Jewels of Allah: The Untold Story of Women in Iran

by Nina Ansary

  Post-revolutionary elementary school textbooks.

  In the second grade religious manual introduced by the Islamic Republic, entitled Gifts from Heaven (Hediye-hay-e Asemani):

  ♦God’s illustrious attributes and His venerated gifts to humankind are enumerated.

  ♦There is extensive coverage of sacred Islamic customs and time-honored celebrations, narratives about the Prophet Muhammad and members of his immediate family, and descriptions of major world religions.

  ♦With regard to the manner in which males and females are depicted, only three sections in the entire Gifts from Heaven series describe the role and responsibility of men and women in the family. The following passages highlight the importance of marital partnership in an Islamic community:

  1.Mr. Mahmoud Hashemi (husband/father) works in the post office, and Tahereh Khanum (wife/mother) is a homemaker. In this family everyone is obligated to help one another. When Mr. Hashemi leaves work, he shops for the family on his way home. In addition to housework, Tahereh Kanum works as a seamstress so that she is able to contribute to the household expenses with the money she earns.82

  2.We are all members of the same family. Mothers and fathers provide us with food, clothing, and shelter. They take care of us and when we are sick they take us to the doctor. Mothers and fathers are kind and they make sacrifices for our comfort.83

  3.Every member of the family has a responsibility. Usually the father works outside of the house. In some families, the mother works outside of the house as well. In villages, women work in agriculture and carpet weaving. In cities, some women work in schools, hospitals, factories, and offices.84

  It is important to note that these excerpts are not altogether indicative of a traditional division of labor, nor do they exclusively delegate domestic and childcare responsibilities to the female head of the household. They neither reflect the myriad gender-biased declarations of Islamic leaders, nor endorse many of the laws designed to redirect women into the private sphere.

  In the Koranic Studies (Amuzesh-e Koran) textbooks of the Islamic Republic:

  ♦Strictly based on religious guidance and discipline, the content and images are comparable to the Reading and Writing Farsi textbooks in their depiction of gender roles in the household and community at large.

  ♦Segregation of boys and girls is found only in the depiction of prayer sessions in mosques and all instructional spaces.

  ♦On the other hand, families are shown in a number of outdoor recreational activities, with a noticeable absence of specific references to male/female functions and any citations of religious justifications for gender stereotyping.

  TEXTBOOK STUDY CONCLUSIONS

  The secular curriculum of the monarchy was indeed transformed as part of the Islamic Republic’s overriding mission to cultivate and nurture the ideal citizen, with the overall aim being to blend Islamic principles into the educational system. However, with the exception of classroom and prayer scenes, the integration of the sexes is clearly apparent in the schoolbooks’ depiction of leisure activities. These graphics neither endorse nor reflect the Republic’s mandate for the public segregation of men and women outside of the private sphere. But somehow they were not edited out of the Republic’s educational materials.

  Additionally, secular role models featured in post-revolutionary textbooks are virtually identical to those of the Pahlavi era. For example, the celebrated physicians Muhammad Zakariya Razi (AD 864–930) and Avicenna (c. 980–1037), representing the Golden Age of Persia, are acknowledged for their humanitarian contributions, and ancient Persian dynasties and their rulers are eulogized for their conquests. Renowned Persian poets Hafez, Saadi, and Ferdowsi are praised for their classical prose, and noteworthy inventions of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright brothers, and Thomas Edison are extolled.

  It must be stated that during the monarchy, female role models were generally nonexistent in elementary texts, other than mothers, teachers, and the Shahbanou (Empress) of Iran and wife of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.85 The recurring theme of motherhood, however, is one that is highlighted in numerous passages in the Farsi textbooks of both the Pahlavi and Khomeini eras. Women as mothers are uniformly exalted in poems such as “Kinder than Mother” and “Mother”—commemorative tributes to a mother’s nurturance, empathy, and devotion to the younger generation.86

  It can be argued that both regimes fundamentally presented the world from an overtly male perspective: both failed to mention worthy contributions made by women in various fields.

  The overarching question is this: Did the gender ideology conveyed in the “Islamized” curriculum differ substantially from that found in Pahlavi era textbooks? This study concluded that it did not. In fact, it may surprise many to learn that the books utilized in post-revolutionary elementary schools often praise, acknowledge, and are appreciative of contributions made by all family members, and do not typically portray a society that discriminates against women. Aside from being shown wearing the veil and being segregated in the classroom, girls and women are presented as autonomous beings, relatively unburdened by household tasks. The Islamic era schoolbooks do not reflect an aversion to women’s employment, nor do they appear to view women’s economic activities as secondary to domestic and maternal obligations.

  Given such evidence, it is possible to conclude that a distinctly inadequate effort was made to socialize female students so that they would be induced to conform to the Republic’s vision of the ideal Islamic woman.

  With that said, it is important to acknowledge that the elementary curriculum in both the Pahlavi and Khomeini periods may not have been entirely successful in systematically and sufficiently socializing young women to embrace the respective gender ideologies of either the monarchical or the Islamic prototype. Interestingly, while textbooks from the Khomeini era depict a wide array of professions for both women and men, books from the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi underscore household and teaching roles for women but fail to include potential occupations available to females in a progressive society.

  While the Republic intended to indoctrinate young minds with its patriarchal dogma, it proved inadequate in socializing the pre-adolescent female population. The “revised” post-revolutionary–era elementary textbooks did not differ substantially from those of the Pahlavi regime because the Khomeini regime neglected to make significant changes when they adapted the schoolbooks from the previous government. This meant that the books distributed at the newly Islamized schools were insufficiently revised versions of those from the secular, westernized Pahlavi period.

  The significance of this major oversight is that girls from traditional backgrounds were exposed to a world beyond their formerly sheltered lives. It is especially relevant that young girls’ exposure to images and ideology that did not reflect the preferred female role in an Islamic society—that of wife and mother—occurred during the impressionable pre-adolescent years—a crucial time when culturally and socially defined gender roles are acquired.87

  How did this happen? How did Islamic officials in charge of educational policies fail to notice that these textbooks contained images and text that clearly reflected Western values?

  When the Islamic Republic undertook its Cultural Revolution to Islamize the nation, the logical course of action with regard to education would have been to completely dismantle the westernized school system put in place by the Pahlavis and replace it with the maktab structure that existed prior to the monarchy. Islamist officials also would have rewritten all the textbooks to accurately reflect the state’s preferred role for women. But by neglecting to make these changes, the Khomeini administration left the door open for schoolgirls to learn a way of life that was essentially incompatible with conservative Islamic values. And this fundamental blunder partially accounts for the failed gender ideology of the Islamic Republic.

  In addition, since the coeducational schools ushered in during the Pahlavi era were now transfor
med into same-sex institutions, girls from conservative families who had previously been kept at home could now go to school in the newly chaste environment. Unbeknownst to the architects of post-revolutionary educational policy, Iran’s same-sex classrooms also opened a new door to female empowerment.

  GIRLS ONLY! — SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION

  In the aftermath of the revolution, the Islamic Republic under Khomeini instituted policies segregating the sexes in order to reinstate a culture of modesty and conservatism. Soon after the collapse of the Pahlavi monarchy, the Ministry of Education banned coeducation in academia as part of the measures initiated to “bring back a glorious tradition of what was perceived to be ‘true’ Islam.”88 By 1982, all levels except for higher education were transformed into single-sex institutions, expediting the entry of the traditional female population into the educational arena.

  Coeducation instituted by the Pahlavi monarchy had been one of the numerous measures that was largely unfamiliar—and in some cases even viewed as offensive—to conservative families who for centuries adhered to the cultural notion that women should be separated from men. Therefore, it was not surprising that many of these families kept their girls from attending the coed schools of the Pahlavi era. Although the Literacy Corps during the Shah’s regime had adopted strategies intended to attract conservative families, such as Koran recitations to the separation of boys and girls within the classroom, the inability of the conservative population to adjust to the monarchy’s policies prohibited them from participating in the new educational program.

  The eradication of coeducation, seen as incompatible with the intrinsic nature of Iranian society, likely contributed to the liberation of many traditional young women by inadvertently providing them with an enhanced learning environment. In fact, perhaps the Republic’s greatest triumph in instituting same-sex education was an influx of rural women into the classroom.89 According to the 1976 census, a mere 10 percent of all women residing in provincial regions were literate. In 1986, this figure stood at 37 percent. In 1996 it was 78 percent, and by 2006 it had increased to well over 90 percent.90 (Although this remarkable occurrence reflects the power of Islam for traditional families, it is important to note that while during the late Pahlavi period over half of Iran’s population lived in the provinces, by 1996, over 60 percent had migrated to urban areas.)91

  How did same-sex education, ushered in with the Islamic Revolution, benefit girls from the conservative families who made up a majority of the Iranian population? Was the Islamic Republic’s decree for separating the sexes a blessing in disguise for future generations of Iranian women?

  The previous section on post-revolutionary elementary textbooks revealed how the Islamic regime failed to adequately communicate to the younger generation of females the image of the time-honored Muslim woman—an unintended consequence of utilizing minimally revised Pahlavi-era educational materials. Same-sex classrooms also represent an unintended consequence in that young women became more empowered as a result of being educated in a segregated (female only) environment.

  The government’s decree mandating gender segregation in Iran’s schools has been broadly cited by historians as responsible for luring young women from modest families into the educational arena. However, the social and academic advantages of same-sex education have been inadequately addressed in terms of providing for Iranian girls an avenue away from “traditional” life and toward female self-determination.

  A number of analyses since the early 1990s among Western nations testify to the benefits associated with adolescent young women acquiring an education in single-sex schools. These studies may help to explain not only the advances in Iranian women’s achievements, despite the patriarchal decrees, but the seismic shift in their perspective on women’s role in society and their determination to overcome a subordinate status.

  Research applicable to Iranian women and their experience in single-sex institutions is virtually nonexistent, as no studies have considered its potential benefits as a means for counteracting the dictates of a patriarchal society. This investigation is therefore focused on Western research—specifically that pertaining to pre-adolescent and adolescent girls.

  For the purpose of this book, it was important to consider the impact on pre-adolescent and adolescent girls. As renoun social psychologist Erik Erikson (1902–1994) points out, this is a crucial time for identity formation and gender-role socialization. Erikson is best known for coining the term “identity crisis,” and while he acknowledged that identity issues occur throughout an individual’s lifetime, dilemmas associated with its formation are more intense as children transition into adolescence.92 Psychologists elaborate on this theory by confirming that during the pre-teenage and teenage years, males and females are especially cautious to ensure gender-role conformity.

  While early adolescence represents a difficult milestone for both sexes, it is considered to be an especially challenging juncture for girls.93 The transformation of a young girl into a young woman is complex, as it entails meeting the unique demands of society, which at times assigns females roles that are clearly less valued than those allocated to men. Studies have reported a substantial deterioration in the self-esteem and confidence levels of adolescent girls, which often occurs at the expense of academic achievement.94 The conflicted view of the self during those years is supported by research showing that girls need to be actively encouraged to participate in class and therefore require additional nurturing and teacher time.95

  Could single-sex schools be the answer? The value of acquiring an education in single-sex schools, especially for girls, has become the subject of an ongoing debate in the United States and other Western countries over the last two decades.

  The origins of coeducation in the United States date back to the mid-nineteenth century, when women initially demanded access to education as part of the early efforts spearheaded by equal rights activists, whose leaders maintained that “mixed” learning environments were an essential prerequisite of emancipating women from their “separate sphere.”96

  During this period, select communities in Massachusetts began to experiment with the “radical” concept of a high school education for girls, and the coeducational “common school system” pioneered by education reformer Horace Mann came to be seen as “America’s great equalizer.”97 The impact of this revolutionary new concept varied considerably among different groups, with adversaries becoming increasingly concerned about the sexual consequences of a mixed learning environment, as well as the necessity for boys and girls to be educated separately for their “distinct life paths.”98 Advocates of coeducation countered that it gave girls access to better educational opportunities, while their presence in class would placate the rambunctious nature of boys. This contentious debate was eventually resolved on the basis that separate schools for girls and boys ultimately required higher taxes and consequently should be viewed as an economically unviable and unfeasible option.99

  In 1961, sociologist and author James Coleman questioned the social climate of coeducational institutions in the United States, concluding that the prevailing youth culture, which interfered with academic performance and underscored popularity, proved especially damaging for girls, who became consumed with a self-imposed mission to render themselves “desirable objects for boys.”100

  It took another two decades for additional studies to confirm Coleman’s earlier findings and to draw attention to ongoing sexism in coeducational schools. By the early 1990s, a number of new studies began to report that girls were in fact not receiving the same quality of education as boys, due primarily to male disciplinary problems demanding additional teacher time and attention.101 Nationally acclaimed reports claimed an unconscious gender bias in coeducational classrooms that significantly shortchanges young women both socially and academically.102

  The publication of these studies offered a new message: “Schools without boys seem to be good for girls.”103

  Among the most re
levant findings:

  ♦Noted psychologist Carol Gilligan refers to the adolescent years as a “watershed in female development, a time when girls are in danger of drowning or disappearing.”104 She maintains that girls often lose their “authentic voice” during adolescence as they become overwhelmed by the patriarchy of their daily surroundings.105 In contrast to boys, Gilligan contends, girls tend to be “passive players” and consequently require additional encouragement in a coeducational classroom setting in order to overcome their reluctance to speak up.106

  ♦Professors of Education Myra and David Sadker documented the challenges faced by adolescent girls stemming from gender bias in the school system.107 In their 1994 book, Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls, the Sadkers reported that boys dominated classroom discussions while girls reluctantly became “passive participants.”108 Teachers, the authors report, unintentionally spend the majority of their attention either praising, criticizing, correcting or assisting boys rather than girls.109 The Sadkers argued that an “uneven distribution of teacher time” takes its toll on girls, often impacting their self-esteem and academic achievement and ultimately escalating into a “silent erosion of female potential.”110,111

  The Sadkers found that in single-sex schools, girls spoke their minds with ease, asked more questions, openly admitted to their confusion with confidence and determination to master the subject at hand, and were more successful in their studies.112 The authors revealed that girls in single-sex schools have a stronger sense of identity, display more interest in the nontraditional subjects such as math and physical sciences, and find more positive role models and mentors.113