Separate but Equal? You Decide

In Iran, women are banned from attending soccer games.  In fact, up until 1996 the Islamic Republic of Iran had outlawed women from participating in the Olympic games.  Now comes the surprising news that the city of Tehran has been constructing a state of the art 40,000 seat soccer stadium… for women only!  In your mind, does this move portray equity or gender inequality?  For a country facing multiple rounds of sanctions and thirty-percent inflation rates, do you find this an egregious waste of an investment?  One must admit, there is a layer of truth to the regime’s explanation that international soccer games in Iran tend to be quite raucous and occasionally downright dangerous.

In fact, after a critical match against Japan in 2005, several Iranians were left dead and over 40 injured as a result of celebrations inside the stadium.  Some estimate that nearly 120,000 people had piled into the 100,000 capacity Azadi Stadium.  This was certainly no situation for a woman, child, or man.  But it’s also no secret that many Persian women are just as die-hard about their soccer as their male  counterparts.  The internationally acclaimed film Offside sheds light on the real phenomenon of woman sneaking into Iranian soccer games dressed as men.  So what are we to think of this new stadium?  Are the Mullahs actually providing preferential treatment for women?   Is Iran’s approach of segregation in sports principled or just more tomfoolery on the part of the regime?  Please tell us what you think with your comments below!

© View from Damavand 2010.  All rights reserved.

1. 

   john says:

   January 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM

   there is absolutly no problem for men and women to sit next to each other and attend ALL types of activities including:

   -sitting in cinema
   -sitting in the bus
   -sitting on a bench
   -sitting next to each other during sports event

   I just watched a tennis game tonight, I sat next to a woman I don’t know, not a single time I fell this was odd and all women should sit on one side and men on the other.

   p

   reply
2. 

   Sakineh says:

   August 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM

   Iran is trying to portray itself as the Utopia of an Islamic government, and how a perfect Islamic society functions. Thus when an Arab woman in Saudi Arabia or Iraq picks up the paper and hears about a stadium being built just for women in Iran, of course she’ll be impressed.

   Henry Kissinger said it best…that Iran no matter under which regime in searching for its lost empire of 2500 years ago. So this stadium just shows how Iran is trying to project an influence in the region, not only politically, religiously, and militarily, but also culturally as well. Was it smart for China to spend 44 billion dollars on Olympics when many of their people starve everyday? Probably not… But did it raise its flag and told the world, don’t mess with us, and Iran is simply trying to do the same.

   Also your statement about Iran not having female athletes up until 2006 is factually incorrect.

   They had some in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics
   1980 and 1984 (The Iraq War)
   No females in 1988 and 1992
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics

   reply
   • 

     Yashar says:

     August 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM

     Sakineh,

     Thanks for your informative response! I meant to say 1996 not 2006 and I apologize for the error. Thank you for picking that up. In response to the rest of your post, I would contend that for China the Olympics were considered profitable depending on the source. Do you believe this stadium is a profitable venture? When the Iranian woman’s national soccer team currently plays matches it is typically in front of crowds numbering far less than 10,000 fans. The regime may be using the stadium for regional influence, and you are correct about motive in that regard, but how does this play at home? With sanctions mounting, inflation rising to levels higher than that of the departing Shah, and civil unrest at a high level I’m not sure if this project will receive favorable treatment domestically. Iranians by and large are always proud of advancement, but this type of project segregates just as Azadi Stadium does for woman. And the issue of banning woman from men’s soccer games is one women in Tehran speak out against aggressively which even caused Ahmadinejad to use it as a political ploy for the 2005 election. Do you think this is being used as a means to appease women soccer fans who want access to Team Melli? Will it work?

     reply
     • 

       Sakineh says:

       August 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

       We have to keep things in perspective here. The problem with the Iranian society and the Iran culture is that we tend to fret over small numbers. A stadium costs VERY little money comparatively speaking to a national and/or a municipal budget. (ie..less than $200 mil). I also believe the government’s role is not supposed to operate as a business and only invest in endeavors that are profitable. That’s rather a naive viewpoint. I am sure there will be cash flow through ticket sales, advertisement, and economic development, so even if the stadium is not “profitable” per say, it certainly will not be a total disaster in terms of monetary loss.

       I also find it odd that you are comparing current inflation rates in Iran to that of the departing Shah’s. It just seems that you are saying the situation was bad under shah, and now it’s terrible. I just want to point out that the Iranian economy was THRIVING under shah, with heavy and diverse industries across the country, and lots of foreign investment. Some of the best Iranian companies and brands were started under the Shah’s regime. Iran Khodro, Minoo, Kafsheh Meli…just to name a few. Does lawlessness and corruption exist under this regime? Certainly. Did it exist under the old regime? Absolutely. Does an issue of a stadium designed for woman warrant a legitimate debate in the realm of all other national and international issues? Probably not.

       reply
       • 

         Yashar says:

         August 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

         Sakineh, thanks again for your response. While certain sectors of the Iranian economy were thriving under the Shah, inflation was not and rural areas were still centuries behind metro areas. The only reason I used the inflation numbers was just to put it in historical perspective. I think the regimes of the Shah and the Mullahs both had strong areas and some very, very low points. In any case, it was just for the matter of perspective. When the Shah was departing, inflation was a serious serious issue in Iran. Today, it has unimaginably become even worse. I find it rather curious that the regime fails to address inflation head on while manufacturing ‘advances’ such as this stadium. Iran, as it is today, will not advance past the semi-periphery of nations until inflation is addressed. While it’s nice to have a new soccer stadium in Tehran, I’m just left wondering if they couldn’t have used that capital to address more pressing issues. This is how I tie it to larger issues, personally, and it’s just another sign of the incompetency of economic budgeting in Iran. I’m sure not all, like yourself, view it as I do. BTW, do you mind sending me an email? yashar@viewfromdamavand.com. Thanks!

         reply