Movie - The Stoning of Soraya M.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Stoning_of_Soraya_M./70108800?trkid=226870
http://www.amazon.com/Stoning-Soraya-M-Mozhan-Marn%C3%B2/dp/B0031DDGA4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280921716&sr=8-1

I recently saw this film with my father. Fair warning: the film has a feminist agenda. From the outset men are portrayed as abusers and patriarchy is shown in it's worst light. I went in knowing this, so I wasn't too disappointed. I wasn't particularly interested in the storyline, which seems to be loosely based on a real event. I was more interested in the setting of an ultra conservative society in Iran.

The plot is a woman is accused of a adultery. In this Iranian town the punishment for adultery is stoning. The film basically centers around this one law. So it's an interesting look at how a society lives when women aren't allowed to cheat on their husbands.

To a certain extent the adultery law in The Stoning of Soraya M is similar to restrictions emphasized by Co-Alphaism. The main difference being restraints are placed on women, not men. Men seem to be partly responsible, but are basically left off the hook. In one part of the film the law is even clarified to the main character, Soraya's sister, "if you accuse a man of adultery you need evidence proving he's done it... if you accuse a woman of adultery, you need evidence proving she hasn't done it".

The entire society seems to be influenced by this single adultery law, even down to the way women dress, speak, act, full fill roles, ect. For this reason I think it's fair to say western society is a reflection of the absence of this law down to the way western women dress, speak, act, full fill roles, ect. There were a couple scenes where women acted in ways that were unthinkable in the west, yet the way they acted came naturally to them and wasn't considered exploitative.

In an early scene Soraya's sister says to Soraya "you're not denying your husband what is his right to take". Soraya's sister was emphasizing that Soraya's sexuality belongs to her husband and he's allowed to fulfill his needs whenever he wants. I think it's also important to stress Soraya's sister is saying this to Soraya in spite of being the most antagonistic feminist in the film.

Later in the film when the village's women are gossiping about Soraya, one says "a man needs to eat, if he goes hungry, he'll wonder to another table". Of course the town woman is speaking metaphorically about sex. These women, unlike feminists don't try rewriting biology. In spite of being as far from an atheist as these ultra conservative Muslim women can possibly be, they're much more in tune and accepting of male's natural biological urges than most western godless women.

The women for the most part were also very sweet and motherly to their children. They cooked for them, washed clothes, sew clothes, ect. They did this every day and without complaint.

In the end I think the adultery law was flawed because the law didn't penalize male adulterers. However I think the culture which thrived under such a adulterer law is non-feminst and ideal.

 

I watched this movie today but I had to leave during the stoning.  That was too much.

Yes the film was heavily biased in the sense that it blamed everything on lack of women's rights.  This isn't right.  These countries are just corrupt and have little sense of justice.  I am sure injustice happens just as much, if not more, to men in these kinds of countries.  Having been to Egypt and Jordan, I find the movie believable.  People in these countries are emotional, irrational, and opportunistic.  Feminism isn't the only problem in the world.  Polygamy also causes serious problems.

Drealm wrote

To a certain extent the adultery law in The Stoning of Soraya M is similar to restrictions emphasized by Co-Alphaism. The main difference being restraints are placed on women, not men. Men seem to be partly responsible, but are basically left off the hook. In one part of the film the law is even clarified to the main character, Soraya's sister, "if you accuse a man of adultery you need evidence proving he's done it... if you accuse a woman of adultery, you need evidence proving she hasn't done it".

My guess is that this isn't accurate.  The problem in this case was corruption, not Islamic law.  From Wikipedia, see this:

The punishment of adulterers under Islamic law is stoning (Rajm. It is not mentioned in the Qur'an but "derives its authority from hadith literature references which are imputed by many," according to Kemal A. Faruki.[7] There are certain standards for proof that must be met in Islamic law  for this punishment to apply. In the Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi and the Shia law schools the stoning is imposed for the married adulterer and his partner only if the crime is proven, either by four male adults eyewitnessing the actual sexual intercourse at the same time, or by self-confession. In the Maliki school of law, however, evidence of pregnancy also constitutes sufficient proof.[8] Scholars such as Fazel Lankarani and Ayatollah Sanei hold that stoning penalty is imposed only if the adulterer has had sexual access to his or her mate.[9][10] Ayatollah Shirazi  states that the proof for adultery is very hard to establish, because no one commits adultery in public unless they are irreverent.[11]  For the establishment of adultery, four witnesses "must have seen the act in its most intimate details, i.e. the penetration (like “a stick disappearing in a kohl container,” as the fiqh books specify). If their testimonies do not satisfy the requirements, they can be sentenced to eighty lashes for unfounded accusation of fornication."

My guess is that the number of false convictions for adultery is probably very low even in corrupt Islamic countries, probably no higher than the false conviction rate of men for rape in America.

I would also add that if the movie is accurate, Soraya M had innumerable opportunities to run away.  She was clearly an idiot, not that the death penalty is appropriate for stupidity.  This is one reason why even corrupt countries have lower incarceration rates than America does, because in such countries anyone with any brains can simply find a way to run away.

In the end I think the adultery law was flawed because the law didn't penalize male adulterers. However I think the culture which thrived under such a adulterer law is non-feminst and ideal.

I just want to make sure what you mean by "male adulterers".  You mean men who sleep with other men's wives, right?  The adultery laws was not flawed in this regard because it was supposed to apply equally to both the man and woman, but the law was corrupted in this case.

The culture portrayed is non-feminist but certainly isn't ideal.  Polygamy means men still have to compete for wives.  This encourages extreme jealousy in the men and increases the likelihood of adultery.

fschmidt wrote

I just want to make sure what you mean by "male adulterers".  You mean men who sleep with other men's wives, right?  The adultery laws was not flawed in this regard because it was supposed to apply equally to both the man and woman, but the law was corrupted in this case.

Yes by male adulterers I mean men who sleep with other men's wives. In review of your research I agree, the law was corrupted.

fschmidt wrote

The culture portrayed is non-feminist but certainly isn't ideal.  Polygamy means men still have to compete for wives.  This encourages extreme jealousy in the men and increases the likelihood of adultery.

I agree Polygamy is opposite of what we want. But I don't have any objections to how the women themselves acted.

Drealm wrote

I agree Polygamy is opposite of what we want. But I don't have any objections to how the women themselves acted.

I agree, but the women acted perfectly innocent in this movie because the purpose of the movie was to get the audience to sympathize with the women.  I suspect that in polygamous cultures, wives feel neglected and are more likely to be willing to cheat, so polygamy adversely affects women's behavior too.

I know of a case like this.  My wife was friends with a Muslim woman whose husband is Jordanian.  She is an American Muslim.  When he married her in America, he neglected to mention that he had another wife in Jordan.  He acts much like the men in the movie and is emotionally unstable and occasionally violent.  He brought this American wife and kids back to Jordan and divided his time between his two wives.  The American wife was very upset and cheated on him.  He doesn't know this and would probably kill her if he did.  In the end, she complained a lot about Jordan, so he moved her back to America.  But in this couple, I can see how dysfunctional polygamy is for all involved.