Sunday, March 02, 2008

The Destroyed Generation

"I am from the destroyed generation of the revolution, I always ask myself what happened that within a few months it was suddenly bad for me to ride a bicycle as a girl. I was thrown out of school for not wanting to wear a headscarf." Parvin Ardalan, Iranian dissident and campaigner said in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph.

Yet a typical argument made by Islamic Republic promoters is that "women in Iran unlike women in saudi Arabia can drive cars and do this and that".

The point is to compare the situation of the Iranian women before and after the revolution in Iran, and not with that of women in a different country.

For example, a quote from Imran Shafi:
"President Khatami appointed a woman as his Vice-President; in Saudi Arabia, women are not even allowed to drive, let alone participate in political life"

Imran Shafii is a Foreign Affairs Committee "Specialist" at House of Commons!


Anonymous said...

Well, the fact remains that Iranian women today are better educated, live longer, have better access to health care for themselves and their children as well as access to clean water etc, and are represented more in the workplace than before.

You see you exiles' problem is that you think your own family's good lifestyle during the Shah was representative of all Iran.

Winston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Azarmehr said...

And you "useful idiots" just won't go and live in Iran yourselves to find out what the Iranian women have to suffer.

Anonymous said...

If only Iranian women had the chance to answer themseleves in a referendum, "Do you feel better off now or before the revolution"?

The problem with people like this anonymous mongrol above, is that they always THINK they have the facts but they don't trust the people to choose.

Its like they THINK the Cuban people are happy but they dont ask themselves if they are so happy why do they leave Cuba in such large numbers and why can they not choose their leader?

Surely if they are so happy the government shouldnt be so scared to let the people choose!

Anonymous said...

Mr Azarmehr, from looking at your picture it is obvious you are into faggotry.

Is this the reason why you fled Iran?

Winston said...

Well said Azarmehr, I agree 100%

Azarmehr said...

anonymous! Looks like my picture has turned you on ;) Don't get too excited its not good for your health and write about your fantasies somewhere else.

Anonymous said...


Two things. One; the first anonymous statement is a widely held sentiment; a sentiment I sometimes find myself agreeing with. Two; Azadeh, your referendum is not applicable. If you research Iranian demographics you will discover that a vast majority of women living in Iran were born AFTER the revolution.

The fact remains: women have made more progress in Iran than any other women in the region. Don't discredit this because of your intense dislike of the IRI. One can also say that women obtained the right to vote without a suffrage movement, unlike in America and other western countries.

Yet, this is not a justification for other women's rights shortcomings in Iran. There is a lot of work to be done in that arena, and civil rights in general.

As Mrs. Clinton says, "women's rights are human rights."


Anonymous said...

why don't you compare iranian women's today life with European or American women. Do that and you will see what do we have now comparing to 30 years ago. Ofcourse technology is much more advance now days in the world not only iran. But, potkin's point was not about that, i believe it was about the place of women in iran's today society and in that aspect as an Iranian women I am quite certain we step back and been treated like a uncivilized Arab women from 1400 years ago who even could be stoned!!!!
What a great improvement. as a iranian women i rather to be able to live shorter period of time but proudly not longer and humiliated.

Azarmehr said...


Once again your arguments are full of holes and full of remote sentiments probably through reading junk writings of Islamic Republic apologists.

If you really want to be pedantic then hold the referendum amongst Iranain women like Parvin Ardalan who remember the before and after revolution.

Women have made more progress in Iran than other countries but bollocks if anyone gives any credit to the mullahs for that.

Perhaps here is one example of my engineering background which results in me having a different view from you. IN engineering there is a correct way of measuring things. To arrive at a correct comparative figure, you need to measure the women's rights before and after the revolution, and extrapolate the trend along the time axis.

Before the revolution they were freed from wearing the compulsory hejab, they were given the vote, they were encouraged to take an active part in the society, they were given the right to vote, family laws were changed fit for a modern society, after the revolution, women have had to wear the compulsory hejab, they can not be considered for many occupations, the family laws are extremely oppressive against them, the minimum age of marriage has been reduced to 9 for God's sake,
and now they are even blaming the social malais on too many women entering higher education and reducing this by gender discrimination.

If women in Iran have made more progress, its still because of the foundations that were laid for them before the revolution, the mullahs have tried to reverse this progress and the women of Iran have resisted. There is no reason to give any credit for the status of the Iranian women to the mullahs and stupid irrelevant comparisons with women in Saudia Arabia. The women in Saudia Arabia have always lived like this, Iranain women have not!

Its funny how such comparisons were never made during the Pahlavi rule. For example does anyone mention that before Reza Shah took over, each year a million Iranians died because of famine and disease, but after Reza Shah due to immense improvements made, Iranian population actually increased.

Or do you ever hear those who criticise Reza Shah in modernising Iran, say but Iranian women under Reza Shah have made so much more progress than their counterparts in Arabia?

Anonymous said...


MY arguments are full of holes? Ha, that's funny :) Like I said;

"this is not a justification for other women's rights shortcomings in Iran. There is A LOT of work to be done in that arena, and civil rights in general.

As Mrs. Clinton says, 'women's rights are human rights.'"

So I don't know why you always think I'm defending the Mullahs and what not. Don't you know that I think women's rights in Iran is deplorable? Did you not read what I wrote on saggezard's blog?

As you so often like to say, "the problem with people like you" and maryam is that any argument about the current state of affairs in Iran has to be compared to the Pahlavi rule. And that's ridiculous.

Not to mention, maryam khanom, your racist argument comparing yourself and other Iranian women to an Arab woman is not particularly convincing - at least not to educated people; maybe to dah-ties though:) Here's a random fact for you: Under 60% of Iran's population is ethnically Persian.

Seriously, if you guys harbor any latent hopes of reviving the monarchy, you have no idea how disconnected you are. As you are well aware, I was born after his rule (in Shiraz), along with %70 of the current Iranian population. To us, the Shah is history; and good riddance to him.

Engaging in these types of arguments is really beneath my level of understanding. So please understand that when we discuss the current state of affairs of civil rights in Iran, it has nothing to do with the Pahlavis, i.e. the past, and everything to do with the present. Engaging in these anachronistic debates serves no purpose.

But needless to say, the status of human rights/women's rights/civil rights/ political rights were deplorable under Reza Shah; just as they are now under the IRI, especially women's rights.

I know your an engineer, but please stop engineering these unrelated and insignificant responses to what I actually said. It's "bloody" ridiculous.


Azarmehr said...


Nothing to do with reviving Monarchy, once again you've got your knickers and arguments into a terrible twist.

Parvin Ardalan, I am sure is not a monarchist, but as someone who lived in a secular state which suddenly changed to a theocratic state, felt the pain and bewilderment of a young generation
who watched their parents just give up their rights and privileges, enchanted by a reactionary figure from the dark ages. Suddenly simple things like
riding a bike and not having to cover your hair became forbidden for someone like Parvin Ardalan and those of her generation.

Ok so you said
"There is A LOT of work to be done in that arena, and civil rights in general." and you are not pro-mullah well done! Your tufty badge is in the post. That doesnt mean everything else you say is right or has to be agreed to.

You say "One can also say that women obtained the right to vote without a suffrage movement" and it gives the impression that the Mullahs granted the right to vote to Iranian women. In fact one of Khomeini's contentions with the Shah was that THE SHAH had given the women the right to vote.

As to comparing the state of the affairs with the Pahlavi rule, not only I think sometimes that is very relevant, as we are talking about Iran and the revolution that ousted the secular monarchy in Iran, I certainly think its more relevant to compare it with Saudi Arabia. It astounds me that you think comparing Iranain women with Saudia Arabia is ok but we must not compare it with that during the Pahlavi rule!!

There is also nothing racist about what Maryam said either. She said "we are being stepped back to treatment of Arab women 1400 years ago, where they were stoned to death" and let me add also that new born girls were buried alive in Arabia 1400 years ago, thats very uncivilised. Or do you think women in Arabia 1400 years ago were better off and had more rights and better social services and lived longer than Iranian women under Reza Shah?!

Winston said...

I think Regime apologists are full of holes themselves... LOL

Anonymous said...

barmakid -

"The fact remains: women have made more progress in Iran than any other women in the region."

What a ridiculous statement!
30 yrs ago, women in Iran were on par with women in europe, as far as their rights were concerned.
Then a totalitarian regime took over, and wiped away most of their rights.
But the fact that they didn't wipe away ALL their rights, like in the neighboring arab countries, makes the Iranian women look to you like they've made real progress. Progress, which by-the-way, they wouldn't have had to make AT ALL if this regime hadn't taken over.

SO let me get this straight .... if a dictator takes over the country I live in and takes away 3/4 of my rights, but that's still 1/4 more than the people in the neigboring countries have, that should be looked upon as progress?

Anonymous said...


I did not compare women's rights to those of women in Saudi Arabia as a justification of what the Mullahs have allowed women to do. I explicitly said that; so whose knickers and arguments are in a bunch?

You can talk about the Pahlavis and Arabs all you want; whatever floats your boat. But you should know, while you tout the fact that woman voted under that Shah, that voting under the Shah was incredibly insignificant. In fact, one dissident in Iran at the time called the two political parties, i.e. the Tudeh and the Shah's party, the "yes" and the "yes sir" parties. Thus, political freedom under the Shah was absent evermore than it is today.

So call me a mullah apologist or an IRI troll, whatever strikes your fancy. And pay no mind to what inspires my way of thinking; that my cousin was executed for homosexuality, and yet another brutally whipped for talking to a girl on the street; or my khaleh who had her head stuck in a bucket of snakes and roaches for showing too much hair. After all that, how can I not like the IRI? They're so great!

Get a clue. And if you can't find one, pick up a book. Because obviously the last one you read was in 1979.


Azarmehr said...


In which book did you read the official parties were the Tudeh and the Shah's party? Tudeh was the Soviet puppet Communist party. You get so confused sometimes I get lost with you. Then you accuse everyone of all kind of things and on top of that accuse everyone of accusing you of this and that! I really despair at your confused state of mind.

I didnt say you are an Islamic Republic troll. sometimes you say good things sometimes you are totally wrong. If what happened to your aunt is true then you of all people should not say
"The fact remains that women in Iran have made more progress than other women in the region"

Anonymous said...

this Kid is clueless

Anonymous said...


Please, don't despair:) I'm just young and "confused." That'll change with time; then I'll be more like you, chester, winston, and the rest of your dwindling ilk.

The fact that those and more things have happened to my family members is what has allowed me to realize that responding emotionally only defeats myself. You might be old enough to conveniently not care about what happens in Iran, but, contrary to what you might believe, I care enough to realize that engaging in these petty, unfruitful debates about how it was under the Shah compared to what it is now doesn't help change anything. It only serves to further fraction our potential unity via a shared history, culture, and language.

So do yourself a favor and retrace the chronology of the posts on this thread (I respectfully responded to peoples ideas only to be unduly attacked). Then consider the conversation that took place on Saggezard's blog; which one was more constructive?


p.s. I earnestly encourage you to never relent on seeking that "clue" I was talking about, because it's out there. Va omidvaram ke paedahsh koni:)

Anonymous said...

Oh, and btw, I am well aware the Tudeh party was a communist party. They supported labor rights and land reform for workers and peasants, they sought political rights for women, and supported wage increases. They were one of the better parties in Iran and the monarch proceeded to kill and imprison them all. Then he created his own illegitimate two-party system, referred to by Iranians at the time as the "baleh," va "baleh agha" parties.

I know, I know; you don't need to tell me winston: I'm a commie!


Azarmehr said...

Are you winding me up on purpose Barmakid? :)
I wish I could pick you up and slap you out of your barmicide feast bache joon.

The Tudeh Party didn't care about Iranian workers, peasants and women, it cared about pleasing its paymasters, i.e. the Soviet politbureau.

And look what happened to the heads of the Tudeh Party, when they fled to Soviet Union. Look how they were treated by those they had served all their lives. They were imprisoned, sent to remote parts, or died in abject poverty.

And if you want to know who the dwindling ilk is, just have a look at what is left of the Tudeh party.

Bahramerad said...

Why do you bother with this barmakid guy?
It is like talking to a prick - I meant a Brick?
He does not know what the hell he is on about and is just using you as a punch bag to air his frustratingly stupid idea's.
Please do not answer him and waste you time.
You will never get through to his thick skull.

Aryamehr said...

Is this barmakid character for real!? Trying to humanize/defend the soviet Tudeh Party? He's either out of his mind or just a stooge that is trying to waste time in here. Have mercy on his soul. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Azarmehr -
barmakid thinks that if you have a dollar & live in a neighborhood where everyone else has 5 cents, and a bully comes along and steals your dollar, but leaves you 10 cents, that you shouldn't feel so bad, because you still have more than your neighbors.