The documentary film “Divorce Iranian Style”, implicitly indicts viewers into Iran during the period of Islamic law. The filmmakers, Kim Longinotto and Zibar Mir-Hosseini, were given carte blanche by the judges; they were allowed to film with complete impunity. This gave the filmmakers a rare opportunity to interact with the plaintiffs and the accused equally: the entire stage was set and all the players were vulnerable against the impartial gaze of the deadened lense. The opening commentaries state the grounds of the court and the desire and objective of the law is solely and explicitly to allow, and, facilitate families to be reconciled (0:00:43 – 00:01:15),
Divorce Iranian Style
Anthropology 378
1
“a husband has a right to a divorce but
…show more content…
he has to get a legal court order and pay his wife’s compensation [if] the court can disapprove the divorce.” In the film, the first case presented is an alleged “dishonorable phone call.” The husband has asked the police to intervene “for this indignation.” If admissible by the court, it could be the basis for a divorce. The couple has been married for roughly thirty years. The woman makes the case that she is not even allowed to use the house phone, much more make “intimate phone calls.” Although she protests wholeheartedly against the judge’s wish to reconcile them, her husband insists that she should at least have good behavior. A comedy of errors in which the laugh track is mute: state-sponsored abetted rape. Life is difficult in Iran for half of the population. Despite the document written by the police, the legacy of Islamic Law and its unassailable interpretations, such as “after the husband, the wife is the boss” (00:03:25), and further, “once he has paid you compensation, he can divorce you” (00:04:00) do not allow the viewers to make a difference between reconciling the marriage and the rights of a woman (whose husband disallows her to use a phone, any phone, even to converse with her son, their son). With a smooth camera movement, panning from the judge to the couple (00:3:58); the filmmakers offer a neutral, yet loaded caption. This transmits immutably an image of a wife and a husband who are ill at ease, waiting for reasons to terminate the contract of marriage, and dealing with the mundane; how much compensation one has to lose or gain? The woman resists the reconciliation and verdict; this invokes a stirring show, the viewers are shown the finer aspects of Islamic Law (00:04:27), “…once you’re divorced, you must live together in the same house for three months and ten days.” Outside of the court, (00:05:50) filmed discreetly, we are shown how men and women are threatened.
The subjects are not aware they are being filmed. The eloquent voice -over introduces us to the concept of two separate and unequal entries: one for men, and one for women. For the men, they are searched for mobile phones and weapons; women only have to deal with a strict dress code they must obey. And no lipstick! (absolutely) This is a clear indication of a culture that segregates and degrades women. The women are not even seen a potential for violence let alone dissent, the women are silenced and their words are but lip service (unadorned) to a crowd (unmoved) that listens but does not feel. The film shots suggest that women are able to discuss matters that affect them: marriage and beauty are important. But, paradoxically the women cannot enter the courtroom with make-up. They have to take it all off. They open up and speak removed of what it is that alledgely makes them women: what it is in the realm of Iran that gives them power. They are not putting on a show for the overtures of humanity in their ordinariness: they are naked despite their many layers, they are victims complacent in a system that was never meant to serve them. The body language of the men, most obvious in the initial scene, shows us a patriarchal society run amok: this is not a problem unique to Iran. A silenced minority can speak loudly, if given the proper time and space and audience. Throughout the
film, we see observe the women subtlety emasculate the Men; rather than regain balance these efforts at restoration of equilibrium are met with blank stares; “you did not fulfill your duties on wedding night” and “shall I wait again for you to find the papers, another ten minutes?” This is a strange chapter of humanity, read in every nation but not internalized, and though the viewer sees and hears the transcript verbatim: will they hear and see when it's not in Farsi? One of the key elements this film documents is the dichotomy between men and women in the eyes of the Iranian court. From the start of the film this becomes clear as the documentary shows the two entrances for men and women as they enter the courthouse. As the men enter they are searched for weapons and cell phones, and as the women enter they are examined to ensure they are dressed according to Islamic standards and guidelines. As the men and women stand before the judge and argue their case the differences between the men and women become even more readily apparent. While the women often plead their cases vigorously, alleging everything from infidelity to domestic abuse, they are almost constantly reminded that divorce is greatly frowned upon by Islam, and if they would try harder at home (for example wear makeup around the house, make themselves more attractive, show more respect for their husbands) many of the allegations would resolve themselves.
...ome to us at an interesting time, before the Revolution, 40 percent of Tehran movie theaters were showing pornography. The function of this office is purification as well as promotion for the arts.” The first part notions the Western stereotype of the Orient since the same as the time when it was discovered, but now the people of the Orient realize the stereotypes and are changing the way they see themselves because of these stereotypes. It is only by correcting these assumptions, stereotypes, and misconceptions of the Orient at the heart of society today, the media can Orientalism be fixed. The Eastern people must be allowed to sympathize in movies and films to humanize them and have intimate interactions. Otherwise, the Orient will be continued to be known incorrectly as a place with people who are without reason, screaming, protesting, and in swarming mobs.
For example honor killings, including female genital mutilation, is a traditional patriarchal custom where, male family members subject Muslim women to murder in case they lose their virginity before marriage either by rape, falling in love with the wrong men or the victim of incest they refuse to accept an arranged marriage. This behavior is considered socially acceptable and a dishonor to the family, especially among the underprivileged classes where they can achieve honor more than prosperity. This film encourages the idea that honor killings are linked to Islam, however, it is not mentioned in the Quran and it has occurred in other religions such as Judaism and Christianity as well as in Islam. Women are victimized through established religious restrictions that are neither condoned nor confined by the principles of Islam. Egypt and Jordan witness cases like this, even though they are not motivated by honor. A considerate number of NGOs and legislation succeeded in imposing sentences to people committing these crimes, these acts are still occurring in silence. (Husseini,
There are many examples throughout the text that specifically focus on the overbearing treatment of women. During the country's revolution there is a shift to extremely conservative religious conviction that force women to cover themselves head to toe while in public. Ultimately, Nafisi refuses to wear a veil while teaching at the University of Tehran which leads to her expulsion. These examples presented throughout the text along with various outside sources, can be a tool to interpret and scrutinize the oppressive treatment of people in unjust societies like that of Iran's.
Both el Saadawi and Al-Shaykh both show how perception and expression are both affected within the confines of politics, social opportunities, and male privilege depicted in their stories. Whether the reader is a follower of the feminist movement or not, it is very clear and easy to see that these women are not being treated with the respect that any human being deserves. The misogynistic stranglehold on society, especially in this part of the world, is excessive and avoidable in today’s world but it is very likely that the traditional, conservative ways of the past will continue to control and inhibit women from being able to be fully treated as equals for many years to come, perhaps even after this generation has
Overall, Islam and Gender is a valuable addition to the field of ethnography by examining the everyday struggles, experience, and involvement of women within the Islamic law. Hosseini targets a Western audience and hopes to leave them with a better understanding of the Islamic judiciary system and Iranian feminism. She successfully provides her readers with an unprejudiced account of the shari’ah and family law, and even includes the ideologies of those opposing her personal beliefs. Hosseini specifically requests Muslim women to take a stand develop their own local, Islamic feminist movement and openly advocates new discourse within Islamic jurisprudence.
It is this very comparison therefore that is the key to understanding why exactly the figure of the woman is so victimized. Despite the severity of the discrimination, and how it is depicted in either film, there appears to be an underlying sympathy due to the lack of communication the female has within “the man’s world” due to the individual’s exclusion from sound, as Yacowar states in his analysis of Blackmail, stating that “It works as a brilliant examination of the limits and problems of human communication” (103).
An extreme precaution taken by the Iranian government is banning Western music, film, television, writings, and books (Iranian’s par. 1). It is believed by the Islamic leaders that all of these forms of entertainment are a “soft war” of propaganda being used against their rule
This time, she used a new medium, the feature-length film, to express her feeling of Iranian society, and she declared that the film is telling a story rather than conveying a concept (754). In this way, the film Women Without Men tells four women’s story in islamic society, and Neshat tired to use these four emotional and sad stories to reflect women’s status in islamic society. Shirin Neshat separated the film to different sections, and each section tells a single story of each woman (754). All of them are from different social classes and backgrounds, and they meet each other in a garden where they try to live safely during the difficult time in 1953 coup (754). Zarin is a young woman from the lowest social class who is unwilling to be a prositutue, and her struggle was shown when she lost herself in brothel (754). Munis and Faezeh represent two positions of women in middle class; Munis cares about political events, however her brother always prevent her from participating in political events (Danto 223); in this way, Munis’s struggle emphasize a gender issue in Islamic society that women has to right to participate in political events. On the contrary, compare to Munis, Faezeh is a very traditional woman, however, this character in the film reflects a serious issue in Islamic society, which is sexual assault (215). Unlike other
The documentary revolves around the media, which is something that tries to make you be something you are not. The media portrays women as unstable creatures. Some women have gotten comfortable enough to think this is the way
The conflict discussed in this paper revolves around a custody dispute in which the disputing parties are a divorcing couple who are having conflict over the cultural difference in which each parent would like their daughter raised. The father is of Arabic descent that was raised with Islamic values and significantly embraces his culture in every facet of his life. According to Schencker (2011)“Traditionally, Muslim dads head up their households and are responsible for supporting their families and helping to teach their children about life and Islam as they grow older.”
One can stay still there next to the curtain, but blind, but deaf Here the narrator scolds the lifeless women of Iran. Despite the activity of life outside their window, even in the “rain pouring down” (Farrokhzad, line 11), women refuse to acknowledge the invitation extended to them to partake in life outside of drab rooms, described as “… a faded flower in a carpet” (Farrokhzad, line 7). Furthermore, women are wont to be “but blind, but deaf” (Farrokhzad, line 17) out of their preference to languish in a lack of vigor. The setting and mood established, the narrator digs in with regard to women’s deprivation of self.
Marriage and divorce are very significant aspects of Islamic law, but criminal law could be considered the most controversial. The Sharia categorizes its offenses by the types of punishment each receives. There are offenses which are paired...
are not taken as seriously as they have been. It would be safe to say,
Love is the number one reason for marriage, even having Valentine’s Day to celebrate love. Yet Americans for Divorce Reform (ADR) estimate that, “Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue" (Colleen). The ADR also shows the divorce rates between Christians and non-Christians are indistinguishable. Even worse, Christians divorcing their spouses are distorting the Bible in order to justify their actions. Christians must be called to a higher standard in regards to divorce, and they must stop twisting the Bible to appease their conscience.
The representation of violence exacted upon women in cinema is inextricable from being projected upon all women. To provide a scene that objectifies the female is to reduce the feminine form to its non-dual state, e.g., a sexual object providing a vessel for male gratification (hubris and sexual) rather then being defined by its duality of sentient and physical forms. Those who construct scenes of violence against women are bound to a moral responsibility to subjectify the woman’s perspective, thus reestablishing the female as a victim rather then an object and rendering the act of violence intelligible (deplorable, open to interpretation).