Woman

[donsaeid]

بهبود موقعيت زنان در كشور داراي ماهيت نامتجانس است.بهطوري كه وضعيت زنان در شاخصهاي اقتصادي و اجتماعي با يكديگر، متفاوت ميباشد.

براساس مقالهاي كه در فصلنامه" پژوهش زنان" كه از سوي مركز مطالعات و تحقيقات زنان دانشگاه تهراندر زمينه مشاركت اقتصادي و اشتغال زنان انتشار يافته است، توانمنديسازي زنان در شاخصهاي اجتماعي مانند وضعيت آموزش و بهداشت بهبود چشمگيري يافته است ، اما اين موقعيت در شاخصهاي اقتصادي كمتر مشاهده ميشود.

طبق اين گزارش: تغييرات به تفكيك جنسيت از اقتصادهاي كشاورزي به نوين براي هر دوجنس اساسي بوده، اما اين تحولات به طور عام براي مردان چشمگيرتر بوده است.

در جوامع امروزي توسعه پايدار بر توانمندسازي زنان تكيه دارد. به طوري كه انديشمندان اجتماعي همواره بر رفع موانع جنسيتي به عنوان لزوم تحقق توسعه اقتصادي و اجتماعي، تاكيد كردهاند.

اهداف مهم ديدگاههايي كه در خصوص توانمندسازي زنان تاكيد دارد ،بر اساس مراحل رفاه مادي (رفع تبعيض جنسيتي در تغذيه و درآمد)، دسترسي (دسترسي به زمين، كار و سرمايه)، آگاهي (آگاهي از وضعيت خود)، مشاركت اقتصادي - اجتماعي و كنترل (برابري جنسيتي در قدرت )، بنا شده است.

ديدگاههاي مطرح شده در خصوص زنان بر اين باور شكل گرفته است كه وضعيت زنان در موقعيتهاي اقتصادي و اجتماعي در بسياري از كشورها همانند وضعيت مردان نيست و براي حصول برابري، نياز به تغيير در ساختارهاي اقتصادي و اجتماعي جوامع است.

بر اساس اين گزارش: اين تغييرات كه از طريق توسعه و مشاركت همه جانبه افراد جامعه حاصل ميشود، تضمينكننده پايداري توسعه و افزايش برابري جنسيتي خواهد بود.

پژوهشگر اين گزارش،اطلاعات آماري را در خصوص زنان از سرشماريهاي ۱۳۴۵ -۷۵ و آمارهاي ارائه شده در سال ۱۳۸۰از سوي مركز آمار ايران ، استفاده كرده است.

ميزان عدالت جنسيتي در اين گزارش، در بخشهاي آموزش ، بهداشت و فعاليت -هاي اقتصادي بررسي شده است.

بررسي وضعيت تحصيلي زنان در سالهاي ۱۳۴۵تا ۱۳۸۰نشان ميدهد كه ميزان بيسوادي زنان از ۸۰به ۲۴درصد و ميزان تحصيلات ابتدايي از ۷۸درصد به ۳۸ درصد ، تقليل يافته است.

نتايج آماري حاكي از آن است كه سطح نسبي بالايي از برابري جنسيتي در حوزه آموزشي در خصوص زنان تحقق يافته است و نشانههايي از افزايش بيشتر تحصيلات زنان در آينده، وجود دارد.

طبق اين گزارش: تعداد دانشجويان دختر در دانشگاههاي كشور از ۲۸درصد در سال ۱۳۷۰به ۵۳درصد در سال ۱۳۸۳افزايش يافت.

نتايج اين بررسي نشان ميدهد، مشاركت اقتصادي زنان مانند وضعيت آموزشي آنان بهبود نيافته است و مشاركت آنان در نيروي كار بهبود قابل توجهي نيز نشان نميدهد.

ميزان فعاليت زنان روند كاهشي- افزايشي داشته است كه سير كاهشي مربوط به سالهاي ۴۵تا ۶۵و افزايشي ان نيز مربوط به سالهاي ۶۵تا ،۸۰بودهاست.

ميزان مشاركت اقتصادي زنان در چهار دوره سرشماري ۴۵تا ۷۵به ترتيب برابر با ۸/۲ ،۱۳/۶ ،۱۲/۵و ۹/۲درصد و در سال ۱۳۸۰برابر با ۱۷/۹درصد بوده است.

افزايش و كاهش ميزان فعاليت زنان در دوره مورد بررسي، ميتواند از عوامل متعددي مانند انتقال نيروي كار ( اهميت بخشهاي صنعت و خدمات ) ، تغييرات اقتصادي و اجتماعي در كشور و تغييرات در موقعيت زنان ( افزايش ميزان تحصيلات) تاثير پذيرد.

در اين گزارش آمده است، انتقال بازار كار و ميزان زياد جمعيت در سنين فعاليت، اشتغال زنان را با مشكل مواجه كرده است.

عدالت جنسيتي در بخش بهداشت، براي زنان بهبود عمدهاي يافتهاست. به طوري كه ميزان مرگ و مير دختران كمتر از پنج سال در حدود ۳۵در هزار ميباشد كه از ميزان مشابه پسران ( ۳۶در هزار)، كمتر است.

طبق اين گزارش:ميزان زايمانهاي انجام شده در مراكز بهداشتي از ۷۹درصد در سال ۱۳۷۶به ۸۸درصد در سال ،۱۳۷۹افزايش يافته است.

طبق اين بررسي: به دنبال بهبود موقعيت زنان در عرصه آموزش، درصد زنان ازدواج نكرده به تفكيك گروههاي سني طي سالهاي ۴۵تا ۸۰افزايش چشمگيري يافت . به طوري كه اين درصد در خصوص زنان در سه گروه سني ۱۵تا ۲۰ ،۱۹تا ۲۴ساله و ۲۵تا ۲۹ساله به ترتيب از ۱۳ ،۵۴و چهار به ۴۶ ،۸۲و ۲۱درصد، افزايش يافت.

در اين گزارش آمده است : سنين بالاي ازدواج داراي تبعات متفاوتي است كه كاهش باروري ميتواند يكي از آنها باشد (البته اين موضوع درايران به دليل رشد بالاي جمعيت كه نتيجه افزايش جمعيت در سالهاي پيشين است، مصداق ندارد.

زيرا با وجود كاهش زاد و ولد جمعيت وسيعي هنوز در معرض باروري هستند).

ميزان باروري كل در سالهاي اخير كاهش چشمگيري يافته است .به طوري كه بيشترين ميزان كل باروري در سال ۱۳۵۹برابر با هفت و در سال ۱۳۷۹به ۲/۲ فرزند به ازاي هر زن ، تقليل يافت.

بهبود وضعيت زنان در برخي از شاخصها مانند افزايش ميزان تحصيلات،بهبود بهداشت و سلامت مادران، كاهش باروري و افزايش سن ازدواج، موجبات توانمندي زنان را فراهم كرده و همچنان حركت به سطح بالاتري از برابري جنسيتي را فراهم آورده است.

ميزان مشاركت اقتصادي زنان در ايران هنوز در مقايسه با كشورهاي توسعه يافته در سطح پاييني قرار دارد و اين وضعيت ميتواند تا اندازهاي عدم دستيابي زنان به مهارت و تواناييهاي لازم براي مشاركت اقتصادي ،اجتماعي و سياسي در جامعه را منعكس كند.

تغييرات مهم در ساختارهاي اقتصادي و اجتماعي كشور در دهههاي گذشته فضاي كافي را جهت بهبود موقعيت زنان، بوجود آورده است.

در ادامه اين مقاله امده است :توانمندي نامتجانس زنان ميتواند تبعات مختلف و الزامات سياستي متفاوتي را به همراه داشته باشد.دستيابي زنان به تحصيلات بالاتر توانايي و مهارت آنان را افزايش خواهد داد.

درصورتي كه ساختار اقتصادي كشور نتواند جوابگوي توقعات زنان تحصيلكرده باشد، معضلات بازار كار در آينده، آنان را با مشكلات جدي مواجه خواهد كرد.

توانمندسازي زنان و رفع تبعيض جنسيتي از اهداف توسعه هزاره سوم ميلادي است ، به طوري كه تحقق توسعه هزاره مستلزم افزايش نقش زنان در فعاليتهاي اقتصادي، اجتماعي و فرهنگي است و بدون توجه به اين مهم توسعه درهيچ كشوري تحقق نخواهديافت.

[Rasputin]

Iranian-born artist Neshat wins Gish Prize

Iranian-born artist Shirin Neshat has won the 2006 Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize, one of the largest and most prestigious awards in the arts.

Neshat will receive a silver medallion and $300,000 at an awards ceremony on Oct. 12 in New York City.

Neshat left her native Iran in 1979, just before the fall of the shah and the Islamic revolution. She has drawn on her own experience of exile for her work, which utilizes both still photography and film.

After earning her art degree at UC Berkeley, she moved to New York, where she now resides.

Because much of her work examines gender roles in Islamic society, it is considered so controversial in Iran that she has been forbidden to enter the country since 1996.

She first became known for a series of photographs, "Women of Allah" (1993-97), in which she depicts veiled women carrying guns. Their skin is covered with Islamic verses.

"In art, one is able to untangle complicated ideologies, demystify group and self identity, observe humanity and interpret memory," Neshat has said.

"Issues that cannot be solved on the political stage might somehow find workable solutions when condensed into a work of art," she added. "This prize is an important acknowledgment of the power of art."

The Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize -- named for the famous American actresses of stage and screen -- is one of the largest awards in the arts and is given annually to "a man or woman who has made an outstanding contribution to the beauty of the world and to mankind's enjoyment and understanding of life."

Previous winners include Ingmar Bergman, Bob Dylan, Merce Cunningham, Isabelle Allende, Robert Wilson, Frank Gehry, Bill T. Jones, Peter Sellars and Ornette Coleman.

Before she died in 1993, at age 100, Lillian Gish said: "It is my desire, by establishing this prize, to give recipients of the prize the recognition they deserve, to bring attention to their contributions to society and encourage others to follow in their path."

[Rasputin]

Over and under the veil

Introduction
With each historical event, society evolves with some continuity and some change. Camron Michael Amin has said, “Assessing the degrees of continuity and change in any given period is the essential burden of the historian” (Amin xi). The Iranian revolution of 1979, too, brought some change in the status of women, but the objectification of Iranian women’s bodies has maintained its legacy even past the revolution. When discussing Qassim Amin’s The Liberation of Women, Leila Ahmed says that his book is based on the thesis of “changing customs regarding women and changing their costume” (Ahmed 145). Although the Islamic revolution has made hijab compulsory in Iran since 1979, hijab still does not separate Iranian women from the West. Rather, hijab has been used incognito to embellish the status quo before the revolution and to continue to objectify the bodies of Iranian women. A closer look at the origins of this objectification in Islam and Iranian culture and the political motives behind these both before and after the revolution reveals that the objectification of Iranian women still continues today but under the guise of a different “costume.”

Islam as a Vehicle for Objectification
The objectification of women’s bodies is rooted in Islam as well as in the Iranian culture. Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Islam. When al-Abbas, the founder of the Abbasid dynasty, became caliph of the Islamic empire centered in Baghdad, one of his attendants name Khalid ibn Safwan was confused as to how al-Abbas could be satisfied with just one woman. “He was depriving himself of much pleasure in not sampling the varieties available in his empire, ‘the tall and slender, the soft and white, the experienced and delicate, the slim and dark, and the full-buttocked maid of Barbary’” (Ahmed 78. Therefore, Safwan “describes women as if they were objects to be sampled, like pieces of fruit in a bowl, and certainly not like persons who might stipulate terms and expect some degree of reciprocity in their marriage” (Ahmed 78. It becomes clear that even in ancient Islamic societies, women were seen only through their bodies and were thus viewed as objects created solely for the pleasure of men. “The marketing of people, and particularly women, as commodities and as objects for sexual use was an everyday reality in Abbasid society” (Ahmed 84). Furthermore, because everyone knew that women were bought and sold by men for sexual purposes, “one meaning of woman in a very concrete, practical sense was ‘slave, object purchasable for sexual use’” (Ahmed 85). For the common citizen and the elite man in particular, the terms woman, concubine, and woman for sexual use, all became synonymous. “The text that describes how a young man went out to buy ‘concubines and other objects’ confirms that the notions ‘woman’ and ‘object’ blurred into each other” (Ahmed 85). Hence, women meant nothing more than objects to be sexually exploited and then discarded by men.

The veiling of women also reflected their objectification symbolically. Veiling was used in Arabia to distinguish social classes, but was also used by the Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Assyrians even before that in order to denote social status (Ahmed 55). Scholars, however, are unclear, as to whether the veil is a mandate ordained by Allah. “It is nowhere explicitly prescribed in the Quran... verses dealing with women’s clothing... instruct women to guard their private parts and throw a scarf over their bosoms (Sura 24:31-32)” (Ahmed 55). Other scholars such as Fatima Mernissi, disagree and say that hijab as an institution is said to come from verse 53 of sura 33 (Mernissi 92). From hijab, comes the word mahjub, which means “veiled” in Arabic (Mernissi 95) and “modest” in Farsi. Hijab also has a three-dimensional concept, and thus to be veiled, is to become an object belying this conceptual meaning. Visually, the veil is meant to hide something from sight, as the root of the verb hajaba means to hide (Mernissi 93). In the spatial sphere, the veil is meant to separate, mark a border, and establish a threshold. “The hijab, according to the Koranic verse... ‘descended’ from Heaven to separate the space between two men,” since Prophet Muhammad is said to have drawn a veil between one of his guests and his wife to reveal that he would like to be alone with his wife (Mernissi 95). Furthermore, from the ethical aspect, the veil is used to designate that an object belongs to the realm of the forbidden. This realm includes the intangible world of ideas (Mernissi 95). Thus, the veil did not carry with it a favorable implication. “So it is strange indeed to observe the modern course of this concept [hijab], which from the beginning had such a strongly negative connotation in the Koran” as symbolic of the woman (Mernissi 97). In fact, the veil came to be “the very sign of the person who is damned, excluded from the privileges and spiritual grace to which the Muslim has access” (Mernissi 97). The veil can signify not only a separation between men and women but also between women and God, as “the veil that descended from Heaven was going to cover up women, separate them from men, from the Prophet, and so from God” (Mernissi 101). Furthermore, if the woman’s body is taken as representative of the community, “protecting women from change by veiling them and shutting them out of the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it from the West” (Mernissi 99). Thus, with the veil, women are transformed into an article for the purpose of estrangement.

The Meshing of Ideas by the Media
Aside from the contribution that Islam has made in objectifying women’s bodies, Iranian culture has not only perpetuated this phenomenon, but has also extended it further through its exacerbation of this objectification. An examination of Iranian culture through the media reveals that ideas related to women’s bodies -- namely, exercise, health, and beauty -- once separate and intact in themselves, were fused and thus distorted to become indistinct in the eyes of the Iranian public. This hazy blend of ideas then crystallized to transform the woman’s body into a discrete emblem open for societal and ultimately male dominance.

Exercise became grounded in Iranian culture with the educational policy of Reza Shah, who “stressed God and King, and never tired of extolling the virtues of civic obedience, discipline, and morality” (Matthee 134). These three elements were fundamentals in Reza Shah’s program that tried to solidify Iran through moral education and later led to the creation of a Department of Public Enlightenment in 1937 (Matthee 134). Boy-scouting was also introduced in Iran in 1925 with Reza Shah’s emphasis of these same three rudiments. “The incipient movement, founded in a country with no indigenous tradition of physical education, received a boost in 1928 to 1929, when Reza Shah called the activity ‘the best education for the happiness of the young generation’ ” (Matthee 134). Throughout the 1930s, physical education received increased government attention, so that “in 1933 a council of physical training was established in the Ministry of Education, which began to organize athletic events and nationwide annual championship games” (Matthee 134). A women’s physical education chapter was also established between 1935 and 1936. In addition to regular physical education in the form of calisthenics, Western sports were also integrated into the regular school curricula. “In 1934 to 1935 forty-seven athletic clubs were formed in the provinces, and the budget for physical education was increased from 10,000 to 25,000 tumans” (Matthee 134). As exercise gained increased government attention through Reza Shah and became a part of the national budget, the concept of exercise became one of the components of education and was thus associated with discipline and obedience. Therefore, the concepts of exercise and the discipline and obedience associated with it became more implanted in people’s minds.

[Rasputin]

Women’s athleticism was also a subject of eminence before the revolution, particularly during Reza Shah’s reign. Women’s athleticism became important in magazines after World War I (Amin 207) and media publications propagated images that said that women are supposed to be physically fit (Amin 208. However, during this period, and especially “since the days of Danesh, matters of health had been closely associated with matters of beauty” (Amin 208. Headlines in Danesh included such titles as, “Do you want to be beautiful and ravishing?” (Amin 208. Other magazines such as Mehregan, Iran-e Emruz, and Ettela’at brought about the permeation of Hollywood and European film industries into Iranian periodicals. Thus, the ideas of beauty and fitness became increasingly impressed into the minds of Iranians, and “the conflation of health and beauty underscored an ornamental function for women and colored their achievements with the vibrant hues of scandal and glamour” (Amin 211).

Women were taught that they were not supposed to be glamorous in order to please other women or themselves, “but were supposed to be attractive to men” (Amin 208. As a result, beauty became a pervasive ideal which all women were expected to attain. Magazines also popularized European beauty contests and Iranian women would fly there to participate (Amin 208. Consequently, the beauty of the Iranian woman was placed in competition with the beauty of the European or Western woman, who became the center of increased emulation during the Pahlavi dynasty. Out of the sixteen issues of Zan-e Ruz from August 22, 1970 through June 6, 1971, nine of these clearly pictured European or American women on the covers. The remaining seven of the sixteen covers from this period pictured Iranian women, all but one of which were pageant participants. Iran also began holding its own beauty pageants under the name of Dokhtar Shayeste. Shayeste, in Persian, however, means decent, competent, deserving, suitable, or worthy (FarsiDic). Therefore, with the proliferation of this and similar pageants through the media, Iranians were trained to believe that to be beautiful is to be worthy, making a woman’s physical appearance equivalent to her competence, suitability, and decency. A paradox, however, arises when one takes a look at photos from such pageants, which are printed in Zan-e Ruz and sees that the winners of these pageants, who are meant to be symbolic of decency, prance around on catwalks wearing extremely small minis***ts as male judges sit and smile from behind them (5 tir 1350). Interestingly, one of the prizes for girls of such pageants is a toy doll. It becomes apparent then that Iranian society of this time valued women most and perhaps even only for their physical beauty and neither their intellect nor personality.

A more in-depth analysis of Zan-e Ruz, one of the most popular women’s magazines, during the Pahlavi reign illustrates the extent of Iranian society’s obsession with women’s beauty. For instance, on the cover of issue number two hundred eighty-two from the thirty-first of mordad in 1970, is a Western woman in her early twenties, who has blonde hair and light eyes. She sits on a rock with her legs spread in front of a lake wearing a lacy white bodysuit with a low cut top. In this issue, which contains one hundred twelve pages, fifty-six pages contain pictures of women (not including the multitude of sketches or cartoons that also depict women) and seventeen pages contain pictures of men, almost all of which picture the man embracing and/or kissing the woman. Ninety percent of the photographs in this magazine are of women, but seventy-three percent of this proportion are not pictures of Iranian women. Rather, they are pictures containing Western women, as designated by their blonde hair, light eyes, the Western men who accompany them, or captions that print names such as “Sandy Shaw.” In addition, most of the images of women picture them with excessive bodily exposure, especially in cartoons. For example, in a cartoon titled “Darya Kenar,” a topless young woman is shown wearing only her bikini bottoms next to a sign that says that two-piece bathing suits are prohibited. In this same cartoon, a young, thin woman’s breasts are placed opposite that of an elderly, obese woman’s breasts to illustrate the beauty of one over the other. Thus, it becomes clear that even in magazines such as Zan-e Ruz, which are geared toward a female readership, women’s bodies are sexually exploited for not only the purpose of humor, but also to reject one body type over another and thus to persuade women to conform to one model of beauty deemed ideal, which follows that of Western women.

Aside from this objectification of women through physical imagery, almost every single article in this magazine is devoted to love, fitness, and beauty. Excluding the immense number of advertisements for beauty products, thirteen articles alone are dedicated only to beauty, diet, and exercise, while not a single article discusses spirituality, intelligence, or education. The only article which is even remotely related to these missing ideals, is one which explains the women’s liberation movement in the United States by saying that women in the United States are rejecting the notion of “kadbanoogari,” or beauty. Exercise and beauty are considered to be much more important objectives for women with articles on yoga that read, “... zibayiye andame shoma ra beeme meekonad,” (29 khordad 1350) or “dar tanasobe andam mojeze meekonad,” (12 tir 1350) alongside advertisements for lingerie under the brand name “Jolly Party” (31 mordad, 1349). Zan-e Ruz is also targeted toward teenage girls, as each issue contains a “Teen Section,” with similar articles on beauty and exercise, which are again, combined into a single idea. One such article gives hope to the “fat and chubby,” who can now “eat and still be thin” (12 tir 1350). The article lists food products that are supposed to be avoided, including bread, butter, cake, candy, ice cream, jelly, nuts, oil, biscuits, cookies, rice, creamy soups, and pasta. Instead, women are encouraged to eat only foods that are three hundred calories or less (12 tir 1350). Therefore, young women are taught that not only must they be thin in order to be beautiful, but that they must also lose the pounds that society has labeled extra through self deprivation. According to American research, encouraging women at such an impressionable age to diet in this fashion only sets them up for physical and mental harm in the future in the form of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder (National Eating Disorders Association). Through such articles, it becomes evident that Iranian women of this time period were viewed as mere puppets whose beauty was meant to entertain and awe men.

The Politics of Objectification
The media’s meshing of ideas that give birth to the objectification of women’s bodies in Iranian society is rooted in the quest for political power. Although the form of garnish women are subjected to may vary before and after the revolution, their bodies are still manipulated by politicians for the purpose of social control.

Reza Pahlavi desired to institute obedience to the state and his emphasis on exercise and the ideals of beauty and health tied to it are highly indicative of his underlying motive to dominate Iranian women. The period from 1936 to 1941 is often referred to by scholars as the Women’s Awakening, which “was a state feminism project that offered new opportunities in employment and education for some Iranian women in exchange for the requirement that all Iranian women abandon their veils in public” (Amin 1). Although Reza Shah opened the doors for greater opportunity for women, he also shut out their independence by forcing them to unveil. His oppressive policies concerning women are apparent when one considers that “soldiers and policemen literally tore off the hijab of veiled women, making sure that every woman who appeared in public did enjoy her royally granted emancipation” (Shahidian225). By forcing women to unveil and abolishing their right to choose, Reza Shah denied women their independence. Thus, unveiling became “a measure to institutionalize the women’s rights movement and to bring it under the control of the state” (Shahidian 225). Women, then, became another one of Reza Shah’s pawns for state power.

Furthermore, by bringing women into greater contact with men whom were not their relatives in the world of work, he not only increased labor force participation to fuel advances toward modernity, but also made women the subjects of increasing male domination. His “chief innovation in the context of the Iranian culture was to use Iranian women (rather than images of foreign women) to express images of modernity, progress, and potential -- all without ceding women’s symbolic independence from male guardianship” (Amin 247). In addition, “male guardians were no longer simply the fathers, brothers, and husbands or other male relatives of a woman. They were also office mates, classmates, supervisors, teachers, and colleagues” (Amin 247). Thus, with Reza Shah’s policy of mandatory unveiling in 1936 came more social interaction between men and women in urban public and private spaces (Kolayi172).

[Rasputin]

As discussed previously, magazines of the 1930s altered their content and display, but the conflation of ideas such as beauty, exercise, and health brought about by such publications were ultimately the products of the Pahlavi state. “Along with discussions on fashion and style, Alam-e Nesvan stressed the importance of personal hygiene and an attractive physical appearance in a series of articles entitled ‘A Well-liked Woman’ (Zan-e mahbub)” (Kolayi174). Women learned that to be modern meant to be “nice-looking, healthy, well-dressed, sociable, lively yet serious, and young in heart and mind. [The modern woman] bathed regularly and cleansed her face and hair, while keeping fit and exercising daily” (Kolayi174). The beauty products of the early twentieth century such as henna, kohl, and perfumes would no longer suffice; “now new cosmetics and adornment practices from Europe and the USA were introduced” (Kolayi174). “Every woman had the potential to be beautiful with a little help from cosmetics,” (Kolayi174) and the media stressed beauty so much that it became her national duty to do so. “Moreover, the use of powders, creams, and skin-care products was not seen as frivolous or immoral, for ‘women in the French and American revolutions wore cosmetics’” (Kolayi174). Therefore, in order to elevate themselves to the status of the modern Western woman and to ultimately help their country achieve the economic, cultural, and social progress of the West, Iranian women were expected to objectify themselves and to closely adhere to the stipulations posed by such publications.

In addition to the Pahlavi controlled press, fashion and beauty were clearly implemented as part of the government’s own agenda. “Government yearbooks from the late 1930s to 1941 began to display Western-style women’s fashions, following the trend started by Alam-e Nesvan” (Kolayi 174). In 1935, Reza Shah’s government posed publications that “also adopted the beauty and health advice format common in Alam-e Nesvan. In government yearbooks (salnameh), a section called ‘One Thousand Secrets of Beauty’ outline the new rules of modern hygiene, fashion, and style” (Kolayi 174). Such propaganda by the state “impressed upon readers that beauty could be acquired and should be maintained; it was not simply a matter of nature or birth” (Kolayi174). Thus, every woman became an object of the state under the guise of beauty and its seemingly related ideals of health and fitness. Furthermore, the more women became the consumers of such government sponsored publications and the products that they advertised, the more they fueled the national economy, as subjects such as fashion became increasingly connected to the Iranian financial market. “Drawing upon the dominant nationalist discourse of the period, government publications insisted that these examples of the ‘best and most beautiful women’s clothing’ were made in Iran at local factories and from ‘animal skins of the country’” (Kolayi174).

When publications intended toward a female readership no longer correlated with Reza Shah’s goals of modernization through the objectification of women, these magazines were taken over by Reza Shah’s totalitarian regime and were thrown into oblivion with all of the other suppressed literature and art of the time which could even remotely hinder Pahlavi “progress.” Alam-e Nesvan, for example, “was the only women’s journal for much of the Reza Shah period, and its discourse converged with that of the state and other prominent reformist periodicals of the time” (Kolayi 175). However, its relationship with the Pahlavi government was an ambivalent one, as it treaded the deep waters between a semi-official and independent status (Kolayi 175). It was heavily endorsed by the state when the magazine’s agenda corresponded with that of the state until “the journal began to argue that women’s further progress needed to be accomplished through their own efforts” (Kolayi175). Because Reza Shah felt that his domination over women could be threatened by such liberal ideas, Alam-e Nesvan was mysteriously shut down in 1934 (Kolayi 175). Thus, the journal whose name once meant “Women’s World” was abolished because it endangered Reza Shah’s world. As a result, the closure of this publication signaled that an “ ‘autonomous space’ of private initiative in yet another important area of social reform had been completely subsumed by the state” (Kolayi 175). Reza Shah then initiated the Ladies Center, which was backed by the state, as a substitution for the projects carried out by Alam-e Nesvan and other independent women’s organizations (Kolayi 175). Here, women were domesticated into proper wives and daughters who would be able to carry out the etiquette and demeanor declared appropriate by Reza Shah for newly unveiled and professional women. Taking over the agenda and activities that female reformers had been fighting for for decades became the quintessential element of Reza Shah’s policies regarding women. “As Reza Shah’s modern state became stronger, Iran’s independent women’s movement became weaker and was eventually eliminated by the very state that reformists, such as those in Alam-e Nesvan, had supported so enthusiastically” (Kolayi175). Therefore, in accordance with the rest of the brutal policies imposed by the Pahlavi regime, the movement for women’s authentic freedom was repressed and replaced only with those policies which transpired into Reza Shah’s ambition to restrain the Iranian public, using women as his instrument for this purpose.

[Rasputin]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi only continued his father’s legacy which constrained and exploited Iranian women in the pursuit of political power. His passion, too, was to emulate the West, but unlike his father, he neglected essential facets of Persian culture. With his policies, the same elements of modern European and American culture, which were “once blamed for the corruption of Iranian girls... were simultaneously sold and condemned by the Pahlavi-controlled press” (Amin 210). The gharbzadeh woman emerged as a result of this corruption. “She was identified with a woman who wore ‘too much’ make-up, ‘too short’ a s***t, ‘too tight’ a pair of pants, ‘too low-cut’ a shirt, who was ‘too loose’ in her relations with men, who laughed ‘too loudly’, who smoked in public” (Najmabadi 65). Thus, when Iranians wanted to reject the Pahlavi state and the violence the Pahlavi dynasty used against its opposition, popular culture rejected the gharbzadeh woman. “The gharbzadeh woman came to embody at once all social ills: she was a super-consumer of imperialist/dependent-capitalist/foreign goods; she was a propagator of the corrupt culture of the West; she was undermining the moral fabric of society; she was a parasite, beyond any type of redemption” (Najmabadi 65). The female body, then, was crucified in an effort to absolve Iran of all of the difficulties faced by Iranians because of the Shah’s economic, social, and political policies. It is argued “that what appears as a critique of over-Westernization at its deepest level is simply social control applied against those who transgress the norms of the community” (Najmabadi 65). Thus, the woman’ body became the symbol for social control in a society whose people were lacking of such control over their own lives because of the Shah’s suffocating hold them. Yet, it is only after the wake of the revolution that “the dilemma faced by some women as one of individual choice versus social control” can even be discussed, for “in the 1960s and 1970s projection of any such discussion would have been seen as the apogee of gharbzadegi” (Najmabadi 66).

The Iranian revolution of 1979 did not really change the politics behind the objectification of women’s bodies. Only the players in the game for power have changed. The ulema, who are behind this game, use women’s bodies as a token to gain control over the Iranian public through their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. In so doing, they have designated the female body as the insignia that is meant to separate Iran from the West in theory. “Hiding women from the Western gaze, and guarding women’s bodies and their minds from changes produced by foreign intervention, came to symbolize protection of Islamic identity, communal dignity and social continuity” (Moghissi35). Therefore, the Iranian woman’s body becomes a tool which the clergy can utilize to contrast Iran with the perceived corruption and the related social infections that became associated with the West during the Pahlavi era. “The Islamization of Iran since 1979 was grounded in the rejection and condemnation of unveiled women as European dolls (‘Arusak-i Farangi’)” (Tavakoli-Targhi 99). Thus, purifying the woman’s body became symbolic of removing the West’s tainting influence on Iran. For example, in an editorial from the April 7, 1984 issue of Zan-e Ruz, “the veil is described as the crucial shield without which the woman turns into the corrupt creature that opens the society at all levels to colonial domination.” (Najmabadi 69). In effect, the female body becomes the safeguard used by men to inhibit the effects of Western ideas and attitudes on Iranian society.

A survey of Zan-e Ruz after the revolution reveals a significant shift in the images of women’s bodies as projected by the media, which is in direct contrast to the previous analysis of Zan-e Ruz before the revolution. In issue number 1219 from the twentieth of khordad, 1368, the women’s journal was reduced to forty-eight pages, only twenty-five percent of which had pages containing pictures of women. Only about thirty percent of the total number of pictures in this women’s magazine actually included women, whereas nearly fifty-one percent of the total number of pictures are devoted to Khomeini. Only three photos in the entire magazine pictured women wearing hijab not in the form of a black chador. Furthermore, thirty-five percent of the photos that picture women in this so-called women’s magazine were placed underneath pictures of men, and seventy-one percent of the pictures containing women showed women whose faces were not visible, either because their hands or hijab were covering their faces, or their backs were turned to the camera. Thus, even in a magazine that is meant to be read by women, women’s faces, which are a vital component to identifying a body, are quite neglected, so that women are almost solely depicted as mere unspecified objects.

Instead, in this issue, women are shown mourning the death of “HazrateEmam” (5) Khomeini, an enormously powerful political entity in this period of Iran’s history. The cover, for instance, shows Khomeini enlarged in the center of a crowd of people, as he leaves the earth and ascends into the sky in three stages, so that his body becomes increasingly faint as he reaches the heavens. At the top of each page are the words “besme lahe rahmane rahim,” and nearly each page contains a tribute to Khomeini titled along the lines of, “ma ba rahe emam peyman basteiem,” (3) or “aftabe vojoode por barekate emam baraye hamishe az ayneye islam bar ghalbe tarikh khahad tabeed” (4). Women, on the other hand, are pictured beating themselves and wailing to display the extent to which “zanane mosalmane Iran dar motam az dast dadane rahbare khod, khoon goreestand” (6). The first instance in which a woman is the centerpiece of a picture, she is shown crying, while a large caption in bold print reads, “doshmanane ma fekr nakonand ke ma ba az dast dadane emameman na-omeed shodeem. Na, ma Khoda ra dareem. Bayad haman toor ke emame ma khaste, dar moghabele doshmanan be-eesteem” (10). Thus, it becomes clear that the enemy of the state after the revolution was not only the state’s role model and ally during the Pahlavi dynasty, but in both cases, women’s bodies are juxtaposed as symbolic of Iranians’ political sentiment at the time.

[Rasputin]

Though nowhere nearly as prevalent as during the Pahlavi era, body image was still an issue that gained attention in Zan-e Ruz. For example, in issue number 1220 from the twenty-seventh of khordad, 1368, a two-page article is dedicated to reducing body fat through diet and exercise (16-17). It includes a formula to calculate one’s desire body fat composition for men ages eighteen through twenty-six. However, although this article is printed in a women’s magazine, there is no such formula for women. The picture which accompanies this article sketches three people with varying body fat composition ranging from thin to obese, none of whose gender can be deciphered through the sketches. Therefore, it becomes apparent that even a magazine that is committed to women in name, does not pay as much attention to women’s health as it does to that of men. Since considerably more attention is devoted to images of women in worship of key political figures of the time, the underlying motive of using women’s bodies to serve the state’s aim of gaining political control is manifested.

Iranian women’s bodies continue to be the center of political debate today. Although hijab is used as an institution by the ulema to control women, a sharp contradiction occurs when the prescribed Islamic function of veiling is considered in relation to the practice of veiling in Iran today. The Iranian people seek modernity and the freedom that accompanies democracy, and women adorn themselves in such a manner so as to counteract the restraints set upon them by hijab. Iranian women, too, have discovered that their bodies have been objectified by the state, and especially young women’s reactions to the veil are a function of their disgust and intolerance of the current regime. Moreover, women themselves contribute to this objectification when they accept labels such as “khoshgelam,” often placed upon them by men who refer to a woman as “my pretty one,” (Peterson) or when women have plastic surgery in order to keep themselves from being subjected to ridicule because of their supposedly unattractive bodies. Thus, Iranian women become the victims and perpetrators of a culture which breeds girls as young as twelve years old who cry to their parents for cosmetic nose operations (Peterson). As Dr. Siavash Safavi, a leading plastic surgeon in Iran has said, "It's [beauty] a value in our culture. There is education and everything else, but beauty is right up there, in every class" (Peterson). In addition to the objectification of women through the stress placed on beauty, the mounting problem of prostitution in Iran, which is highly indicative of the poverty of the nation, only exacerbates the objectification of women’s bodies. Prostitution in Iran in 2002 was prevalent among girls of an average age of twenty, and the parliament has acknowledged it as a problem which affects six percent of the female population, as there are at least 1.7 million prostitutes in Iran by government estimates alone (Hughes). Thus, the veil has not protected Iranian women from the corruption once associated with the West. Rather, the government has placed a cover on women as a means of political and social control, behind which women must resort to such methods as prostitution in order to survive.

Conclusion
Early Persian travelers to Europe such as Mirza I’tisam al-Din, Mirza Abd al-Latif, Mirza Abu Talib, Mirza Abu al-Hasan Ilchi, and “Mirza Fattah, who traveled on a diplomatic mission in 1839, referred to European women using signifiers such as khushgil (beautiful), dilruba (heart-ravisher, and dahan mu’atar (perfumed-mouth)” (Tavakoli-Targhi 101). Throughout Iranian history from the nineteenth century, to the Pahlavi dynasty, and to the present, the bodies of Iranian women have been referred to with such adjectives and compared to or contrasted with that of European and American women. Behind the emulation of Western women before the revolution of 1979 and the rejection of Western women after the revolution lies the hidden political agenda of leaders such as Reza Shah, his son, Khomeini, and Iran’s current regime. Islamic-style male dominance has merely replaced Western-style male dominance (Ahmed 162). For Reza Shah, “the idea that improving the status of women entails abandoning native customs was the product of a particular historical moment and was constructed by an androcentric colonial establishment committed to male dominance in the service of particular political ends” (Ahmed 165). Thus, during the Pahlavi dynasty, the media was used as a method to objectify women, and after the revolution, Islam became a vehicle for the objectification of women’s bodies.

Though the face of the oppressor has changed with time, the ultimate aims of social and political control have not. And although “their prescriptions for women differed literally in the matter of garb,” (Ahmed 163) male dominance remains and the objectification of women’s bodies continues. In an address to women in Qom, Khomeini says, “The repressive regime of the Shah wanted to transform our warrior women into pleasure-seekers, but God determined otherwise. They wanted to treat women as a mere object, a possession” (Algar 264). Of course, he does not account for the fact that the transfer of power from the Shah to Khomeini and his descendant regime now allows women to become objects and possessions in the hands of the ulema. Rather, he says, “May God Almighty adorn all of you with dignity, health, happiness, and perfect faith and character” (Khomeini 264). His choice of the word “adorn” is a key element to comprehending the extent to which women’s bodies have and continue to be objectified in Iranian society. Thus, Iranian women are subjected to “a legacy... that has endured even past the Islamic Revolution of 1979” (Amin 211) -- a legacy which lives on incognito and continues to obstruct the freedom of Iranian women.

[Rasputin]

خوابگاه دانشگاه زابل
از جان آنها چه می خواهند؟









اينجا خوابگاه دانشجويان دختر در دانشگاه زابل است. حداقل امكانات و حداكثر تلاش و عزم دختران برای ادامه تحصيل. آنها را در اين اندك سرپناه تحصيلی هم راحت نمی گذارند و با انواع مقررات امنيتی و حراستی و حجابی و پوششی جان به لبشان می كنند. براستی از جان اين نسل چه می خواهند؟

[jjbb]

KHoshbakht tari zan dar donya...Zanan-e- Arabestan

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Homeless Iranian woman charged in N.Y. terror case

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An Iranian woman now living in a homeless shelter in Manhattan, was once a leader in a terrorist group based in Iraq trying to overthrow the Tehran government, federal authorities said in court documents on Monday.

Federal authorities claim that between 1999 and March this year Zeinab Taleb-Jedi, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was a leader in the Mujahedin-e Khalq and her role included "making leadership decisions" and "approving specific acts of terrorism."

The Mujahedin-e Khalq was designated a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S. State Department.

Taleb-Jedi was among 200 of the group's members questioned by American authorities at a base in Iraq in February 2004 after the U.S. military seized it, according to the court documents.

In some of the base's 100 bunkers, along with mortars, rockets and missile launchers, was 420,000 pounds of plastic explosives, the documents showed.

During questioning, Taleb-Jedi said she did not want to return to America because she "wholeheartedly supports the Mujahedin," the documents said.

She was arrested on March 31 when she tried to enter the United States through New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight from Jordan.

She was released on a $500,000 bond and has been staying at a homeless shelter in New York City, the documents say.

She is charged with providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization and faces up to 15 years in prison.

Born in Iran, Taleb-Jedi came to the United States in 1978 to pursue a master's degree. She developed a deep interest in Iranian politics, and joined the Mujahedin-e Khalq along with her husband, who left for Iraq in 1986 to cast his lot with its military wing, the documents said.

In June of 1999, she got word that her husband had been killed in a bombing along with several other group members.

"She then left her job, sold all of her belongings" and then went to the base in Iraq, the documents said.

A telephone call to Taleb-Jedi's lawyer was not returned.

[Rasputin]

Drop in the ocean of indifference

I just came across your article "Save Nazanin from Nazanin" slandering Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam efforts on baseless arguments of her trying to self promote herself and using the case of Nazanin Fatehi as a pretext to draw attention on her own public persona.

I am neither Ms. Afshin Jam's spokesman nor intend to speak on her behalf, but I did interview her a few months ago when she was hardly even approached by anyone in the Iranian Media so to speak.Happily the reaction to this interview and other interviews she was to give to the Iranian Press had the credit of drawing the attention of Iranians worldwide, including inside Iran. I personally got a lot of emails from Iranians in Iran who did not even know about the case of Nazani Fatehi and her case brought their attention on many others who are suffering from similar predicaments.

I do not know Sir if you are an Iranian writing under a pseudo or if this is indeed your own name. In either case your attack is not only cheap but criminal in that you not only slander a person's reputation and honor but you are also trying to doom a constructive Human Rights initiative that transcends political differences or interests that have so often divided us Iranians and that is: To save the life of a girl who happens to have the same namesake as former Miss World Canada.

The case of Nazanin Fatehi is certainly not unique in the sad annals of the Judiciary of the Islamic republic of Iran. You have correctly brought to our attention other names that need not be forgotten and which I would also like to repeat for the sake of justice and for general knowledge of our readers: Malak Ghorbany, Ashraf Kalhori, Kobra Rahmanpour, Delar Darabi, Hajieh Esmailvand, Fatemeh M., and Soghra Mola'i. Many others unknown names and faces can alas be added to the list due to the lack of transparency of Iran's legal system.

Could you be so naive as to think that anyone who happens to be in the public eye ignores that his or her statements or activism would not be indifferent to the press? Ms. Afshin-Jam never denied that she was using her name and celebrity to draw attention on the predicament of one of her compatriots back home. This has been the case of several other Iranian expats who happen to be famous actors or stars, such as Mr. Anthony Azizi who has also been campaigning for the rights of Women in the middle east and muslim countries in particular. I don't find such an approach shocking on the contrary.

For the past 27 years we Iranians have been tearing eachother apart on political debates that have never led to any constructive mouvement. Rarely has any Iranian public figure be it a Star or politician tried to mobilize anyone on a specific human rights issue. Ms. Shirin Ebadi has and continues to do her share of constructive work for which she was Awarded the Nobel Prize and being in Iran she has been regularly intimidated by the current regime's henchmen who hope to stop her activities in favor of more justice and transparency in her countries courts. Why should we be shocked to see a young Iranian Women who happens to be known use her celebrity, beauty and genuine concern to aid a helpless girl whose name would have otherwise been ignored in the Iranian and International press ?

Who knew the name of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners in South Africa if some celebrities had not done a concert in favor of his freedom and to end Apartheid? Nazani Fatehi is not even a political figure whose name could generate controversy like in the case of Mandela. I certainly hope that other Persian Artists including the Human Rights activists you mention will join Ms. Afshin-Jam's campaign so as to help save Nazanin Fatehi and through her case draw attention on all the other cases known or unknown of her compatriots who equally deserve attention.

We should not let the cynicism of our elders particularly many of us in exile ( who over the past quarter of a century were unable to unite for a worthy cause ) grow on the young generation who wish to be useful.

I believe that Utopia is necessary in a world where on a daily basis we are told by the media and our leaders that we cannot do anything to change it. The world in which we live in needs to change, for the better and particularly in Iran. We need to believe that we can take our destiny in our hands, and if Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam's efforts are only a drop in the ocean of indifference, so be it!

I would even like to go further by suggesting to the Iranian.com to put up a permanent link to this petition as long as Nazanin Fatehi is still in Prison and her case is not closed. After all why should the case of political activists like Mr. Jahanbegloo or Mr. Ganji (both Men by the way) be of public interest and not that of a poor 18 year old girl who awaits execution for having defended herself and her neice from being raped by three men?

May I conclude by quoting George Bernard Shaw:

Indifference is the essence of inhumanity.

And Elie Wiesel:

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

There's no reason for any Iranian man in America to be a pussy whipped zan zaleel; not even if she makes more money then you, or you're a stay at home dad, or if you have a tiny dick. God did not create Iranian men to be pussy whipped. The only thing worse than a pussy whipped zan zaleel, is a man that enjoys being a pussy whipped zan zaleel.

In my little castle, I'm the one and only boss. I make all the desicions, I'm always in control and I never let a bitch tell me what I can or can't do! It drives me crazy when I hear a man ask a woman "Can I...?"

Recently when I was going out on a Friday night with the boys. As usual one friend, who is is hopelessly pussy whipped, asked to come along. Trying not to embarrass him, I asked, "Are you sure it's ok with the old ball and chain? We're coming home late." Zan zaleels always say that there is no problem, and that is exactly what he said.

Hoping that maybe his wife was out of town, we picked him up at the agreed time. It wasn't more than 2 hours into the night when his phone started ringing and ringing and ringing. We could all hear his bitch yelling, complaining, bitching and whining over the phone. Naturally, she wants him to come home.

"Azizam, in a little bit, I'm not in my car." I could hear her say that she didn't want him to hang out with "those ****ing losers" any more. He hung up the phone and we left the restaurant and headed to the movies. On the way he asked the rest of us if we still really wanted to see the movie. "Duh, of course not, choseh khar," I thought to myself. We just drove all the way across town, only to turn around and go back because you don't want your little woman to get mad at you... NOT!

Then the phone started ringing again. He talked to her, hung up and smiled a sheepish little smile. This happened 3 or 4 times until I couldn't take it any more.

The next time the phone rang, I slammed on the breaks, grabed his phone, jumped out of the car and answered it.

Me: "What?!?"

Bitch: "Where's Davood?"

Me: "Are the kids OK?"

Bitch: "They're fine, where's Davood?"

Me: "Is anyone trying to break into the house?"

Bitch: "Sima! Where's Davood?"

Me: "Call one more ****ing time and tell him to come home and I'm taking his *** to Vegas. Do you hear me? Don't you ****ing call again unless the goddamn house is on fire, the kids are burning up with fever, or you're getting gang banged by a fresh-off-the-boat tribe of pigmy bush niggers. Do you understand!!!? Be khoda, call just once more, JUST ONE MORE MOTHER ****ING TIME and I swear on my kids' life, I'll take his pussy whipped *** to Vegas so he can try to remember what is to be a man again... and if we go, I'm not bringing his *** back until Monday! Got it!?"

Bitch: "Zahre maar, mother ****er!!! Where's my husband!?"

Me: "He's in the ****ing car with 6 other men and you want to treat him like a little ****ing kid. I want this shit stopped now, Homa!!! I've know Davood for seventeen years and he used to be normal, but now you've got his head all ****ed up!!! Don't call again tonight, or he'll be in Vegas shootin craps faster that you can say, Wayne ****ing Newton! Got it!?"

Bitch: "**** you, maadaar sag!"

Me: "Goh Bokhor."

The rest of the night went great. His phone didn't ring once. Just to be a dick, I made sure the night lasted until 4:30 before I dropped everyone off at their houses. I made sure that Davood was the last guy to be dropped off.

Sometimes a man has got to take a stand for one of his buddies. It's one thing to be pussy whipped at home, but to be disrespected when you're out in front of your friends is a completely different story. You've got to keep your bitch in line because if you don't one of your friends might just do it for you and tell her to shut her big ****ing mouth. Goddamn, you know how Iranian women bitch. It's enough to make a man climb a clock tower somewhere and start shooting innocent ****ing strangers.

One thing is for sure; the men who treat their women like Persian princesses, the men who adore and pamper their wives, the men who make jackasses-out-of-themselves being romantic fools are the ones who become pussy whipped the fastest. Men who treat their wives like shit with the occasional pimp slap on the ***, now and again, and men who treat their girlfriend like a fifty dollar whoe, are the ones who get the most respect, the most sex and the most of whatever they want from their bitches, Persian or not!

Khoda made women to please us and NOT the other way around. Women want you to tell them what, when and how to do everything. They want you to treat them like the whoes they are. This is human ****ing nature. You probably think I'm full of shit, but I swear if you just try it for a few days, you'll have to beat her off of you at night. This is what every bitch wants. It's just that television has been ****ing up their heads for so long now and confusing them. Women were made to serve us, please us and service us. This is the natural order of life on this plant. When you start acting like a man again, she'll stop trying to tell you what to do. All she'll want to do is be your little love slave.

So, how do ya get started? Well, women love to be treated like a whoe, so treat her like one. Then, dare I say it? Well, **** it, it's true... women even like to be smacked around now and then, but remember NOT to hurt only to humble. Have you ever seen a humbled woman? (I'm not talking about a woman who has been beaten up by a man, because that shit sucks and I'm against it). I'm talking about a sexy women who deserves more then what she has. A woman who everyone talks about. A woman who takes truck loads of shit from her loser man, yet she stays with him. Why does she stay? She stays because women like a little mistreatment, a little slap on the ***, a little "shut da **** up and get me another beer from the frige, bitch."

Now, compare that with a lucky woman, the kind whose husband waits on her hand and foot and does everything for her. Maybe, he's not rich, but he does EVERYTHING for her. He's romantic, he cleans the house, he takes her out on dates and shopping, he does all the shit that makes normal men want to vomit... AND ALL HIS WOMAN EVER DOES IS COMPLAIN, BITCH, MOAN AND GROAN ON HIM! She even has an affair with his best ****ing friend or the Boy Scout Troup Master who lives in the next house. Then once she's had some of that that Tasty Boy Scout sausage, she even thinks about leaving the poor zan zaleel bastard.

The only way a man can save his marriage when it comes to this point is to humble the bitch. Deep down this is what she wants. She wants to be ****ing humbled. She wants to be a woman who is ruled over by her man. Bitch slap her on the *** and if she's got a big ***, give it a good crack. She'll love for it and she'll ride you like a stallion all night long. Rough sex? Of course, but make sure its not too rough. You want to remind her at all times that you are in charge... both in and out of the bed... you don't want to hurt her though.

[Rasputin]

Never ask your bitch for permission to do anything. You are a man. You don't ask your woman, YOU TELL HER! When you tell her, do it with confidence. Smooth and firm, no "... um... ah... well, azizam..." Remember: smooth and firm, you are the man and you are the boss.

Don't give her time to think if you think she might disagree with something you want her to do. You just tell her to do it and do it right no matter what it is that you want. If she sees that you mean business and you remind her that she is on this earth to satisfy you, she'll do whatever you want.

A friend of mine asked his wife a hundred times if he could "shoot his load in her mouth" and she'd always get angry and tell him not to talk about it anymore. Then I suggested that he just do it. Don't ask her, just ****ing get your rocks off... she'll like the surprise and she'll respect you for not asking for her permission. It took 5 months for him to get the courage just to do it, but when he did, she got so turned on that she begged his to do it again and again. This is the kind of mistreatment women really appreciate and love most. If you treat her like trash outside the bedroom, she'll beg to be your private whoe inside the bedroom. No one will ever be able to call you a zan zaleel.

Treat your woman like a Princess, and she'll force you to treat her like a Queen.
Treat your woman like a Queen, she'll force you to treat her like a King.
Treat your woman like a King, she'll walk all over you and you're doomed to a pathetic miserable life.

Treat the woman you love most like the whoe she was born to be and she'll respect you for life. You need to show her that you are her pimp-daddy. You need to get her under your spell. Don't hypnotize her into thinking you are her little man. Dickmotize her into knowing that she's your hot little love slave. She'll never do better than you and never come close to getting any candy-cane as good as yours. DICK-MOTIZE your woman and convince her you are her pimp daddy of the universe. **** what everyone else thinks. Once your Persian princess is DICK-MOTIZED, your life will be a million times better.

You don't have to have a huge cock to DICK-MOTIZE your woman. Play rough with her during sex. Women don't want to be loved and kissed all over. They want to be ****ed like a $20 whore. Sure, to get her in the mood you have to be all romantic and sensual and etc. Once her motor's hot though, give it to her like she's a south Tehran streetwalker. Ride her with your boots on cowboy. Ride her, like you would if she had 500 whore friends that she would tell just how incredibly remarkable you were. Then you'll get respect once and for all and forever.

She'll never admit it, but she wants a lil abuse. Not physical abuse, the occasional back hand to keep her in line. But the mental and emotional abuse. If you do the emotional and mental abuse right, she'll be more attached to you and will do prety much whatever you say.