Women and Islam
MIDDLE EAST • TURKEY
How then could they be expected to raise demands for abortion, contraception, a struggle against "crimes of honor" - in short the minimum if one considers that women are human beings.
It is impossible to propose a detailed program for all of the Arab countries the social as well as the juridical differences force the movements in each country to come up with demands and priorities at both the programmatic and pragmatic levels. But the similarities of women's oppression, codified by religious legislation, allow us to outline certain tasks to be taken up by the revolutionary socialist movement.
A major goal is to participate in the construction of an autonomous mass women's movement, to help to radicalize such a movement and win the most conscious elements in this movement to the need for a program of social change based on class struggle.
This fight must start from the premise that the liberation of women in inseparable from the socialist liberation of all society.
Linking democratic and socialist demands
The continued existence of pre-capitalist structures and relationships and the deformation of the capitalist socio-economic structure are, in the final analysis, props of Arab women's inferior status. Thus, their emancipation is linked in large measure to the struggle for national liberation and the necessity of breaking imperialist domination.
The absence of a revolutionary movement that could link democratic demands to socialist ones has meant that, throughout modern Arab history, national anti-imperialist struggles have never gone beyond the limits imposed by their bourgeois leaderships, and have ended up still dependent on imperialism. This has had repercussions for women, Algeria being a case in point.
Algerian women participated massively in the struggic for independence - many died heroically, others had leadership responsibilities. Nonetheless, with the war barely over, they were told to return to their traditional roles. From that day to this there has never been a tradition of autonomous struggle bringing them together around their own issues in the context of this national struggle.
The struggle for women's liberation necessarily implies a confrontation with right-wing forces, including bourgeois women, because the dynamic of this struggle must go beyond a strictly democratic framework and it therefore implies a confrontation with the class enemy.
It also implies a mass women's liberation movement. Its fight will necessarily converge with that of the oppressed work16 ing towards the overthrow of the ruling class. International Viewpoint #158 • March 6, 1989
INTRODUCTION
THOUSANDS OF WOMEN were active in Turkey before the September 1980 coup d'état, within the left and far-left as well as in fundamentalist and fascist groups. But the question of women's oppression was never really discussed, either being simply ignored or relegated to second place in the name of
"priorities". It was only with the appearance of an autonomous women's movement in the mid-1980s that this question was forced onto the broad political agenda. On the other hand, in the period following the coup, the
Islamic fundamentalist movement' grew considerably, with the blessing of the military (see IV 120, May 18, 1987). Whilst encouraging this rapid growth of
Islam and using it to eliminate
Many left influences and the
"Islam
cannot
resolve
women's
problems"
N THE ARTICLES on "Women and Islam", the general tendency has been to study the verses of the Koran on women, defending or refuting certain pre-established theses.
Even if a study of the sacred texts is not useless, I do not think that it is indispensable to refer to the Koran in order to talk about the interventions and contributions of religion to the daily life and oppression of women. There are two reasons for this:
• All religions... whether they worship one or more gods, have always considered national Kurdish movement, the government even so opposed some excessive" fundamentalist demands that openly challenged the secular, Kemalist traditions of the state (see box).
One of these confrontations between fundamentalists and the state came about when militant Muslims organized a series of spectacular actions throughout the country to protest against the ban on wearing the turban [headscarf] in the universities. Some women Islamic militants have, moreover, begun to demand greater equality between women and men inside their movement.
The following extracts are from an article that appeared in the Turkish socialist-feminist journal Kaktüs, which subsequently sparked off a debate in the journal around all these questions with Islamic fundamentalist women. woman as a creature that is inferior to man
- or, at the very least, they have tried to reduce her to the role of "reproducing female". From this point of view, in its ideological arguments and forms of intervention in our daily life, Islam is no different from other religions.
Islam maintains that the
Koran protects women
• Even if the ideological rhetoric of the Islamic movement that is organized and inspired by the Koran is today much more influential than the Koran itself, one cannot speak of an influence of the Koran as such" in traditions and customs. In fact, the manifestation of Islam is permeated with a whole social system and mixed up with other ideologies. Consequently, the questions raised in this discussion, those whose thesis on women we must analyze and assess, are the epigones of Islam rather than the sacred texts.
I said above that Islam was no different than other religions. It is clear that fundamentalists are immediately going to oppose 1. The generic term "fundamentalist" covers the whole range of "political Islamic activists" (the term used in the following articles is islamci in Turkish). Later on in the debate, the author makes a distinction between this layer of activists and Muslims in general.
The Turkish state, and above all the army, is supposed to guarantee the
Kemalist reforms against the "fundamentalist threat". But, starting in the
1940s, politicians have relied more and more on the religious sects to keep them in power. The project of eliminating Islam by force had failed.
And it was in the 1980s, under the regime of the generals - the "true
Kemalists" — that Islam saw its biggest growth. *
March 6, 1989 • #158 International Viewpoint that assertion. The Islamic daily Zaman (The Times") regularly publishes a column on the "women's question". Nearly all these articles maintain that God indeed created man and woman as subjects on an equal footing, and that the Koran protects women.
Campaign against ban on wearing the turban
What is proposed to us is the following framework: Man and woman are equal in the eyes of God. All the inequalities that exist, the oppression and exploitation, are injustices that are the responsibility of the patriarchy, capitalism and other religions — or, in a word, the West. As soon as our society has freed itself of this yoke and is reorganized on the Islamic model, women's oppression will automatically disappear. According to them, women are oppressed because of prostitution, exploitation at work and because they cannot wear the veil as they would like to....
Let us take the example of a double confrontation: between ourselves, feminists, and radical fundamentalists on the one side; and between these same radical fundamentalists and the Turkish state on the other. Our state, secular but Muslim, vacillating totally between its Kemalist tradition and Islamic ideology, has suddenly decided to ban the wearing of turbans in the universities. The radical Islamic groups began to organize protest actions against this ban and to defend their democratic rights: "The state should not meddle in the freedom of citizens to dress how they want
Before going on to analyze this concrete case, where fundamentalists and the state are in "confrontation", it would perhaps be useful to verify the real extent of the antagonism between the state and funnearly one thousand years. Islam was the dominant reference in feudal society. Under capitalism and a secular state, it was isolated to the cultural sphere and kept away from the economic and domains. Starting in the 1950s, and with the ousting of the Kemalists from the govemment by the Democratic Party (DP), Islamic ideology again came to the fore at various levels through the sects, in political parties and in the government.
In addition it is clear that since the military coup d'état on September 12, 1980, we are going through an accelerated process of Islamization. Prime Minister Turkut Özal never forgets to refer to Allah in every one of his speeches. Governmental declarations go even so far as to imply that price rises are also divine will! But, at the same time, we are living through an epoch where relations with world capitalism are more intense and where foreign capital has even penetrated our bedrooms.
The question of democratic rights
The media and "democrats" question the contradictions existing between the ruling Motherland Party (ANAP) on the one hand — which is fundamentalist, nationalist, conservative and basically for "freefor-all capitalism" - and supporters of "more orthodox" Islam on the other. Muslims complain about the torture that young fundamentalists suffered equally after the coup d'état, and they cannot attend their university courses wearing turbans. The military repression has also affected
Even if one tries to make us believe, in the framework of a general speech on democracy, that there are big contradictions between fundamentalists and the regime, in my opinion the only point where they are really at odds with the ANAP govern-
TURKEY that the state's Kemalist tradition has not been totally destroyed yet. Given a future renunciation of secularism and application of the sharia [see footnote with preceding article] and our fundamentalists would have no more reasons for opposing the ex-
Starting from this point of view, I want to underline two points on the question of the wearing of the turban. I am opposed to the state having any say in the clothing of citizens. And I defend the right of selforganization in all areas. So fundamentalists, if they want to, can organize to fight for the right to wear the turban. uniquely this right that I would defend, and not the fact that they wear the turban. Not to see the nuance between these two positions would be a serious error of analysis. Those [in certain left circles] who defend democracy in general and the creation of a "civil society" [as a guarantee against the all-powerful, oppressive state] make this mistake. They defended the right of fundamentalists wearing the turban to attend school, thus putting themselves on the same level as the fundamentalists. This fine example of analytical error and response is, in my opinion, very instructive from a feminist point of view.
What I would say to women who want to wear the turban is: "You certainly have the right to organize — as do others — around the subject of wearing turbans or any other question. That's all. But I would like to discuss something else with you. Have you already thought about how veiling yourselves contributes to women's oppression and to reducing sexuality simply to the role of reproduction?"
Debate over women-only transport
For me, the dialogue with fundamentalist women only makes sense insofar as it aldamentalists. We have lived with Islamic ideology for
"Kemalism" and the Turkish state MUSTAFA Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938), the "father of all Turks" and general in the Ottoman army, was the main leader of the Turkish national movement and founder of the Turkish republic, proclaimed in 1923 on the ruins of the old empire. After becoming president of the republic, he got rid of his Islamic allies who had helped him to beat the Greek occupiers, repressed the embryonic workers' movement and massacred the Kurds. He created a nationalist/populist, quasi-totalitarian, based on the development of a form of state capitalism.
He implemented a series of modernist and Western-style reforms: secularization of the state; abolition of the caliphate; unification of education; reform of the civil code (based in future on the Swiss model); adoption of Western weights and measures and calendar; abandonment of the Arabic alphabet in favour of Latin; banning the wearing of the chador and veil for women, the fez for men and so on.
ment is in their uneasiness about the fact lows us to explain to them feminist concepts, perspectives for the struggle and why Islam cannot resolve the problems of women; to discuss our common oppression with them; and to exchange our experiences of daily life as women. But there is no question of carrying out unity in action with them "in the name of democracy", a concept that is more or less confused.
Another concrete example was raised by the campaign for "special buses reserved exclusively for women". Those fundamentalists around the journal Women and the Family took as their starting point the sexual harassment that women suffer in public transport, particularly on the jam-packed municipal buses, and launched a campaign to demand women-only buses.
The objective was very clear. In the light of Islamic ideology, which searches for every possible means to keep women veiled and away from men, the goal is simply to separate male and female "spheres of existence". In a country that has had a 7 radition of harems and where womer
TURKEY were only allowed to participate in social life from the 1920s onwards (after the proclamation of the republic), this is a considerably "backward" demand. Some feminists have made a wrong analysis on this subject...and have supported this campaign, saying "there are certainly good reasons why women demand non-mixed buses".
"We have to fight in the same space"
I agree that in many areas it is very difficult for women to live in the company of men. But, after noting this, to demand the separation of public transport seems to me to make a conceptual error. It is precisely because we are against the position that women and men occupy at present in society, because we no longer want to be oppressed, humiliated, attacked and raped, that we have to prevent men doing this to us.
In order to get to that point, we must not separate our lives off from those of men but fight in the same space, struggling to create a world where men can no longer behave in that way.
Of course, it is true "that there are certainly good reasons why women demand non-mixed buses", but I also think that fundamentalist women who put this demand up front are not really preoccupied by these considerations, but are rather acting in the optic of setting up, by stages, an Islamic way of life. Some could say that this is a conspiratorial view of history, but fundamentalists themselves defend this strategy of going forward by stages in such an explicit way that if a conspiracy exists, it is not me who invented it.
Rewriting the history of
Islam
Another lesson to draw from this is that, in studying each demand, the practical consequences must be taken into account. Supposing that the demand for separate buses was agreed by the town hall (some mayors close to the fundamentalists have already reacted favorably -ed.), and that separate buses are run for men and women. What would happen to women who wanted to get in the same buses as men? It is already difficult for women to have a
Whatever your job, your legs and chest are the first things men stare at. Knowing that this is the present state of things, there are no prizes for guessing what names women would be called who wanted, in spite of everything, to live in the company
What would happen if women rewrote the history of Islam? The argument of fundamentalist women (some people even de18 scribe them as feminists) who have come out of the Islamic movement and who International Viewpoint #158 • March 6, 1989 want to reform Islam... can be summarized as follows:
History must be revised and the place of women in social life must be restored; they have been excluded from the stage of history because Islamic men have only told half the story. The historic mission of women is to use all their strength to promote their own creativity, that is to simultaneously have children, write poetry and make speeches. Women must provide both a prop for men to lean on (as mother, wife or sister) and accomplish her mission of self-fulfillment. The main demand that is put forward in the newspaper Zaman, from various female pens and with nuances and varying degrees of militancy, is the following: "To be able to participate in social life so as to defend a more orthodox and egalitarian Islam in relation to women."
Some of these authors draw more attention in particular to the oppression suffered by women who are shut away at home, serving men. Many of their propositions go in the same direction as those of feminists. But these fundamentalist women are very pernickety about not being confused with feminists, because they consider them (at best) as women who are demanding sexual liberation due to a false reaction to women's exploitation by the Struggle of fundamentalist women is positive
I think that the struggle of fundamentalist women to participate in social life is a very positive thing, be it only in limited areas and for the rewriting of history. Even if this is going to contribute little to the women's liberation movement by way of analysis or methods of struggle in general, it is a very important fight for fundamen-
As a feminist who knows perfectly well that our liberation depends on a daily struggle in every sphere of life, I think that it is positive that among fundamentalists there are women who are questioning masculine domination. They have a difficult and contradictory task, but I think that at least these contradictions are healthy ones. The day will come when the revolt of fundamentalist women as women will come into conflict with Islamic resignation, and some of them — even a small number — will radicalize in the right direction. Perhaps, one day, fundamentalist women will support our campaign around battered women, for example.?
That day will certainly be a joyful day for all of us. *
Sedef Öztürk, Kaktüs 2, July 1988. 2. One of the first demonstrations of the independent women's movement in Turkey was around this question. On May 17, 1987, 2,000-3,000 women marched through Istanbul protesting against male violence (see IV 121, June 1, 1987).
"Artificial
categories
and hasty
judgements"
W E WOULD like to reply to
your articles "Botr believers and feminists' question is on the agenda for radical fundamentalists", published in the journals Feminist and Kaktüs.
We are a group of women who disagree with the status of women in our society and its structures and who are struggling to put an end to this. We have already explained our ideas on the woman question in the journal Zaman. These were articles that looked at the theoretical gains of feminism as it has been expressed in Turkey and throughout the world, and which used these gains in a productive way. They made certain criticisms both of feminism and the way in which Muslims in Turkey see the question of women.
It was — and still is — natural to question our situation, our condition as Muslims and as women. We use the gains of feminism and we share certain points with feminists. Because, regardless of where you go or the historical period you study, it is possible to find common phenomena like the dominant male ideology, sexism and the oppression of women. And it is sad to note that Muslims, starting with those in our geographical zone, are not exempt from this. We are perhaps even forced to emphasize that in comparison with women in other situations and with their exploited condition that has been legitimated though this oppression, there are additional unfavourable conditions faced by Muslim women dictated by powerful traditional and religious factors. "There are no guarantees against oppression"
But, so that you will understand better, we must make it clear straightaway that we are referring to factors that are created by a particular reading of the religion. They do not come from the religion itself. But the result is the same: as women we have all experienced the same process in different forms and we continue to do so. More particularly, women who have been active in right-wing or left-wing groups have experienced and still experience similar situations.
So we are in favour of a better under-
March 6, 1989 • #158 International Viewpoint standing and analysis of this process and its transformation. To be socialist, non-religious or non-Muslim does not offer any guarantee that you will be sheltered from the specific oppression of women. We do not have any problem in talking the same language as other women or feminists, because we are all oppressed.
This has not embarrassed us, because we knew and we know what we are and who we are. We are simply Muslims. The maxim of Muslims is la ilahe illallah ("there is only one God"). With this belief as our starting point, we do not expect you to be able to understand the way in which all Muslims, men and women, understand individual freedom or freedom in general. From this point of view, to defend the demand for freedom as it is understood by feminists would be above all, as far as we are concerned, to deny ourselves — and nobody can expect us to do that.
"We cannot identify with the label 'feminist'"
So it is impossible for us to identify with the labels like "feminists", "veiled feminists" or "Muslim feminists" that we are given. We are concerned about all women and the whole complexity of problems that they encounter as women. We do not have time to waste with artificial categories and hasty judgements. What we want to remind you of is that in addressing a way of life and thinking that you have never wanted or even tried to understand, when you makes speeches around the theme, "You cannot liberate women, women's liberation is our monopoly", that unhappily does not allow you to save women. We consider that the attitude of wanting to "save women in spite of themselves" is not only anti-democratic, but also harmful for women.
You challenge the present representation of women, women's situation as it has been constructed by the dominant male ideology combined with capitalism. You want to replace it by another image of women, a unique model, something that you have created and which would, in fact, be completely artificial. And in doing so, as the feminist movement, you benefit from the advantage of being the representatives of a type of discourse which holds increasing sway in Turkey.
Is this not the case? Do you not speak like people who want power, who want to swell their numbers, to be recognized and approved? Is not your goal in entering into a dialogue with women — over and above the desire for an exchange and discussions on common aspects of oppression — to teach your female disciples the concepts of feminism and the perspectives for struggle, and, above all, that only feminists can bring them the salvation that no ideology or re-
It is clear that with this starting point it is impossible to be in solidarity and act together. When you talk of "solidarity with women", we understand that this is, for you, a series of actions that you can use to organize your power. You are for the liberation of women, but only with the methods and forms that you have chosen. In this context, it is not difficult for us to understand the negative attitude that you have developed on the subject of "the campaign for women-only buses". Your position, instead of reflecting a political attitude of a women's movement, is rather a reflection of the place you occupy in the established order....
That said, if you really want to make "a concrete analysis of the concrete situation",
, you will have to take into account the simple fact that a big - and not insignificant or unimportant - section of the "concrete situation" that you have to analyze is composed of
Muslim women. We would like to point out to you that, for the well-being of women, it would a good thing if you remembered this. Consequently the feminist movement, like the socialist movement, has to differentiate itself from
Jacobinist, monist, secular and republican ideology — that is, Kemalist ideology....
Now, if we are forced to use your formulations and admit that there is a contradiction between our Muslim belief and our rejection of our oppression as women and, even if this upsets you, we should make it clear that, happily, we do not see any — this is entirely our problem. Your deep attachment to a phenomenon like fashion, created by the dress norms of capitalist consumption, as well as your own attire keeps you in a traditional female role.
This is your problem. In the same way, knowing whether or not our veils ghettoize us into our role as reproducers and in our sexuality is our problem.
"Islam's view of women is our problem"
Let us add something for socialist feminists: We have never considered using the contradictions that exist, and which will never disappear, between socialism and feminism in order to calumny the feminist movement. And we do not interpret what socialist feminists say simply by reducing it to these contradictions.
The way in which Islam sees the woman question or feminism is our problem. So please stop this monologue, we are fed up with it. What do we really say? Have you ever thought about it and tried to understand? If so please let us know, ladies....*
A Muslim women's group from
Ankara, Kaktüs, November 1988.
"Religion is
the most
rigid of all
ideologies"
T HE CRITICAL article sent to
us by a group of Islamic fundamentalist women from Ankara has been very useful in allowing a clarification of a number of points.
First of all, it has become clear that the basic ideology of fundamentalist women (I am deliberately avoiding calling them Muslims because there is an important nuance that I will come back to later) is above everything else the Islamic religion. Consequently, their questioning as women of religious practices and interpretations remains within the limits set by Islam itself. On the other hand we totally share their statement that "to be socialist, a nonbeliever or Muslim does not give any guarantee that you will be sheltered from oppression as a woman", and this is perhaps the only possible basis for joint action with fundamentalist women. But beyond this point our paths diverge widely.
I think that it is unnecessary to reply at great length to the accusations that we want to monopolize women's liberation, that we simply use "artificial images" or that we 19 represent a type of discourse that holds
TURKEY increasing sway in Turkey". These are simply assertions that could easily be disproved by an attentive study of our writings and by an analysis of the political and sociological structure in Turkey. In my opinion there are other points to be clarified. Religion must be analyzed objectively
Subjectivism: This is a concept based on the belief that each Muslim is going to have a different interpretation of religion and that we must make a separate analysis of the ideas of each individual believer (and this is what fundamentalist women demand by asking us "have you asked yourselves what we want to say?"). This is an uninteresting subjectivist approach that we reject. In order to analyze religion as an ideology, the power relations that it incorporates and sustains, its sexism, and the mystifying role that it has had throughout human history, we have to have objective criteria. This is the only way that we can understand the ideology and social references that are hidden behind the words of the holy texts.
In brief, we have an analysis of religion and we are not going to change it because a group of women have started to challenge their situation as women, even though they are Muslim. Moreover, their slogan "We are first of all Muslims" shows that there is no need for any such change. Apparently, the problem of Muslim women is not the Islamic religion, it is the partial interpretalion made of it by Muslim men. Aside from the fact that the partial fashion in which it is interpreted by men is sexist, we think that the very concepts of the religion are sexist, and that, historically, religious ideology has contributed to the process of institutionalizing sexism in combination with relations of production that are based on exploitation and oppression.
Muslims and fundamentalists: We are reminded that if we want to make "a concrete analysis of a concrete situation, 90% of our concrete situation is composed of Muslim women". The Muslim identity is one which — aside from individuals belonging to religious minorities in the border of the Turkish republic acquire at birth. For a big section of the population, particularly the half that lives in the towns, the fact of being a Muslim only makes itself felt during religious holidays, on Fridays [the holy day for Muslims], at weddings and funerals.
The vast majority of people do not want to send their children to Koran classes, wear the veil, see men with skull caps on their heads and baggy oriental trousers, women walking three paces behind men, or the application of the sharia laws and so on. Only a small minority — the new, politicized, form of Islam, the radical Islamic groups, make such proposals. Thus, those who remind us what our "concrete situa20 tion" is should not forget their own. Yes, the great majority are Muslim, but not funInternational Viewpoint #158 • March 6, 1989 damentalist. If the fundamentalist women will allow me to tease them, in this context "your situation is no better than ours!"
Secularism: We are asked to differentiate ourselves from the secular ideology of Kemalism. Well, if there is one thing we can take from Kemalism, without any hesitation, it is its secularism. This is the only legal tool we have for preventing religion spreading its hold into all domains of our lives, including through the laws. We are forced to oppose this hold, because above all it threatens women and consolidates their second-class social situation.
We must defend the concept of secularism that exists, adding a criticism of religion as ideology. The frightening example of Iran is always before our eyes, in all its force. The opposition that based itself on religion in its fight against the Shah, and above all the thousands of women who demonstrated in the streets for the chador, have paid heavily for this mistake, finding themselves in Khomeini's prisons or at the front during the war against Iraq.
The concept "individual choice" has its limits
The weakness of the analysis of the potential for expansion of religious ideology and its capacity to take power has made possible the creation of a society where women are cloistered in the home; hidden under the chador; where they must send their children from 13 years upward to the front for the "holy war"; where the Revolutionary Guards enter homes and kill people under the pretext that they drink alcohol, without any other form of trial. Many social and cultural gains have been eliminated in this way. There is a high price to pay for unbridled religious fervour.
Liberties: When I spoke in my preceding article of the question of wearing the turban, I made it clear that I could not defend the fact that women wear the turban, but, only if they wish, their right to defend this right, and that a "democratic" stance seemed to me to be appropriate. If a woman wants to wear the veil, we should not forcibly remove it.
However, the concept of individual choice has certain limits. We cannot invoke "individual free choice" when little girls of 6 years old are sent to Koran classes wearing the turban. They are not able to choose anything at all, because they are forced to do this. In schools, the religious education is no longer optional but compulsory. School children therefore are no longer free to choose to go to these classes, they are forced to learn the Koran.
Religion is a real problem for us, because it interferes in the education of children who are not in a position to make a free choice; it affects the individual behaviour of people who live in our society (in this country there is still acid thrown at women who walk around with short sleeves, and men have been killed for not observing
Ramadan)'. Religion has the power to abolish individual free choice or to limit freedom. Our conception of freedom is indeed very different from that of the fundamentalists.
In their article, the fundamentalist women make it clear that they do not expect us to be able "to understand the way in which all Muslims, men and women, see individual freedom or freedom in general". They are wrong. It is not a question of not understanding — we understand only too well, and what we see does not please us at all, which is putting it mildly.
Saving us despite ourselves!: As women living in groups of classes, nations, races, religions and so on that are different and adopt various ideologies, we are all involved in a struggle, despite ourselves, for ourselves. Sexist values, behaviour and conceptions are rooted in all fields of life and we have internalized them. We all have to face up to them and challenge them.
There is therefore well and truly a sexist system that we, as socialist feminists, and the women who criticize us, as Muslims, have to challenge — at the cost of certain contradictions and, sometimes, entering into conflict with the ideological barriers that limit our thinking. And we have to do this despite the political structures in which we are active, despite the convictions with which we are impregnated. This is the second point we have in common with fundamentalist women.
Fundamentalist women are going to continue a struggle in a field where we cannot follow them - that of changing the religion from inside. And, in addition, they must continue this struggle believing in and having adopted Islam, one of whose pillars is precisely women's oppression. This is a very difficult fight, because of all the dominant ideologies, religion is the one that is the most rigid and inflexible, and the least tolerant of any opposition. *
Sedef Öztürk, Kaktüs 4, November
1988
KAKTÜS
1. For a more general analysis of the situation of women in Turkey, see Elif Keskin's article, "Women in the land of the generals", IV 120, May 18, 1987.
----- photo credits and running heads -----
1