Will the Iran crisis lead to gender equality in Iran?
Analyzing the Iran crisis through a Feminist Lens
By Elias Pinkes
Senior Writer
Freshman Representative
Defining the Feminist Lens
Throughout history, women’s rights have been an afterthought. In today’s world, they still are, particularly in a place such as Iran.
One can apply the Feminist Lens, the general framework that considers women and gender equality to be an essential part of a society, to the fundamental laws of Iran’s conservative regime. This could uproot the injustice that these laws impose upon women in particular.
When the Feminist Lens is taken into account, gender equality and parity, the equal contribution of both men and women in every dimension of life, become central to domestic policy. This allows women to gain access to important governmental decision-making positions where they can have more representation in shaping policies to be less oppressive and more beneficial to a country’s citizens, leading to peace and stability.
The Absence of Feminism and Gender Equality In Iran Today
Protests have engulfed Iran.
They were ignited by the death of Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish-Iranian woman who was killed in the custody of the Morality Police, accused of not wearing her hijab properly. The Morality Police are a repressive bureaucratic institution established in the past and have been embedded into Iran’s cultural and political infrastructure.
The Feminist Lens has not been applied to Iran’s domestic policy-making. Therefore, it is necessary to seek out solutions to the Iranian crisis by analyzing general examples of the benefit of applying the Feminist Lens and how an international response could provide the platform necessary to allow the ideals of feminism to thrive in Iran.
How the Feminist Lens can be applied to the Current Iranian Crisis
When gender parity and equality are included in government and general aspects of a society, the benefits for a country can be immense.
For example, Jacqui True, an author of the book titled “Theories of International Relations” states within her section on Feminist Theory, that investing in women and girls’ education is a cost-effective way to raise the general income and population rates of a country. Another aspect in which applying gender equality and parity can be beneficial is the prevention of political violence within a state. Marie O’Reilly, an author for Inclusive Security, cited a statistic that was provided by Erik Melander’s “Political Gender Equality and State Human Rights Abuse,” in the Journal of Peace Research.
She indicated:
“In terms of political violence perpetrated by the state, statistical analysis of data from most countries in the world during the period 1977–1996 showed that the higher the proportion of women in parliament, the lower the likelihood that the state carried out human rights abuses such as political imprisonments, torture, killings, and disappearances.”
If this is true for the world from 1977–1996, then why can’t this statistic carry weight in today’s world? Sure, a lot has changed, but I do not believe that the benefits of higher participation of women in parliament need to be recognized in just one instance in history. I say this in the context of the current crisis in Iran, where I hope that the current protests can instigate some kind of change in domestic policy so that women’s and gender equality can take root. However, it might take some outside help to really force the current Iranian regime into concessions toward a feminist framework.
The Iranian protests are brutal. Yet there are ways to give the protests in Iran the fuel necessary to force an embattled regime to change for the better.
I believe an Internationalist response — a response in which countries, international organizations, and institutions can collectively act — should back the protests currently erupting in Iran so that the government does not walk away from the issue of repression with complete impunity.
An organization such as Human Rights Watch would concur with this idea of accountability. In a recent article documenting the brutal crackdown of the Iranian protests, the organization states: “Concerned governments should cooperate to increase pressure on Iran and undertake a United Nations-led independent inquiry into serious abuses committed during the protests and recommend avenues for holding those responsible to account.”
An Internationalist Response heralding accountability against Iran’s autocratic theocracy would also set a precedent that may prevent future autocrats from being encouraged to respond to peaceful protests or citizen action with extreme repression. However, due to the enforcement of entrenched conservative values, the current Iranian government may be very resistant to any movement for change, even if it is supported internationally. The evidence for this claim lies in Iran’s history.
Counterpoint
The rise of a repressive regime in Iran can be traced as far back as when the U.S. and U.K. intervened in the 1950’s, which destabilized the country enough to ignite a revolution among the people. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Citizens across the country believed further efforts to construct a system founded on the principles of equality were in order.
However, with a new republic came an oppressive conservative regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini, whose theocratic policies discriminated against women. For example, his new government mandated a policy that consisted of Mosque-based revolutionary guards who were to patrol the streets and enforce proper dress codes. Additionally, the new regine nullified the Family Marriage Act of 1967. The new government’s action overturned women’s rights in the context of marriage.
These laws became further embedded in Iranian society as time went on, due to the theocratic regime maintaining power over the country. During their time in power, they have repeatedly used the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) as an extension of their iron fist of oppression: to exert control and contain any situation that might spark dissidence.
This is one of the major purposes of the IRGC, as they try to put out the growing feminist flames, they are not backing down. They are resistors of change and would make an international response difficult, but not impossible.
Conclusion
After a specific point in history, security failures broke Iran as foreign intervention created the instability necessary to ignite the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ultimately paved the way for a new conservative and repressive theocracy to come to power. The result is extreme repression of women’s rights.
To truly understand today’s systemic instability, one can analyze the historical and current action-reaction dynamics pertaining to women’s protests against restricted laws. The response is brutal each time.
Thus, a potential solution to the situation in Iran would be an internationalist response that gives feminism in Iran a more durable platform. Countries and international organizations could collectively back the protests in ways that do not violate Iranian sovereignty, but send a clear message that Mahsa Amini’s death was not in vain in women’s fight for freedom in Iran.
On a final note, this response along with other future initiatives could apply the feminist lens to fundamental domestic law. An idea that can act as the driving force behind gender equality not only in Iran but in the Middle East as well. This can break the cycles of repression that have remained for many years.
Elias Pinkes is a freshman majoring in International Affairs.
