Early adolescent pregnancy implies increased social and medical risks. There is lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind early sexual debut and pregnancy. This contributes to the difficulties to meet the educational and health care needs of adolescents. In Nicaragua, few reproductive health interventions target adolescents and even fewer studies focus on sexual and reproductive health in this age group. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to analyze the background of adolescent pregnancy in Nicaragua, for future interventions. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were carried out with young and adult women and men from different social backgrounds in the city of León. Results were used in the planning of a cross-sectional household study carried out in 1993, covering a population of 43,765 in 50 randomly selected clusters in rural and urban León. Reproductive histories were obtained from all women aged 15 to 49 years (n= 10,867), corresponding to 176281 person years of reproductive life. Random sub-samples of men (n=388) and women (n=413) were interviewed in privacy about their age at sexual debut, contraceptive use and reproductive history. The background to early adolescent pregnancy was further analyzed in a matched case-referent study of girls who got their first pregnancy before 17 years of age (146 cases, 242 randomly selected age-matched referents). Economic deprivation and disturbed family relations with an unsatisfied craving for parental affection influence adolescent sexual behavior. Girls' romanticism, belief in virginity until marriage and the contrasting male machismo culture contribute to a lack of empowerment of adolescents. At 15 years of age, 25% of boys and girls had had their sexual debut, and at 18 years this was the case for 85% of boys and 53% of girls. Among girls, the latency period from sexual debut to the end of first pregnancy was only 22 months, indicating very limited access to contraceptive counseling and services. At 17 years of age, one fourth had become pregnant. Contraceptive use was 54% among sexually active adolescents, aged 15-19 years, pills being the most common method. Among adults, female sterilization was the most common method, followed by Intra Uterine Device (IUD) and pilL Condom use was low as well as the use of traditional methods. Low educational attainment was a strong determinant for lack of contraception. Age at sexual debut and age at first pregnancy had been increasing, and fertility rate had declined in Nicaragua from the 1970s to the 1990s. The increase in women's education was found to be the strongest explanatory factor behind this transition in fertility. Girls who had successfully completed at least 5 years of schooling had lower risk for early pregnancy. This protective effect of education was found for groups with high as well as low socioeconomic status. The background of adolescent pregnancy consists of a complex interaction of socioeconomic, familial and cultural factors. Lack of political will to challenge current values, religious influence in sexual and educational issues, romanticism and lack of empowerment, especially among adolescent women, are also influencing elements. Contraceptive use is still low among sexually active teenagers in Nicaragua, and pregnancy follows soon after first intercourse. There is a strong need for family life education at schools and health services geared to adolescents. Non-use of contraception is associated with poverty and lack of education. The association between education and fertility decline, and the protective effect of education in preventing early pregnancies, even among poor families, indicates that education is a powerful tool in breaking the vicious cycles of poverty and early pregnancy. ; digitalisering@umu
ABSTRAK Taufik, Achmad, Tinjauan Hukum Tanggung Jawab Ayah Terhadap Nafkah Anak Akibat Perceraian (Studi Putusan Nomor 1930/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Bbs). Skripsi. Tegal: Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pancasakti Tegal. 2019. Nafkah anak yang wajib diberikan ayah sesuai dengan kebutuhan pokok anak dan sesuai pula dengan kondisi ayah dan anak tersebut. Adanya kelalaian untuk memberikan nafkah sehingga pihak yang wajib dinafkahinya menjadi terlantar, merupakan permasalahan yang sering terjadi di kalangan masyarakat Islam. Kenyataan seperti tersebut sering terjadi terutama dalam masyarakat yang kurang pengetahuannya tentang bagaimana cara memperoleh suatu hak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk: 1) Mendeskripsikan tinjauan hukum tanggung jawab ayah terhadap nafkah anak akibat perceraian dalam hukum positif di Indonesia, 2) Mendeskripsikan penyelesaian tanggung jawab ayah terhadap nafkah anak akibat perceraian pada putusan nomor 1930/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Bbs. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan normatif, jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif. Sumber data penelitian ini adalah data sekunder, meliputi: bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tertier. Metode pengumpulan data menggunakan studi kepustakaan dan studi dokumen. Analisis data penelitian menggunakan analisis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian diperoleh suatu kesimpulan bahwa: 1) Tanggung jawab ayah terhadap nafkah anak akibat perceraian dalam hukum positif di Indonesia, yaitu: Al-Qur'an dan Hadist (Surat At-Talaq ayat 6, Al-Baqarah ayat 233, An-Nissa ayat 5); Undang-Undang No. l Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan Pasal 41 huruf (a); dan KHI Pasal 104 ayat (1), Pasal 105 huruf (c) dan 156 huruf (d). 2) Penyelesaian tanggung jawab ayah terhadap nafkah anak akibat perceraian pada Putusan Nomor 1930/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Bbs diselesaikan dalam sidang Pengadilan Agama Brebes dengan menerapkan Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung Nomor 608 K/AG/2003 tanggal 23 Maret 2005, Pasal 330 KUH Perdata dan Pasal 98 ayat (1) KHI, Pasal 8 Peraturan Pemerintah No. 10 Tahun 1983 jo. PP No. 45 Tahun 1990 tentang Izin Perkawinan dan Perceraian Bagi pegawai Negeri Sipil, dan Pasal 105 huruf c KHI. Menurut penulis Pasal 105 huruf c Kompilasi Hukum Islam kurang tepat karena dalam pasal tersebut dimakudkan biaya pemeliharaan anak belum mumayyiz atau belum berumur 12 tahun dan sudah mumayyiz tanpa adanya batasan. Anak dalam hal ini sudah berusia 17 tahun 3 bulan berarti sudah mumayyiz sedangkan dalam putusan tercantum batasan kewajiban pemberian nafkah anak sampai anak tersebut dewasa dan mandiri. Jadi menurut penulis penerapan pasal yang cocok adalah dengan menerapakan Pasal 156 huruf d KHI yang berbunyi "semua biaya hadhanah dan nafkah anak menjadi tanggung jawab ayah menurut kemampuannya, sekurang-kurangnya sampai anak tersebut dewasa dapat mengurus diri sendiri (21 tahun). Kata Kunci: Tanggung Jawab Ayah, Nafkah Anak, dan Perceraian. ===================================================================================================== ABSTRACT Taufik, Achmad, Review of the Law of Father's Responsibility Against Child's Livelihoods Due to Divorce (Study of Decision Number 1930/Pdt.G/2018/ PA.Bbs). Skripsi. Tegal: Legal Studies Program, Faculty of Law, Pancasakti Tegal University. 2019. Child care that must be given is in accordance with the child's basic needs and in accordance with the condition of the father and child. The existence of negligence to provide a living so that the party that is obliged to pay for it becomes neglected, is a problem that often occurs among the Islamic community. Such facts often occur especially in communities that lack knowledge about how to obtain a right. The purpose of this study is to: 1) Describe the legal review of father's responsibility for the livelihood of children due to divorce in positive law in Indonesia, 2) Describe the completion of father's responsibility for the livelihood of children due to divorce in decision number 1930/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Bbs. This study uses a normative approach, this type of research is descriptive. The source of this research data is secondary data, including: primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. Methods of collecting data using literature studies and document studies. Analysis of research data using qualitative analysis. The results of the study obtained a conclusion that: 1) Father's responsibility for the livelihood of children due to divorce in positive law in Indonesia, namely: Al-Qur'an and Hadith (Surat At-Talaq ayat 6, Al-Baqarah ayat 233, An-Nissa ayat 5); Law No. l Year 1974 concerning Marriage Article 41 letter (a); and KHI Article 104 paragraph (1), Article 105 letters (c) and 156 letters (d). 2) Completion of father's responsibility for the livelihood of a child due to divorce in Decision Number 1930/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Bbs resolved in the Brebes Religious Court session by applying the Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 608K/AG/2003 dated March 23, 2005, Article 330 Civil Code and Article 98 paragraph (1) KHI, Article 8 Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 jo. PP No. 45 of 1990 concerning Marriage and Divorce Permits for Civil Servants, and Article 105 letter c KHI. According to the author Article 105 letter c Compilation of Islamic Law is not quite right because in the article the maintenance costs of children are not yet mumayyiz or 12 years old and have been mumayyiz without any restrictions. Children in this case are aged 17 years and 3 months, meaning they are already mumayyiz while in the decision there are limits to the obligation to provide children with livelihood until the child is mature and independent. So according to the author, the application of a suitable article is to apply Article 156 letter d KHI which reads "all hadhan costs and the livelihood of the child are the responsibility of the father according to his ability, at least until the child can take care of himself (21 years). Keywords: Father's Responsibility, Child's Livelihood, and Divorce.
[spa] Esta tesis comienza con el seguimiento de la historia de Argelia desde su independencia, el 5 de julio de 1962, empezando por la construcción de un Estado libre e independiente. Este Estado tendrá como fundamento una identidad nacional árabe y musulmana en todos sus aspectos (etnológico, político, económico, social y religioso) que adoptará la forma de un sistema político basado en el socialismo. Dicha opción política influirá directamente en la forma de vida y la organización social, en particular sobre el núcleo esencial, es decir, la familia. Al llegar a este punto, la tesis analiza el papel asignado a la mujer por los textos constitucionales de 1963 y 1976, así como su desarrollo legislativo mediante el "Code de Famille". Los fundamentos políticos y religiosos tuvieron un impacto directo sobre la vida social y particularmente su núcleo, la familia. Según el artículo 65 de la Constitución Argerlina de 1976 « La famille est la cellule de base de la société . Elle bénéficie de la protection de l'Etat et de la société. » La familia es el núcleo de la sociedad. En Argelia , el tipo de familia ¿se distinguiría evolutivo de patriarcal a moderna? ¿o siempre patriarcal? La familia patriarcal obedece a valores tradicionales y religiosos. La mujer es el miembro de la familia quien desempeña un papel y un estatuto doble . El papel de la mujer en la sociedad argelina es primordial. Es doble: al exterior y al interior del domicilio familiar. Primero, la mujer en el espacio público le permite una igualdad en todos los dominios jurídicos. Los textos Constitucionales de 1963 y de 1976 no mencionan ninguna diferencia entre hombre y mujer y al contrario expresan una igualdad entre los sexos para la construcción de un Estado argelino, la participación de todos es decir el pueblo incluyendo hombre y mujer. Segundo, la mujer argelina en el espacio privado desempeña un papel de esposa, madre y hija. Su estatuto de persona en el seno de la familia es de una menor durante toda su vida. Los derechos de las mujeres se determinan en un texto de ley, El Código de la Familia. Este comporta artículos de ley inspirados en la ley islámica « La Shari'a Islamiya » a fin de inscribir la mujer dentro de una dinámica reduciendo sus elecciones personales sobre el noviazgo, el matrimonio, el divorcio, la custodia y el testamento. El derecho femenino en su vida privada está relacionada directamente a la interpretación del texto musulmán en el Código de la Familia. ; [eng] BETWEEN RELIGION AND POLITICS IN ALGERIA SOCIALIST (1962/1989): THE JURIDICAL STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE FAMILLY. TEXT: At the independance of Algeria, on 5th July 1962, the construction of the algerian state was the first step in this country . This thesis talks about the followed of the history of this country starting with the contruction of a free and independent state. This Algerian state will have of foundation an identities : etnologic , political , economical , social and religious established by the algerian law inclusive in the Constitution . The elaboration of the constrution of a state will start with the first president of the Republic Ahmed Ben Bella and followed by his successor Houari Boumédiène . The foundations of this establishment express itself for a national algerian identity in all Constitutions ( Constitution of the Algerian Republic of 1963 and Constitution of Algerian Republic of 1976 ) underlined an arabic and muslim identity of State . The identity arabic and muslim will be determining for an union with arabics States and a no integration of those for common projects permit diplomatic and solidarity relations . More than relation of all Arabics States , it's more about a way to be : a consideration of a fraternal relation . The etnologic and religious similarities between all countries offered a sufficient reason for an union and a long relation . The option of an arabic and muslim identity will be too nessary pillar for the aplication of a political system socialist . The socialism in Algeria will determine a way of life of people with always an evocation of the direct and immediate implication of this in all properties for realizing this constitutionnal project of a country with strong foundations . This algerian politics according to Ahmed Ben Bella will be made up of the nacionalization of a lot of properties like banks , mines , petroleum , agriculture . But other problems will appear in the new State like unemployment , shortage produced an instability . The decline of the gestion of the country will stop the overthrow the 19th june 1965 . The second president of Algerian Republic, Houari Boumédiène will take the mandate of the country for his country for its funtioning under the same political system but with a new personality at the government. Chadli Bendjedid, the third algerian president will succeed to Boumédiène after his death in December 1978. The presidence of this third government will face dificulties in a lot of properties political, economic and social. The accumulation of problems was expressed by a popular and violent reaction the 05th october 1988. Chadli Bendjedid reacted immediatly when he decided to celebrate a referendum for an adoption of a new Constitution the 23rd February 1989 for giving a different orientation to the functioning of the country. The socialism will stand out the Algerian politics between 1962 and 1989 and it will be presented in both Constitutions (Constitution of 1963 and Constitution of 1976) so that the State gets closer to the people with the device of the political party, FLN, «The revolution by the people and for the people» and put last at the explotation of man by the man. This new identity will be situated in an official writing and put on practice. The respect of this norms and the application of orientations will depende on their leaders because the first Algerian Constitution return to 1963 signed by Ahmed Ben Bella and the second Constitution signed by Houari Boumédiène and will be in vigour until 1989 to give place to another orientation political, economic and social. The foundation, political and religious had a direct impact on the society and in particular his nucleus, the family . The article 65 of the Algerian Constitution of 1976 «La famille est la cellule de base de la société. Elle bénéficie de la protection de l'Etat et de la société». The family is the nucleus of the society. In Algeria, the kind of family could distinguish an evolution to patriarchal to modern? or always patriarchal? The patriarchal family respects traditionals and religious values. The woman is the member of the family who has a role and a double status. The role of the woman in the algerian society is vital. It's double: outside and inside the family's home. First, the woman in the public space give it an equality in all properties legal. The Constitutional texts of 1963 and 1976 don't mentionary difference between man and woman and at contrary they express an equality between sexes for the construction of an Algerian State, the participation of all the people included man and woman. Second, the algerian woman in the private space has role of wife, mother, daughter. Her status of person in the family is a minor all her life. The women rights were determined in texte of laws, "The family law". This includes articles of law inspired by the islamic law « Shari'a Islamiya » to introduce the woman in a dynamic reducing her personal elections in the engagement, the marriage, the divorce ,the custody, the testament. The woman rights in his private life have a direct relation with the interpretation of muslim text in "The Family law" .
The World Bank is launching an initiative aimed at addressing the economic needs of adolescent girls and young women in poor or post-conflict countries. Working together with governments, donors, foundations, and private sector partners, the Bank proposes to develop and test a core set of promising interventions to promote the economic empowerment of adolescent girls and young women. This paper undertakes a review of existing policies and programs designed to promote labor force participation of young women in developing countries. While programs that directly address marriage or fertility can influence young women's labor force participation, the focus of this paper is on programs primarily addressing employment. Some programs for promoting young people's transition into the labor market take a minimalistic approach (for example, concentrating on skills training alone). Other employment programs, particularly those targeted to young women, simultaneously address multiple constraints limiting participation (for example, lack of skills, limited mobility, child care needs, and lack of sexual and reproductive health information). The goal of this paper is to unpack and assess what elements of program design are essential to promoting young women's transition to the labor market. The paper is organized as follows: section one gives introduction. Section two provides an overview of some of the major trends and issues facing young women in the labor market in an international context. Section three describes a selection of best practice programs, some of which are focused exclusively on employment training and others of which take a more integrated approach to providing gender-targeted adolescent services. Section four details the lessons learned from the implementation and evaluation of these programs, and considers the circumstances under which a minimalist versus comprehensive or integrated approach may be most effective. Section five concludes and summarizes the policy and program recommendations.
Transcript of an oral history interview with Arsalan "Arsi" Namdar, conducted by Sarah Yahm on 2 April 2015, as part of the Norwich Voices oral history project of the Sullivan Museum and History Center. Arsalan Namdar was one of a number of midshipmen from the Iranian Imperial Navy to enroll at Norwich University for education and training between 1976 and 1980. His interview reflects on his experiences as an international student from Iran as well as the impact of the Iranian Revolution on his life. ; 1 Arsalan M. Namdar, Oral History Interview April 2, 2015 Interviewed by Sarah Yahm Sarah Yahm: OK. So, I'm going to turn this recorder on. Let me just check one thing. Ah, that's number one. So, you're number one. OK. So, this will probably take about an hour. Do you have about an hour? ARSI NAMDAR: Mm-hmm. OK. SY: OK. Excellent. And I'm really just looking for your stories. Your stories, and your life history, and things you remember. And so I thought I'd start from the beginning. So, if you could just introduce yourself, and say your full name and where you were born. AN: Arsi Namdar. And actually my full name is Arsalan Namdar, and I was born in the city of Abadan, which is a— southwest of Iran. At the age of seven I was— my family moved to Tehran, and left Iran until I was about 18 or 19. SY: What's your earliest memory? Do you have an earliest memory? AN: From Iran? I was— I remember in Tehran, it was a beautiful city then. It was pretty populated. I think we had about four million in population. Right now, I think it's about 16— 14 or 16 million. And Tehran was always a very big populous, modern city, and always a lot of activity, and nightlife, and day life. It was really amazing. And the closest that I can think of it now is it's something like New York City, and now— so, I was— I lived with my family in an apartment. We had— actually, eight of us living in a three bedroom apartment, and we were raised really— we were a poor family, and my father was the only bread winner, and my mom was a house— a homemaker, but it was— we were a really close family, and we enjoyed being together, and I always— when I was growing up I was very patriotic in Persian ways, and I loved my mother country, and I wanted to become a writer, so I wrote some novels, and I was pretty good in Persian literature. And then I met— I was— I knew this girl who was my neighbor, and we had a four year age difference, and we ended up befriending each other, and so, it ended up being a love relationship. And then for some reason when I was 17 or 18 I— we had a falling out, and so, I don't— I didn't tell her that I was going to join the navy. So, I joined the navy, and Imperial Navy, and so, then they shipped us out after a year, and sent us to the US. So, that was the end of my stay in Iran, and my memory from those days. SY: Did you get to say goodbye to her, or— AN: Never did. (laughter) SY: You never did? AN: Yeah. So— SY: You ever had contact with her since? AN: Yes. I did. This is probably— I know that she's still— she's doing very well, and so I know that she's been married twice. And she's got two daughters— well, two daughters and one son. So, I think she's doing well. (laughter) SY: So, what made you decide to join the navy? AN: I was— actually, I wanted to dis-- my basic reason was that I just wanted to get away from that environment, and I wanted to— 2 SY: Because you were heartbroken, or because you wanted to get out of poverty? AN: I really— I think I was heartbroken, and I just— I'm the kind of person that I need to— I feel like there are times where you need to make a physical change, environmental change, in order to really put yourself in a new situation, new atmosphere and environment. And that really does a lot of good for you. So, I went and applied for— back then the Shah of Iran was very close to the US. He was one of the greatest US allies, and they had just begun sending— recruiting a lot of young folks— young men— to become pilots, and to go to pilot schools, and to join the navy. And because the navy was— the Shah's one of— he wanted to be a super power in the region, so he wanted to strengthen the navy, and air force in particular, and so I went and applied for a pilot job, and went through all the tests and everything, and I was rejected because I didn't have the good depth perception. So, I was really disappointed, and so, then I said, "What's the next thing I can do?" So, I went and applied for helicopter pilot position, and I was accepted. And so I passed the test, and went home, and told my mother, and she just went crazy. She said, "You know how many people are getting killed as pilots?" And this was for the navy pilots, and as a navy helicopter pilot. And so she cried day and night, and she was just really upset, and so I decided— I said, "Well, what's the next safest thing I can do? So, I said, "Well, I'll go join the navy as a midshipman, and become a navy officer." So, I went in and applied for that program, and I was accepted. And after some physical tests and background checks and everything, then we officially entered the rank of midshipman in Iran, and my particular crew was there for about a year before we were given the opportunity to come to the US. So— SY: And you were— because you said you wrote a lot— so, I imagine that you had wanted to go to college and get more of an education. AN: Yes, I did. And going to college in Iran is pretty— you have to really earn— really have to be good at what you do. And in terms of academics. And I was— I wasn't really the best student, and I wasn't the worst student. I was somewhere in the middle, and I don't think I had the aspiration to become a college student or to graduate from college. I really felt that because of what I wrote, I felt like I had— I wrote very well, and I was a well-read person as well. And so I did— back then I read a lot of Persian novels, and a lot of American, European, Russian novels, so that's what really— I spent a lot of time on doing that kind of educating myself. So, I really never planned on being— going to college, because I thought that I probably wouldn't be able to enter college. So, I never applied for national tests, and they call it the Concour, which is— it's just a national test that everybody goes and takes it, and depending on the level of— the score you get, then you can become eligible for certain universities. So, when this opportunity came in the navy, and I thought, "I can go do the two year of service in the armed forces." Everybody who graduated from high school, they had to serve two years in the military. That was a mandatory thing. And so, either do that, or just join the navy, because I thought the navy is pretty sophisticated, I saw the outfits they wore, all the uniforms were all really chic, and they got to go Europe and the US, and I thought, "Oh, that's really not a bad thing. It's great." So, that was one of the main attractions to the navy, and so I was glad to be able to join, but at first like 3 any military training it's pretty hard. You don't get all the glory and everything. Glory comes later on when you become somebody or you accomplish something much more— later in your life. SY: What was the military training like in Iran? AN: It was pretty tough. It was pretty brutal, and they— we had— basically as a military student you really had no rights. They just told you what you had to do, and then you did it. And the punishments were pretty severe sometimes. I remember once or twice I didn't march the right way, and they made us put little pebbles— stones in your boots, and then you had to march like that. So, it was kind of like a torture. And so, when we came here to the US, and we started at Norwich, Rook Week here was pretty— it was piece of cake, because it was always push-ups, and sit-ups, and running, and they really were nothing to us because— SY: (sneezes) AN: Bless you. SY: Sorry. It was— you said it was nothing to you? AN: Nothing really. It wasn't that big a deal, so as a result we— at first— the first few weeks we kind of goofed off, so that really made our classmates pretty upset because we weren't taking this seriously, but we had already been through all of that. SY: And I think both Bizhan and Sussan mentioned hating having these, because you guys have been in— you were really in the navy for two years, and then there were these kids shouting in your faces. AN: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And in hindsight, I really think— when you think about it, I think it was pretty silly. And you're pretty— at least on average, we were two to three years older— or maybe even older— than some of these newcomers, so we felt like we had experienced more of life than these kids who had just graduated high school. And in a way we had done it, because we were away from our parents— when I was 17, 18, I joined the navy, and they shipped us off to some center to be trained in it, so it was— for us, we were used to that kind of environment. To being alone, being independent. And then they sent us here to the US, and they sent us to the Citadel, a group of us— the second group with Bizhan— I think Bizhan was on it, too. They sent us to the Citadel, and that's the military college in Charleston. And so, we had first a three month training there, and then of course they would let us do some weekends, and we just partied, because young guys, and being in the navy, and Charleston being a navy town, it was just always fun. And so, that was— so, we were used to a lot harder times than— when we came here, that military life in the beginning was not as hard. But over time, it got really hard, because of we didn't get recognized Rook Week, our group, the Rooks, didn't get recognized, I think, until February, and that was pretty, pretty long, and it was torturous in a way, and being cold, and all that stuff. It just wasn't really pleasant. SY: Did you— and I think Bizhan also said that in Irani military training you don't get shouted at in the same way, is that true? AN: Well, he— actually, Bizhan actually went to a longer training than I did. He served his— part of his two year mandatory training, and then he came back, 4 joined the navy. I didn't go to that first mandatory training. But in Iran, I mean, punishments are not— they really mean it when they punish you, and you can't say one country's better than the other— I've seen the marines, and how they train them, the special forces, and the— here, and I just feel like that— those are pretty vigorous, too. And we were just— we were not special forces. We were just navy. Just simple navy midshipmen. And— but what he was referring to was that the part of the navy that sent us— that one year, we— I guess the focus was for us just to learn English. Nothing else. We did some marching, and some military stuff. But, it wasn't like 24 hour doing all hardcore military stuff. That didn't happen until later on in the process. SY: Interesting. So, what was your first impression of Norwich? AN: Norwich? (laughter) So, as I said to you, the first group of us— they sent us to the Citadel, and it was pretty— it was a pretty hard school, and it was in the South, and beautiful weather, and it was summertime, and it just really felt for me close to Iran than any other place. So, when we— at some point, I guess, they lined us up, and— a group of us— our commanders came and said, "You go to Norwich, you go to Citadel, you go to Jacksonville, you go to this, you go to Maritime Academy." And I ended up being assigned to Norwich. And I thought, "My God, what is Norwich? It's so old. Norwich is near the capitol of Vermont." Oh, okay. Capital of Vermont. This is really great. I looked on a map, and I couldn't find Vermont. And they said, "Oh, it's near New York City." And so— and you have to just put this into perspective. We didn't have Google, we didn't have iPhones, anything easy to use. So, maps, and just simply asking people about things. So, we came— they said, "Oh, you're going to Norwich." Okay, Norwich. It's near the capitol. It's great, it's good. It's going to be like the Citadel, and like Tehran, it's going to be good. It's great. So, the last night we all went to disco, and we all had fun, and it was a great time, and the next morning we all had to get up, and they shipped us to Norwich. And we got off the plane in Burlington International Airport. Look at it, and said, "Burlington International Airport?" We saw maybe one or two planes. And again, you have to understand, we came from a very populated area, and we went to Europe, we— bigger cities, and we came here to the US, and saw Vermont. Saw only one, maybe another plane. Two planes. So, and they have one of those ladders that in the middle of the runway you all have to get off. Here we are, we all have— it was in August, we all had jackets, suit jackets and ties, and are coming down the plane, and I look, and I look, "Oh my God." In the distance I see two or three yellow buses, and just all of a sudden all of us have a heart attack. My God, what are these? I've never seen these. What kind of buses are these? So, anyway, they put us on these buses, and just, clunk, clunk, clunk, the buses are driving, and they're— we go passed all these farms. For the first time I see cows. And I'm looking, "Oh my God, so many cows. More than humans here." And so, anyway, that was the end of our journey. They brought us here to Norwich, and although it was a gorgeous, gorgeous campus, for us,— that's something I didn't expect. I expected more of a city, a lot of action, a lot of fun and stuff. Came to Norwich, and they assigned a room to me and one of my friends. I think it was in Dodge Hall, and so, we looked at each other, he was my maybe classmates, and looked at each other, and I said, "Oh my God. 5 What did we get ourselves into?" And so, that next morning the two of us took a bus to Boston, and we stayed there for two weeks, because our vacation— we had two weeks of vacation— two or three weeks of vacation before we had to go back. So, that was my first experience in Norwich, and I tell you, that was— from my perspective, that was the most depressing day of my life. And of course that changed later. And when we got to love the institution, and all the memories that it brought for us, and all the good times and bad times that we had here. Friends we had, Americans and Iranians, and the friends that really to this day I'm still good— many of them are friends with. Even the Americans as well as Iranians. SY: Can we pause for one second because I can hear the vacuum, and it's showing up on the tape. AN: Oh, it does? SY: Yeah. The microphone's really sensitive, so it picks up things— because I can barely hear the vacuum, but it audible. Okay. So, yeah. So, what were your encounters like with other students? AN: So, when we came to Norwich, and really the administration was very supportive, and they were really great to us. In particular, I had a professor by the name of Professor [Larsen?]. Fred Larsen. He was a professor of Geology, and I think he retired a few years ago. A couple few years ago. And he and his family really took myself and another friend of mine— the guy I went to Boston with— under their wings, and they invited us to the house, and really tried to make us feel good about our stay here. And of course this is August, and August going to September, and the leaves start to fall and changes, fall, it's not— it's pretty, but then it's cold. And so, when fall started, and with Rook Week and everything, that was, I think, the toughest for us, because they queued us up with an American classmates, and so, we were all together for years and years, and all of a sudden they said you room with these guys. And I had a wonderful roommates who was a very nice guy, and so I got to know him and like him and everything else. But it was pretty hard because we couldn't really— of course, we didn't have radio— again, this is back 30 something years ago. No radio, no iPhones, no TVs— no cable TVs, no internet, no nothing. So, we really had to interact with each other in certain ways that, for me, it was tough at that point, because I just— I had to really rely on my English a lot. It just— it wasn't the same as spending time with friends. And— well, initially, there was some fights between the Americans and the Iranians over different things. The most obvious one was that the navy used to give us a full salary, and that full salary— we went— all bought Trans AMs, Firebirds, Mustangs, Corvettes, and so we see all these first years students driving these expensive cars, and that really is not— thinking back on it, it just doesn't really sit well. Like, people who just came here and have really nothing, even though they came— most of them came from most prominent families, and are richer. But you just didn't have anything at that point, and so we were just driving around recklessly and having fun. Again, because we were in some ways, we were a lot older than them, and for us, we felt like we had experienced a lot of different ups and downs back home and different states. So, just for us, that was a normal thing. So, initially we had some issues, some fights, the Iranians and the Americans, and the way we dressed, that was— and of course, we were all young guys, more 6 mature, there were no girls left here in the Northfield area, or the Burlington area that we could date, or we could go out with, so I think that was a natural tendency for them to dislike us. SY: So, there are these pimply faced American kids, and you guys have sophisticated clothing. You're urban and cosmopolitan. AN: I mean, seriously, we had— we all had really tailored outfits, and nice cars. We drove everywhere. We didn't really— we didn't have cabs, we didn't have bikes, or we didn't walk. Everybody drove everywhere. And so, that naturally caused some frictions, and some frictions between us and them. But, in later years I think when they became friends, my friends, Americans and Iranians really became friends based on the values, not based on cars and things like that. They learned to like us for some of the things we offered, and we liked them for some of the things they offered. Mostly friendship and being really decent to us. And of course, you can always find some prejudiced rednecks out there who— they don't like you for whatever reasons. Just because you don't look like them. And that's not a low rank. That's a high rank. It just happens from— at every level. But we had some people that were really nice to us, and they really had— they respected us, and as a result to this day we still respect them. I mean, one example is [Keith Barrette?]. He was our classmate, and he's still around. Actually, he's still around. He's very involved in Norwich. He was one of the nicest guys. To this day, we all really like him. We all love him, and respect him, and we are happy that he was part of our history, and part of our life back then, and then we still have the ability to be friends and meet with him from time to time. But I think for me, the most painful thing was they gave us— my room was in the back of India Company, alumni, and it was— I think it was on the second floor, or third floor, and it faced— there was pine trees. And seriously, every time I looked at them I felt like I was in a prison camp. And that was really the most depressing thing for me. And that didn't feel good. And coming back to the same hall after the same building after like 20-some years a few years ago, I just saw the difference. I mean, I was just flabbergasted. How— so much difference and so much improvement. Kids nowadays have so many things that students— cadets— they just don't value. I mean, we used to march to the campus to the dining hall, and we had only one choice of meal. They would bring it to us, and most of us didn't eat pork, and so American friends, they were all waiting for us. As soon as we sat down, and we knew that, too, we never paid attention to it. So, as soon as they saw us sit down, they would say— they would come to us and ask for our portions, and we would give it to them because we just— it just— we didn't eat pork. And of course I eat everything now, you just had to get used to it. SY: Well, I mean, culturally— so, Commander [Arumi?], I was reading in the archives, he actually tried to intervene and explain to the administration about pork. Do you remember that? AN: Yes I do. And actually, he was a very sweet guy. He and his wife were very helpful to the Iranian guys, and she would cook for us every Friday. Persian meals, and they were delicious. I mean, I don't know if you've ever had (inaudible) [00:24:28]— SY: So good. 7 AN: -- they just— and so, she was cooking for us, we know where they would go. And people— Friday night a whole bunch of guys, they're not going to go to somebody older than them, to their house, and sit down and talk about this. They want to go party. So, our story with Diamond Hall was— I just wanted to pick up with that— that was our story. They would come and the days that they had pork or ham or anything like that, you just would— most of us would give up our dish, and our meal, and just— everybody would walk to the— there was a cafeteria down here that Officer Burger used to— that was our favorite. Officer Burger and then go play foosball. And that's what we did most of the time. SY: What did you say? What type of burger? AN: Officer Burger. SY: Officer Burger. What was that? AN: It was just a hamburger with a whole bunch of condiments on it. SY: So, there was something to eat if you couldn't eat in the dining hall. AN: We could not the first few months. The first year we weren't allowed. I think you either had to be recognized or upperclassmen. SY: So, did you go hungry a lot? AN: Sometimes we did, yeah. Sometimes we did. Yeah. And, you know, vending machines weren't available a lot then. And so— and of course lot of us were used to that kind, we just— it didn't matter if you had to have lunch or breakfast or whatever, because we were used to the kind of life that we could go like two meals without eating anything, and then go out at night just have a hamburger or hot dog or some-- not hot dog, just hamburger or something like that in Burlington. That's why a lot of us were very, very skinny. I'm 175 pounds now, but back then I was— when I was at Norwich I was 124 pounds. And most of my friends, if you looked at them, they were very, very skinny. Not because they were malnutrition, just because we just— that wasn't a priority to us. Priority was everything else. And everybody smoked too, so that suppresses your appetite as well. SY: Were you frustrated or angry that Norwich didn't seem to understand that culturally pork was not cool? AN: No. That didn't really bother me, and I really think that Norwich did a lot to help us. I really— I always appreciated their administration, and this has been really a great school in terms of being open and supportive, and I really think after all these years— still 35 years or so, they have not changed, and they have even gotten better. And I personally never felt that way, and what I felt was that there were cultural differences, and that's because it just— it was what it was, and it didn't really bother me. It wasn't like I would go out and say, "Oh my God these Americans are going to beat me up and kill me," or anything like that. You would make fun of them, and they would make fun of us. They would make fun of us for whatever. The way we dressed, the cars we drove. Sometimes you show up at regi balls, with girls that were not from around here who all were decked out. And we would make fun of them for doing some stupid things. We had a guy— a football player— who would get angry from time to time, pick up the soda machine, and just shake it up. To us, it was a funny thing. And so, the years I was here I really felt like it was one of the best experiences of my life. I mean, I 8 think Norwich taught me a lot in terms of quality and integrity, and really experiencing life, and trying hard, and just trying to work with others and be friendly. I learned a lot of that here. So, just because it was really encouraged by administration. SY: Did your kind of political understanding of the world change? You grew up under the Shah, not the most open of regimes. Not— I mean, and then you came to Norwich. Did you ever get to go to a town meeting? Did you sort of understand the different political system? How did you sort of understand the political differences? AN: We didn't actually— I didn't go to any town meetings, but I basically— we read a lot of newspapers, and sometimes from the TV, and watching TV, and we were really political in terms of American policies, we actually couldn't be. We were under the Shah, and we couldn't have any political affiliation. Only to the Shah. It wasn't until the year I got married to my American wife in secret— that was my last year here— that I felt like I was open to that, the idea of, "Oh, this is politics, and this is how this country is run." And by the way, I loved it. This is the greatest country. And I still do. This is the greatest country. No matter what your opinions are. And to a large degree you have freedom, and your freedom to do things and say things, and so I really— I was really fascinated by it. And I am now. It just is great. And I don't really think many countries are like this, and that's what makes the United States a unique country in itself. And— SY: What was it like growing up under the Shah? In terms of— did you experience repression or not? Were your family loyalists? How did that work? AN: So, under the Shah, we had to— if we agreed with the Shah and did not say anything against his regime, you could actually do okay. And I'm not saying well okay meaning you could become a millionaire. You could just have a normal life, and— SY: Under the radar. AN: Under the radar. But he just— exactly. He didn't want people to say things about him and about the regime. And that was really rightly controlled. And so they had this secret police called the SAVAK [Sāzemān-e Ettelā'āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar, Organization of Intelligence and National Security]. That— they were times where people would be really— and they would use that as a scare tactic. Really, if you say something that they didn't like, they could technically go after you and your family members, and really create some problems for you. There is no difference between then and now with what happens in Iran. You can't do the same thing in Iran either. This time the difference is they can't say that against the regime of Ayatollah, Khomeini, or his successors. So, to me, it's a lot more oppressed now than it was then. It just— the Shah— the thing I like about the Shah was he was very modernized. He was a great ally of the US, and unfortunately he wasn't supported when he was facing the Mullahs. When the Mullahs were taking over Iran, and that was his demise. And to this day I think everyone is realizing that they lost— I mean, look at the Middle East. There's really no one that is our ally here. There's really no one. And the Shah was undoubtedly the biggest supporter of the US and US ally. So— SY: Was there talk of the 1935 coup— right? 9 AN: Right. Yeah. The coup d'état, right. SY: -- the overthrow. Was that something that was talked about when you were in Iran? AN: I think it was in 1953, or— SY: Oh, sorry, it was '53. I was totally wrong. It was later. AN: I think it was 1953. But, no. My father, when I was in Iran, would mention it, and he would say to me, "These people, these religious factors, who come here and say death to the Shah and whatever." He said— he used to tell me they don't understand what the regime was like under— before the Shah took over because it was a kind of religious dynasty. And so he would always— was in disagreement with people who were against the Shah. And back then when I came here to the US, obviously I had to pass all sorts of background checks. They wouldn't let us into the navy unless we were completely clean. Not only us, but our families, and a good extension of our families. So, when I came to the US and things started to get bad last year of college year, then I could see that— what was happening in Iran. I just— people who were all against the Shah, all of those people who were against the Shah, they were moving towards all the religious factors, and for a time— a very brief time— things happened to be— they appeared to be OK. And as we all know, they went the other way, and went to the other end of the spectrum, and it's really— I don't think it's any good at all in terms of the economics, social, and any other way you look at Iran. SY: So, do you remember hearing about the revolution while you were here? AN: Iranian Revolution? You're talking about the— SY: I'm sorry. I'm talking about the overthrow of the Shah. AN: Overthrow of the Shah. SY: Do you remember hearing about that? AN: Oh yeah. I did. Because my family were also affected by it. My brothers— two of them— were arrested by Khomeini's regime, and because they— I think the crime was that they were trying to spread propaganda against the regime. One of my brothers was jailed for seven years, and the other one was jailed for a couple years, he had been tortured. And then my other sister, who was also arrested, and so, eventually escaped Iran all three of them. And they are living in Europe, and one in the US. So, the regime went after a lot of people for no reason at all. It just, as I said, it wasn't any better than the Shah. And the Shah was actually giving freedom to people. Women had freedom. Women had freedom to vote. They had a say in their daily life, and work, and society, and anything else. They don't have that now. They just— man in the king of the castle, and it's more of the— the regime is a more of an oppressive regime in more ways than people thought or imagined. So— SY: So, yes. Let's talk about that. So, here you are. Senior year, and you're starting to hear rumblings of what's happening in Iran. So, what filtered down to you from here. What were your— AN: Only people who would go to Iran for visits. Some of the cadets would go there, and then would come back and say this is really bad. And of course we would read the American media at that point, and we would watch things, and we would know what's going on. And I remember one year we were all— all of the navy 10 guys— were gathered here by our commanders, and rented a whole bunch of buses, and they put us all on the bus, and they said, "We're going to Washington to see because the Shah's coming, and we're going to be supportive of the Shah." So they had all of us military students on one side, then they had all the civilians on the other. Some Iranians were against the Shah, so at some point a fight broke out, and it was really nasty. It just— they ran after us. We didn't have anything to defend ourselves with. These anti-Shahs had everything in their position, so— SY: You guys had no idea that— AN: No, no idea— SY: -- you were going into that? AN: -- they didn't tell us. No. They just said to support the Shah. SY: And so how do you think— do you think that— how do you think you ended up there? What was the conversation between the Norwich administration and the Iranian ambassador? Like, how did that happen? AN: No, they just— they could just say— because technically we were their— Iranian government's possessions. Norwich really had no say in it because we weren't American. We were all Iranian and had Iranian passports. So, technically I could just be picked up during the day, in the middle of the night, put on a plane, and be taken back home. And it happened to some of our friends, and it just— they either had not done well in school, or they said something that was not favorable, so they were shipped back. So, Norwich really didn't have a say in it. They were— didn't know, because I think the commanders just told them, "They're going on a vacation. We're going to take you on vacation." SY: So, they didn't even know what you were getting into? AN: We didn't know that, no. We had no idea until we got to the hotel in D.C., and they said, "Oh, you're going out there, and this is the placards you can have," and said, "Long live the Shah." And it wasn't until later that we saw the other students running after us with sticks and— sticks with nails on them, and stone, and everything after us, and it just— it was really nasty. SY: So, how did it end? Were you terrified? AN: Oh, we ended up— someone was— some got involved in fights, some people got injured, but because we didn't have any— really any way to defend ourselves, we had casualties in terms of severe beatings, and I don't think anybody got killed, but injuries. SY: Wow. So, Norwich students got injured. AN: Oh, yes. They did. SY: Wow. Do you remember when you came back, did people ask what had happened? AN: I don't remember to be honest with you, no. SY: No? And you didn't get injured? AN: I didn't. Actually, I got beat up, but didn't get injured. It wasn't visible. But every single one of us got a piece of it. So, that was [New York?]— there in D.C. for two or three days, and that's— I think it was a good two days, and then— SY: Did you have to keep going back out? AN: Oh, yeah. The second— we went there in like the morning, and the next morning, and the next afternoon. So, it wasn't a onetime event. 11 SY: And did you— when you went back out— did you have weapons of any sort, or know what you were getting into? AN: The second time we just— we had— we brought some bottles and things like that just in case, because you don't want those guys to go after you, you need to defend yourself, so— SY: And the US police didn't touch it at all? AN: I think it was such a big crowd. It was thousands. Just imagine. And these police officers on horses— say, even 20 of them, 30 of them, 100 of them. We're talking about thousands of— it was just a mob scene, and so really, I think it was out of control. And it was out of control. SY: And were the Irani students of the Citadel and VMI, did they come up, too? AN: Oh, everybody. Everybody in the navy, air force, anybody that the navy ordered, and the military ordered— the Iranian military. We all had to go. We had no choice. We were the agents of the Iranian government. SY: Yeah. So, you weirdly went into battle in D.C. without any— without the US knowing or noticing. AN: I don't know— I'm sure people knew. I mean, you see group here and a group there. You see the potential for some interaction. It could— it's possible. But the job wasn't to protect us. The job was to protect people around the White House, and the dignitaries and everything. I mean, there's a mob scene. They're not going to go and worry about individuals like me, they're going to worry about individuals like Heads of State. So— SY: That makes sense. So, were you starting to get worried in your senior year about stuff that was going on back home? AN: Actually, I was not senior— I was junior year here. And it was— I was really worried at that point. And to be honest with you, I changed my mind about being— serving under the Shah at that point temporarily. But then I thought about it. If we go to sign allegiance to Ayatollah, then that's something that really wasn't in my dream. So, that's when I got married, said I'm not going back to Iran to serve the Ayatollah. I just really— this is not what I want to do. My allegiance is not to him. So, that's why I stayed here. SY: And so you had a secret marriage. AN: I had a secret marriage— SY: That worked. AN: Yeah. I had a secret marriage. And then came back, and told my commander that I was going to go on vacation, and I never came back. And that was Runi, and never said, so— SY: Where did you guys go? Where'd you have your secret marriage? AN: We went to my wife's— she has an aunt— back then she lived in New York in Glenn's Falls, and my father-in-law— so we got married on a Saturday, this particular Saturday, December 30th. Then we went to— he arranged with his sister to have us work— well, live with them for a few months. Ended up living with them for nine months. In the basement she had a room, I would say 5 by 10, dark, used to be a bar that had some use. So, they gave it to us. It had no toilet, it had— it was awful. Nine months my wife and I lived there. We had a couch that my father-in-law bought from Sears for 300 dollars, and that was a sofa bed, too. 12 So, that would be the couch, and then open up to sleep in. So, that's where we lived. And that was rough. And I was in the navy. I had never worked in my life. I was being paid a handsome salary a month as a midshipman, and then I had to go find a job, and so my first job was— I started as a busboy in a hotel nearby. Queensberry Hotel. And I loved it. It was really— all the waitresses were really good to me. I would help them out— I was a young guy. I was in my twenties, and they were older than me, and I would be stronger, carrying trays and things like that. And the hotel general manager really took a liking to me, and so he would order— he and his family lived in one of the rooms— so he would order food every day and want me to bring him the food. Prepare them and bring them to him. And I had no idea what these American foods were like. What does this mean? What does that mean? So, I had a tough time with that. But every time I went up he gave me a tip, and he wanted me take care of me. Really nice man. And so, then I— my wife started waitressing at a restaurant nearby, and then so we needed another job, so I went and got another job as a temporary street worker. Basically you help all the digging holes and jackhammer and things like that. And sometimes if I didn't have that I would go into the police department— it was a city job— I would go to the police department and help paint the walls, wash the cars, and things like that. So, that was my salary of two dollars and 10 cents an hour. And I was really proud of this, by the way. That was great money. So, that's how we started. I learned a lot from it, and I learned that no matter what you do, it's not what you do, it's how you do it. And I still to this day believe it. And I have a really good job now, but if I have to go lose my job for whatever reason I have to do something else, I can go to sweeping the floors and waxing the floors, but I can guarantee you it's going to be the best looking, cleanest floor you've ever seen in your life. And that's how I did it when I started as my houseman job in a hotel in Burlington. So, I started as a houseman, and within six months I became everybody's supervisor. SY: Why do you think— AN: It wasn't because I was a good looking guy and they liked me to be in the front— it was because I did such a great job. I had— they had us scheduled to do different tasks, and I did them all, and I did them all perfectly. I waxed the floors. Anybody who— any issues they had they didn't want to do, I would do it. Any time somebody called in sick, I would go in. The bathrooms— they have public bathrooms, and on the first floor of the hotel— and public bathrooms are always very dirty— I would go in and 10 minutes, I'd clean it up. I mean, that bathroom was spotless. So, people notice that. They see this guy is doing a good job. So, that's how I started— I got promotion like that. SY: So, what about— at this point you had two years of school? AN: Three years. SY: Three years of school. And so, what was your major? AN: Business. SY: Business. OK. And did you want to— I imagine you wanted to finish. AN: Yes. SY: So, how'd you go back and finish school? 13 AN: So, I went— when I got married, I wanted to come back to Norwich. Obviously, I couldn't, because the navy still had a hold of my academics, and they didn't release that until later apparently. SY: How did they set a hold on your— AN: Well, they wouldn't— I— for whatever reason, I couldn't get my credits here at Norwich. It didn't get released until later. Some years later. So, at that time I had gone to Trinity College in Burlington, and I got my Associates. SY: So, you had to redo all that. AN: Part of it, yes. And then I went to— I went another three of four years, and I went back to Trinity and got my Bachelor's. Well I got it all. My Bachelor's, I had like 12 or— no, 17 credits I had to take. No, I'm sorry. Seventeen courses I had to take, and I did them all in a year. So, I did day, night, and I had a full time job, and by the way I was cum laude. So, I just— it just proves that I really wanted to do it then, and I did it. Then, it wasn't until 2005 that Norwich granted 10 of us honorary degrees. And that was, to me, that was my most prized possession aside from my Norwich ring that— it just really— I had my other diplomas, but Norwich is bigger, and it's right in the middle of it, and it's a joy and pride for me. SY: Now did you stay in touch with any of your fellow students? So, did they know that you were going to leave and get married? AN: No, they didn't' know that until I left. Because you couldn't really trust anybody. I didn't know who was SAVAK, you couldn't— I didn't— also I didn't want to create any friction so that my family would get in trouble back home because my father cosigned me, so that if anything would be resolved, so if anything happened to me, and I left the navy, then he would pay all the expenses the navy had already put in my education. And they did. About 20 years later they went after my parents, and they wanted to take possession of the house and their belongings. So, my father called me, and said, "This is what's happening." I asked how much is it, and he said, "This much." And I just wrote a check, and they paid the government, and they were clear. So— but it was good timing then because inflation was so high that the amount I gave was almost 10 times more than it would have been up— 10 times less than I would have paid, so it just— it all worked out. SY: Yeah. And— OK. And then did you start— did you stay in touch with your family at all during that time? AN: I did, and it was pretty— we would write letters. Of course, they didn't have (inaudible) [00:48:24] or Tango and things like that— iPhone, you could talk to each other. So, from time to time we would write letters, and it would be pretty generic. No names, and no insulting the government, things like that. And sometimes I would call, and there are times that somebody— if you say something— the monitor on the other end would scold you for saying it, so— so they would do that, yeah. Because again, maybe my family— because we had three bro-- three siblings in prison by the Mullahs, and a number of family mem-- relatives who got executed by the government because they were against the government, so. SY: So, when did you get to see your family again? 14 AN: I got to see my mom about 15— 20 years ago. Eighteen years ago, I'm sorry. She came here to visit us, and then I went— my family and I went to Europe to Holland, a couple— three years after, and met with my mother and father. And they're still both of them living. My mom is in her 70s, my dad is in his 80s, so— SY: And are they in Iran, or— AN: In Iran. Tehran. SY: In Tehran. And your siblings? When did you get to see them? AN: My siblings— last time I saw my brother was about a few years ago. My sister is— oh my brother, five years ago. I went to see him, and I saw him there. SY: And it sounds like there's a period of, I don't know, 20 some odd years where you didn't see your family at all. AN: Yeah, it was. And it was one of the hardest things. And the reason is, I know my wife's family, they're really great. They love me. And really it was good to be accepted and to be part of them. But, you always feel like you don't— you— sight of it— there's something missing, and that is some of the things that have been missing for me and for my kids, because I always wanted to— I wanted to experience the love from my side of the family, because in Iran it's a lot more personable. I'm not saying— just, family is— it's— family relations are very deep. SY: And more affectionate, right? AN: More affectionate, just like— and they just— you feel like— we were talking to one of my friends, talking with how many people go see therapists here in the US, and it just really— it's hard for people to be talking to each other about— because no one's got time. In Iran, people don't go to therapists, they have family members. It's really— it's not unusual to have family members who live with you, so any problems you have you can always— you always have that support that— that support network that can always help you out. So, that's one other thing that I wish I had that for my kids, and I wish I had that for myself. I think that would have made me a lot better person in some ways for them, they would have a richer youth, and teenage years. It would be a lot better for them. SY: Do you speak Farsi with them at all? (overlapping dialogue; inaudible) [00:51:47] AN: No, I did not. I did initially, but that's one of the regrets. I should have spoken with them. I should have taught them, but I didn't. And actually, when I became a US citizen back three years after I got married. So, that was like '81, '80, '81 or so. Eighty-two. So, I was just— I was so mad at the Iranian government and all the things they do, I just didn't want to deal with it. Now, the last five, 10 years or so, I've started to pick up on strengthening my Farsi, because I was forgetting it, and I just realized— I just kind of made myself— I thought— I was thinking about, really, because I'm mad at them doesn't mean I don't— I love that language, and I just— it's really hard on me. So, I started to really read a lot of Farsi and listen to things, because you forget things, and I try always to see when I say something, how would it translate into Farsi, or the other way around. SY: Do you still dream in Farsi? AN: I dream about— yeah. I do. I mean, especially food involved. (laughter) 15 SY: That's what I was going to say. You must be homesick for food. What food do you crave that you can't get here? AN: They have these kebabs, filets, and they also have, we call them barg, which means leaf. But it's just kind of like leaf of meat. Filet. And they skewer it, and it's just unbelievably tasty. And that's served with rice and saffron. And they have this other kebab called koobideh, and that's basically kind of like hamburger, but it's on skewers this long, but it's absolutely the most delicious thing on earth. I mean, all Iranians, you don't find anybody who doesn't love chelo kebab. They call it chelo kebab. So, that's one of the things that— I mean, the smell of it, the taste of it, it's just out of this world. Seriously. SY: I believe you. (laughter) AN: Yeah. It just— it's just unbelievable. And that's one of the things I miss. And I miss the traditions. I miss the New Year. Persian New Year. It's a big deal in Iran. It was— SY: It was just last week, or two weeks ago, yeah. AN: Two weeks ago. Yeah. Twenty-first. And I know it's not a big deal here, but my wife does some prep for it, but it's just— it's not the same. So, those are the things that you feel like you wish you had. I wish for our governments— Iranian government and US government to get along, so people— SY: It looks like they're having— AN: I hope so— SY: Fear about what's going on this week, and last week. AN: Yeah, I'll see it when it's actually executed. I don't know. I don't trust these guys over there. SY: You'll believe it when you see it. AN: Yeah. I— you know what? It would be great if these two countries could get along and people could travel without the fear of getting hurt and kidnapped or whatever. SY: Bizhan's been back, have you ever gone back? AN: No, I've not gone back. He actually— when he resigned, he resigned from the navy. I did not. I just went AWOL, and because of my last name, because my brothers being anti-government, I really don't think I have a chance of going there freely. I would really— I wish I could, but I don't think so. Unless this government changes. SY: So, you're going to have to wait for news (overlapping dialogue; inaudible) [00:55:17]— AN: Yeah, to be honest with you, I don't think in my lifetime that's going to happen. I really don't think it. This is— traditionally, Iran— a regime lasts 70 to 100 years. Happened to Shah, it was 75. To these guys, it's only been 35, 40 years. I don't think I'm going to live another 30 years to see that, we'll see. SY: I don't know, you keep eating those egg white omelets, you might live another 35, 40 years. (laughter) AN: Yeah, maybe. SY: Sussan talked about how when she came back, because of the hostage crisis, there's a lot of hostility towards Iranians. Did you experience that? 16 AN: Yes, I did. Very much so. When— back in '78, or '79, I was working at this hotel called— maybe it was '80. The Radisson in Burlington. It's called Hilton now. So, I had an employee he worked for me. His name— whatever. And he was very anti-Iranian. And it was Iran this, Iran that, swear words, and— so, he didn't know I was Iranian, and finally when he found out I was Iranian, he just said, "I'm so sorry. I just didn't know you're Iranian, and I've been saying all these things." And I said, "It happens a lot. People don't know." When you talk about Americans are bad, or Iranians are bad, you just think of them in general. But you meet people, and you realize that really is not the case. And the prejudice I faced was not because of me. Once people started talking to me, they said, "Wow, you're not like that." Well, of course. I live in this country. I became a US citizen. I love this country. I'm not— it's not— I'm not the enemy. I'm like anybody else. But, my origin is Iranian. Just like you being Italian or being Irish. So, that's the way it is. But yeah. People— I mean, even after 9/11, just anybody who was dark, it was just— they were targeted. And then we learned to live with that. We learned to really put that aside. It's gotten a lot better in terms of labeling people and profiling them, I think so. So, I think, once people— and that's one of the things I love about Americans. Once they get to know you, and— first of all, I don't think many Americans are, in my experience, many Americans are not really vicious in terms of trying to put somebody down. People are very— they joke a lot in many ways. People like to be humorous about some things. That's just the way it is. And my experience has been I really haven't had people say, "You. Because of you." And once they get to know me, and say, "Hey, that's the situation. It is what it is." SY: Yeah. So, after all this, you're— you feel you— you arrive in Northfield, you arrive in the boonies, you say, "Oh my God, what is happening to me?" You end up staying in Vermont. Why'd you end up staying in Vermont? AN: Well, I stayed up in Vermont, the reason is because my wife is a Vermonter, and she wanted to be— she wanted to live here. I don't really like Vermont weather. I love the people. They're just the sweetest, most friendly, kind people. I just don't like the weather. And really, it's getting to me year after year. Just, I don't like the cold. Today's March— April. April second. I had to wear a long coat to come out. It's just— there's got to be an end to this at some point. So, my daughter lives in Florida. Southwest Florida. So, my dream is to move there someday and— but my wife is not convinced yet. That's the problem. That's the problem. SY: I don't know. You compromised. You've been here for a long time. Maybe it's your turn, huh? AN: Yeah. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see. Maybe another five or six years. We'll see. SY: Yeah. Exactly. I don't know if I have any more questions. I'm just looking through my list. Oh, yeah. So, then years later some of your classmates managed to trickle back in. So, what were those conversations like when you re-met them? AN: Oh, so coming back from Iran, or just— SY: Yeah. So, Bizhan makes his way back, Sussan makes her way back. It takes a while though. 17 AN: It does, yeah. It took a lot. For Bizhan, he almost didn't make it back here. He was stuck in [Bromford?] quite a long time. What really confirmed things for me was that I was right from the beginning that I shouldn't have gone to Iran, because a lot of my friends went, and said— and they went, and resigned, they almost didn't make it back, and they hated every minute of being in Iran. Even though it's our mother country, just because the regime made it so hard. And it was interesting to hear that people were in the same timeframe as I was in terms of thinking, and so for me it just was kind of a sweet— it's a pleasurous— pleasuring— pleasing thing to hear that I was— what I felt about Iran, not going to Iran was the right thing, and— SY: And everybody came back, and you could probably talk freely in a way that you hadn't been able to. AN: Oh yeah. Yeah. We did. And Bizhan's been to Iran several times. And even the last time that he went he said it was just really tough for him after a week. Said it was really tough. Just because we used to it— it's a part of our— we've been here more than half of our lives here in the US than we have been in Iran. So, for us in particular it's really hard. I don't think if I went to Iran, honestly I couldn't last more than a week or two. I seriously couldn't. Because A) the way of life B) all the different— the environment, the society and— SY: And the anxiety of whether or not you'd be able to leave. AN: Right. And that's a thing. And they have a different concept about things. Time is not important at all. So, you could go— when you invite Iranians over in Iran, you tell them dinner at 8:00. Dinner doesn't mean at 8:00, it means at 8:00 they start preparing the dinner. So, you end up eating dinner at 11:00 sometimes. SY: I think that's true for every people besides white Anglo-Saxons, you know what I mean? Any other country you go to it's the same. AN: And it's good to have that time concept. It's good to say, "Look, dinner's at 8:00. Be here at 7:45." Or whatever. I like the way things are more clear here what it is in the US. And people are pretty straightforward about it. In Iran, no. In Iran, say, "Hey, come here for dinner." Yeah, OK. And you can't tell people just come by yourself. You would say you come to my house, meaning you, that means the entire family. The entire family comes. So, it just— it's nice, in a way, and because everybody is together, and they love guests. That's another thing about our culture. We just love people coming and enjoying our food and being part of our lives. SY: Yeah. So, what's your job now? AN: I am the VP or Information Technology and CIO at Visiting Nurse Association in Colchester. SY: That sounds like a very good job. AN: It is actually. I started at— I went up the ranks. And I've been there 21 years. So, I really worked hard at getting here, and they just didn't give it to me because they liked— they thought they should have somebody like me. I worked hard for it. And I guess you have to prove yourself. Because again, you have in this country, again, you are given an opportunity, I feel like you people should be— they should use it to the absolute max, and if they don't use it— and that's why if they don't use it they're putting themselves at a disadvantage, and that's why it's true 18 that it's the land of opportunity. And it's true that if you want to do it you can do it. But you really have to work at it hard, and sometimes you have to work harder just because of who you are. Sometimes— different times I have to work a lot harder to prove myself because people just look at you and for whatever reason they just think you might not be able to write well, you might not be able to speak well, so those are things that kind of— they put you— you're set back, and they don't give you the opportunity. SY: Did you ever get disheartened during your sort of rise up the ranks? AN: I did. Like, you get— against what? My work, or people I work with? SY: No, just frustrated. I mean, like, yes. This is the American Dream. You can work hard and you can rise up, but there is discrimination, there are barriers, there are different things. It's frustrating. AN: No, I never did. I seriously I— again, I always thought this is such a great country. And if I can imagine myself when we had the hostage crisis here in this country, Iranians took those Americans hostage, 52 of them, for 444 days or something like that, and people still here we could live and we could get promotion. We could work hard. I mean, it doesn't happen everywhere, but I feel like I never had any backlash against me because of that. But I can't imagine being in Iran and being an American, and you take Iranians— Americans take Iranians hostage, and Americans in Iran be treated this well. And again, this is one of the greatest things about the United States, because that is— that's what makes us such a great nation. And that's what makes us so special. I mean, every day when I talk to these young people, I say to them, "You have this opportunity in this country, you have such a great country here, you have to realize it. Don't say US this, and US that, address it in a negative way. You haven't been to the other side to see what it is to live in this great country." And just have to— you just have to cherish that, and appreciate it, and you have this opportunity, you're part of this nation. SY: Yeah. One last question. How did you meet your wife? AN: Well, actually, I was— we were going to a disco called Friends in Burlington, and I had a girlfriend here one— actually, I had a live in girlfriend here, and I had a fight with her one night, and just went to disco with my friends. My male friends. So, my wife saw me at the— standing there by the cigarette machine, because they had cigarette machines inside, and she asked me to dance, and we danced for three hours. And so, that's— I think I told her I fell in love with her that night, and she said, "Oh, [I can't hear?]?" I said, "I loved you from the minute I saw you." So that's— SY: And now that's 30-- AN: Thirty six years we've been married. Yeah. Yeah. So, like any marriage, there's just like anything. You'll have ups and downs, but more ups. I really think that. More positive stuff than. SY: Absolutely. So, any last thoughts? AN: Last thought is I hope someday my kids will be able to listen to all these stories from Iranian guys, and Norwich cadets, and I hope they should— that they have an opportunity to come back and listen to some of these. 19 SY: Well, actually you're going to get a copy of this, and pretty soon the interviews I did with Bizhan and Sussan will be available online. So, that wish will be able to be granted very quickly and concretely. AN: Yeah? Great. SY: So, I'll send you— I'll send you— [01:07:09] END OF AUDIO FILE
Die zivilrechtliche Autonomie von Religionsgemeinschaften in Indien erlaubt den direkten Einfluss religiöser Regelungen auf das Verhältnis der Geschlechter. Dies trifft auch auf die ParsInnen, Anhänger des Zoroastrismus und Teil der wirtschaftlichen Elite Mumbais, zu. Über religiöse Tradition legitimierte bestehende Ordnungen wie die patrilineare Konzeption von Gemeinschaft werden dabei von liberalen Gemeinschaftsmitgliedern kritisiert und Gleichberechtigung gefordert. Der Artikel rekonstruiert den Verlauf und die zentralen Positionen des Diskurses um Patrilinearität bei den ParsInnen, der seit einigen Jahren zwischen Liberalen und Orthodoxen geführt wird, und charakterisiert davon ausgehend die gemeinschaftlichen Konfigurationen von Geschlecht und Religion sowie ihre Bezüge zu Wandel und Tradition.
Confession without Borders: 1st Wave Feminism against Woman's Right Disproportion in AtiqRahimi'sThe Patience Stone TitikHariPangestu English Literature Faculty of Languages and Arts State University of Surabaya Titik_hari@ymail.com Diana Budi Darma, SS. M.Pd. English Department Faculty of Languages and Arts State University of Surabaya Dianabd9@gmail.com Abstrak Penelitianinimemfokuskanpadaketidakseimbanganatashak-hakperempuan di Afghanistan denganmenggunakantindakantokohutamadalam novel inisebagaisumberdalamtesisini. Ktidakseimbanganhakmunculsebagaiakibatdaridominasisatusisikesisi lain. Masalahpertamadalamtesisiniberbicaratentangdominasilaki-laki. Yang keduamengungkapkanpengakuanperempuansebagaicerminandarifeminismegelombangpertama. Dalammenjawabpertanyaanpertama, penelitianinididukungolehteoripatriarki, sertadidukungolehbukuNawal El – Saadawi, dimanabukuiniberfokuspadadominasilaki-laki di wilayahArab. Permasalahankeduaakandijawabdenganmenggunakanteoridarifeminism, yang mengkhususkanpada feminismgelombangpertama. Analisisiniakanmenunjukkanbahwaketidakseimbanganperempuandisebabkanolehadanyawarisan agama danbudayasecaraturuntemurundalamkomunitasini. Setelahmenggambarkandoominasikaumpria, selanjutnyatesisiniakanmenggambarkanbagaimanaperempuan di wilayahinimenghadapiketidakseimbanganini. Tesisiniakanmengemukakan,sistemPatriarki yangdinilaisebagaipenyebabmunculnyaketidakseimbangantersebut,.Ketidakseimbanganinimemberikantekananbesartercermindalampengakuanistri, yang padaakhirnyamemberinyakekuatanuntukmelawanterhadapketidakseimbanganini. Kata kunci: Patriarki ,FeminismeGelombangPertama Abstract This study focuses on depicting Afghan women's rights disproportion by using main character's act inside this novel. Right disproportion appears as a result of the domination of one sides to the other. The first problem talks about the domination of men's. The second reveal the women's confession represent first wave feminism. In answering first question, this research is supported by patriarchy theory, and supported by Nawal-El-Saadawi's book which focus on men's domination in this region. The second statement of problem will be answered by using a theory from the first wave feminism. The analysis reveals the disproportion of women right caused by hereditary thought of their religion and cultural and also how women in this region face this disproportion. Patriarchal believes is use as a cause of the disproportion. Furthermore, this disproportion which cause a huge pressure analyzing by wife's confession finally give her a power to fight back against this disproportion. Keywords: Patriarchy, First Wave Feminism INTRODUCTION Offending to women in the society, especially to traditional system, it must dribble a fact of disproportion of women within it. This fact finally grounds the responder of it, especially to whom it may concern with cultural study to talk to. Besides that, this phenomenon also creates an unforgettable experience to author to write it down in utterance of beautiful work, especially novel that brings conflicts in detail. According to Rene Wellek and Austin Warren say that literary work is the representation of the author toward social life and society (Wellek & Warren, 1949: 90). According those quotation, literary can be affected by society because the author is part of the society. His idea can come from his or her society. The author combining his experience with some fiction than use this as the main source of literary works. In other word, between literary work and society or social life is tightly related each other. By using particular literary work, a researcher can identify a social condition in a particular area. Empirically, women are seen as the weakness subject. They are only put in in the second position in this life. Their duties only focus on domestic area such as bearing a child, cook for the household, and clean the house. Functionally, in war era women are only used for king and warrior sex satisfaction. They do not have any important role struggling for the war. Women's involvement in the war seen as a problem. They are seen as the weakness creature that will cause difficulties and also seen as a stupid creature who does not understand about war strategy. So, in this era, they were only used as the object for the warrior's sexual desire. Institutionally women are consider as the womb of baby child before it is born to the world. Unfortunately after their birth, the right of their naming is totally in their father hands. For example, in Chines system of family name, the structural of their kids name is come from their father family name. From those explanation, it can be conclude that women only seen from their function rather than their role. Women do not have their own in making important decision, to give their opinions, especially deliver about their feeling. They cannot live with their own will. Their man is the center of their live. They have to fulfill what their man need. This Traditional gender role cast men as rational, strong, protective, and decisive. They cast women as emotional (irrational), weak, nurturing, and submissive (Lois Tyson, 2006: 84). Men is the leader of their women, they have total control in decide how the women behave and act. However, in fact this traditional gender role still occur in this modern era, especially in Middle East country such as Afghanistan. This country known as an Islamic country which is uses Koran as their main laws, and guidance of their live. In Koran. Islam had been stated that "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what God orders them to guard. It is also said that men are little bit higher than women and they are oblised to protect and save the women. Patriarchy has become an inevitable issue of the growth of Afghanistan as a Muslim country. Especially during the Taliban leadership, which began in 1996 till 2001. Taliban as a part of Arabian world has different perception in apply Islamic laws. The Taliban's version ofIslamappears too many Muslims to be a new-bornfaithdeveloped, canonized, and interpreted by Taliban scholars with the reclusive supreme leader, Mohammed Omar at the helm giving his stamp of approval for implementation. Afghan women were forced to wear theburqaat all times in public which is quite different with burqa from Arabian women. Afghan women cover all of parts their body including their face except their eyes area. Taliban see face of a woman is a source of corruption for men who are not related to them.In a systematic segregation sometimes referred to asgender apartheid, women were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study theQur'an. Women were beaten for showing a bit of ankle or wearing noisy shoes. They could not speak in public or to men who were not relatives. They were beaten, even killed, for minor violations of these rules. But all of that oppression does not make women in Afghanistan hate Taliban men. Marrying Taliban warrior seen as one of the pride in their life. It cause the Taliban warrior seen as the hero in Afghanistan. They were struggling for their freedom from the western shackles, even in fact their coming give another suffering for women in Afghanistan. Marry them can increase the assessed value and the social status of a family. They will be considered as a family of heroes who fought for his country. So, it is pride for any Afghanistan women to married a Taliban warrior even they know what kind of consequence that they will face. Finally, it sharpen to a problem about the relation of them, Islam, Taliban, Patriarchy, and women in the world, especially to the facts reflected in Atiq Rahimi's The Patience Stone. Generally, religion have a patriarchal view of the relationship between the genders. The relation between Adam and Eve how many religion view woman. As Al-Hibri writes, God was declared male, and man was declared to be created in His likeness. Eve became the symbol of temptation and sin. The woman was consequently judged as a less likely candidate for salvation and an everlasting life in heaven than man. (Al-Hibri, 1981:176). Islam inherited the old image of Eve and of women that depict them as the close followers and instrument of Satan, the body of women being his abode (Saadawi, 2001:274). So, it is important to envelop them in veils and flowing robes (Saadawi, 2001:275). As the living carrier of the danger of sexuality and its infinite social destructive forces, women have to be controlled. Since Islam regards women as an active sexual power, it is important to restrict women's sexual power over men. The result is isolating women and men in different worlds. In talking about women's oppression, feminism thought as the appropriate philosophy in investigate this phenomenon. Feminism is an awareness of women's oppression and exploitation in society. This theory is struggling to achieve dignity, rights, and freedom for women to control their lives and bodies within home and outside. According to its movement, this philosophy were divided into three waves, first wave, second and third wave. First wave is concern about equality, second wave concern about the commitment of diversity, and third wave concern in diversity in specific normative. And according to the problem which is appear in the explanation above, the first wave movement of feminism, is appropriate movement that will be used to answer this question. Originally it focus on the promotion of equal contract and property rights for women and the opposition to chattel marriage and ownership of married women (and their children) by their husbands. This movement begin with Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Wollstonecraft's was the first to issue an outspoken rallying cry to middle-class women, especially mothers, as major influences on society (Gamble, 2001:15). Her emphasis was on the need to make women rational, till women are more rationally educated. Furthermore, this thesis will become a great analysis when it is known that the object of this thesis, AtiqRahimi's The Patience Stone, is the winner of prestigious Goncourt Prize in France, and is a deceptively simple book written in a spare, poetic style. It is rich read, part allegory, part of tale of retribution, part an exploration of honour, love sex, marriage, and war. It is without doubt an important and courageous book. This voice is in giving voice to those who, as the fable goes, suffer the most and cry out the least (Khaled Hosseini, The Patience Stone's Preface). The Patient Stone is a France novel which is translated in English version. Set almost entirely in one room - the bedroom of the husband and just about the only character who talks is the wife. The woman open up her feeling and thought to the men in her society, confronting the taboo of female oppression and sexuality. Her voice can describe the darkness in her live, her painful and her sorrow for being as a women. Her monologue definitely drive out the reader to think as the woman side, without eliminating the other character in this novel. Besides The Patience StoneAtiqRahimi also wrote some canon novel and won some prestigious appreciation. The first novel is Earth and Ashes, written in Persian and become an instant best seller in Europe and South America. A movie based on this book, directed by Rahimi, was awarded the Prix du Regard versl'Avenir at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. The film was featured in 50 festivals, winning a total of 25 awards including the one at Cannes and a Golden Dhow award for best feature film at the Zanzibar International Film Festival. And the others work is A thousand Rooms of Dream and Fear. Working on disproportion of women right for study is always an interesting and courageous idea. Through the confession of "Wife" character in this novel, this study can reveal that there is a rebellion and courageous, and how this character survive from the disproportion in Taliban era. Wife already thought since she was young that man is leader for woman, so she must obey him. Rather than fight back against her husband, she choose to use her silence as a form of rebellion. By using this character, it is can be seen that there is a rebellion inside of hereditary understanding regarding woman and man positioned. With discussing this topic, there is a description about what happened in this country especially about the inequality and also how far the disproportion of the women right still exist in this country. RESEARCH METHOD As has been stated in the description above, literature is a reflection of a society portray and the combination of the author fiction. Literary work is meaningful. Hence, it delivers many meanings and interpretations that can be caught by the reader as an interpreter. In other word, to find the accounted result, it needs a method that is based on the problems to avoid the blurry result. This study take novel from Atiq Rahimi The Patience Stone as the main source, and using some quotation inside it as the data. The type of this research is qualitative research because it produces descriptive data. The problem in this study is concerning about man's domination and woman's inequality treatment that will be analyzed by using patriarchy and first wave feminism from several feminists. WOMAN IN ISLAM Islam already stated that man is a leader for woman so they obliged to educate, protect and maintain the woman. God had been created man little bit more than the woman. It can be seen by the existence of their muscle. This gift, make man as the stronger one so they are seen as the appropriate one to be a leader while woman is the follower. So, woman must follow and obey their husband. According to Saadawi's book, Islam inherited the old image of Eve and of women that depict them as the close followers and instrument of Satan, the body of women being his abode (Saadawi, 2001:274). So, it is important to envelop them in veils and flowing robes (Saadawi, 2001:275). In other word, this society position woman as the guilty one dealing with their body and sexuality. That is why, woman in Islam, especially in Patriarchy country must get married, so they need man to control their temptation. Islam makes marriage as the only institution where sex between men and women can be done in a way that is more moral (Saadawi, 2001:280). Sex is done outside this institution directly transformed into an act of sin and evil, even masturbation was not permitted. Based on Ibnu Abbas' (friend of Prophet Muhammad) statement "and married a slave is better than masturbation and fornication (zina)". Therefore an unmarried men divided into three sins, first married a slave, then masturbation the foremost is fornication (zina). In other words, marriage is an established system for sex where one part uses to avoid slander (fitnah) and the other side used it as the legalization for reproduction as much as they want, and off course get good agreement to acquire pleasure within the bounds of Islam (Saadawi, 2001:281). Based on the Al-Ghazali an Arabian philosopher statement in Nawal's book, besides for reproduction, the purpose marital is immunity against demons, break the sharp tip of the desire, distance from danger of lust, keep our eye from what who supposed not to be seen, protect male sexual organ, as well as follow the advice our prophet (Saadawi, 2001:276). But this institution is still different for men and women, especially dealing with their rights and obligations not only inside in their house hold but also in their society. In their household activities, wife only concern about their domestic business. Their main job only raising their children, cleaning their house and satisfying their husband in bed. They do not allowed to care about what happened outside their area. Marriage makes men's heart free from household and clean their house, so they can concern to their job, religion and science in other word, they can concern in developing themselves. Al-Ghazali states in Saadawi's book "In fact, your wife let you to work on the final day and she concern about your house and relieve your lust" (Saadawi, 2001:284). Therefore, a man is seen not able to devote themself in science development and religion unless they have a wife that can handle their household. ARABIC SOCIETY Arabic culture is male centered. Males dominate most cultural, political and social institutions. This has a direct impact on the cultural status of women in both Arabic and Islamic countries. While Islam emphasizes the equality of men and women, Arabic culture minimizes it. A Jewish Arab in Morocco or a Christian Arab in Syria adheres to the same system and thus would have the same views on the role and status of women. The socially-rooted conceptualizations of differences in women's and men's sexualities and their biological nature are so frequently evoked to the extent that they become part and parcel of the individual and collective consciousness. In this regard, the "natural role" of women is one of the most deeply rooted interventions at the conscious and unconscious levels. Consequently, women's fulfillment of their "natural role" associated with the reproductive process becomes compulsory and coercive. In the end, this leads to women's lives becoming regulated through the sharia, constitutions, laws, and predominant social norms, in ways that far exceed what applies to men. In Arab societies, women's status is mainly defined by their roles as mothers and wives. Their main job only concern about raising children, cleaning their house and also serve their husband (Saadawi, 2001:285). Different from the husband's position as head of the family, they are taking control over their families, so that the actual duty as a husband in this culture region is to control and supervise the family and finally it position woman in second position after their husband. Women could not make decisions based on their own beliefs, and had little control over their marriages. Society create that the noble obligation for a wife to completely obedient to their husband, they cannot be different, no asking a question or refused their orders, (Saadawi, 2001:286). In other words, there is no independent decision for women. Their freedom is limited or moreover it is deleted because the ideal women in this society is a woman who can follow her husband without complaining about anything. Essentially. So, it can be conclude women were slaves to men and made no decisions on anything, whether it be something that directly impacted them or not. LOVE AND SEX IN ARABIC SOCIETY The strong influence of the cultural background of the Arab and Islamic values which strongly stuck in Arabic life makes this nation see love and sex as something taboo and full of mystery. In this region, woman take crucial part in this ritual. As the legacy from cultural background and also religion values the Arabic seen women without exception as cause of fitnah (fornication). Arab woman adorned with temptation and fitnah. Where in this sense they become part of the spirit of Islam, which force women into sexual temptation in the community who bring libel. In this case is related to a conspiracy libel, resistance, which interfere with any order that has been built by the gods. So, they are very closely related to sex and sin (Saadawi, 2001:273). Men on the other hand, though had great sex appetite, not accused of sin unless driven by temptation and seduction of women. The power of the male sex being a part of the soul of the Arabs and its soul is connected with virility (Saadawi, 2001:294). Thus, man is ordered to marry in order to defeat the evil and the woman temptation. Despite the desire of sex are owned by both parties, but in fact women in this region bear all the restraints. Man sexuality is connected with virility different with women sexuality which their sex connected with sins and devil. So, it will be ashamed if men in this region have a problem in their sexuality that is impotent and the only one who can know this, is woman. But the solution taken upon of these problem were quite surprisingly. As quoted in Saadawi's book "Virgins were not permitted to know far about sex, while a widow who already have experience from her previous marriage definitely can recognize this weakness. That is why they give "Lower" for their label" (Saadawi, 2001:295). These restraints were taken up in order to protect men from women so they cannot drop them. Women must keep their virginity by their own self. A woman who lost her virginity before marriage will be confuse and fear of family rejection both from family or society, but men who come save her will be seen as a hero and respectful (Mernissi, 1999:86). In a marriage, blood of virginity is very important. In the first night after their marriage, commonly they will use white sheet in order to see virginity blood and this blood is an evidence of chastity and honor of family (Saadawi, 2001: 295). Contrary with men who cannot be identified their virginity from their physical and the limitation of the girls knowledge about sex, it makes them do not have any burden even they already ever had sex out of the marriage. So it can be said that Arabic society were more tolerate to men in their sexuality rather than women. Beside virginity blood, the other blood which is very crucial for Arabian society is menstruation "haid". In Islam haidseen as a dirt. In an authoritative Arab dictionary named Lisa Al'-Arab menstruation mean al- khubts (Viciousness combined with cruelty), al-makr (the desire to destroy been prepared with despicable). Menstruation for women is related with their sexuality. They are seen ready for their sexuality when they already in this period. So, when they arrive in this period, in Arabian culture means that their temptation was completed. And based on Surah above women in this period time were seen as the impurity women. PATRIARCHY IN TALIBAN When the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1996, the status of women declined rapidly until women were completely confined to home, or only allowed to leave home with a male escort while wearing a burqa. If a woman seen outside without being covered from head to toe, even if only a little skin was exposed, she would be beaten. These rules complicated things completely for women who no longer have a living male relative, or women who are too poor to be able to purchase a burqa.The other extreme rules confining women during Taliban are, the window in homes to be painted to prevent others from viewing women from the outside, women must not laugh, talk loudly, or make any noise at all when in public. All of these rules among others made women prisoners in their own homes, unable to go anywhere or do anything without being under the watch of man. Based on the explanation above, it can be conclude that there is a disproportion of rights in this sexes. The sense of patriarchy is definitely appear in regime. Taliban imposed straight rules for women or it is also can be said they tend to jail women., limited their access, hide them from worldwide and also do whatever they want to women. According to Millet, patriarchy's chief institution is family, where patriarchal ideology well maintained traditionally and modern. As the smallest unit, family contribute in strengthening this ideology (Millet, 1970:33). Encourage every family members to think and behave in accordance with the rules of the community who embraced the patriarchy. In this institution, commonly this ideology will be It will be taught into two categorize, that is how girl's role and boy's role. They will learn character, role and status between wife and husband and also father and mother. According to Millet, patriarchal ideology socialized into three categories. First, temperament involves the formation of human personality along stereotyped line of sex category ("masculine" and feminine), based on the needs and values of the dominant group and dictated by what its members cherish an themselves and find convenient in subordinates: aggression, intelligence, force, and efficacy in the male: passivity, ignorance, docility, "virtue" and ineffectuality in the female. This is complemented by a second factor, sex role, which decrees a consonant and highly elaborate code of conduct, gesture and attitude for each sex. In terms of activity, sex role assigns domestic service and attendance upon infants to the female, the rest of human achievement interest and ambition to the male (Millet 1970:26). Patriarchal ideology is very difficult to remove from this society because they still maintain it. Stereotypes attached to women as domestic workers made him weak because they did not get money from their work to take care of the household. Domestic work is taken for granted and it was her duty as a woman. She does not need to earn money from their work and the result she always dependent on her husband. Millet stated that patriarchal ideology cannot be torn down because women are economically dependent on men. Dependence that occurs throughout life. Conventionally men are the main source of income in the family while the woman is the housekeeper. Men worked outside for their economy and women living at home to do all the housework. Women are not allowed to make money, because men make it as property when they got married (Millet, 1970: 40). In a patriarchal system, men have full power to women so that they can do whatever it wants with his wife. Women economically dependent on her husband because they did not earn his money out of pain. According to De Beauvoir, regarded as a slave wife, while the husband is her master. This can lead to the occurrence of domestic violence (Beauvoir, 1989: xv). FIRST WAVE FEMINISM Feminist theory addresses two fundamental differences in the view of women and men. Expression of male-female differences in the biological aspects of the show as the essence of natural, innate. While expression masculine feminine is psychological and cultural aspects of difference (Megawangi, 2004: 184). Si mon de Beauvoir stated that in a patriarchal society, women are placed as the "Other", as second-class human beings, lower by nature (Selden, 1985: 137). Position as the "Other" affect all forms of social and cultural existence of women (Cavallaro, 2001: 202). Patriarchal society using a certain fact about the physiology of women and men as a basis to build a series of identity and masculine and feminine behaviors are enacted to empower men on one side and women on the other weakens. Patriarchal society convince themself that the construction of culture is "natural" and therefore "normality" depends on one's ability to demonstrate gender identity and behavior. This behavior is culturally associated with one's biological sex. Patriarchal society uses rigid gender roles to ensure women remain passive (loving, obedient, responsive to sympathy and approval, cheerful, kind, friendly) and men remain active (strong, aggressive, inquisitive, ambitious, full of plans, responsible, original, and competitive) Meanwhile, according to Millet, patriarchal ideology in academia, religious institutions, and family justify and affirm the subordination of women to men who lead for most women to internalize self to men (Millet, 1970:26). One way to understand the various dimensions of feminist theories and their theoretical approaches to understand patriarchy is to locate them within the broader philosophical and political perspectives that have been broadly classified as first, second and third feminism movement. This theory were categorize in three waves according to its concern about. First wave is concern about equality, second wave concern about the commitment of diversity, and third wave concern in diversity in specific normative. However, there are some ideological differences among the feminist groups, they are united in struggle against women inequality and hierarchical relationship between women and men. To be more focused on equality of women phenomenon, the first wave of this movement thought as the appropriate approach in analyzing this issue. The first wave of feminism took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerging out of an environment of urban industrialism and liberal, social politics. The goal of this wave was to open up opportunities for women, with a focus on suffrage.The feminist in this movement assumes that there is basically no difference between men and women. Therefore, women should have the same rights as men. Nevertheless, liberal feminists reject the overall equation between men and women. In some cases remain distinction (distinction) between men and women. However, the function of the female reproductive organs logical consequences in social life (Ratna Megawangi, 1999: 228). Mary Wollstonecraft is one of the pioneer for this movement. In her book Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) she talked about her life and personal significance as an icon of the women's movement. Wollstonecraft's was the first to issue an outspoken rallying cry to middle-classwomen, especially mothers, as major influences on society (Gamble, 2001:15). Her emphasis was on the need to make women rational. Far from portraying women as superior to men, Wollstonecraft wanted to raise their overall moral and intellectual stature to make them into more rational citizens. For the most part, she did not envisage their leaving the domesticsphere, nor did she ask for anything as radical as the vote. Even she accepted that women in middle-class would marry and remain at home, but she want every girls get same education as a purpose for their freedom and dignity rather than the ability to fascinate potential husband (Gamble, 2001:16). Not only Wollstonecraft who does not agree with this disproportion. Rosemarie Putnam Tong in her books "Feminist-Though: A More Comprehensive Introduction" imply that there is a restriction of women's activity and it cause they lack of power and knowledge so that they cannot develop themselves. DOMINATION REPRESENTED IN NOVEL The Arabian world are very thick by the influence of their culture either before or after Islam. Where both are directly or indirectly gave a special position for men rather than women. If the granting of this position was originally intended to separate human's daily task, but in fact this positioning has grown to become a leader and the led. Develop as the domination of one side to the other sides. Through this novel, this domination will be exposed as a reflection of the real condition in the country inside this novel. In this region Patriarchy ideology has been used as root for society structural in this region. This ideology still maintained in this modern era, make this ideology quite difficult to be changed or removed (Millet, 1970:40). Since their a little, boys and girl were already given an example by their parents behave, and when their already in their puberty time, they were thought how man and woman behave, and unconsciously differentiate them in two different position. As an example in this passage, 'When I got engaged, I knew nothing of men. Nothing of married life. I knew only my Parents. And what an example! All my dad cared about were his quails, his fighting quails! I often saw him kissing those quail but never my mother, nor us, his children. There were seven of us. Seven girls starved of affection (Rahimi, 2010:57). In this passage can be criticize that family is chief institution for this ideology to get developed. Family has huge contribution in strengthening this ideology. According to this passage, her family was the only example for her to understand about how is marriage life. Her father only care about his quails and never the girls and also her mother, but she never saw her mother complain about it. Made this situation seems normal and that how it was supposed to. Wife should not disturb her husband, especially complaining about what they do. Because wife's job only concern about their household and fulfill husband's satisfaction (Millet, 1970:40). Concerning about husband satisfaction, letting him do what they want to do can also meant as an effort in satisfying her husband and women is this family was supposed to be quite and submissively. In this group, women are defined as something odd, deviate from a prototype of human's body, physically passive and contain of emotional, different with man's body who have active and ably mind result a conclusion that women considered as a carrier for men's seed, so the real creator is the men (Millet, 1970:54) As what the author had been explained above, men is leader for women because God create them a little bit more than women, so they should follow their command. (Back to the passage 'Look, I breathe just like you! (Rahimi, 2008:7), and also in the passage "You know that I live only for you, at your side, by your breath" (Rahimi, 2010:9). Through those passage, women should follow their husband in every way. They led them in every case, metaphor with "breath" which can be meant that women should follow them in every way, and bow down to their rule (HR. Tirmidzi verse. 1159). Women must following the rhythm of their husband breath, walk inside their shadow, and hide behind their shoulders. It is also mean that men are take control of women's life. Mean have a charge to change the rhythm to their breath or even stop it when they want it, it is all their right, and women should follow them. No asking and complaining as can be seen in this part 'I hope you are able to think, to hear, to see…to see, and hear me…' (Rahimi, 2010: 52). This part can be used as a reflection that women in this society do not have a voice to deliver their feeling, never have a chance to be thought, and seen as the important subject. Those description can be used as the early indication about how men dominate women's life in this region especially in their marital section. Human in this region separated into two different world, women's world and men's world. As the author already said, men have their special world as a heritage from their culture and also their religion. Men in this regime do not have any straight boundaries. Start from how their outfit and also how they behave. Different with women which have to concern about what they do, and how they do it. Man created a little bit more. It can be seen with their muscle, where muscle is related with physically power, and finally spread in many aspect. In other hand, women who are created without muscle are directly related to the weakness and finally prison them in domestic job. The differences of their body led different attitude towards both. Women in this society who does not penis considered less than man is seen as the embracing one. Penis who located in outside seen as sign of autonomy and power, while women's genital are putted inside and hide (Beauvoir, 1989:18). As an example in this novel 'I was a piece of meat, into which you could stuff your dirty dick. (Rahimi, 2010:112). According to this passage penetrate woman also can be meant show their authority and power while woman only used as a bowl to put this power. According those explanation, women in this ideology were putted in inferior position which mean that they only putted in second class. Their existence indirectly eliminated in this regime. In order to keep maintain this existence patriarchy ideology woman only have one conditional, that is companied by her mahram, or husband (Beauvoir, 1989; 225). Patriarchal society provide scary threat for women who is living without men beside her. As can be seen in the page 17 in this novel, 'And you leaving him in this state? What about his children? And me? You can't, you can't, you've no right to leave us like this, without a man!' (Rahimi, 2010:17). In this passage, wife feels afraid if her husband died and let her alone. It is because she will be left alone, not only by her husband but also because of the society and her family. Hence, they should get married. Women in this ideology does not allowed to choose their husband. As can be seen in this monologue before her marriage, her mother-in-law came to her house and asked her to married her son (Rahimi, 2010:53). According this passage, women in this region do not have any right to choose their husband. Her father or family never asked about her opinion or her criteria about her ideal man, and accepted without slightest hesitation. In contrary, men can choose which one they want to get married. Married in this region also can be criticized as a transaction. They used Maharas a tool in this transaction, (Saadawi, 2001: 283) a transaction between abolishing family anxiety because of their virgin daughter and find the legality of fulfillment of lust. But if be observed further marriage can be said as announcement for their leadership, and independence for a man, different with the women. As the consequence, a virgin who agree to get married must throw their freedom and get ready of any rules that had been made by her husband. When a man had married they have a freedom in sexual intercourse that just being a story when they were teenagers. They also allowed to set up a small country named family that ultimately gave them a power. And women, unconsciously walk into a trap which restrictive their freedom as seen in this part, 'Three years! For three years I wasn't allowed to see my friend, or my family…It wasn't allowed to see my friends, or my family…it was considered proper for a young married virgin to spend time with other married women. Such rubbish! (Rahimi, 2010: 54). This passage can reflect the exile from the association in women side, different with man which does not any significance differences, or limitation of their association. Seems like marriage is also a way for them develop themselves about science and knowledge, as an example is a war. Commonly when a women marry because of arranged marriage, usually their marriage are not based on love. For woman in this ideology love is not always about feelings, but also about the commitment throughout body and soul unconditionally (Beauvoir, 1989:526). In fact love is very important for a woman, they can sacrifice anything while she did not realize that this feeling can make her suffering. Love can be illustrated as an essence of sexual oppression for women, because men can used it as cultural power to dominate women (firestone, 1972:121). As an example, when wife decided to accept her mother-in-law proposed "Who were you, really? No one knew. To all of us, you were just a title: the Hero! And like every hero, far away. Engagement to a hero was a lovely thing, for a seventeen- years-old girl. (Rahimi, 2010:54). She directly falling in love with someone that she never known before. The reason was because of he was a hero, and it was a lovely thing married with a hero. But in fact, this love unconsciously made her sacrifice her freedom, and prepare to be a slave for her husband. He use her love to satisfy her lust, to bear their child and to clean and prepare for their meal. Love beat the rational thought of women, it was realize that the bride got married without her groom presence, 'At the ceremony, you were present in the form a photo, and that wretched khanjar, which they put next to me in place of you' (Rahimi, 2010:54). In this snippet of her monologue can be interpret the importance of man in women life. Even they have to marry with a strange men, whom only known from his photograph. This stage of live can be said as the place where patriarchy is definitely felt by women. Men have huge chance in developing their self because the already have wife who will concern about the domestic job (Ghazali,IhyaUlum ad-Din, 1964:699). As reflected in this passage 'Did you think about us for even a second, when you shouldered that fucking Kalashnikov? You son of a…'.the word suppressed again. (Rahimi, 2010:14). This passage can reflect that husband only concern about his struggle toward his enemy. Totally concern about his war, without understand his family. He throw domestic responsibility to his wife, and use her natural fate as his justification. Women should run in her roles as a wife who must serve their husband, bear a child, and satisfied her husband in their bed. This ideology see everything including about women with the male point of view (Beauvoir, 1989:xx). By using men likeness or dislike, patriarchy ideology make rule and prison them under men feet. As can be seen in this passage, It was not considered proper for a young married virgin to spend time with other married women, (Rahimi, 2010:54). Based on the passage above, woman could not see her friend or more is gossiping about many thing. Gossiping is not allowed in Taliban regime, because they see it as something useful. But if it see deeper, they are not allowed to see their friend especially among marriage woman because they afraid of being betrayed. Men never directly deliver this fears, they hide it hereditary. That is why they used this banning as law in their family. They use women's fear to control their behavior. And women who hereditary not rewarded by any right against her husband, do not have any effort except silent and following their command. Beside become the follower for the men, this region also put woman as place for bearing a child. This society make that women should birth a child, because it is their natural faith, and with that you will be the perfect women. So, it will be a huge problem if woman is infertile, they will be seen as imperfect or unideal woman because she cannot fulfill her nature destiny as a mother, she face divorce threat, and get low view from her society. As can be seen in aunt character. She got divorce because she cannot bear a child, and finally get exiled by her family. Society unilaterally blame her without care with her feeling and sadness because she cannot perfect as a woman. Different in man sides. If woman have their infertile problem, man will feel ashamed if he is impotence. But through this novel, it is not a big deal for men because the society seems like protect them for their weakness. In this novel there is a big secret that had been hidden since their marriage, the secret that only known by wife and her mother in–law. Start from her mother in-law unilateral decision that she was barren, 'Your mother had decided I was barren, and kept hassling me all the time' (Rahimi, 2010:65). From this part it can be used as an identification that in this region woman is the most important part in bearing a child, without care that woman also need man so they can bear a child. They blame all in woman shoulder, and try to find a solution as an interest of a descendant. And polygamy is the able solution for this case. Polygamy is allowed by the religion and of course make man have a big smile because of this policy. As reflected in the passage 'Your mother was dying to see you to take a second wife' (Rahmi, 2010:66). Based on this monologue, her mother in-law only concern about the real function of woman as a child bearing rather than a human. However unexpected situation came up and reveal that her husband is the infertile one. 'Because that child was not yours!' She falls silent, impatient to see her man finally crack. (Rahimi, 2010:131), 'Yes my sang-e sabur, those two girls are not yours! 'She sits up. 'And do you know why? Because you were the infertile one. Not me!' (Rahimi, 2010:132). The fact is, now they have two beautiful daughters and they are their real parent. Nobody know the secret except those women. Seems like everything was fine, and they can fulfill their natural fate. But if it is seen deeper, they create this scenario in order to keep save a husband. After her mother in-law knew that hers son is the weakness son, she did something that is contrary with her religion. She sent her to a Hakim, a kind of shaman until she is going to pregnant, as reflected in this passage 'She spent a lot of cash that day, I can tell you. And then I visited the Hakim several times, until I feel pregnant. As if by magic! But you know what, that Hakim was just my aunt's pimp. He mated me with a guy they had blindfolded '(Rahimi, 2010:132). The mother-in-law was willing to do anything for saving her son from bad view of social groups even she have to turn aside from her religion. In contrary with wife's aunt, because she is the infertile one, her family never look for a solution to save her, but they directly throw her from her family and forget about her. From those example can be criticize that society give a huge tolerant for men, gave more privilege to be understanding for their weakness. Hereditary it is done by the society. Give men some privilege either it is openly such as polygamy or closely by protecting their weakness. By sacrificing women's feeling. This condition finally raised women's anxiety for her husband satisfaction. According to this passage 'Although it often seemed to me that you weren't satisfied. And then I would guilty. I told myself that it was my fault, that I didn't know how to do it right. (Rahimi, 2010:105). According to this passage, wife feels guilty because of she believe that she cannot satisfied her husband. It was her fault because she believe that it was her duty as a field for her husband. Lacking of sexual knowledge make her blame herself (Saadawi, 2001:295). But after have several sexual intercourse she realize that it was her husband weakness, 'After a year, I discovered that actually, it was all coming from you, you gave nothing. Nothing' (Rahimi, 2010:105). Now he can find her husband weakness, but because of her position as woman which is does not have any voice, make her only keep inside her mouth. In sexual intercourse, although it was done by two subjects but in fact man is taking control for any movement or position in this intercourse. It because man is a leader for woman according to the religion. State by Al-Hasan an Islamic scholar in Saadawi's book state that man does not allowed to fulfill his woman command because he will throw into hell in the judgment day (Saadawi, 2001:286).In this monologue "If I'd asked all that to you…my God! I'd have got a broken nose! And yet it's not difficult…you just have to listen to your body. But you never listened to it (Rahimi, 2010:111). A woman can't make a favor though is aimed for their satisfaction. Women only follow the men, but in the end blame themselves if the husband feel unsatisfied in this intercourse. If in their personal intercourse, women must keep silent how about their daily live. Monologue above can used as the example that women in this region are completely silent. They feel afraid because they will get a punishment because of their favor. Men are allowed to beat their wife after they do advise and forsake them from bed. But in fact, for any reason that make her husband angry, he will directly beat them. As an example in this monologue, 'He beat up my mother, my sister and me, because we hadn't kept watch over his quail' (Rahimi, 2010:60). Her father beat them without clear reason. Because of he cannot find his quail make him angry and find an impingement. It is can be seen that his father forget about several steps before beating her wife, he only see "beat" word which is mean it was legally done by any chance. From those example above women in this region had already knew that marriage is not always beautiful like what they thought. But because of they live in patriarchy circle which put men as the central part make women in this region, completely need men. It would really frighten for a woman living without a man beside her, although it was just a name. In this novel wife only live with her husband name for three years, she must deal with her husband absence as a consequence having a hero husband. But it is fine for her, because she now has a man beside her, have somebody who is believed as her guardian, give her a distance as an accusation of temptation carrier. But when the husband back in a dying state and his wife, are required to maintain him, she still afraid of her society view, especially threat of widowed. In her monologue she stated 'She stands up. 'Even injured, you've been spared suffering' (Rahimi, 2010: 21). It can interpret even her husband lay down, suffering because of the shot, he never feel suffer because all of social cruelty come to her. She is afraid if her husband died brother in-law will come and harassing her. Afraid for become a widow and get exiled from her family. In other words it can be inferred that marriage is very important for a woman in compare man. Without marriage, which also mean that there is no man beside her, woman cannot retain their existence as part of their society. Excommunicated by the negative view about woman that hereditary this society inherited either from their religion and cultural background. Without marriage they will be seen as a devil with the temptation inside it. The devil who can bring trouble for their family and society. Always seen as the imperfect creature, which full of dirt and irrational emotion. CONFESSION WITHOUT BORDERS AGAINST DISPROPORTION Essentially, gender differences are not a problem as long as this difference create discriminative for one sides. There is a significance differences of the rights between women and men in this patriarchal world. Men are placed as the central, leader, and finally named as "The self"' while women who is seen physically weakness later differentiate as "the other" (Selden, 1985:137). As can be seen in this quotation, "There were seven of us. Seven girls starved of affection" (Rahimi, 2010:57). In this quotation, this girls feel starving of affection, although they have complete family. By using Selden's quotation above, seven of them feels less of affection because they do not get a figure of a father, in other hand their father only concern about his quail, and love it more than his family. This cold attitude can be seen as a disappointed feeling because they do not have a son, a son that can be a symbol of power, and heir his leadership. In other word, he see women as the unimportant one. As a formed of this disappointed, he use a quail. A quail is better than women, at least his quail can won and be a subject that he can proud of. In this regime, women in this region is not more meaningful rather than a display, 'She is still laughing. 'That story is so true. "You men! As soon have you have guns, you forget your women." (Rahimi, 2010:57), same like the theory about "women as the other". According this quotation, women are alienate with inanimate object or this inanimate is more prestigious than a women. When she speak about it she is laughing, this laugh can be seen as an expression that she has same level with that thing. But she cannot do anything against this attitude, except smile as her laugh at her sex bad destiny. Since in childhood she always alienate with inanimate, either with quail or a gun the positioning of women as "the other" has been tough since their childhood (Nunuk, 2004:76), so that they will adapt and unconsciously get usual with this called. According this situation it also can be imply that Family played a major role in this believed (Millet, 1970:26), parents become main teacher of this situation, especially mother who is seen as the real example for her daughter. In this region, where women performed as en-soi(Being-in-itself), while men performed as pour-soi(Being-for-itself) (Tong, 1998:181) will attempt to free from men's pressure. This is how was the normal human will struggle when they were in huge pressure. 'At that time, I was only ten …no…'She thinks about it. 'Yes, ten years old. I was scared. Scared that I too would become the stakes of a bet. So, do you know what I did with the quail?' She pauses a moment. It is unclear whether this is to make her story more exciting, or because she is afraid to reveal the next part (Rahimi, 2010:59).She was afraid, a quail is a danger for her. If it was lose, she will sent to live with a man like what happened with her sister. So, she will do anything to eliminate this danger. According this passage, there is a power inside this women's silence. She eliminate the quail to keep save, hope that by killed that bird she will not be used as bet. Using theory from Sartre, when there is a subject trying to free itself from the other, there is another subject who want to enslave it (Sartre, 1956:362). When her father trying to enslave her by using her as a bet, or beat her when he lose he find a way to free from him, that is by killed his bird. Started from this step, she finds a way to still save. And when she had enough to marry, she choose it as a solution for her to free from his father, but in fact after she got married, her husband enslave her. He put her as place to fulfill his sexual and also rearing a child. In other word it can be conclude that marriage is not a place to get a freedom, it is a form of slavery (Beauvoir, 1989:500). It is ultimately wrong if this society put women as the weak and fool creature only by using the weakness of their body. Because of they do not have a muscle and penis which always as a form of power because it penetrate women, does not mean that they are fool (Beauvoir, 1989:41). It is not enough use their body as the reason to put them as the inferior one. In those quotation we can see how women ability in order to protect themselves and the people she loves. She was lying, but it is work. She did keep her husband alive from the other shoot which directly kill him. She use her brain, her ability, her experience, and also the society norm to fight back. So it can be conclude that woman is not the other because of their lack of penis, but because of their lack of power,( Beauvoir, 1989:55), or it is also can be said that they were not allowed to get this power. In other word, if women put in same position with men, they would develop the same character (Wollstonecraft, 1975:23). But because of this society hereditary thought that women is lower than men, makes them deny their ability, which finally force them to keep silence, and killed their self-development. From this confession, she hide the fact, she did not want people to know about this, because she would be seen as a demon. So she kept silence, keep hide her power but indirectly she still use it to save her. But unconsciously she confess to her husband while he was lying powerless. Make her afraid if her husband hear it and finally beat her without understanding what will happened to her if this quail still alive. So it can conclude, because of this society treatment, who only blame women and hereditary this sex with the foulness of Eve (Saadawi, 2001: 278), they must hide it. Even use these weapons are not because they want to fight against their husband, but they use it in order to keep them save. Psychology and biological differences in the most contribute aspect in this disproportion. Men with their sperm give a life for the wife with their egg inside (Beauvoir, 1974:24), so it can be conclude that women is place while men is the real creature. CONCLUSION Live in patriarchy circle, make this women cannot do anything they want. As had been explain by the Beauvoir, women in this circle putted as passive, and submissive. Because of they are the weakness they need the superiority one to keep them as a part of this society. In other word, they need marriage to keep save inside this circle. In this region marriage can be seen as turning point that bestows prestige, recognition, and societal approval on both partners, particularly the bride. It also can be said as a social and economic contract between two families. But in other hand, marriage in this region is a new beginning of slavery that will happened to women. They have to sacrifice their freedom and concern about their household, but for men side marriage is a declaration for their leadership. And finally make them can be more focus in their self-development. Marriage is a form of slavery in all aspect related to women's body and sexuality including blood inside them. This research reveal the importance of virginity blood that is so important for women as its used as a proved that they can keep their dignity, and it is also make them as the ideal women that deserve to be married, contrary with menstruation blood which drop them in the lowest point as a women. It is happened because this society see menstruation blood as a dirt according by their holly book in verse 2:222. This research also reveal the differences treatment between a virgin and a widow. By using Saadawi's statement, based on the knowledge, this society limited virgin knowledge about sexuality, and widow is putted in bottom position as seen as the embracing one. This effort is taken as a way to protect men from their virility problem. So, it can be conclude that this society is more tolerant to men rather than to women. The Second statement of problem is the confession of women voiced by wife character in this novel. She reveal the real condition caused by the pressure that the society gave to her sex. Inside this confession, she deliver the disproportion that she gave in order to save her husband. As had been explained by Putnam Tong, this confession explicitly imply that she was created inside a men (en-soi), hide inside their body and shadow while men was created for their own self (pour-soi). This society believed that it was a natural faith that women must sacrifice themselves, and also follow what the leader had been said. But even it was already thought as their norm since their childhood, by using her confession this research reveal that they do not accept it totally. By using her husband dying body confess all her depress and her disappointed to her world. According her monologue, there are senses of hatred, insult, and harassment that happened to this woman, that make her angry and hate them. But because of the society will gave worse punishment to the women who against her husband who also seen as the rebellion, she only keep silence, but inside this silence she struggling by using her innocence, sexual and temptation . But this struggling is more to protect herself rather than fight back to her husband. Finally this confession make her realize what happened to her, how her society was being unfair to her. The accumulation of these unfair treatment make finally fight back and finally kill her husband by a Khanjar. REFERENCES Abrams, Meyer. H. 1971. The Mirror and The Lamp: Romantic Theory and The Critical Tradition. London: Oxford University Press. Rahimi, Atiq. 2010. The Patient Stone. London: Chatto&Windus.New Burke, Edmund. 1999. The social History of the Modern Middle East. Colorado:Westview Press. Millet, Kate. 1970. Sexual Politics, New York: Doubleday. Beauvoir, De. 1989. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books Shulamith, Firestone. 1972. The dialectic of sex, the case for feminist revolution. USA: William Morrow and company Inc. Gamble, Sarah. 2006. The Routlege Companion to Feminism and Post Feminism. New York. Routlege. Saadawi, El-Nawal. 2001. PerempuanDalamBudayaPatriarki. Yogyakarta: PustakaBelajar Mernissi, Fatima. 1999. PemberontakanWanita: PeranIntelektualKaumWanitaDalamSejarah Muslim. Yogyakarta: Mizan. Gorsky, Susan Robinov. 1992. Feminity to Feminism: Women and Literature in the Nineteenth Century, New York: Twayne Publisher. Tong, Putnam. 1998. Feminist Thought: A more Comprehensive Introduction. Colorado: Westview Press. Sumbulah, Umi. 2008. Spektrum Gender, KilasanInsklusi Gender di PerguruanTinggi. Malang: UIN. ARTICLE SOURCE MARRIAGE IN THE ARAB WORLD by Hoda Rashad, Magued Osman, and FarzanehRoudi-Fahimi INTERNET SOURCES www.mtholyoke.edu/-macne. www.Astyariah.com/godaan-dunia-dan-wanita.html.
The music in the Collegio dei Cantori e degli Innocenti (College of Chorists and Innocents) in Turin between 1575 and early sixteenth century and the beginnings of Botto Brothers as organ builders. The Collegio degli Innocenti (i. e. 'College of Innocents', the choirboys) in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, an institution founded in 15th century but whose documentation has come down to us from 1499, was a self-sufficient entity. Beside that, there was a staff of adult male singers. This study is a part of a wider study about this institution. The author has devoted himself to the prior period (1500-1575) and to the following one (1600-1650) in two specific articles. In this article he focuses how in the last quarter of 16th century, the music in this institution was influenced by two important processes: on one side Turin became the capital city of the Savoy; on the other side recent Counter-Reformation's trends were implemented also in the field of church music (repertories, organs, etc.), not strongly as in Milan and in the rest of Italy but anyway significantly. With respect to the political aspects of this change, one of the most important relic owned by the Duke of Savoy - the Holy Shroud - served as both political and religious symbol, since it was publicly exhibited sometimes between 1578 and 1586, in circumstance where music was present. Furthermore, it became increasingly ordinary that court musicians appeared among the musicians in the Cathedral, as Claude Vyosses, music master at the court (from 1562) and moreover master of the choirboys in the Cathedral (from 1575). As consequence of the post-Trent Council measures and the foundation and diffusion of centers for the spiritual education of youth, in these twenty-five years also in Turin the Seminar became definitively the place in which the pueri resided. Instead, about the musicians of the religious institutions, the article focuses the following chapel masters as Giorgio Borgia and especially Simon Boyleau (who taught from 1583 to 1586), having been paid for his compositions: it is supposed that one of these pieces could be O sacrum convivium in I-Tn, transcribed in the article, a short piece with a characteristic opening vocalize and a central section in triple time, having the effect of greater fluency. A look to the chief Simeon Cocquard and to the maestri di cerimonia (i. e. 'ceremony masters') concludes the span here investigated. Some episodes in the early life of the organ built by Benedetto Antegnati - started in 1567 and ended in 1573 - are reconstructed, especially the complex events of budget assignments by the Chapter house in order to complete the payments (the final one was prolonged until 1578) and also the first maintenance works by Graziadio Antegnati or the removal and rehang of the instrument in the spring of 1587 by Giovanni Battista Stagnoli. A restoration to the bellows of the Antegnati in 1600 is the first organ building work by Giovanni Giorgio Botto, member of a family of theretofore cabinetmakers. He and his brother Pietro realized that Piedmont was becoming a fertile terrain to install a business of organ construction and assistance, so they took the know-how from more famous organ builders Vitani brothers from Pavia and in the following fifteen years they built several instruments in medium-sized cities in Piedmontese provinces. The author retraces the repositioning of the organ from the previous location (that he deduces upon the wall of the today no-longer-existing ancient choir) to the new one (on the southern wall of the transept). The repositioning was wanted by the Duke, in view of the baptism of his son - and connected Ostension of the Holy Shroud. Organists were Giovanni Pietro Cottone (from 1570 to 1573 and also in the following years, with another span then between 1582 until his death in 1593), spaced out by Frediano Frediani (from 1576 to 1582: Frediani stood in Turin for some year). In those years purchasing of musical prints increased, as marked in the archival accounts, here transcribed and annotated: music of Magnificat and motets by italian - and to a lesser extent french - composers, today no longer preserved in the archives. It is worth considering that instead some musical editions of spanish composers have been conserved. This can be connected with the close relationships between Carlo Emanuele Duke of Savoy and the Kingdom of Spain, sealed with the marriage (1585) to Catalina Micaela, daughter of Philip II. These authors are Francisco Guerrero and Tomás Luis de Victoria, whose Magnificat and Hymni of 1581, as well as Officium defunctorum of 1585 are preserved in Turin Cathedral archives. Victoria dedicated to Carlo Emanuele the Motecta Festorum Totius Anni (Rome, Ex tipographia Dominici Basae, 1585): parts of the significant dedication and of an epigram (probably written by Giovenale Ancina, also friend of Victoria) are translated and discussed. From them, the author concludes that Victoria maybe aimed at an important position in court or church music at the court of Savoy. Other musicians of Iberian origins sung sometimes in the choir, among them the castrato singer Francisco Garcia: from December 1587 to July 1589, the same period when Boyleau composed O sacrum convivium: maybe the opening vocalize may have been written to stand out his ability. The paper ends with the plague of 1599. In a final tabel an accurate chronological list of chapel masters, organist, chorists, choirboys, grammar masters and musicians is given, together with their geographical provenance and salary. In the appendix (pp. 97-119) full documents from Archivio Capitolare (℅ Archivio Arcivescovile in Turin) are transcribed and commented.
The article elucidates the history of the Khrinnytski szlachta family, which during the 16th – first half of the 17th century gradually ascended from the ranks of petty and nameless Volhynian szlachta to the status of the most influential families that played an important role in the political, military and public life of the Volhynian society. A historiographical review of the works of Polish genealogists, who include Ukrainian szlahcta to the Polish nobility, demonstrates scarcity of information on this family and some inaccuracies, which documentary sources have allowed to correct.On the basis of documents, the first cohorts of the clan are singled out and matrimonial ties and individual family structures are re-establsihed. The occupations of individual members of the family who held important offices in local administration of that time are identified. It is ascertained that the rise of the entire Khrinnytski House among the Volhynian szlachta began with Mykhailo Svatkovych, who, owning to his advantageous matrimonial ties, formed family connections with such powerful Volhynian families as the Semashkis and Rusyn Berestetskis, who by that time were already holding important land offices. Ivan Mykhailovych, the son of Mykhailo Svatkovych, gained some considerable influence among the szlachta: for almost 46 years he, at first, held the office of a Lutsk under-judge and then of a Lutsk judge. Public activities of the members of the family are analyzed, especially their participation in the socio-religious struggle, which was related to those significant changes that took place in the Commonwealth and particulary in Volhynia. The participation of the Khrinnitskis in the struggle against the introduction of the Brest Union and their partaking in the establishment of fraternities and military expeditions are revealed and presented.The property status of the family during the 16th – first half of the 17th century is analyzed. On the basis of documents, it is proved that members of the family, holding important land offices, started to become rich and actively acquired estates. Profitable marriages with representatives of princely and magnate families also brought them big land holdings. All that contributed to the transition of the family from petty szlachta to a group of a few powerful magnate families. ; У статті з'ясовується історія шляхетського роду Хрінницьких, який поступово протягом XVI – першої половини XVII ст. переходить із числа рядової дрібної непомітної волинської шляхти до статусу найвпливовіших родів, які відігравали важливу роль у політичному, воєнному та публічному житті волинського соціуму. Історіографічний огляд праць польських генеалогів, які залучають до польської шляхти й українську, засвідчує недостатність інформації про цей рід та деякі помилки, які завдяки документальним джерелам вдалося виправити. На підставі документального матеріалу встановлено перші когорти роду, відновлено матримоніальні зв'язки та родинну структуру окремих його сімей. Виділяється діяльність окремих представників роду, які обіймали важливі місцеві уряди в тогочасному соціумі. З'ясовується, що вивищення цілого Хрінницького Дому серед волинського шляхетського загалу починається з Михайла Сватковича, який завдяки вигідним шлюбним зв'язкам породичався із впливовими волинськими родами Семашків і Русинів Берестецьких, які вже на той час обіймали важливі земські уряди. Значного впливу в шляхетському середовищі досягає син Михайла Сватковича Іван Михайлович, який протягом тривалого часу (майже 46 років) обіймав уряди спершу земського луцького підсудка, а потім і судді цього суду. Аналізується публічна діяльність членів роду, зокрема їх участь у суспільно-релігійній боротьбі, пов'язаній із суттєвими змінами, що відбуваються у внутрішньому житті Речі Посполитої, зокрема й на Волині. Показано участь Хрінницьких у боротьбі проти запровадження Берестейської унії, їх діяльність у заснуванні братств та воєнних виправах. Розглядається майновий стан роду протягом XVI – першої половини XVII ст. На документальному матеріалі доводиться, що члени роду, обіймаючи важливі земські уряди, починають збагачуватися й активно придбавають маєтки. Значні земельні володіння приносили їм і вигідні шлюбні партії з представницями/представниками князівських і магнатських родів. Все це сприяло переходу роду з числа дрібного шляхетського загалу до групи небагатьох впливових магнатських родів.
The article elucidates the history of the Khrinnytski szlachta family, which during the 16th – first half of the 17th century gradually ascended from the ranks of petty and nameless Volhynian szlachta to the status of the most influential families that played an important role in the political, military and public life of the Volhynian society. A historiographical review of the works of Polish genealogists, who include Ukrainian szlahcta to the Polish nobility, demonstrates scarcity of information on this family and some inaccuracies, which documentary sources have allowed to correct.On the basis of documents, the first cohorts of the clan are singled out and matrimonial ties and individual family structures are re-establsihed. The occupations of individual members of the family who held important offices in local administration of that time are identified. It is ascertained that the rise of the entire Khrinnytski House among the Volhynian szlachta began with Mykhailo Svatkovych, who, owning to his advantageous matrimonial ties, formed family connections with such powerful Volhynian families as the Semashkis and Rusyn Berestetskis, who by that time were already holding important land offices. Ivan Mykhailovych, the son of Mykhailo Svatkovych, gained some considerable influence among the szlachta: for almost 46 years he, at first, held the office of a Lutsk under-judge and then of a Lutsk judge. Public activities of the members of the family are analyzed, especially their participation in the socio-religious struggle, which was related to those significant changes that took place in the Commonwealth and particulary in Volhynia. The participation of the Khrinnitskis in the struggle against the introduction of the Brest Union and their partaking in the establishment of fraternities and military expeditions are revealed and presented.The property status of the family during the 16th – first half of the 17th century is analyzed. On the basis of documents, it is proved that members of the family, holding important land offices, started to become rich and actively acquired estates. Profitable marriages with representatives of princely and magnate families also brought them big land holdings. All that contributed to the transition of the family from petty szlachta to a group of a few powerful magnate families. ; У статті з'ясовується історія шляхетського роду Хрінницьких, який поступово протягом XVI – першої половини XVII ст. переходить із числа рядової дрібної непомітної волинської шляхти до статусу найвпливовіших родів, які відігравали важливу роль у політичному, воєнному та публічному житті волинського соціуму. Історіографічний огляд праць польських генеалогів, які залучають до польської шляхти й українську, засвідчує недостатність інформації про цей рід та деякі помилки, які завдяки документальним джерелам вдалося виправити. На підставі документального матеріалу встановлено перші когорти роду, відновлено матримоніальні зв'язки та родинну структуру окремих його сімей. Виділяється діяльність окремих представників роду, які обіймали важливі місцеві уряди в тогочасному соціумі. З'ясовується, що вивищення цілого Хрінницького Дому серед волинського шляхетського загалу починається з Михайла Сватковича, який завдяки вигідним шлюбним зв'язкам породичався із впливовими волинськими родами Семашків і Русинів Берестецьких, які вже на той час обіймали важливі земські уряди. Значного впливу в шляхетському середовищі досягає син Михайла Сватковича Іван Михайлович, який протягом тривалого часу (майже 46 років) обіймав уряди спершу земського луцького підсудка, а потім і судді цього суду. Аналізується публічна діяльність членів роду, зокрема їх участь у суспільно-релігійній боротьбі, пов'язаній із суттєвими змінами, що відбуваються у внутрішньому житті Речі Посполитої, зокрема й на Волині. Показано участь Хрінницьких у боротьбі проти запровадження Берестейської унії, їх діяльність у заснуванні братств та воєнних виправах. Розглядається майновий стан роду протягом XVI – першої половини XVII ст. На документальному матеріалі доводиться, що члени роду, обіймаючи важливі земські уряди, починають збагачуватися й активно придбавають маєтки. Значні земельні володіння приносили їм і вигідні шлюбні партії з представницями/представниками князівських і магнатських родів. Все це сприяло переходу роду з числа дрібного шляхетського загалу до групи небагатьох впливових магнатських родів.
The Alexander Family ChronicleThe paper focuses on the history of Zagreb's prominent Jewish family, the Alexanders (or Aleksanders), who were influential in the cultural, economic and social life of the city and Croatia for almost a century. At the time of their arrival in Zagreb and after the end of the First World War, they all belonged to the Jewish religious denomination; later most of them converted to Catholicism and one was an Evangelical Christian (Protestant). The Alexander family moved to Zagreb from Burgenland (Güssing) in the 1850s. Upon their arrival, they worked in commerce and were known as diligent businessmen. Soon they became respected and wealthy patrons well-known in Zagreb, Croatia and abroad. The second-generation family members were distinguished physicians, lawyers, engineers, artists, professors and businessmen. They formed marriage alliances with Zagreb's prominent Jewish and Catholic families and socialised with the nobility, thus making acquaintances and forming social networks that upgraded their social status. Also, they were cosmopolitans with one foot in Zagreb and the other in Vienna. Thereby, Budapest was not far-fetched for them. Among the most prominent and distinguished family members, one finds the brothers Aleksander/Šandor (1866–1929) and Samuel David (1862–1943). They were well-respected industrialists, founders of Zagreb's brewery, malt factory and cement factory. They were also board members of several banks and founders of industrialists' associations. Thus, their work and diligence were much appreciated during the First World War, for which Aleksander was awarded an Austro-Hungarian noble title. The post-war unification of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had no negative impact on their social standing. Thereby, the brothers managed to continue their business successfully, and were greatly appreciated by the newly formed political elite. Later, at the beginning of the Second World War, the majority of the family members managed to escape Nazi persecution, while some perished in the Holocaust. Today, descendants of this large family live scattered around the world, in Israel, the United States, Italy and Zagreb. The only visible memory trace – proof of the family's existence in Zagreb – are the stairs in the Tuškanac city park, named after Šandor von Alexander of Sesvete. Kronika rodziny AlexanderW tekście zaprezentowana jest historia rodziny Alexander (Aleksander), żydowskiej rodziny z Zagrzebia, która prawie przez sto lat odgrywała ważną rolę w gospodarczym, kulturalnym i społecznym życiu miasta oraz całej Chorwacji. W czasie osiedlenia się w Zagrzebiu wszyscy członkowie rodziny byli wyznawcami judaizmu, jednak do 1941 roku większość z nich przeszła na katolicyzm, a jeden z nich dołączył do wyznawców kościoła ewangelickiego. Rodzina do Zagrzebia przybyła w połowie XIX wieku z terenu Gradišće (Burgenland). Po osiedleniu się zaczęła działać w handlu, a ponieważ członkowie rodziny byli niezwykle pracowici, już przed końcem XIX wieku rodzina stała się jedną z najbardziej szanowanych i majętnych, zarówno w Zagrzebiu, jak i w Chorwacji, a nawet poza nią. Już w drugim pokoleniu członkowie rodziny wyróżniali się jako znakomici lekarze, prawnicy, inżynierowie, artyści, profesorowie i przedsiębiorcy. W Zagrzebiu zawierali małżeństwa z członkami wpływowych rodzin, zarówno żydowskich, jak i katolickich, pozostawali w stosunkach towarzyskich z lokalną elitą i w ten sposób zyskali wysoki status w otoczeniu. Byli kosmopolitami: życie dzielili między Zagrzeb i Wiedeń, a i Budapeszt nie był im obcy. Wśród nich swoimi talentami wyróżniali się bracia Aleksander/Šandor (1866–1929) i Samuel David (1862-1943). Byli szanowanymi przemysłowcami: założyli zagrzebski browar, fabrykę słodu, olejarnię, cementownię i inne obiekty przemysłowe w Zagrzebiu. Zasiadali w zarządach kilku zagrzebskich banków, założyli także kilka towarzystw przemysłowych. Wyróżnili się w czasie I wojny światowej, a Aleksander otrzymał węgierski tytuł szlachecki za swoją działalność humanitarną. Okres Królestwa SHS/Jugosławii również nie zagroził ich pozycji, co więcej – nadal z powodzeniem pracowali i działali. Po wybuchu II wojny światowej większość członków rodziny opuściła Niezależne Państwo Chorwackie, kilkoro z nich zginęło w czasie Holokaustu. Obecnie potomkowie tej wielkiej rodziny mieszkają w Izraelu, Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki, we Włoszech oraz w Zagrzebiu, a o ich obecności w historii miasta świadczą schody na Tuškanacu, które noszą imię Šandora Alexandra Sesveckiego.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Jewish community was an important part of the political and social life of Galicia. It was the third largest community in the region, after the Ukrainian and Polish ones. The political activity of the Galician Jews was significantly influenced by the legislative reforms in the 1960s in the Austrian monarchy, due to which they obtained equal civil rights. However, the emancipation achievements of Galician Jews did not become a guarantee of their social recognition. Therefore, the solution of the Jewish question was delayed due to a number of unregulated legal principles. These legal principles attracted the attention of the well-known politician and public figure Theophil Merunovych. The main idea to this study was the attempt to determine the place and the role of the politician as well as to trace his objectivity in solving the Jewish question in the context of the spread of emancipation, assimilation and anti-Semitic ideas on the European territory.An assessment of political activity and publicistic heritage of T. Merunovych in foreign and national historiography deserves special attention. Mostly, they are extremely negative, and the politician is presented with anti-Semitic views. In view of this, a thorough analysis of T. Merunovych's parliamentary speeches and works shows some controversy about the unambiguousness of such statements.T. Merunovych presented his proposals for solving the Jewish question in his speeches and publications which caused a negative reaction from the Jewish population. The idea of his proposals was to abolish the norms and regulations that the Jewish population had as a national minority. Concerning the latter, then, according to T. Merunovych, having received equal civil rights, they did not want to lose them.As of 1883, T. Merunovych had identified a number of major privileges, in his opinion, that the Jews had after the constitutional reforms of 1867, in particular, the lack of separation of secular and religious powers in the Jewish community; the presence of the rules for honoring customs in the organizational regulations, according to which the Jewish population could freely adhere to their customs; the evasion of Jewish men from military service due to marriage; absence of control over the activity of Kagals in agricultural business; Jews' arbitrary treatment of laws which led to their limitations as official norms for the entire community, etc. Raising these issues, T. Merunovych emphasized that he did not seek to restrict the rights of the Jewish population but only sought the equalization of their rights with Christians, which they had been actively striving for before the events of 1861 and 1867.T. Merunovych tried to analyze the Jewish question from different angles. His attention was drawn to the economic, political, educational, and cultural activities of the Jewish community. With this in mind, he tried to raise the key issues related to Austro-Hungarian Jews to the legislative level. In addition, as an ambassador of the Galician Regional Seim and the State Council, he repeatedly emphasized the need to equalize the rights of Jews and Christians at the meetings and in numerous petitions. His active position on this issue contributed, to some degree, to the resolution of the Jewish question. At the same time, the consistent advocacy of his position has secured him a reputation of anti-Semite despite the arguments put forward by him against such accusations. ; У статті розглянуто єврейське питання у світоглядному вимірі відомого політика останньої чверті ХІХ – початку ХХ ст. – Теофіла Меруновича. На основі аналізу публіцистичної спадщини останнього виокремлено причини його зацікавлення єврейською проблематикою та узагальнено пропозиції щодо її розв'язання. Беручи до уваги певну неоднозначність оцінок в історіографії візії Т. Меруновича щодо перспектив розвитку галицьких іудеїв, пропоноване дослідження стало спробою визначити місце і роль політика у вирішенні єврейського питання в контексті зародження та поширення антисемітського руху на європейських теренах.
Position and place of Egypt in the international arena is changing the vector, but does not rule out the already conservative nature. Undoubtedly, the country's leaders do not deviate from traditions and religious beliefs in the implementation of both domestic and foreign policy, but President Abdul As-Sisi introduces changes that mitigate the country's legislation. This is evident in the changes in the rights of women and children, corruption, employment rights and marriage. The persistent and prolonged authoritarian regime was the reason for the reluctance to cooperate with the Club of Dictators. The President did not consider cooperation with the Western countries as possible, because in the Arab World the idea was that the West was the source of sin. That is why the spread of the West to the Arab World is not possible. However, the revolutionary actions of the end of 2010 – the beginning of 2011. Since the life of the population did not meet the standards of their leaders, the struggle for democracy, human rights, women's rights, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, unemployment, corruption, and led to a struggle between different political groups and ideological forces in the direction and strategy of transformation and resources, exit to the surface. The purpose of the study is to determine the peculiarities of the transformation of the course of foreign policy of the Arab world. Object: the foreign policy of Egypt, and that is why the subject acts – the transformation of the course of the foreign policy of Egypt. The tasks were as follows: analyze the foreign policy of Egypt in the dynamics; identify the peculiarities of transformation; to outline the role and place of a leader in the implementation of foreign policy. The methodological basis of the work was the systematic structural approach, empirical and systematic methods, comparison, synthesis and constructivism. The systematic-structural approach provides an opportunity to explore the complex structural context, which partially determines the possibilities or obstacles for the implementation of their foreign policy. The structural-functional method, together with the system, allows us to investigate the specifics of the internal structure of political regimes. Among the empirical methods the primary role is played by the analysis of primary sources. Scientific novelty lies in determining the peculiarities of the transformation of the foreign policy of Egypt and determining the key role of the leader in the formation of foreign policy. ; Позиція та місце Єгипту на міжнародній арені змінює вектор, але не виключає вже набутий консервативний характер. Безумовно лідери країни не відходять від традицій та релігійних поглядів у реалізації як внутрішньої, так і зовнішньої політики, проте президент Абдель Фаттах Ас-Сісі впроваджує зміни та пом'якшує законодавство країни. Це яскраво відображається в змінах щодо прав жінок та дітей, корупції, прав щодо працевлаштування та укладання шлюбів. Стійкий і тривалий авторитарний режим був причиною небажання світової спільноти співпрацювати з "Клубом диктаторів". Президент країни не вважав співпрацю із Західними країнами за можливу, адже в Арабському Світі панувала думка, що захід – це джерело гріха, як наслідок – поширення Заходу на Арабський Світ неможливе. Однак, революційні події 2010–2011 рр. стали початком змін, адже життя населення не відповідало стандартам їх лідерів, боротьба за демократію, права людини, права жінок, свободу вибору та слова, проблеми безробіття та корупції призвели до боротьби між різними політичними групами та ідеологічними силами за напрямок і стратегію перетворень та державні ресурси. Мета дослідження – визначити особливості трансформації курсу зовнішньої політики країн Арабського Світу. Об'єкт: зовнішня політика Єгипту, а саме тому предметом виступає – трансформація курсу зовнішньої політики Єгипту. Було поставлено такі завдання, як: проаналізувати зовнішню політику Єгипту в динаміці; визначити особливості трансформації; окреслити роль та місце лідера в реалізації зовнішньої політики. Методологічною основою роботи став системно-структурний підхід, емпіричний та системний методи, порівняння, синтез та конструктивізм. Cистемно-структурний підхід надає можливість дослідити складний структурний контекст, який частково визначає можливості або перепони для реалізації їх зовнішньої політики. Структурно-функціональний метод, разом із системним, надає змогу дослідити специфіку внутрішнього устрою політичних режимів. Серед емпіричних методів найважливішу роль відіграє аналіз першоджерел. Наукова новизна закладається у визначенні особливостей трансформації зовнішньополітичного курсу Єгипту та визначення ключової ролі лідера у формуванні зовнішньої політики.
У статті розглянуто єврейське питання у світоглядному вимірі відомого політика останньої чверті ХІХ – початку ХХ ст. – Теофіла Меруновича. На основі аналізу публіцистичної спадщини останнього виокремлено причини його зацікавлення єврейською проблематикою та узагальнено пропозиції щодо її розв'язання. Беручи до уваги певну неоднозначність оцінок в історіографії візії Т. Меруновича щодо перспектив розвитку галицьких іудеїв, пропоноване дослідження стало спробою визначити місце і роль політика у вирішенні єврейського питання в контексті зародження та поширення антисемітського руху на європейських теренах. ; In the last quarter of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Jewish community was an important part of the political and social life of Galicia. It was the third largest community in the region, after the Ukrainian and Polish ones. The political activity of the Galician Jews was significantly influenced by the legislative reforms in the 1960s in the Austrian monarchy, due to which they obtained equal civil rights. However, the emancipation achievements of Galician Jews did not become a guarantee of their social recognition. Therefore, the solution of the Jewish question was delayed due to a number of unregulated legal principles. These legal principles attracted the attention of the well-known politician and public figure Theophil Merunovych. The main idea to this study was the attempt to determine the place and the role of the politician as well as to trace his objectivity in solving the Jewish question in the context of the spread of emancipation, assimilation and anti-Semitic ideas on the European territory.An assessment of political activity and publicistic heritage of T. Merunovych in foreign and national historiography deserves special attention. Mostly, they are extremely negative, and the politician is presented with anti-Semitic views. In view of this, a thorough analysis of T. Merunovych's parliamentary speeches and works shows some controversy about the unambiguousness of such statements.T. Merunovych presented his proposals for solving the Jewish question in his speeches and publications which caused a negative reaction from the Jewish population. The idea of his proposals was to abolish the norms and regulations that the Jewish population had as a national minority. Concerning the latter, then, according to T. Merunovych, having received equal civil rights, they did not want to lose them.As of 1883, T. Merunovych had identified a number of major privileges, in his opinion, that the Jews had after the constitutional reforms of 1867, in particular, the lack of separation of secular and religious powers in the Jewish community; the presence of the rules for honoring customs in the organizational regulations, according to which the Jewish population could freely adhere to their customs; the evasion of Jewish men from military service due to marriage; absence of control over the activity of Kagals in agricultural business; Jews' arbitrary treatment of laws which led to their limitations as official norms for the entire community, etc. Raising these issues, T. Merunovych emphasized that he did not seek to restrict the rights of the Jewish population but only sought the equalization of their rights with Christians, which they had been actively striving for before the events of 1861 and 1867.T. Merunovych tried to analyze the Jewish question from different angles. His attention was drawn to the economic, political, educational, and cultural activities of the Jewish community. With this in mind, he tried to raise the key issues related to Austro-Hungarian Jews to the legislative level. In addition, as an ambassador of the Galician Regional Seim and the State Council, he repeatedly emphasized the need to equalize the rights of Jews and Christians at the meetings and in numerous petitions. His active position on this issue contributed, to some degree, to the resolution of the Jewish question. At the same time, the consistent advocacy of his position has secured him a reputation of anti-Semite despite the arguments put forward by him against such accusations.
Статья посвящена супруге знаменитого полководца 1-й мировой войны А. А. Брусилова Н. В. Желиховской-Брусиловой, верной и любимой спутницы генерала до конца его жизни. Значение Надежды Владимировны в судьбе А. А. Брусилова до недавнего времени замалчивалось в связи с ее явной антисоветской политической позицией, которая была обусловлена главным образом неприятием истово верующей православной христианкой богоборческой политики новой власти. Статья написана на основе неопубликованной переписки Брусиловой и ее мужа в 1914-1917 гг., когда А. А. Брусилов находился на фронте, а его супруга занималась благотворительной деятельностью в тылу, а также дневниковых записей Н. В. Брусиловой, которые она вела в эмиграции (ГА РФ. Ф. 5972. А. А. и Н. В. Брусиловы). В 1934 г. в эмиграции все документы были перепечатаны, сверены с подлинниками (хранящимися у Н. В. Брусиловой) ее сестрой Ел. В. Желиховской и генералом В. В. Чернавиным, снабжены примечаниями, сделанными рукой Н. В. Брусиловой. Понимая ценность переписки для потомства, эпистолярное наследие четы Брусиловых после смерти Надежды Владимировны было сдано ее сестрой в РЗИА наряду с другими документальными материалами. Эго-документы свидетельствуют о большой любви супругов, отношения между которыми не всегда были гладкими. Брусилова обладала сильным характером, пыталась влиять на мужа, давала рекомендации, как вести военные действия, чтобы избежать людских потерь, однако она сумела скрасить одиночество полководца в последний период его жизни, заботилась о нем, сохранила и опубликовала его воспоминания. Брусилов считал их брак счастливым. После смерти мужа (1926) под предлогом лечения Брусилова выехала в Чехословакию (1930) и на родину не вернулась. Эмиграция не простила генералу переход на службу в Красную армию, и Брусилова оказалась в изоляции, «чужой среди своих». Позицию мужа она безоговорочно оправдывала патриотическими мотивами (Брусилов вступил в Красную армию во время советско-польской войны). Свои ностальгические переживания по утраченной родине и свое одиночество на чужбине она, человек письменной культуры, фиксировала в дневнике, не предназначавшемся к публикации, так как Н. В. Брусилова боялась навредить людям, оставшимся в России. Представляют интерес оценки Брусиловой эмигрантской повседневности 1930-х гг. и отдельных ее представителей, положение Церкви на родине и в эмиграции. ; The author reveals the life and personality of an outstanding fignhting commander of World War I, Aleksei Brusilov's wife. Her role in his life was shadowed during the Soviet period because of her anti-soviet position mostly due to her orthodox religious views. The paper is based on the unpublished correspondence between Nadezhda Brusilov) and her husband in 1914-1917 when A. A. Brusilov was at the front, and his wife was engaged in charity work in the rear, as well as her diary written during the years she lived in Czechoslovakia as an emigrant (5972 GARF F. A. A. and N. V. Brusilov). The letters show a great emotional unity of the couple although the relationship between them has not always been smooth. N. V. Brusilov had a strong character, tried to infl uence her husband, give recommendations how to conduct military operations, to avoid casualties, but she managed to brighten up the loneliness of the commander in the last period of his life, taking care of him, preserved and published his memoirs. Brusilov believed their marriage happy. After Aleksei Brusilov's death in 1926, Nadezhda Brusilov went to Czechoslovakia (1930) under the guise of treatment and did not returned to Russia. She was marginalized in the emigrants' milieu because of Alexei Brusilov's position during the Soviet Polish War in 1920 when he joined the Red Army. The position of her husband she unequivocally justified patriotic motives. She fixed her nostalgic feelings for the lost homeland and her loneliness in a foreign land in her diary. It was not intended to be published as N. V. Brusilov feared damage to people stay in Russia. Her diary is an important source on her life abroad as an emigrant, her thoughts about her lost homeland, her views on Orthodox Church, both in Russia and abroad.
