Iran Military Forum

Like the saying goes: A picture is worth a thousand words...

I'll try to post more pics...

I hope these pics will answer ay-baba's question

The chador (then Pardeh)

Thanks for the pictures

Capitalism flourished when women were NOT required to work, and in fact were deemed to stay at home to take care of the children.

Utter fail.

Before any of our dyslectic members (Farhang) butts in and accuses me of defending capitalism let me make clear that, no, I am not. I am merely saying that gender equality is not standing in the way of traditional life but rather the growth driven economic model that most of the world has adopted.

Before any of our dyslectic members (Farhang) butts in and accuses me of defending capitalism let me make clear that, no, I am not. I am merely saying that gender equality is not standing in the way of traditional life but rather the growth driven economic model that most of the world has adopted.

In my opinion, simply stated, gender equality politics was mainly a result of 19th century and 20th century warfare and economic push, which again was a result of imperialism which was a result of the capitalistic system of the leading nations of the time forcing the world to harvest the most of the world with the fastest available tech, the big race between like-minded empires. The main reason why women wanted the same rights as men at the time was simply because they were forced to do much of the same as men and still have the tough mother and family leader role. This was very hard on the women and of course when they do so much work they should be granted many rights similar to those of men. This is why women have a totally different role in societies that was not among the leading nations and was not among those warring in WW1 and WW2. While some nations have become adopted to the capitalist system of production to the maximum, most of the non-leading nations of the past have been simply forced to change their ways with women, but in fact in these places women don't have this role in the society. In Iran, women did not HAVE to work outside home. Still don't have to do that to meet ends. Its in these societies that gender equality laws are foreign ideas that often don't have a natural place in society. Im not saying that things are not changing, they always are.

What i have been talking about earlier, is the role of these politics of equality today, with a different reality. In my opinion there is not necessary to push women on both arenas anymore. In my world i can live a little poorer and have a little less but not push myself into the grave. I dont need a women that overwork herself and have problem with staying home with her child. I dont believe that much of the roles women are led into grant women more rights or power, i believe its quite the opposite. As there are many examples of, there are very few women in most male-dominated arenas, and they must struggle hard to keep up there. It makes it much harder for women to do natural things like bring up a child or two and tackle the family-life which is no easy job. If women fail in these arenas they are being mislead by the notion that they have been granted a better position in the society. I think ive made myself clear, for me economy is less important than family and health. Another point ive tried to make is that its not like you say that equality laws are totally different from capitalism, they go hand in hand as coordinated policies of certain goals. Yes, i know the role of equality politics of socialism, but its role have changed in the last century and now capitalist systems are the leading user of gender equality as one of several means to control the society.

Capitalism isn't an end in itself, but that doesn't mean it's useless, i don't mind defending its limited use as an economic system as opposed to communism.

There is some amount of capitalism in Iran today.

That's not necessarily an evil thing.

People have for all time in civilized nations worked with the expectation that they could sell their good for money. Laws of supply and demand have existed since civilization. The Caliphates were able to fund expansion of a hyperpower and ultimately an unprecedented Golden age, materially and spiritually, because they took full advantage of the trade routes they controlled. They amassed wealth and used it for the ultimate good of society. It is why Europeans who traveled into Islamic cities in Spain stood in awe of the material accomplishments, even with the fundamentally spiritual nature of the civilization.

I too disagree with complete free market capitalism, because it is a system easy to corrupt.

But there's nothing wrong with capitalism, when kept in perspective, and thus used within reason, right?

i think femenism is good to a degree

Modern western style feminism serves no useful purpose.
But feminism is good if it contributes to the good of a nation.
There's nothing wrong with women maintaining a traditional role in the family.
At the same time, in order to compete with societies that have more manpower, women many have to get educations and go to work in Iran. There's nothing wrong with education, or industriousness.
As long as there exists a choice. It should never be that women have to choose between maintaining a healthy family and working.

While the push for women to be able to get jobs came about as a result of militant imperialism between world powers, there are many important lessons that can be gained from times of hardship, lessons that can serve to better civilization. When under stress you become a better person. In the same way as the war with Iraq ultimately strengthened Iranian society beyond all western expectations that Iran would simply fall apart, the world wars strengthened the western world to their current position of economic and military dominance, and we would be fooling ourselves to pretend there isn't anything to be learned from hardship, or that war isn't a crucible that has served to harden nations like Iran, removing our infirmities rather than weakening us like Westerners believe.

Iran today is an exemplary nation, for the most part, in this sense. Iran maintains such a high ration of women to men participating in the work place compared to other nations in the region, and a ration of receiving higher education more than comparable to that of even fully developed nations in Europe. At the same time, there still exists traditional culture where many women stay at home and contribute to the growth of a healthy family. In at least this area, the IRI has somehow managed to hit the right balance.

It's not only cultural, but there's also a natural tendency, as societies develop, and people have more activities to be occupied with, people have fewer children. And with fewer family members, there is less attention necessary to develop a healthy family unit. So women have more free time. In this case I think it is a must that women spend some excess free time educating, training, and being industrious.

growth driven economic model that most of the world has adopted.

The "growth driven" economic model?
As opposed to what?
The decline driven economic model?
Does anyone here hope they are less industrious and make less money in the future?

Economies have always been growth driven.
Civilization has just developed, learned, and adapted over time and experiences to be materially and culturally more efficient at this task.
What's important to remember is priorities.
Economic growth should serve a purpose of improving society. Bankers shouldn't be allowed to amass as much money as they want without adding productivity, just gaming the system.
Politicians shouldn't govern for personal economic benefit.
Religious institutions shouldn't exist for profit.
But otherwise there doesn't exist any economic model implemented with the desire of economic stagnation, and never has been. You can't tell me it's bad if business owners want to be more productive to generate income, or factory workers shouldn't be allowed the option to work over time if they are willing, able, and it will add to the efficiency of the system.

If it hasn't been said already, women gained high positions in the Achaemenid(Chrome says I spelt (Spelt isn't a word?) that wrong...) Empire and actually had higher pay than men.

I see what you are saying now.
I agree that, while it does provide incentive to remain competitive, it's generally a bad idea for the fundamentals of a civilization to be dependent upon economic or political stability, because these things may be highly variable over long periods of time.

Thats exactly what i hope more people will realize, also in Iran. Believe me, this model in Norway is not working in the peoples interest.

Did you revisionist teacher tell you that?

What, you think there was no state propaganda in the ancient days? Have the revisionist teacher also thought you that? And even if its true, so what? You don't know the details of such policies, its reception among the citizens, its short or long-term consequences and so on.... History about such times are badly recorded or perhaps even revisionised over different era's. You are simply using it as a argument to say: "Your so backwards, that even in the Achaemenid era your women was more involved in the society!" But this is a too simplistic and propagandist argument, obviously.

At least we know that women had not the 19th century western type role in Sassanian times if we are to believe what the historians wrote. In fact, the civil and administrative laws in greater "Persian" territory was left unchanged when the Arabs conquered the land. Most historians argue that it was due to its effectiveness and stability. So basically if there was change between then and up until Safavid era, it was not due to laws but natural over time(like modes and so on).

Watch it, hotshot. I didn't say I damned thing about that. I only looked at the OP's topic and posted something related.

I believe I read about a slab of rock that marked pay, and the women stationed there had higher pay, whether they were cooks, I don't know.

 I also can quote this, "The Persian armada at the Battle of Salamis, the year before Plataea, had a squadron of Ionian ships under the command of Artemisia of Halicarnassus, a woman who was in King Xerxes' inner circle of advisors. In a desperate ploy to save herself from Greek capture, she pretended to join the Greek side and decided to ram a Persian ship. Xerxes, watching from ashore, thought Artemisia had sunk a Greek ship and proclaimed, "My men have become women and my women become men!" Her ruse was never detected by Xerxes and she continued to counsel him, urging him to escape back to Persia before the Greeks could burn his bridge at the Hellespont."

http://www.persianpaintings.com/qajargalleries/index.htm


 

That is probably one of the most striking parts of Qajar Persia. The pastel art showing women off quite nice. I was talking to Ruhollah and I think he assumed the paintings were commissioned by the more liberal merchants.

Fantastic art, though.

In my opinion Qajar dynasty was mostly secular kings seeking to undermine the clerical apertures from Safavid and other era's(which was the global trend at that time as well). Not that it have to do with anything, but might though.