and create a level of acceptance of this minority group in the society.
Just as this movie was being screened in cinemas across the United States, it coincided with an event that made it obvious how intolerant and zealous some members of the society can be as a result of the way they have been socialized by the culture of male domination and masculinity. Early in February, an 18-year-old male teenager walked into a gay bar in Massachusetts and injured some of the customers using a hatchet. Later he gunned down a police officer during a traffic stop. When he was finally stopped by the police after a high speed chase in Arkansas, he shot and killed the woman who was traveling with him before he was killed in a shootout with the police. Three lives in one week! Not bad for manhood!
Works Cited:
Sabo, Don. “Masculinity and Men’s Health: Moving toward Post-Superman Era Prevention.” Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. 4th Ed. Estelle Disch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 541-558.
Directed by Ang Lee
Heath Ledger: as Ennis Del Mar
Jake Gyllenhaal: as Jack Twist
Against the backdrop of the awe-inspiring and rugged expanse of Brokeback mountain in Wyoming, in the summer of 1963, while tending a herd of sheep, two young men – a cowboy and a ranch hand – forge a relationship and a bond that will change their lives forever. Ironically the formidable challenges of Brokeback mountain turn into the most welcoming and accepting aspect of the men’s lives as they escape from the unfriendly societal laws and norms to resort to the place where they first met and renew their bond.
By the end of the summer, when the two men say goodbye not knowing if their roads will ever cross again, against their rough upbringing, they are both visibly morose. Ennis Del Mar, who is supposed to marry soon, hides behind a wall and starts crying noisily, only to be reminded by his socialization that “men don’t cry” when a passing man stops to find out what is wrong.
The two men continue seeing one another once or twice a year despite both being married and having children now. They marry because that is what the society expects them to do. That is what they should do as men. That is what they have been socialized to do. Though they don’t seem to be consciously aware of it, they both know unconsciously that marrying a person of the opposite sex is not what they really want. They both know deep within them that they love each other. They keep testing the invisible conformity wall of the society. And eventually they both fall victim to the harsh and unyielding realities of the norms of the society. Jack Twist is lynched on the way to Mexico where he sometimes goes to seek homosexual intercourse. And Ennis Del Mar’s marriage breaks up in acrimony when his wife finds out about the nature of his relationship with Jack.
Though the movie portrays the doomed love of two homosexual men, you cannot but shed a few tears at the end when Ennis buries his head in the bloodied denim jacket of his murdered lover and voraciously takes in the scent of the body that he has so dearly loved for so long.
I went to the movie with an open mind, as a person that is very tolerant of homosexual behavior. I truly think of gays and lesbians as a minority that should be protected by civil rights laws. But let me be honest with you; even I was initially taken aback by the explicit love making of two men. One thing is certain: being gay is not equivalent to being effeminate. “Contrary to common myths about gay male effeminacy, masculinity also plays a powerful role in shaping gay and bisexual men’s identity and behavior” (Don Sabo 547). Throughout the movie, one can observe many manifestations of masculine socialization in the behaviors of Ennis and Jack: the Rough-and-Tumble play, aggression and violence, and control and domination.
A very controversial movie because of the subject that it presented, it instigated a wide variety of responses in the society. The conservatives vehemently dispelled and condemned it reasoning that it is detached from mainstream America. The liberals and gay and lesbian community welcomed it as a movie that can bring awareness about homosexuality and create a level of acceptance of this minority group in the society.
Just as this movie was being screened in cinemas across the United States, it coincided with an event that made it obvious how intolerant and zealous some members of the society can be as a result of the way they have been socialized by the culture of male domination and masculinity. Early in February, an 18-year-old male teenager walked into a gay bar in Massachusetts and injured some of the customers using a hatchet. Later he gunned down a police officer during a traffic stop. When he was finally stopped by the police after a high speed chase in Arkansas, he shot and killed the woman who was traveling with him before he was killed in a shootout with the police. Three lives in one week! Not bad for manhood!
Works Cited:
Sabo, Don. “Masculinity and Men’s Health: Moving toward Post-Superman Era Prevention.” Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. 4th Ed. Estelle Disch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 541-558.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
A Tribute to Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate
All Iranians experience the bitter and brutal rule of the Islamic Republic and are to some degree, in one way or another, affected by its devastating impacts. Since 1978, when the so-called Islamic Revolution successfully derailed the democratic uprising of the people by taking advantage of their religious faith and usurping the much longed for findings of their efforts, many Iranians have had to voluntarily or involuntarily quit Iran and live in exile in Western Europe or the United States and Canada. According to some estimates the number of Iranians living in the United States alone was well over 1,560,000 in the year 1996 (Wikipedia.org).
But women and children have had to bear the brunt of this Orwellian, reactionary, and medieval rule much more harshly than other members of the society. Trapped in the quagmire of their socioeconomic status, their class, and their gender, women have been the prime victims of a corrupt regime that claims that it draws its mandate from the will of God – Allah as they refer to Him!
Many Iranian women have been executed by hanging, shooting, or stoning since the Islamic Republic assumed the reigns of political power in 1978. An example of the savagery with which the Islamic Republic subjugates women in Iran was the public hanging on August 15, 2004 of Atefeh Sahaleh Rajabi, a 16-year-old girl whose only charge was an out-of-wedlock relationship with a young man of about her own age. Her hanging came despite the repeated pleas of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other international human rights monitoring groups.
As the late Iranian poet, Ahmad Shamloo, says in a poem reflecting the practice of Revolutionary Guards in stopping cars at checkpoints late nights to make sure their occupants have not been drinking any alcoholic beverages,
“They smell your mouth, my love,
Lest you may have said ‘I love you!’
Love has to be hidden deep in the closet at home.”
In the face of increasing unemployment - as high as 15% by some estimates – many women and young girls fall prey to the prostitution imposed on them by the poverty that has been the direct result of the economic policies and political isolationism of the Islamic Republic (Amuzegar). Ironically, they are then shamelessly held accountable for trying to feed themselves and their children by the same regime that has induced their misery and suffering.
Conformity to the laws of Islamic Sharia is demanded from Iranian citizens in every aspect of their public and private lives. This includes such details as facial hair and long sleeve shirts for men, headscarves and hejab – Islamic covering – for women, type of music listened to by people, the contents of the books that they read, as well as much more important issues like sexuality and sexual partners. Homosexuality is punished by death. As a rule all Iranians know that if the title of a newspaper reports that a certain man has been hanged or executed by shooting after having been found guilty of sodomy, another execution will soon follow, that of his sexual partner.
With schools segregated by gender, some believe that the rate of homosexual relationships has increased in the past 27 years since the Islamic revolution, though, due to the illegality of such relationships and the stigma that is associated with them, no statistical data have been collected, and therefore there is only subjective speculation as to the verity of this matter.
It is against this dire and bleak backdrop that Shirin Ebadi became the first Iranian woman – the first Iranian for that matter and the first woman in the Middle East - to be awarded the Nobel Prize for peace 10, 2003. And when she appeared at a press conference in Paris not wearing a headscarf, she deliberately pushed against the conformity walls of the Islamic Republic setting an example for all the Iranian women and girls who long to be able to withstand the chains of restraints that the regime has fettered them with (Esfandiari 57).
Over the past century, patriarchy has had to give up many of its long-held strongholds throughout the world, and though it has been very unyielding in the Islamic world, it has lost a lot of ground even among the Muslim populations of these countries. Fundamentalism appears to have been the desperate response of Muslim patriarchy to the ever-tightening noose of egalitarianism around its convulsive neck, one last effort to hold on to its domination.
Fundamentalism is misogynous in nature. “A parliamentarian in Iran is on the record as saying, ‘Women must accept the reality of men dominating them, and the world must recognize that men are superior’” (Chitsaz and Samsami). Ironically the Iranian fundamentalists, who so belligerently oppose any notion of equality with women and do not fall short of making every effort to pass laws that will further subjugate them, greatly owe their success in the revolution of 1978 to the vast participation of women (Moghadam 458). Women activists like Shirin Ebadi, who had been in and out of prison for her support of democracy during the Shah, actively took part in the efforts that culminated in the toppling of the Pahlavi Dynasty only to find out that their efforts were being used to their detriment.
Shirin Ebadi, however, did not despair. She knew well that the very women that made the defeat the Shah’s tyranny possible by their participation in all the million-person demonstrations can someday win a victory against the male domination of the Islamic republic too.
Born in 1947, Shirin Ebadi became the first Iranian female to preside over a court as a judge paving the way for many women that followed. Later when the Islamic Republic declared that women could not hold the position of a judge – an attempt to perpetuate male domination – she worked as a university professor, a writer, and a defense attorney. Her publications became torchlight in the hands of the activists who sought to use the very laws of the Islamic Republic, however antiquated, to fight for the rights of women and children across the country.
Shirin Ebadi chose to undermine the Islamic patriarchy by exploiting the very laws of the patriarchal system. She educated herself in the Sharia taking advantage of the more progressive aspect of Islam to fight its reactionary side. After all Islam is the same religion whose preaching terminated the practice of infanticide among Arab Muslims; it is the religion that taught people to free their slaves and treat them with respect; it is the religion that held that all men – yes men – are equal in the eyes of Allah regardless of the color of their skin; the very same religion that cultivated the grounds for the flourishing of literature and science in the Islamic lands when Europe was burning in the ignorance of the dark ages and any voice of ration was shut down by the inquisition courts of the Catholic Christianity. Yes, however patriarchal, Islam does have a more moderate reading too, which accounts for the vast differences in the state of human rights and women in the Islamic countries.Ebadi’s books and writing shed light on the ongoing spousal abuse in Iran and set clear ways for women to fight their abusive spouses in Islamic courts that do not hesitate to interpret everything in favor of the husband. She found ways around the patrilineal inheritance laws of Islam that assign the share of a girl from the deceased parent’s wealth at half that of a male child.
Her international recognition and her affiliation with human rights organizations put her in a position where she could act as defense attorney for many a political prisoner when no one else dared walk into a so-called revolutionary court to defend a detainee whose charges had been trumped up to include “conspiracy to overthrow the Islamic Republic,” a charge that can be punished with the death penalty if proven.
Interestingly, just as the Second World War provided the American women with an opportunity to acquire paid employment on a vast basis, the eight-year war with Iraq and the engagement of the male population in the war through mandatory draft cleared the way for many Iranian women to get absorbed in the job market. According to Valentine M. Moghadam this was a factor that “undermined the [Islamic Republic’s] policies on women” and “created some employment opportunities for educated women in the public sector and particularly in health, education, and (t0 a lesser extent) public administration.”
Despite the Islamic revolution and the enforcement of Islamic laws, which drastically reduce women’s chances and their upward mobility, the long period of modernization during the Shah’s regime resulted in the education of girls and women on a large scale. This made their involvement in paid employment possible. And although the Islamic Republic has been hard at work to throw women out of labor force, Iranian women, under the guidance of female activists like Shirin Ebadi, have been able to guarantee their continued presence in the job market by steadfastly adhering to opportunities of furthering their education. For the first time, in recent years, the number of female students in institutes of higher education has topped that of male students.
Recent family planning policies in the face of the rising population, increasing poverty, and towering foreign debt have made it possible for Iranian women to have easier access to contraception thereby empowering them to remain more reliably in their employments. By defining labor laws that directly and indirectly affect women and their families, Shirin Ebadi has been able to educate women regarding their rights in the labor market.
When Shirin Ebadi was declared by the Nobel Foundation as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Iranians in Iran and around the world welcomed the decision with extreme joy and pride. Iranian women in particular embraced Ebadi’s Nobel Prize as a victory for the feminist movement in Iran and the Middle East. Shirin Ebadi’s contributions to women’s and children’s welfare in Iran and around the world have inspired many a woman who might have otherwise found it rather daring to engage in any sort of empowering activity in the face of the fundamentalist misogyny.
“In all her roles, she seeks to interpret Islam in a way that is harmonious and co-exists with the so-called notions of Western thought, such as human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and religious freedom” (Manish Verma). Despite all her deeds, this reading of Islam by Shirin Ebadi has put her at odds with those activists that think of the Islamic Republic as an incorrigible political system that should be replaced with a secular and democratic regime. many of Ebadi’s critics, including the writer of this paper, are of the opinion that Dr. Ebadi is too accepting of the Islamic Republic, and in effect contributing to the lengthening of its power.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Shirin Ebadi’s political stance, there is no doubt that her publications and actions have greatly helped to ease the pain and suffering of many women and children in Iran. Every Iranian, men and women alike, will always be proud to be associated with Dr. Ebadi as an Iranian.
Works cited:
Amuzegar, Jahangir. “Iran’s Unemployment Crisis.” Middle East Economic Survey 41. 2004.
Esphandiari, Helen. “the Woman Question.” The Wilson Quarterly 28.2 2004: 56-63. Spokane Falls Community College Library, Spokane, WA. 25 Feb. 2006
Chitsaz, Sarvnaz and Soosan Samsami. “Iranian Women and Girls: Victims of Exploitation and Violence.” Coalition Against Trafficking Women. 1999:
Moghadam, Valentine M. “A Tale of Two Countries: State, Society, and Gender Politics in Iran and Afghanistan.” The Muslim World. 2004. Spokane Falls Community College Library, Spokane, WA. 25 Feb. 2006
Verma, Manisha. “What Is the Significance of Shirin Ebadi Winning the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2003?” Association for Women’s Rights in Development. 2005:
But women and children have had to bear the brunt of this Orwellian, reactionary, and medieval rule much more harshly than other members of the society. Trapped in the quagmire of their socioeconomic status, their class, and their gender, women have been the prime victims of a corrupt regime that claims that it draws its mandate from the will of God – Allah as they refer to Him!
Many Iranian women have been executed by hanging, shooting, or stoning since the Islamic Republic assumed the reigns of political power in 1978. An example of the savagery with which the Islamic Republic subjugates women in Iran was the public hanging on August 15, 2004 of Atefeh Sahaleh Rajabi, a 16-year-old girl whose only charge was an out-of-wedlock relationship with a young man of about her own age. Her hanging came despite the repeated pleas of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other international human rights monitoring groups.
As the late Iranian poet, Ahmad Shamloo, says in a poem reflecting the practice of Revolutionary Guards in stopping cars at checkpoints late nights to make sure their occupants have not been drinking any alcoholic beverages,
“They smell your mouth, my love,
Lest you may have said ‘I love you!’
Love has to be hidden deep in the closet at home.”
In the face of increasing unemployment - as high as 15% by some estimates – many women and young girls fall prey to the prostitution imposed on them by the poverty that has been the direct result of the economic policies and political isolationism of the Islamic Republic (Amuzegar). Ironically, they are then shamelessly held accountable for trying to feed themselves and their children by the same regime that has induced their misery and suffering.
Conformity to the laws of Islamic Sharia is demanded from Iranian citizens in every aspect of their public and private lives. This includes such details as facial hair and long sleeve shirts for men, headscarves and hejab – Islamic covering – for women, type of music listened to by people, the contents of the books that they read, as well as much more important issues like sexuality and sexual partners. Homosexuality is punished by death. As a rule all Iranians know that if the title of a newspaper reports that a certain man has been hanged or executed by shooting after having been found guilty of sodomy, another execution will soon follow, that of his sexual partner.
With schools segregated by gender, some believe that the rate of homosexual relationships has increased in the past 27 years since the Islamic revolution, though, due to the illegality of such relationships and the stigma that is associated with them, no statistical data have been collected, and therefore there is only subjective speculation as to the verity of this matter.
It is against this dire and bleak backdrop that Shirin Ebadi became the first Iranian woman – the first Iranian for that matter and the first woman in the Middle East - to be awarded the Nobel Prize for peace 10, 2003. And when she appeared at a press conference in Paris not wearing a headscarf, she deliberately pushed against the conformity walls of the Islamic Republic setting an example for all the Iranian women and girls who long to be able to withstand the chains of restraints that the regime has fettered them with (Esfandiari 57).
Over the past century, patriarchy has had to give up many of its long-held strongholds throughout the world, and though it has been very unyielding in the Islamic world, it has lost a lot of ground even among the Muslim populations of these countries. Fundamentalism appears to have been the desperate response of Muslim patriarchy to the ever-tightening noose of egalitarianism around its convulsive neck, one last effort to hold on to its domination.
Fundamentalism is misogynous in nature. “A parliamentarian in Iran is on the record as saying, ‘Women must accept the reality of men dominating them, and the world must recognize that men are superior’” (Chitsaz and Samsami). Ironically the Iranian fundamentalists, who so belligerently oppose any notion of equality with women and do not fall short of making every effort to pass laws that will further subjugate them, greatly owe their success in the revolution of 1978 to the vast participation of women (Moghadam 458). Women activists like Shirin Ebadi, who had been in and out of prison for her support of democracy during the Shah, actively took part in the efforts that culminated in the toppling of the Pahlavi Dynasty only to find out that their efforts were being used to their detriment.
Shirin Ebadi, however, did not despair. She knew well that the very women that made the defeat the Shah’s tyranny possible by their participation in all the million-person demonstrations can someday win a victory against the male domination of the Islamic republic too.
Born in 1947, Shirin Ebadi became the first Iranian female to preside over a court as a judge paving the way for many women that followed. Later when the Islamic Republic declared that women could not hold the position of a judge – an attempt to perpetuate male domination – she worked as a university professor, a writer, and a defense attorney. Her publications became torchlight in the hands of the activists who sought to use the very laws of the Islamic Republic, however antiquated, to fight for the rights of women and children across the country.
Shirin Ebadi chose to undermine the Islamic patriarchy by exploiting the very laws of the patriarchal system. She educated herself in the Sharia taking advantage of the more progressive aspect of Islam to fight its reactionary side. After all Islam is the same religion whose preaching terminated the practice of infanticide among Arab Muslims; it is the religion that taught people to free their slaves and treat them with respect; it is the religion that held that all men – yes men – are equal in the eyes of Allah regardless of the color of their skin; the very same religion that cultivated the grounds for the flourishing of literature and science in the Islamic lands when Europe was burning in the ignorance of the dark ages and any voice of ration was shut down by the inquisition courts of the Catholic Christianity. Yes, however patriarchal, Islam does have a more moderate reading too, which accounts for the vast differences in the state of human rights and women in the Islamic countries.Ebadi’s books and writing shed light on the ongoing spousal abuse in Iran and set clear ways for women to fight their abusive spouses in Islamic courts that do not hesitate to interpret everything in favor of the husband. She found ways around the patrilineal inheritance laws of Islam that assign the share of a girl from the deceased parent’s wealth at half that of a male child.
Her international recognition and her affiliation with human rights organizations put her in a position where she could act as defense attorney for many a political prisoner when no one else dared walk into a so-called revolutionary court to defend a detainee whose charges had been trumped up to include “conspiracy to overthrow the Islamic Republic,” a charge that can be punished with the death penalty if proven.
Interestingly, just as the Second World War provided the American women with an opportunity to acquire paid employment on a vast basis, the eight-year war with Iraq and the engagement of the male population in the war through mandatory draft cleared the way for many Iranian women to get absorbed in the job market. According to Valentine M. Moghadam this was a factor that “undermined the [Islamic Republic’s] policies on women” and “created some employment opportunities for educated women in the public sector and particularly in health, education, and (t0 a lesser extent) public administration.”
Despite the Islamic revolution and the enforcement of Islamic laws, which drastically reduce women’s chances and their upward mobility, the long period of modernization during the Shah’s regime resulted in the education of girls and women on a large scale. This made their involvement in paid employment possible. And although the Islamic Republic has been hard at work to throw women out of labor force, Iranian women, under the guidance of female activists like Shirin Ebadi, have been able to guarantee their continued presence in the job market by steadfastly adhering to opportunities of furthering their education. For the first time, in recent years, the number of female students in institutes of higher education has topped that of male students.
Recent family planning policies in the face of the rising population, increasing poverty, and towering foreign debt have made it possible for Iranian women to have easier access to contraception thereby empowering them to remain more reliably in their employments. By defining labor laws that directly and indirectly affect women and their families, Shirin Ebadi has been able to educate women regarding their rights in the labor market.
When Shirin Ebadi was declared by the Nobel Foundation as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Iranians in Iran and around the world welcomed the decision with extreme joy and pride. Iranian women in particular embraced Ebadi’s Nobel Prize as a victory for the feminist movement in Iran and the Middle East. Shirin Ebadi’s contributions to women’s and children’s welfare in Iran and around the world have inspired many a woman who might have otherwise found it rather daring to engage in any sort of empowering activity in the face of the fundamentalist misogyny.
“In all her roles, she seeks to interpret Islam in a way that is harmonious and co-exists with the so-called notions of Western thought, such as human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and religious freedom” (Manish Verma). Despite all her deeds, this reading of Islam by Shirin Ebadi has put her at odds with those activists that think of the Islamic Republic as an incorrigible political system that should be replaced with a secular and democratic regime. many of Ebadi’s critics, including the writer of this paper, are of the opinion that Dr. Ebadi is too accepting of the Islamic Republic, and in effect contributing to the lengthening of its power.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Shirin Ebadi’s political stance, there is no doubt that her publications and actions have greatly helped to ease the pain and suffering of many women and children in Iran. Every Iranian, men and women alike, will always be proud to be associated with Dr. Ebadi as an Iranian.
Works cited:
Amuzegar, Jahangir. “Iran’s Unemployment Crisis.” Middle East Economic Survey 41. 2004.
Esphandiari, Helen. “the Woman Question.” The Wilson Quarterly 28.2 2004: 56-63. Spokane Falls Community College Library, Spokane, WA. 25 Feb. 2006
Chitsaz, Sarvnaz and Soosan Samsami. “Iranian Women and Girls: Victims of Exploitation and Violence.” Coalition Against Trafficking Women. 1999:
Moghadam, Valentine M. “A Tale of Two Countries: State, Society, and Gender Politics in Iran and Afghanistan.” The Muslim World. 2004. Spokane Falls Community College Library, Spokane, WA. 25 Feb. 2006
Verma, Manisha. “What Is the Significance of Shirin Ebadi Winning the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2003?” Association for Women’s Rights in Development. 2005:
Monday, May 15, 2006
Robert Bly
A while back Robert Bly was here in Spokane. I had the opportunity of attending one of his poetry reading sessions at Spokane Falls Community College. I wrote the following after that session:
Art is a form of non-conformism, defiance against accepted norms and rules, a violation of what is commonly considered normal. Repetition of what already exists cannot be considered as art. At best it is copying. An artist should be able to deliberately infringe upon the rules and norms of his art, and establish new rules and norms that can be repeated by others. Only then can a person call him/herself an artist.
Art is the creation of beauty; it is the expression of feelings and emotions; it is the kind of communication that addresses the most subtle aspects of human desire for perfection and elation.
Poetry, among other forms of art, is the use of language in a way that can affect the feelings and emotions of the reader or listener. It is the most emotional way of using the language. It arises from the emotions of the poet and targets the emotions of the person that is exposed to it. It can make you feel sad, happy, angry, agitated, relaxed, proud, humble. In a nutshell, poetry is all about the expression of emotions.
How is it then that despite their socialization, there have historically been more poets among men than among women? How come most poets are men? One may argue that in the past men had access to education and literacy, and women did not, and therefore men wrote poetry and women did not. But most poetry of the olden times was memorized. People memorized a poem and it went from one person to another like a current of emotions and feelings. Poetry does not necessarily have to be written language. Why then do we not have more women poets that men? Aren’t women the ones that are socialized to be able to express their emotions? Aren’t men supposed to have been reared to suppress their emotions? How come then Robert Bly can express and stir so much emotion? Why is it that he can make me laugh, cry, get angry, move, stop moving, get disappointed, or become filled with hope?
In my culture, men who choose to read or write poetry are thought of as being effeminate, womanish, yet almost all poets are men. Even in this day and age when men and women have equal access to education, still most poets are men.
True, men are historically socialized to suppress their emotions. Men cannot cry. Men find it difficult to express their love towards their mates. It is not manly to express ones emotions openly. Men should not let others find out that they feel sad. It is a sign of weakness and is not masculine. But men can make use of a legitimate means of expressing their emotions. Are there more poets than poetesses because men find in poetry a legitimate outlet of emotions and feelings without being found guilty of unmanly behavior?
Smart men like Robert Bly beat the system by expressing their emotions in the form of poetry and at the same time retaining their masculine image. Isn’t that smart?
Art is a form of non-conformism, defiance against accepted norms and rules, a violation of what is commonly considered normal. Repetition of what already exists cannot be considered as art. At best it is copying. An artist should be able to deliberately infringe upon the rules and norms of his art, and establish new rules and norms that can be repeated by others. Only then can a person call him/herself an artist.
Art is the creation of beauty; it is the expression of feelings and emotions; it is the kind of communication that addresses the most subtle aspects of human desire for perfection and elation.
Poetry, among other forms of art, is the use of language in a way that can affect the feelings and emotions of the reader or listener. It is the most emotional way of using the language. It arises from the emotions of the poet and targets the emotions of the person that is exposed to it. It can make you feel sad, happy, angry, agitated, relaxed, proud, humble. In a nutshell, poetry is all about the expression of emotions.
How is it then that despite their socialization, there have historically been more poets among men than among women? How come most poets are men? One may argue that in the past men had access to education and literacy, and women did not, and therefore men wrote poetry and women did not. But most poetry of the olden times was memorized. People memorized a poem and it went from one person to another like a current of emotions and feelings. Poetry does not necessarily have to be written language. Why then do we not have more women poets that men? Aren’t women the ones that are socialized to be able to express their emotions? Aren’t men supposed to have been reared to suppress their emotions? How come then Robert Bly can express and stir so much emotion? Why is it that he can make me laugh, cry, get angry, move, stop moving, get disappointed, or become filled with hope?
In my culture, men who choose to read or write poetry are thought of as being effeminate, womanish, yet almost all poets are men. Even in this day and age when men and women have equal access to education, still most poets are men.
True, men are historically socialized to suppress their emotions. Men cannot cry. Men find it difficult to express their love towards their mates. It is not manly to express ones emotions openly. Men should not let others find out that they feel sad. It is a sign of weakness and is not masculine. But men can make use of a legitimate means of expressing their emotions. Are there more poets than poetesses because men find in poetry a legitimate outlet of emotions and feelings without being found guilty of unmanly behavior?
Smart men like Robert Bly beat the system by expressing their emotions in the form of poetry and at the same time retaining their masculine image. Isn’t that smart?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
