YOUR editorial on 'Solidarity with Iranian women' (15 March) smacks of tokenism. You support Iranian women demonstrating for their democratic rights; yet you argue that 'in retrospect they made a mistake when they donned veils to join the mass mobilisations which toppled the Pahlavi regime'.
You have failed to grasp both the dynamic and contradictory aspects in such a revolutionary situation, particularly with respect to any oppressed section involved in such struggles. You also seem unaware that many women at that time donned the veil specifically to demonstrate their opposition to the Shah's regime.
They clearly understood that the existence of the Pahlavi regime was an obstacle to their freedom. You were full of praise when they were in the front line of fire; would you also have had them fired on from the rear by their fellow demonstrators? Or perhaps you would rather they had spent their energies arguing why they should go unveiled instead of on the streets?
Your reply to the obscurantists should not be that they are right, 'all those women on those marches wore veils', but that through the struggle they have waged they have obviously come to see the necessity of fighting their oppression on all fronts. That is the dynamic of a revolutionary situation: those involved begin to see the possibilities for society as a whole and for themselves in particular.
Finally, the position of women in Iran is an acid test for the development of the struggle in Iran. You obviously fail to understand that, hence your call for women in this country to solidarise with their sisters in Iran on the ICAR demonstration. Do you call only for gays or blacks to solidarise with other gays or blacks fighting their oppression?
Perhaps the women in this country could solidarise with their sisters the world over better by fighting to overcome the sexism and paternalism that still exists in the left press.
TESSA VAN GELDEREN (London NW10)