> We should have subordinated the
> fight against racism and sexism
> to the class struggle, like the
> most idiotic of Stalinists used
> to argue? (Not the CPUSA, which
> had a pretty good record on sex
> and especially race.)
I'd argue that, under some conditions (e.g. Iran's conditions now), the fight against sexism (or against religious obscurantism) needs to be *subordinated* to higher priorities. The ranking of priorities in the struggle is not dictated by the left (inside or outside), but by the dynamics of each particular society.
In the case of Iran, those struggles need to be subordinated to the struggle in defense of the nation against imperialist aggression. In fact, in the current conditions, the fight against sexism can -- and will -- be utilized by the imperialist aggressor to rationalize the aggression. The oppression of women in Iran may be extreme. I have no reasons to doubt that. Well, too bad that on top of that, the Iranian people have to be concerned with the U.S. threat and that, in that light, the struggle against female oppression must be pushed to the back burner.
I don't think anybody here really believes that Yoshie is against women's rights in Iran or anywhere else. Her views are about the role of that struggle in that concrete, historical, current context. Yoshie's argument that, in the short run, a frontal struggle against sexism effectively divides families and therefore weakens the defense of the nation is not far-fetched. We all now of cases in which short- and long-run goals clash with each other. Perhaps Yoshie is bending the stick a bit too far in one direction, but that's because she may feel that little heed is paid to the priorities of the national struggle and too much emphasis is placed on the flaws of the actually-existing leadership in Iran's national struggle. And what actually-existing leadership is not flawed?
If we were witnessing a mass upsurge in the struggle against sexism in Iran, and unity against the external threat weren't as urgently felt as it is (being Iran bordered by two countries invaded by the U.S.), then we could say that leaders like Ahmadinejad were the main obstacle to social progress. But that's not the case. Iran cannot successfully produce effective leaders to head battles that the masses of the Iranian people don't view as immediately necessary. (And, to the extent Iran is a society conditioned by its social, economic, and religious history, its leaders will carry at least some of that baggage with them. Again, too bad.)
While Iranian exiles and other Iranians with an ability to have their voice heard abroad may be more immediately concerned about sexism and the type of daily oppressions sanctioned by the form of Islam prevalent in Iran, that is unlikely to be the sentiment of the broader masses of people in Iran (yes, including women). For all I know, the stance that Ahmadinejad embodies has vast popular backing, not only in Iran but in the whole Middle East and northern Africa regions.