I am very skeptical of legality or even possibility of adding such a condition about the custody of children under the present family law.

Ghazal: It is legal and possible. You may find some information here (in persian): http://www.womeniniran.org/82/information/01.htm (the second condition is in regards to the custody of children)

"For years, women and their families have looked for the "right man", instead of trying to gain the "right rights"." How true! But isn't it the way things are done in our society in a more general setting as well? Aren't we always content as long as the "system" works well for *us*? Instead of aspiring to make the whole society (or "social machine", whatever that means) work properly, we *all* try to get our own end of work done right and are perfectly happy as long as our dues and those of our own tribe (read: FAK O FAAMIL O ROFAGHAA O DOOST O AASHENAA) are paid? That is why I think Iranians either have not yet developed a concept of Justice, or are not taking it seriously enough to strive to make a just society where justice rules for *everyone* (and not just *saying* it in nice... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Quick afterthought: I think what I just wrote is an instance of the old binary of Tradition vs Modernity. Iran and Iranians' way of thinking in general seems to be quite far from the mentality of the citizens in a civil society, though, thank God, not as far those of some of our neighboring countries. :-)

True anecdote: I have a cousin who lived with her abusive husband for a number of years under the pressure of family (and society) and is now divorced with a grown up son. (I guess she and her husbands take turns in taking care of him, but I'm not so sure of the details.) She married after the revolution, and I remember a relative told her right when she was about to sign the marriage contract that she should better opt for signing the part that would allow her to initiate a divorce. At once there was an uproar among the guests that so-and-so is talking about divorce at the wedding night and it is bad omen and crap of that sort. I don't know what she finally did, but I won't forget that everybody was trying to make it seem of little consequence to sign that part of... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

You don't get your rights by asking for them but by fighting for them. I was watching a documentary on HBO last night about the issue of color in the US and how some brilliant black lawyer fought for the rights of his people tirelessly. He was not a lawyer in the beginning but at some point he made a decision to become a lawyer and fight injustice and he was quite successful. There is a lot of injustice in Iran and we can't make a difference by just 'asking' and 'complaining'; we need to educate ourselves and learn the ways to better our situation. It's a pitty that most parents expect their bright children to become doctors and engineers; we need a lot of good lawyers. We need hundreds of Shirin Ebadi's to change the situation. The battle is also a cultural battle; men and women must educate... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

"I won't forget that everybody was trying to make it seem of little consequence to sign that part of the contract" Here you have defined the reason why women in Iran and in fact everywhere don't "fight for themselves." That message of "don't make trouble, you don't know what you're talking about, someone else knows better than you, I will take care of you, be nice, be nice, be nice." It's relentless brainwashing from the day of birth. Boys will be boys, but bad girls who won't do what they're told are worthless and ugly, since all they are good for is to please and serve others. The thing is, when everything falls apart, it is so much easier to bear if what is in your mind is "I did what I thought was right at the time," rather than "I am alone and abandoned by my protectors, therefore... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Have you ever considered that some of the rights you are talking about are in direct violation of the Islamic laws enforced in our country (e.g. Quran 4:3, 4:11, 4:12)? I am not fond of practicing those laws but I think gaining those “right rights” will question some pillars of the current legislation system and the effect would be much more than just women’s rights. This might be one of the reasons why there is so much opposition to them.

Somaye jaan, It is not lawful to insert the condition of the custody of the children in the marriage certificate under the current law which you can find in the iranian civil codes.The article in the "womeniniran.com" is legally wrong. the condition 3 in the mentioned article is illegal either.It is impossible to avoid determining MAHR in marriage under current law. Just always bear in your mind that marriage is not like the rest of the contracts you can put whatever condition you wish in it. You are confined to insert conditions that law is chiefly silent about them, or not explicitely indicates anything about them. In addition to that, I would like to say that unless you do not want to change the foundations of the current legal jurisdiction which is an Islamic Law, you won't be able to change any special thing in the current laws and... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Somaye jaan, It is not lawful to insert the condition of the custody of the children in the marriage certificate under the current law which you can find in the iranian civil codes.The article in the "womeniniran.com" is legally wrong. the condition 3 in the mentioned article is illegal either.It is impossible to avoid determining MAHR in marriage under current law. Just always bear in your mind that marriage is not like the rest of the contracts you can put whatever condition you wish in it. You are confined to insert conditions that law is chiefly silent about them, or not explicitely indicates anything about them. In addition to that, I would like to say that unless you do not want to change the foundations of the current legal jurisdiction which is an Islamic Law, you won't be able to change any special thing in the current laws and... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Senor Grad: I agree with you that Iranians are usually just concerned that the system works well for them. However, in this issue, from the woman and her family’s perspective, the system is not even working for them! That’s why I am encouraging every woman to make the system at least work for her. And I think that’s a small practical step to change the system (ie: the law) in the [far distant] future. Honestly, I don’t see the entire problem in the law; it’s more the paternal culture of our society which has to change. The true anecdote you mentioned is a typical one indeed, and therefore women are scared to ask for these rights. I think they should fight and get them at the time of marriage, and gradually this becomes a norm in the society and they won’t need to "fight" to get them anymore! I... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

I am so much sick and tired of this whole new Iranian feminist crap advertised by mostly stay-at-home or stay-at-school and never do wells young Iranian girls. Believe me or not wanting the same rights of an average working western girl –alimony, half of everything, child support, custody … - along with Mehriye, no obligation to work and contribute to the family financially, no half of mortgage and other bills, and so on is nothing less of too much of an unreasonable request. If the British women at the dawn of century had have any slogan instead of “NO VOTE, NO TAX” they would have achieved nothing by now.

Great subject, and nice approach. I don’t think, what Nasser is saying is correct: In a marriage, bride can ask for whatever wants from the groom. There are some cases in which bride asks for a HAND of groom as her MAHR! And this contract is completely enforceable. So I don’t think getting custody of children is something you can’t get: Legally, it is groom’s right to have custody of children, and he can give up this right as part of marriage contract. About MAHR, Nasser says: “It is impossible to avoid determining MAHR in marriage under current law.” A couple can determine one flower as MAHR, and this is completely legally. Though this approach may be very reasonable for a couple with economic productive bride, I don’t think it is proper for those with unproductive brides: In those families, I think, giving up MAHR, which can be used... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Alis, About 4:3 of Koran: If you take to account, the fact that population of men were always less than women, due to higher vulnerability of men to disease than women, also taking to account wars, polygamy was a must in some cases. And as a matter of fact Islam kept it controlled by ceiling the maximum up to 4, and asking for justice among the wives. Notice that based on requirement of justice among wives; one cannot marry another women without having approval of his current wife. Obviously, polygamy is not proper way of life in the current world, and it is not being practiced, accept in very rare cases, anymore; but we shouldn’t forget its necessity for the traditional world. About Koran 4:11 and 4:12 : again, in traditional economic society, women were not as productive as men, so in order to maintain the wealth, people use... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Well.... Somaya,It's so facinating how you can see the world in black and white. I haven't been living in Iran for a while,but even when I lived in Iran, I never saw Iranian woman the way you described; Helpless creatures who were always looking for the Right man. Though I don't see why looking for Mr.Right is a wrong thing? Marrying a smart, undrestanding and respectful man is in fact a great thing. These are the women whom I grew up around: My aunt a teacher who seperated from her very rich husband and raised 6 kids on a teacher's salary without a penny from her husband. My grandma who despite having minum of education managed all the family finances to this day and despite all the hardships that my family has been through, war was one of them, thanks to her , she and my grandpa had a... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Linda, There is no doubt that women should be the ones who keep fighting for their rights and that changes won't take place overnights. But the situation is Iran is worse than the darkest times of the middle ages. I don't think, even considering Iran a Middle Eastern country with still a long way to go, that our women should be enduring SUCH hardships. Nothing about this is natural or even cultural. I don't think any significant progress can be made under such a regime. It doesn't mean that the day to day struggle is pointless, but what it means is that that struggle is more about keeping the old heritage alive (as your Mom did) and preventing things from getting worse. I'm sure you do agree that this can't continue for ever. At some point real progress forward must be made, and that is after this system has... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

What an excellent point Linda makes with this statement: "Revolution is for lazy people, who don't want to work hard on changing themselves and want to get it over with fast." That is the thing I have been saying all along. When will the Middle East/Islamic world stop whining and start putting their backs into making their world a "paradise on earth" instead of waiting for allah's paradise? About that door opening, Linda. I still like it when a man behaves like a gentleman and opens a door for me or helps me on with my coat, etc. OTOH, I have no problem opening a door for him if he is burdened with packages. It's a matter of courtesy and common sense. A civilization is defined by how it treats its women. Unfortunately, Middle Eastern/Islamic nations have a long, long way to go. On the bright side, with modern... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Linda: I don't think I ever said Iranian women are not doing well. I strongly believe they are doing well, and know lots of stories similar to those you mentioned. All I am saying is that they are doing well, in the wrong direction. I think they should try to gain the right rights. They can still look for the right man, but once found him, should also gain the right rights. Finding the right man should never satisfy them to the point that they don't ask for the right rights. So what my title suggests is the current situation: Right man vs. right rights, meaning that once women find the right man, they neglect the fact that they should gaing the right rights as well. What I suggest is asking for right rights as well. A lot of Iranian men and women are great ones, no doubt! And... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

"Revolution is for lazy people, who don't want to work hard on changing themselves and want to get it over with fast." I find this statement quite bizarre. I don't believe lazy is quite the word, but I agree that peaceful means of change are preferable. It seems violence and destruction are the easiest way to achieve the standard objectives of changing a society, which probably says something depressing about human nature, but it can be done peacefully. For models of how to control the behaviour and thinking of large groups of people, one only has to look to modern Commerce. They aren't reading "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu in American MBA programs because they are interested in Chinese history. Even the terminology in Marketing reflects this. To me the heart of the problems is how we think of leadership. When I say "we" I mean everyone... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

At the risk of belaboring the point, I think my last post could be summarized by saying that the idea of finding Mr. Right, like that of Benevolant Tyranny is a great system when it works, but you can't count on it. Looking around, how many Lee Kwan Yu's do you see? Even with a A Mighty Good Man, it is true that "Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," So keeping a leader or a husband on the defensive a little bit is healthier all around.

I'd rather have a partnership all around than a defensive leader or husband. I don't believe in the kind of undignified, unhealthy games Sheherazade had to play to keep her head. It seems to me that ME peoples, especially women, are always reduced to having to play games to outwit their "opponents." I have thought about the process all day because the election campaign appearances /town hall meetings are being broadcast on C-span. If you want to observe the American democratic process in action check here: http://www.c-span.org/ C-Span is available via the net, radio and Television.

American Democratic Process! A good example of such process happened in Florida, year 2001. Anyway I am all the way for Kucinich and Al Sharpton.

Hajir, you are really, really over the top all the time. I'll take the American democratic process—despite Florida—any time of the year, instead of the system in ANY Islamic state. At least GW and his machine didn't murder the opposition. "Anyway I am all the way for Kucinich and Al Sharpton." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Sharpton. You can't be serious. An Islamic supremacist like you Hajir, rooting for rapping brother Sharpton— my, my, my—will wonders never cease. Kucinich hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell. Better try for Kerry or Edwards.

This definitely decrease the cost of polygamy and gives it evolutionary advantage * and increase serial monogamy ** which is equal to polygamy and In a man dominating society like Iran with a high rate of unemployment it's even worse. * just a piece of the abstract: “ The polygamy threshold model states that if costs incurred are less than the benefits gained from a polygamous relationship in terms of male or habitat quality, then polygamy is favored and could evolve.” ** “Most modern industrialized nations are nominally monogamous, but in fact the soaring divorce rate makes our society one of "serial monogamy", which is equivalent in some ways to polygamy.”

I think it's "serial *poly*gamy", but I may be wrong.

"That Americans do not see the obvious truth is amply demonstrated by the popularity of George W. bush." From the first paragraph of an article by Thomas A Hawk, titled: "LOVE POLITICS: The Case Against Monogamy" available online in PDF format. :-)

Your quote is incorrect, Hamed. The word is polygyny NOT polygamy. " . . .Most modern industrialized nations are nominally monogamous, but in fact the soaring divorce rate makes our society one of "serial monogamy", which is equivalent in some ways to polygyny. . . " There are more men than women in the world due to selective abortions and infanticide in many "traditional" societies such as the Arab world, China and India. Already in China and India women are being kidnapped because men cannot find mates. China has over 20% more men than women. Turkey also has more men than women. Even in the U.S. young men are finding they outnumber young women. This will create a crisis in the next decades. It's not good to mess with Mother Nature. I believe that polyandry, is much more biologically sound. Men cannot handle more than one woman, while the... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Thank you Wessie, as you mentioned, polygyny is the right word.I'm sorry for that mistake. This time, I agree with you: "It's not good to mess with Mother Nature."

This is all un-related to this post, but since you brought it up, FYI, Hamed, "polygamy" is the term that is used to mean either both "polygyny" and "polyandry". Many cultures around the world allow one or another form of polygyny, while instances of polyandry are, and have been, in comparison, extremely rare. In most Western cultures, polygyny is frowned upon, or is simply illegal (note, however, that in the state of Utah, the law against polygyny is not enforced), while sodomy, for example, is legal, perhaps because it is considered more "natural" than bigamy or polygamy. (You too may have seen many polygamous animals, in particular animals from the family of homo sapiens, but I have yet to seen gay chimpanzees.) Finally, the term "serial polygamy" is coined to draw your attention to the fact that even though Americans boast about being monogamous, they are in fact polygamous,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

If you are looking for cases of “polyandry” as far as I remember the most commonly practiced case was in Tibet when brothers shared the same wife.

" (note, however, that in the state of Utah, the law against polygyny is not enforced)," Mr. Google, as usual you are wrong. Giving up multiple spouses was a condition of statehood for Utah. The laws against polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy and exogamy are enforced in ALL of the US not because the practices are "unnatural" but because they unfair and undemocratic. However, some Mormons marry one wife and the rest are common-law. The way the law gets them then is if they accept welfare for breeding too many children and being a burden to society. Just recently a man was prosecuted for it. " while sodomy, for example, is legal, perhaps because it is considered more "natural" than bigamy or polygamy. (You too may have seen many polygamous animals, in particular animals from the family of homo sapiens, but I have yet to seen gay chimpanzees.) " Sodomy... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

"I'd rather have a partnership all around than a defensive leader or husband. I don't believe in the kind of undignified, unhealthy games Sheherazade had to play to keep her head. It seems to me that ME peoples, especially women, are always reduced to having to play games to outwit their "opponents"." Wessie, The "one thousand and one night" is an old tale. It existed even before Islam, so it is not how Moslem women had to play to live or how ME people had to play or anything like that! I think it is not fare to compare a 2000-year-old tale with today’s situation. Every thing is changed since then. It is as though you compare ancient Europe people with today’s Americans. Of course there has been no women rights 2000 years ago in Europe of anywhere else.

Sorry for the typo! “I think it is not fair…”

Looking for the right man is in no way similar to looking for the right rights! Men look for Ms. right too! It's part of nature! Social Darwinism it's called! You unknowingly want to produce offsprings with better genes; it's genetic. Now the fact that men's idea of Ms. Right is always twisted is a different issue. Another thing, I never understood the reason for nuptial gift! I mean marriage is a bond between the two sides, not a trade!

I think 1001 nights explains husband-wife dynamics in ME very well. A woman always has to protect her husband's feelings and so learns to be very manipulative. It is sad that she does not have an equal partnership with her husband. If you don't like 1001 nights then think of it as king and vazir relationship.

Zarah, that is exactly the point. People have not changed that much in thousands of years—certainly not from a biological standpoint. And it is very "fair" to compare today's ME women with those of hundreds of years ago. They still have to "play games" and "tell stories" in order to get even a few of their rights. Before Islam women had more rights in some places. Certainly, in the West, the women of ancient Rome had lots of rights. It came and went through the ages—but, Western women were always more free. Today, there are laws in the West to protect EVERYONE's rights. But, despite those, women are still not treated exactly "equally." However, in comparison to the mediaeval state of women's rights in the ME and some other parts of the world—particularly Islamic states, we have come a long way. Can you explain what you mean by "twisted"—WG?... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Meenu, I actually like 1001 nights. It is really a great story, but it is not true that women in middle east are still like women in 2000 years ago. Actually in some parts of the story, there are men who are victims not women! I just wanted to mention that everything is much different now.

Zahra, I agree with you when we are talking about Iranian society, especially in Tehran. Iranian women have the most rights in ME countries. I think it is interesting that the Farsi language does not have gender, perhaps more than just a coincidence. But in the middle east mostly the 1001 dynamic is true, even in Iran. Wherever there is mardsalari.

Well, folks, from a Western perspective, it certainly does not seem like Iranian or ME women have many rights. Could you all specify just WHAT those rights are? From where we sit, we just don't see it. Wessie

Somaye: I have actually seen these kinds of contracts being done by Iranian couples recently. I have heard these had been initiated from feminist bloggers like "khorshid-khaanoom" and others. The specific one I know is a friend of mine which Shirin Ebadi wrote the conract between him and his bride a couple of months before the Nobel thing.

NPR has been featuring this on Iran: LINK One of the noteworthy things about the report is that journatlist Davar Ardalan could not go back to Iran ". . . for personal reasons, relating to my first marriage, I won't go back right now. . . " Now, ladies, I doubt very much that such a thing would happen to a prominent reporter in the West. Below are some excerpts: ". . .Having grown up in a secular Iran I felt scared and confused by the militancy around me. I had gotten some religious education growing up but I didn't understand this Islamic fervor. I'd go to school only to find a classmate wearing black - his father - a member of the Shah's cabinet having just been executed by the infamous hanging judge Khalkhali. The Shah was a close ally of the United States and my family had... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

All right, is this woman's name (producing for NPR) "Iran" or "Davar"? It seems that she hasn't yet made up her mind about it. And why is she pronouncing it like "DIVAAR"? It was funny. (I laughed.) In any case, Davar is a very unusual Persian name, even for males. And what the *coincidence* that her name is Iran (or is it?) and the *happenstance* that her grandfather was someone important have to do with all that? It's just ridiculous.

And for the record, and to be fair, although women in the West (or in the US) got the right to property only about a century ago, Islam had given the right to property to women 14 centuries ago. I'm just too tried to google and find hard facts, so do it yourself, if you're interested.

The modern feminist movement had its roots in England in the second half of the 19th century. It was promoted by women who sought property rights denied them under British law. Even after the British Parliament approved the first Married Women's Property Act in 1882, women continued to be denied property in their own right, independent of their husband's -a right that was granted Muslim women in the 7th century, in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. http://www.henciclopedia.org.uy/autores/Laguiadelmundo/IslamFeminism.htm

Senior Grad, what is your point? I have been skipping all of Wessie's posts, so perhaps that's why I am not understanding you. Are you saying that Muslim society is more advanced from the point of view of women's rights?

What a shame that you did not go to the NPR (National Public Radio) website and read the article/broadcast, Senior. Her name is Iran, but she uses her middle name "Davar" for obvious reasons. Had you read the article you would have found that out. The broadcast is very good and not "ridiculous"! The fact that her grandfather was a fighter for the legal system and social justice is the connection. "Even after the British Parliament approved the first Married Women's Property Act in 1882, women continued to be denied property in their own right, independent of their husband's -a right that was granted Muslim women in the 7th century, in the time of the Prophet Muhammad." This is a dead horse! Women in Islam have NEVER had more rights than women in the West and they STILL do not have them today—regardless of what the Qur'an or the... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

atmikha: I don't read very long comments myself either. I just skim through them, because I don't have much time left on earth, you know. Some writings just don't merit close examination and I'd rather spend my time on more useful pursuits. But I think I saw someone somewhere had written in a comment something about Islam not having given women *any* rights. Now, if you read my comment again, you will notice how I started it: "For the record, and to be fair..." So, to answer your question, no, I am by no means suggesting that women in Islamic societies are better off than women in the West. Not in our century, at least. I was just going to mention an historical fact that might have been overlooked otherwise. That's all.

I should not have said the term rights because it has a specific meaning to most of you as something granted by the government. I meant in a personal sense granted by the society. I assume Turkey would be the ME country with the most rights for women even though Turks are macho, but probably Iran is second because the other ME countries are so bad regarding this. I believe Iranian society is the most egalitarian in ME regarding gender. Women are free to go into politics, university, work, have their own organizations, magazines, broadcasting, socializing with men, getting married. The basic requirement for women's rights is that women not be invisible, clealy Iranian women are not invisible. They even are asking for the right to divorce in the marriage contract. And they do this despite over twenty years of islamic imposition. They love life, they have not been... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

In the West rights are seen as inalienable and granted by the creator not by society. This tenet has been adopted by the UN. You might want to check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. . .... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

My question is not about marriage it is about why are "Women Second Class Citizens" under Islamic Law? Both men and women are created by God why are men consider superior? It just seems to me that Iran needs to recognize women as equals as the rest of the worlds has. As an American man I am ashamed of our past treatment of Blacks, Native Americans as well as women but we have righted that wrong or are trying to right that wrong. The world has a lot of great minds and a good amout are women when Iran recognizes that they can move ahead and reclaim it's place as a great innovator as it has been in the past.