Women and Double Standards

Nima Ghassemi

The American film ‘Splendor in the Grass’ was made in 1961. The film’s theme is a critique of the repressive sexual mores of American society in the 1920s – the period when the story takes place. While this film no longer represents today’s American or Western society, the repressive sexual climate of the period it depicts resembles that of the Iranian society today. Likewise, the severe critique of sexual and moral standards offered by the film can be applied to the Iranian society today.

The plot revolves around two high schoolers who desperately fall in love with each other, but their families disapprove of their courtship and marriage. The girl’s family is concerned about her ‘honour’ and reputation, and the boy’s family want him to marry into a family they approve of and find suitable. Thus to help the boy get over his infatuation, his father promises him that, if he went to college, he would be able to marry the girl after graduation. He advises the boy: ‘Look son, there are two types of girls. Even when I knew your mother, I had secret affairs with a few others’. But going to college does not help the teenager to get over his infatuation with the girl, and he falls sick. The father then takes the teenage boy to a nightclub and arranges for him to sleep with a prostitute there. But the boy, who is emotional, and cannot, like other teenagers, have sex without emotional engagement, does not accept this. (His sister, though, who resists her parents’ control, has an easy-going attitude towards boys and has many affairs). At the end, these two young people cannot marry each other and end up marrying others. The last scene happens when they meet each other after a long time, when the boy has already married and the girl is about to marry someone shortly. The girl asks him if he is happy now with his life, and the boy replies that he no longer thinks about happiness; rather, he prefers to be content with his lot. This seems to describe the girl’s attitude as well.

Given the resemblance of this film to our present social mores and conditions, it is useful to analyze it to raise subtle and informative points. In this paper, I would like to focus on the distinction between ‘girls’ and ‘women’, prevalent in the American society then and in the Iranian society today. In the Iranian society today, young men and boys are encouraged to behave as they wish before marriage, which usually means seeing women who are considered as ‘bad’. However, when it comes to the serious issue of marriage, they would turn only to ‘good’ girls.

For young men, it is considered as a sign of success and smartness to have as many pre-marital sexual relations as they can – with women who are considered as ‘bad’ and thus never suitable for marriage. Even those young men from middle class families who can afford and have the opportunity to go abroad for studies, allow themselves to have free sexual relations while abroad, but would prefer to return to Iran to marry a girl with the least amount of sexual experience. This shows that the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is common across both the educated and uneducated, and those who have experienced life in the West or have had no such opportunity. It is not easy to get rid of this attitude towards women.

I have previously written about this in my paper ‘ De-mythologisation of the Iranian woman’s image’, arguing that Iranian women have been mythologized by Iranian men, and thereby have been represented by the two distinct ideal-types: the ‘slut’ and the ‘ethereal’.

I have argued that traces of this mythologisation can be found in a diverse range of areas, from social discourse to violence against women to literary works such as novels, which are created within a secular and non-mythical framework. Therefore, I do not wish to repeat this argument here and refer the reader to that paper.

Here, I would like to discuss the scope, range and consequences of this unwritten social categorisation (of women into ‘bad’ and ‘good’). I would like to point out that this distinction is derived from an idealistic perspective, which itself is intrinsic to religious-mythical thinking. While idealism, per se, is not objectionable, I should explain what I find objectionable is, and should be, the insistence to view social realities in terms of pure and idealized images, for social realities will never conform to these images. Hence mythologisation may be a counterpart to idealism because: ‘a mythologised mind – or a mind stricken by mythology – knows no middle ground; it is imprisoned by pure and unrealistic images’. I return to this point later.

At first it seems these double moral standards, which divide women into ‘good’ women and ‘bad’ women, are oppressive only to the latter group. Men satisfy their sexual needs via the latter group of women, who remain rejected and isolated as ‘harlots’ – an attitude that is patently unjust and oppressive. But in fact, if we look deeper, we realise these double standards are oppressive to all women for they are clearly based on a sexual conception of women which sees them, in either category, as mere ‘instruments’. Within this framework, if ‘bad’ women are merely the means of sexual gratification, ‘good’ women are also treated as instruments: to form a family, to procreate children and to ‘settle down’ into a stable family life following promiscuity and debauchery of early manhood. In either of these conceptions, a woman is not seen as a human being, but as an object or instrument to be used.

One reason why even ‘good’ women are nothing more than sexual instruments for men is that this view of woman is formed at an early stage of men’s development. How can young men learn that women are not ‘sex objects’? Have they been taught to regard women as human beings like themselves or as mere objects? It is highly unfortunate that not only fathers, but also mothers, advise and encourage their sons to use ‘bad’ woman for their pleasure and ‘good’ woman for procreation.

This is the reason why young men in traditional societies, after they have gone through the phase of liaison with ‘bad’ women, turn to those women whose advantage is sexual inaccessibility. This shows that sex and sexuality continue to preoccupy young men, and contrary to what is commonly claimed, the experiences of debauchery and sexual indulgence do not lead to maturity and character development, but, rather, foster greater obsession with sexuality. However, ‘good’ girls’ sexual advantage is gained at the expense of social restrictions and deprivation from natural relationships with the opposite sex. Consequently, girls who, in a full sense, possess this sexual advantage, are those who are, from a social and cultural point of view, immature, childish and even, without overstating the case, stupid! Interestingly, a man who, after much debauchery, finds himself such a girl for marriage, considers himself smart and successful, while, in fact, he is unable to comprehend the point that reducing women to sexual objects has deprived him from forming a truly dignified and humane relationship with a woman. He is, in this respect, a pitiful loser and not a smart winner.

We have often heard young men saying openly ‘girls are very stupid’, but this neither makes them sorry nor does it compel them to look for more intelligent girls, because it is much more easier to control and deceive ‘good’ girls.

To be concerned about this state of affairs requires, on the one hand, a degree of moral integrity that would prevent young men from engaging in purely physical relationships, and, on the other, some measure of intellect and open mindedness that would enable them to recognize this situation as a consequence of cultural value judgments rather than women’s innate characteristics. Unfortunately, in societies such as ours, young men lack both of these qualities. They especially lack moral integrity, given that it is moral baseness which is encouraged.

Our outlook creates its corresponding reality, that is, if women are viewed as objects, they actually become objects. The most important and fundamental factor that connects this objectivity and subjectivity is the acceptance of this outlook by women themselves. When women accept this distinction (between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ women), they in fact accept their own roles as sexual objects. Many Iranian girls from middle class backgrounds accept their brothers’ hypocrisy simply because of the advantage of being male. This hypocrisy means: expecting certain girls to be sexually available, enjoying the freedom to behave in any shameless and despicable manner, while, at any point in time, being able to turn around, become ‘respectable’, and marry a ‘good’ girl.

These girls, while they approve of their brothers’ conduct, they endure a great deal of restriction and limitations under the name of ‘purity’ and ‘chastity’, which, they believe, would render them ‘respectable’ and ‘valued’ as a result. But it is more precise to say they are ‘valued’ for morally despicable men who behave abhorrently not only towards ‘bad’ girls but also towards these ‘respectable’ girls simply because these men view ‘good’ women only as a means of producing children, and secretly, or even openly, sneer at their simple mindedness, stupidity and superficiality. Indeed once a girl accepts being viewed in this way, she would consequently behave according to its expectations and becomes a plain and superficial person.

One reason girls are superficial is that they are kept isolated socially so that their ‘purity’ and virginity is protected. But this is not the only reason. In situations where is there so much sexual demand and appetite for women, every woman is placed at an advantage simply by virtue of being woman, or a least feels herself to be in an advantageous position. She realises that men around her are much too eager to have relations with her. Young girls particularly feel very proud and self-satisfied because of this demand and because they do not need any other advantages other than being female; this is a social construct.

It thus becomes unnecessary for girls to become competitive culturally or socially unless they feel they are left behind by other girls. They do not seek to develop themselves through higher education or gaining suitable employment or becoming socially and culturally active. They know that young men are not looking for a ‘special girl’, in so far as being ‘special’ means particular character and personality traits. What they look for is a girl who is sexually attractive or, to be more precise, a girl who is ‘special’ because of sexual attractiveness or, at the most, because of family background.

How often have we heard or seen that a girl is desired because of her social and political opinions, educational background or any other characteristic feature that define her as a person? In fact, in today’s Iran, the opposite is also true: no girl desires a boy for these reasons either. As relationships are fundamentally sexual, a young man who wishes to marry a girl is judged (by the girl’s family) on any basis other than his individuality and personal characteristics.

I must add that these double standards oppress not only women but men too, that is, those men who do not accept this moral hypocrisy. Those men who, like the character in Splendor in the Grass, refuse to engage in sexually exploitative relationships with women, and yet lack the freedom to form relationships with ‘good’ women, for reasons discussed earlier. Even if they had such an opportunity, it would be unlikely they could find the desirable woman.

As mentioned before, ‘good’ women are simply those who have a limited social life and experience, but in so far as superficiality and sexual objectification of women is concerned, there is little difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women. Young men who seek a more serious and dignified relationship with women are naturally not interested in those women who are typical sexual objects. These men are usually considered by others as idealistic dreamers and hence stupid, while, in fact, they lack the kind of moral degeneration needed to enter into purely physical relationships. In any case, in every society there exists people who do not conform to acceptable social standards.

Needless to say, ‘love’, as idealised by various cultures and societies, is only possible when the lover has found certain characteristic features in his beloved, which would render her special and unique. But how such an experience is possible in a society where there are only two types of women, who, fundamentally, are not different from each other?

It seems to me that the film ‘Splendor in the Grass’ sees removal of obstacles to free relationship between the sexes as the solution to the problem of sexual objectification of women. If family control over relations with the opposite sex is relaxed, the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ girls will also become less important and eventually disappear. But as Western experience shows, removal of family control and of rigid and outdated social restrictions does not necessarily lead to the disappearance of the role of women as sexual objects. Who can claim that today in Western cultures women are no longer sexual objects? In fact, in so far as the sexual objectification of women is concerned, there is little difference between traditional and modern cultures. The application of double standards to women is only one aspect of sexual objectification of women; another aspect is the importance of sexual gratification and sensualism in modern cultures. However, whatever the roots of this problem, it undeniably persists. Although, during the past few decades, women’s entry into the public life and their activities outside the domestic sphere has somehow changed this sexual image of women, women rights activists and feminists continue to oppose the exploitation of women as sexual objects in cultural products such as films, semi cultural events such as beauty pageants and in commercial and economic activities such as fashion shows.

I believe the best way to challenge and reject sexual instrumentalisation of women is through women’s struggles themselves. In other words, as long as an all-encompassing rebellion against this phenomenon does not occur, gender inequality will continue to exist. Intelligent and enlightened women who consider this state of affairs offensive to women should raise women’s awareness about it so that no woman would ever accept to become an object of attention simply because of sexual attractiveness. This must become an established and institutionalised moral standard for women. Every woman must ask herself why she has become the object of attention and evaluate every relation on the basis of questions such as this. Obviously such an awareness would have cultural, social and political dimensions.

However, social movements which have been formed to reclaim women’s human rights can become successful only when their objectives and concerns are related to the level of popular mass culture. The awareness that is now limited to a minority of social and pressure groups should spread itself across the general population. When this is accomplished, this subjective consciousness will also create a corresponding objective reality and will change the objective situation of women.

Rebellion against sexual instrumentalisation of women can take two forms: (1) attempt to elevate the position of women above sexuality and place it within the sphere of humanity in general (ie, a-sexualisation of femininity); and (2) attempt to remove femininity from women altogether. In fact, I have not come across any active women’s group which aims to remove femininity from women in order to save them! This would obviously defy the purpose.

Rather, women’s group aim to elevate femininity and render it prominent in society and culture. I suppose that a-sexualisation of the role of women is a contentious issue. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into details of this debate. Suffice to say that, I believe, elevation of women’s position to a sphere that is neither feminine nor masculine, but simply and solely human, should be a priority. If women’s groups expend their efforts in making femininity prominent they have only contributed to the sexual instrumentalisation of women and to further cultural polarisation, perpetuating the kind of situation which is itself the cause of women’s oppression.

I believe that attempts to maintain and uphold women’s dignity can sometimes lead to the opposite outcome, ie, removing femininity from women. For example, some Western feminist groups, aiming at making women independent from men, encourage lesbianism amongst women. They aim at making women sexually independent from men. It seems to me this is an attempt to deny normal sexual differences between the sexes, and as said before, defies the purpose. This point is important because one of the most vehement critiques against non-traditional societies is their attempts to remove all qualitative distinctions in order to create a world in which everything is undifferentiated and homogeneous. (Lack of any basis for value judgment in some post-modernist literature is derived from such attempts). We cannot deal with this issue here. However, critics of non-traditional societies view this as a general tendency and take women’s liberation movements as an example of the existence of such a tendency. I personally take this critique seriously and distinguish between two types of rebellion against sexaulisation, as discussed above.

I should emphasize that my critique of double standards by no means implies a rejection of value judgements. In other words, I am not arguing that we should have no moral standards or ethical judgements. What I am arguing against is narrow-mindedness and labeling people, which is indefensible. I always evaluate my own conduct first before assessing or judging others’ behaviour because my ethical standards are important to me.

Translated:Minoo Ardalan