Thoughts on "Rape Culture" in Iran

I recently saw this article and video discussing "slut-shaming" and it got me thinking a little bit. More recently, today, I read this article about the legally enforced "Islamic" dress code in Iran. (The third paragraph is the one relevant to my discussion here). (I realize it's a bit old: I followed a link to get there from a more recent article about Tehran coffee shops, which is interesting enough that I am sharing the link here).

I'll begin with the thoughts that Margo Fortier, the 14-year-old wiser than her years inspired. I had never heard the term slut-shaming before, and it's good that I finally did, not only because it made me realize that this was an activity I myself (at least mentally) engaged in in some contexts, but also because it got me thinking more about the consequences and its role in Iranian culture, which I have oft criticized primarily because of the strict restrictions it places on women. When I refer to "Iranian culture" here, I am referring to the conservative Islamist culture that is embodied by much of the older generation, supported by the Islamic regime, and forced onto the youth. 

Before discussing how slut-shaming occurs among Iranians, I will briefly explain and attempt to excuse my own participation in it: it has happened that I describe (aloud or silently) a girl or woman (whether a celebrity or a stranger on the street) as "slutty" or "whorish" because she dresses or acts provocatively. When I make such a categorization I, like anyone else, don't mean that she is a prostitute, but that her actions or manner of dress suggest that she is sexually available and willing. This verbal categorization is usually accompanied by a feeling of disgust or resentment and a moral judgement of wrongdoing. Before hearing Margo's words I made the judgement without much thought, but now I seem to catch myself in the thought, or feel vaguely disturbed when I hear someone else express it. The reason I feel disturbed is that I can no longer reconcile the belief that I am an open-minded, liberal person who believes in human rights (and particularly women's rights, if only because women as a group have been and are more often stripped of their rights than men have), with this action. That is, in accord with the liberal worldview, I can not allow myself to pass judgement on another human being's actions, particularly when they concern that person only.

That being said, the aforementioned "provocative" actions do affect other people, and this is the core of the fundamentalist's moral argument. Provocative actions do just that--provoke--and while we may not know an individual's motives for doing so, we can certainly say that the women who display this behaviour draw attention, and, according to the fundamentalist, lead to moral corruption. While words like "moral corruption" are vague, we can assume that what the fundamentalist means includes the following: sexual feelings and desires incited in others (for the purposes of this blog post we will assume these other people are men, since allowance of homosexuality will unnecessarily complicate things, and of course, to paraphrase one president, homosexuality does not exist in Iran), possibly leading to "illicit" sex (i.e. sex out of wedlock), both of which are acceptable in a liberal society, but not in a fundamentalist one. And yet, even within liberal society we allow the judgement to pass. Perhaps the reason for this stems from a fear that the "culprit" will provoke (our own) married men, who have vowed to remain sexually faithful to one person. If this is the reason, the judgement is still uncalled-for, as faithfulness of the married man is his responsibility, not the "provocative" woman's.

Let me be a little more clear. There exists, quite unfortunately, an argument among fundamentalists (I assume all over the world, but I am particularly familiar with this among Iranians, and internalized even by women), which suggests that a woman's behaviour and degree of covering are responsible for the feelings and actions of men towards her. This is not usually directly stated, but the suggestion that "faulty" covering leads to "moral corruption" means just that. The danger of the argument: it is a thin cloak for the justification of rape. I have seen a number of disturbing documentary or news videos and articles regarding rape by officials in Iran, and while I can not verify the truth of any of them with complete certainty, and know that most fundamentalists will deny their veracity, I strongly suspect that many are true.

The fundamentalists, of course, when faced with this kind of story, will cite Western influence as the problem, which has led to censorship of movies, a ban on satellite T.V., and blocking of many internet sites. This kind of action not only infringes on further rights, but is fundamentally misguided. It has only led to a very active black market for uncensored versions of Western movies and creative use of VPN and various other strategies to access the internet. Not only that, but the very idea that these images (often very innocent ones, by our liberal Western standards) are the source of sexual desire is laughable. A young population is sexually driven by nature, and in a society that enforces sexual starvation, rape will occur. No external influence necessary.

And that is just the problem. The fundamentalist nature of the current Iranian regime breeds men who, because they can not satisfy their sexual desires naturally, resort to rape (not only of "provocative" women, but also of younger boys). This is true both of the "rebellious" youth, but also of older men and officials, who, because of the very prevalent misogyny embedded in the culture, think nothing of blaming the woman (who perhaps very innocently wished to express a sense of style and differentiate herself from the swarm of black chadors and got stopped by the morality-police, or perhaps with youthful naivete bred by sexual segregation sought friendship with a young man she thought attractive).

Misogyny in Iran is very real, and the rape culture it breeds is inexcusable. It takes a very long time to change a culture, but perhaps expressing the need is the first step.