POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY THE DAILY TELEGRAPH'S RICHARD HOLT
'No religion can explain why it is forbidden for a man to hear a woman’s singing voice.'
Yes, but not many years ago in Britain, no respectable woman went out in public without a hat, usually with a bit of veil.
And not many decades before that, a woman could not have a bank account or take a loan on her own.
And she could not vote.
Some decades longer back, and a woman had to wear restrictive corsets and layers of skirting and gloves and hats.
Not too much further back and a woman could not act or sing on the public stage.
Keep going, and a woman is reduced virtually to property of her husband or father. They were effectively bought and sold on the marriage market.
Not too much further back and we have charming customs like the use of metal chastity belts.
The Iranians are moving quickly along despite religious rules. Their revolution represented a combination of interests of the middle class, many of whom studied abroad, and the highly religious. Both hated the Shah for different reasons.
The religious gained the upper hand, but their rule is wearing thin or you wouldn't hear and see the things you do.
Iran has a very young population, and it is clear that many of them look forward to more progressive government.
I think there is every reason to be optimistic, unless of course the United States thinks it knows better than the Iranians what is good for them, as it did in Iraq, setting things back for years and creating grievances that need never have existed.
