It seems to me that there is a growing tendency for Jordanian conservatives to pose as pseudo-scientists of late, and this is most evident in their refusal of the CEDAW (Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) which, interestingly enough, was not even signed within the last decade (signed in 1992) and was ratified in 2007. The uproar caused by the country’s recent lifting of its reservations on one of the three articles it originally objected to has been quite telling. It sort of opened Pandora’s Box of Medieval retardedness.

Why do I say it has been revealing? Because conservative opposition of the CEDAW bases its critique of the Convention on arguments that are comfortably called pseudo-scientific and retrogressive. To avoid using cliches as these opposition forces do, I’ll get to specifics:

1- On March 23, 2009, I was at the Professional Associations (PAs) Complex in Amman attending a session organized by the Women’s Committee at the PAs (the latter controlled by Islamists) and the Afaf Charity Association (yes, that is the charity that organizes mass weddings to help people get married). The session was about the reasons why these two parties believe Jordan should not only keep its reservations on CEDAW, but should also dump the whole Convention in the trash.

And to give you an idea of how that went, let me paint you a picture: Al Rasheed hall was full of jilbab and burka wearing women, which is understandable given that the PAs are famously controlled by Islamists. Maysoon Darawsheh (member of Afaf), speaking at the opening of the session, showed a slide of this man right here:

I’m sure you’ve seen him on Oprah. Darawsheh must’ve picked him up from there:

…much to the amusement and surprise of the attendees who all gasped in wonder and disgust at the abnormality. Then Darawsheh said: “This is what CEDAW will do to us, it will turn men into women and women into men. It will upset god’s natural system. I seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Satan.”

Darawsheh did not mention anything about the history of the man in the picture (a transgendered Thomas Beatie) or about how it relates to CEDAW exactly. Her tactic was quite cheap: shock the masses into disgust and they’ll nod in approval at anything you say afterward.

2- Operation Shock and Awe aside (if you can cast it aside, that is), Darawsheh proceeded to show slides of the Convention’s articles and arguing against them one by one. The one thing common in all her arguments (her trump card if you will) was that “CEDAW calls for absolute equality between men and women, which means canceling any differences between the two.” She even went so far as to declare that CEDAW promotes “sexism against men” by making sure that women enjoy their same rights and obligations. She didn’t, however, detail how exactly this means discriminating against men, or why the genders being equal in the eyes of the law will be such a menace to society. Or whether she approved of the current discrimination against women. Maybe she forgot?

The one conclusion I could draw from her all-too-identical points was that she, and like-minded people, simply do not want anything to change in the Jordanian society. To them, men and women are leading good lives the way things are: women know what to do, and men know what to do. Nobody protests, nothing changes, everyone is happy.

3- To justify this conservative Muslim outrage at the Convention, Darawsheh noted that “not only Muslim societies are threatened by this Convention, as Christians are as well.” She said that they (I guessed the anti-CEDAW Muslims) are joining forces with the Vatican (the Vatican! Yes, the one with the Pope who offended them a couple of years ago, remember?) to counter the Convention’s disastrous effects on society. Holy war? What holy war? That’s religious tolerance for you!

Does the joining of forces of some Muslims and the Vatican for a certain cause make that cause automatically and universally just? Does it kill the counter-cause immediately? Darawsheh did not say, and she forgot to mention that the Vatican has lost its place in the progressive Christian world of today and does not enjoy any influence on non-Catholic Christians. Not to mention that she chose to ignore the long, bloody relationship between Muslims and Catholics and the Vatican’s OKing the Crusades. Ironically, the word “crusade” is habitually chosen by conservatives to describe what they see as malicious intrusion in the affairs of the Muslim world. Is it possible that the esteemed pseudo-scientist Darawsheh simply forgot to reflect on all that?

The sad thing is that I am not even making this up.

4- Also speaking at the session, director of Afaf Charity Association, Mufeed Sarhan, called CEDAW, “A deliberate attack on the foundations of Arab and Islamic societies through weakening the family unit.” He somehow forgot to mention that over 90 percent of UN member states are party to CEDAW, a total of 185 countries, mainly non-Arab and non-Muslim.

5- Since the whole session was organized to counter Jordan’s lifting its reservation on Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of CEDAW, I feel it’s necessary to put that here:

“State Parties shall accord to men and women the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile”.

Another speaker at the session, Dr Munther Zaytoun, professor of Shari’ah and Islamic Studies, foresaw “social corruption” as a result of this “liberty granted to women to be mobile and choose their residence”, linking this freedom to prostitution, sexual crime, and “implicit obligations for women to work for a living and support themselves”.

Big words, no evidence. Again, move the crowd to a state of disgust/fear and they’ll nod in agreement. I am guessing the real fear these speakers have of this article is that young women might move out of their parents’ houses and be corrupted. That their freedom of movement will be protected by the law. They forget that for that to actually happen, the social mindset has to change or else these young women will simply be shot down or stabbed to death in the name of honor. And don’t we all know what happens then? The murderers do not get punished, and the law protects them. Consequently, this argument is actually void for the time being (and for all the wrong reasons).

As for work, I suppose it all comes down to that. Conservatives do not want women to work freely (i.e. work full-time jobs and not be obliged to have a second, unpaid domestic job entailing cleaning, cooking, raising kids, pleasing the husband) because when women do work freely, men have to step up to the plate and share the domestic workload with them. Also, when women work (and are not robbed of their salaries by either their families or husbands), they achieve financial independence which equals economic power. They can then actually influence laws and society. They can also shake off men’s control over their economic and social lives in the long run.

Consider this: a woman who works freely and is not shackled by an unpaid domestic job that saps her of her energy and undermines her potential for success in her paid job: will not approve of being symbolically bought by marriage (therefore the dowry will disappear, and man loses this key purchase power), will not burden her husband and her society by being an unemployed consumer waiting to be fed and clothed in return for her sexual and reproductive abilities, will not think of herself as a second class citizen but as a full human being and therefore will contribute to the welfare of her society.

Granted, economic liberation alone will not achieve all that as there needs to be parallel progress achieved on the intellectual level. But It is, all the same, this scenario that scares the conservatives because it shakes the very foundations of their convictions: gender roles, family, women, men, the system.

So let no conservatives fool you when they claim that freedom of mobility will force women to mutate “to work for a living and support themselves,” as that is the way things should be in the first place and the restrictions imposed are nowhere near natural. An unproductive individual is a waste that society can well do away with. The argument for keeping women dependent on men is rooted in the desire to keep them just that: dependent, incomplete, inferior.

6- Zaytoun linked the freedom to choose one’s residence and move freely to prostitution and sexual crime. Again, he did not supply any evidence, or at least a logical connection. This is a cliche: that when women are forced to work they will sell their bodies, which is why men need to turn them into “honest women” by marrying them and then sponsoring them through life, all the while enjoying their free labor at home and in the bed, and even acquiring more than one wife. Did Zaytoun mean to say that all the Jordanian women (to keep it local) who are without male sponsors and who work for a living are whores? Did he mean that the only work women are capable of doing for a living is prostitution?

I think men who hide behind these absurd claims may have a deep desire to be needed. If women work, they will only choose them instead of needing them. Then they will be unnecessary, in their argument of course and not mine, and that’s just too horrific to bear.

Zaytoun managed to forget to mention anything about spousal rape as a devastating form of sexual crime, or polygamy as a form of emotio-sexual, albeit legal crime. Is sexual crime a crime only outside the boundaries of a marriage where women do not choose where to live?

7- According to Zaytoun, “Freedom given to women to choose their residence destroys the marital relationship and puts them under pressure to work beyond their capabilities.” I am not sure how a woman’s freedom to choose where to live will break up families, and I find it quite hypocritical that this same speaker did not mention anything about the injustices suffered by women who cannot choose their domicile. If a woman does not want to live in a certain place, then she should enjoy the right to refuse living in that place. It’s a basic human right. Try to reverse the situation: a man may not choose his place of residence. Nobody would ever dream of having any legal clause saying that.

Plus, in countries where women are denied freedom of movement and domicile, such as Saudi Arabia, the status of liberties is a matter of great contention. Human Rights Watch 2008 report found that “officials continue to ask all women for written proof their guardian has allowed them to travel” and that “travel restrictions can also be humiliating for many women”. These restrictive policies did not usher in a decrease in divorce cases, as they reached 35% in recent years according to the Saudi Ministry of Social Affairs, while other sources place them at 50%.

8- While conservative Islamists in the Islamic Action Front criticized the government’s refusal to abide by the fatwa to walk out on CEDAW, they forgot to mention that they are not representative of the Jordanian people and that their hullabaloo in the media was a bunch of witchcraft-science designed to manipulate the public opinion. They also forgot to note that their staunch resistance of the CEDAW is a mask for political ambitions and a tool to embarrass the government (as if the government needs help to feel embarrassed.) Quite frankly, the government’s arbitrary dismissal of the fatwa when it normally abides by fatwas was also a political gesture.

To wrap this up, I’m introducing a new label: pseudo-care. CEDAW opposition farts pseudo-science, and the government spits pseudo-care. When the government stops enforcing laws that explicitly discriminate against women, when it stops adopting a specific religious opinion with regards to women’s civil status, only then can it truly claim it wants to achieve equality. When the government stops allocating a number of seats for women in the Parliament to impose women on a society that does not see them as capable, when it stops showing off its ministers and parliamentarians a token of equality in international conferences while Jordanian women continue to be abused and denied basic human rights, and when it stops flirting with tribal and Islamist conservatism to keep its political system running, only them can we hope for true change.

Signing a Convention is a point-scoring facade when on the ground men and women do not believe themselves to be equal because the economic relationships between them, the laws governing their lives, and subsequently their culture, tell them the exact opposite.

While attending a seminar last summer at the Socialist Thought Forum, about women and the Left, I was genuinely captivated by the eloquence of the speaker — a Palestinian activist. She knew her stuff and she spoke so well that I almost couldn’t breathe. I had found it, I knew I had found it even though I didn’t know what it was.

In the Q&A session that followed, a man with side parted hair stood up. He demanded to know if women had a “special condition” that would call for “special treatment.” The man with side parted hair was wearing a white shirt and grey pants, he had grayish hair even though he was young. He was clearly emotional as he made his case against the separation of man and woman, his arms moving restlessly and his voice a tad louder than necessary.

The man didn’t even attempt to conceal the sarcasm in his voice as he demanded to know what women thought was special about them that would authorize them to designate a part of the struggle as their own. Anti-imperialist, anti-zionist, anti-capitalist — his anti-’s were so many I thought he wasn’t pro-anything. He argued for “collective struggle” by “liberating man and woman alike.”

As I watched the agitated man try to dismiss the unique condition of women, and the others present nodding or staring with empty eyes lulled by the evening warmth, I felt a burning sensation crawl to my stomach. This man wants to rob us of our individuality? Melt us in the anti-capitalist pot? Strip us of our legitimate struggle against injustice under the pretext of socialist revolt? Free men first, he said, and women will be free… Men first.

A friend slid to my side across the two vacant chairs next to me and whispered: “Won’t you answer him?” At the same time, the speaker addressed his comments. My friend slid back to his chair and I listened with enthusiasm to the response furnished by the lady. She really knew her stuff. She gave him Marx, Castro, Beijing, and solid evidence of feminist socialist activism.

The other day, I was talking to a political analyst and professor about this same issue. The minute I mentioned women his lips curled, his eyes rolled, and he sat back in his chair with an impatient sigh. He said he didn’t believe that women had a “special condition” that required “special treatment.” He argued that this “dichotomy” being shoved down everyone’s throats by feminists was not good for anyone, and that it, in fact, backfires. What’s the point, he asked me? Then he answered that we should strive to free men first, and then women will be free… Men first.

My father agrees with these men. What’s so special about woman to make her demand justice tailored specifically for her needs? Why can’t woman stay put for a while until capitalism, socialism, or Islam deliver a Utopian society where man is liberated to a degree that allows him, in turn, to liberate woman — a liberty tinged with the flavor of the delivering ideology? Let’s focus on liberating men first, and women will follow.

This begs the question: why men first? It is, of course, an implicit admittance of gender monopoly of power and resources in society. It is as well a millenia-old pattern of thought and behavior which follows from this monopoly: men lead, women follow. Tell that to anyone and you risk being called a man-hater, even if you love men to bits. There’s nothing new there, we all know that telling the truth is not without consequences.

Liberate men first, for how can you have a free woman if her father and brother are not free? — that’s how the argument goes. The idea is that woman is dependent on man, even in freedom, and cannot be completely liberated without his participation. The opposite is not true: man can be free with or without woman’s participation, and freeing woman is at his discretion; a privilege he bestows or denies at will.

That, precisely that, is the “special condition” of woman. The sum of woman’s life experiences differs immensely from the sum of man’s, as while the first is treated as a woman, the latter is treated as a man in the social, economical, religious, psychological, and biological senses of the two labels. The reality of men’s monopoly of power renders any parallel calls for studying “the special condition of men” void. After all, we all live in “the special conditions” set by men.

Tradition holds that woman is thought to be dependent on man even if she really isn’t, inferior to man either implicitly or explicitly, and consequently denied many of the rights enjoyed by man. At the same time woman undergoes a process of brainwashing that starts from infancy; a process that teaches her where “her place” is and prohibits her from trying to change it. Almost miraculously, all the forces that shape human consciousness take part in this process: religion, society, economy, etc., and it’s a vicious cycle.

The “special condition” of women is the expectations and assumptions made by society about women: they affect women’s psychology, perceptions, behaviors, and aspirations. For centuries, women have been largely meeting these expectations and assumptions because they have been programmed to do so. Now that they are attempting to define who they really are, not necessarily as feminists but as freedom seekers, they are told to wait, let’s liberate men first.

My aunt was an example of the “special condition” of women which is so often denied. None of the difficulties she had to endure, none of the injustices she had to suffer would have been remotely thinkable if she were a man. She was married off to a stranger at 12, had to satisfy this patriarchal society at her own expense until the day she died, and spent her entire life under surveillance from the numerous holier-than-thou chauvinists — men and women who thought they had the right to monitor her life because society disadvantaged her.

None of the hardships my aunt lived through would have been applicable if she were a man. That is the sad fact in Jordan and in most other countries where a biological difference means a completely different life, different rules, different priorities, different everything. She has been dead for six years already, and it was only after she died that I realized how oblivious I was to her story. It was only after she died that I had to confront societal demons not unlike the ones she had to confront in her lifetime: 3eeb, honour, reputation, duty, expectations, propriety, womanhood.

I can’t compare my life to hers because hers was considerably more miserable and her situation a lot more disadvantaged, but what I can say is that I am doing what I am doing for her. She couldn’t speak up and she couldn’t fight back because she didn’t have the tools, but I can, and I do. She was too eager to please everyone and to go with the flow, because she knew no other alternative and was never allowed to consider herself or her life as separately significant. I know there is an alternative, and I am determined to pursue it.

Until women are treated as human beings, granted every right known to man, not objectified scandalously or conservatively, there will be no true justice. How can anybody expect justice to rain down from the sky without sacrifice? In my life, my aunt’s sacrifice was enough to prompt me to question, think, learn, and revolt. This was counterintuitive: the idea was to have all the women in my family dread such a life by submitting to whatever was thrown at them. The exact opposite happened, at least to me.

Justice knows no gender, like it knows no color or race. Why then are we constantly supposed to believe that the only domain we are not to probe is this one, and none else? Why is racial discrimination universally abhorred, while gender discrimination is still a matter of discussion, nay, denial?

In Jordan, if you express a hint of a desire to want to fix what’s broken in the gender balance, you are accused of man-hating, blasphemy, or self-loathing. If you do so much as pose a question on the validity of the definition of honor, you are most likely to be the object of suspicion. If you criticize tribal practices leading women to be held in “administrative detention” for fear on their lives, while their male sources of threat remain untouched, you are considered a cultural outlaw. If you dare to contest patriarchal power, in any shape or form, you are seen as a woman who has gone astray and every measure is taken to restrain you.

As long as this continues, and it will continue for a long time, we will remain stuck in the intellectual equivalent of the Middle Ages. As long as we do not recognize that women do go through extremely different life experiences that shape their lives, we will have ignorant men and women who will find no shame in dismissing the fact. Finally, if we do not call things by their names: injustice as injustice, not a feminist luxury, we will have those who stand up and arbitrarily demand that we liberate men first.

]]> http://tololy.com/2009/01/03/%d9%86%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d8%b9%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%88%d9%8a-%d8%aa%d9%83%d8%aa%d8%a8%d8%8c-%d8%a5%d8%b0%d9%86-%d8%aa%d8%b9%d9%8a%d8%b4/feed/ 2 http://tololy.com/2008/09/15/jordanian-women-vs-nationality/ http://tololy.com/2008/09/15/jordanian-women-vs-nationality/#comments Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:56:33 +0000 Tololy http://www.tololy.com/?p=1392 The Jordan Times published a revealing first-person account of the sheer sexism of Jordanian law with regards to Jordanian women married to non-Jordanian men. (Reverse the situation: Jordanian men married to non-Jordanian women, and you shall have a smooth sailing). Read:

A Jordanian family of men?

Nermeen Murad

Almost two years ago I wrote my first column at The Jordan Times and expressed my incredulity at my family being denied membership of the Jordanian family.

My husband and children have not only been denied citizenship, they have also been subjected to a series of what I would call xenophobic legislation and directives that certainly ensure they could never claim that they belong here.

Two years on, I have become resigned to the fact that Jordan, with its current social and political mindset, will resist any attempt from my side to add my small family’s imported name to the list of Jordanian family names. This I do with regret for my children who will never comprehend why their mother’s country rejected them outright and without compromise.

But this doesn’t mean that I will give up the fight, at least for reduced bureaucracy in dealing with the affairs of the spouse and children of a Jordanian woman, regardless of their nationality.

Hence, here I go again.

Two weeks ago, the Jordanian Ministry of Education saw fit to allow the foreign children of a Jordanian woman to enrol in public schools. I don’t want to go on about how shocking it is that they had been kept out of these schools for so long. I will instead concentrate on welcoming the positive and calling for even more movement in that direction.

Let me please describe the situation. The husband of a Jordanian woman is treated exactly like any foreign labourer and has no special categorisation that even slightly improves his standing with the authorities in the country.

In plain Arabic speak, he has no wasta! He and every other menial worker who enters Jordan are given the same treatment.

So, therefore, when he buys a car, he needs security clearance. When he buys a house, he needs security clearance. He renews his driver’s licence every single year and every year he pays the fees again. He renews his visa every year and, of course, has to go through the same procedure as the domestic helper, registering his address at the local police station and then taking all his documentation to the different departments associated with the Ministry of Interior. My children carry an iqama, exactly like the contracted workers, and my husband has the added pleasure of also carrying a work permit.

The husband of a Jordanian woman cannot simply decide to live in Jordan without work because it is the work that allows him to have a residency and not his marriage.

I look forward to making arrangements for retirement in any other country in the world that will be happy to allow my husband and I to retire in peace without an annual hassle; my country has so far not made allowances for that possibility.

In fact, an anomaly appeared the other day when we began procedures to employ a domestic helper under my husband’s name, only to find out that he has to put JD2,000 deposit as a guarantee against the import of a house helper.

This is the same treatment allocated to passing foreigners in the country and does not begin to allow for the fact that he resides here in Jordan because he is the lifetime partner of a Jordanian citizen, albeit a women.

I asked the other day at a brokerage firm whether I could create small investment portfolios for my minor children only to find out that the law had a relapse against me in this regard.

Apparently I, their mother, cannot be the guardian of my minor children, because that is the father’s prerogative and therefore any funds invested on their behalf by me is under the control of their father.

If Jordan cannot bring itself to welcome our husbands and children as honoured citizens of the Jordanian family, then let it at least welcome them as honoured guests.

Directives such as the one that allowed the children of a Jordanian woman into schools are to be commended and encouraged. But they must be followed by other such steps that recognise the special status of this sector of society and seeks to make its members welcome in their adopted home.

One-year residency should be replaced with five-year residencies, followed by permanent residency for the relatives of a female Jordanian citizen. Sale or purchase of personal property, i.e., houses and cars, should be routine for the spouses and children of a Jordanian woman.

Irregularities in the law which favour male members of the Jordanian family over female siblings should be reduced and in time, removed. Then, we can honestly claim to be home to the one Jordanian family.

Nermeen34@aol.com

Source

This is truly a slap on the face of justice.

كان بودي لو قامت طالبات الدراسات العليا في مركز دراسات المرأة في الجامعة الأردنية بالرد أيضاً, لتوضيح الصورة للأستاذ الكركي رئيس الجامعة. ]]> http://tololy.com/2008/09/14/%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b1%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ac%d8%b2%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ab%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%8a/feed/ 2 http://tololy.com/2008/09/09/%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b1%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%8b/ http://tololy.com/2008/09/09/%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b1%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%8b/#comments Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:24 +0000 Tololy http://www.tololy.com/?p=1354

شو هالمسخرة.
]]> http://tololy.com/2008/09/09/%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b1%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%8b/feed/ 9 http://tololy.com/2008/08/15/%d9%88%d8%ac%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%a9/ http://tololy.com/2008/08/15/%d9%88%d8%ac%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%a9/#comments Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:52:14 +0000 Tololy http://www.tololy.com/?p=1239

و تزغرد النسوة خلف أحاديث الرجال.
]]> http://tololy.com/2008/08/15/%d9%88%d8%ac%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%a9/feed/ 8 http://tololy.com/2008/07/10/gender-equality-campaign-in-jordan/ http://tololy.com/2008/07/10/gender-equality-campaign-in-jordan/#comments Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:27:59 +0000 Tololy http://www.tololy.com/?p=1142 I got this press release in my inbox from a Jordanian gender equality campaign, as did other bloggers- I am sure, and I felt compelled to spread the word:

Gender Equality, Made in Jordan

Young Jordanians using new methods for new audiences

Amman 5th July 2008-As part of a local initiative, groups of young Jordanians have been seen in various areas of Amman handing out badges, stickers and posters. This is all part of the Gender Equality Campaign, which is just being launched in Jordan. A number of local Jordanian NGOs have cooperated with some individuals and companies from the private sector to help support this campaign and the young Jordanians working on it.

The Gender Equality Campaign was created as part of a homegrown initiative by a group of young Jordanians who are committed to the idea of justice and equality for the women and men of Jordan. The main purpose of this campaign is to educate the public in Jordan about women’s rights and to mobilize the community to take action to address this human rights issue in Jordan.

The main component of this campaign is to provide a channel for dialogue for people to discuss this issue in Jordan. The foundation of this new channel is to target all aspects of Jordanian society, taking the issue of gender equality outside the walls of conferences, workshops and offices.

This channel is being opened by the young campaigners, using the logo that they created. The logo of the campaign illustrates the wishes, hopes and ambitions of the young Jordanian campaigners. It is a symbol that represents the rights, duties, and dreams for us all, pink for women, blue for men.

As part of the Gender Equality Campaign, permission was gained by one of the supporting local NGOs from the Greater Amman Municipality to install two sets of monuments with its logo. One is on Tabarbour Circle, the other on Middle East Circle in Al-Wihdat. The hope of the young Jordanian campaigners is to gain permission to install similar monuments in other areas around Amman in the near future.

-The End-

Gender Equality Campaign

This campaign was created as part of an initiative by a group of young Jordanians who are committed to the idea of justice and equality for the women and men of Jordan. The main purpose of the Gender Equality Campaign is to educate the public in Jordan about Women’s Rights and to mobilize the community to take action to address this human rights issue in Jordan.

The vision for the campaign is to increase the level of awareness and commitment to women’s rights in Jordanian society. Furthermore, the mission is to create a channel for a broad based dialogue about the rights and roles of women in Jordan.

Contact Details:

Lulwa Al-Kilani Dina Liddawi

Gender Equality Campaigner Gender Equality Campaigner

Email: genderequalityc@gmail.com

Telephone: +962 77 90 6 90 40 Telephone: +962 77 9999 187

It’s positively refreshing to see a local effort being made by local women and men eager to improve the stereotypical gender images in Jordan. Oh and by the way, I saw one of the monuments the other day while I was driving: it is basically two columns, one blue and one pink, and the blue column is taller than the pink one. ” It is a symbol that represents the rights, duties, and dreams for us all, pink for women, blue for men.”

If you would like to get in on the fun, join the campaigners in downtown Amman on July 12th, where they will speak to people and spread the word, which is so groovy. You have the contact details of the campaign, so don’t hesitate to get in touch if you need directions or have any questions!

Go, gender equality, go!

]]> http://tololy.com/2008/07/08/%d8%aa%d9%81%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d9%85%d9%88%d9%91%d8%ac%d9%87/feed/ 15 http://tololy.com/2008/06/18/the-voice-of-an-arab-woman/ http://tololy.com/2008/06/18/the-voice-of-an-arab-woman/#comments Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:09:53 +0000 Tololy http://www.tololy.com/?p=1131 I am currently reading Nawaal el Saadawi’s biography أوراقي …حياتي, and I can’t seem to get over the similarities between us. I could be imagining things of course because I respect her thought a lot, but it is undeniable that there are several aspects that link my history to hers. I think many of these aspects are shared by almost, if not all, Arab women.

The way Saadawi tells her life story is simple and almost child-like. Her language is clear and reminds me of my late aunt recounting family history, now using common English words كعب روكي and now slang for effect جوزي. The chronology of Saadawi’s tale is logical in the first volume, then it seems she took a break before continuing and so there is a mild break at the beginning of the second volume, but nothing confusing. I am done with the second volume and still have the third to go through, but so far I can safely say I have never in my life connected to an author as I connect to Saadawi. Her voice is powerful throughout the biography, too powerful to ignore.

She thinks my thoughts, she feels what I feel, but she is far more courageous than I have been up until now. She was prompted to write her biography after leaving Egypt to the United States in order to defy time and to defy death. She did not want her life to be forgotten or deformed by the same people who pushed her to leave Egypt out of fear for her life; Islamic scholars and Sheikhs threatened by her ideas about gender and religion شيوخ العصور الوسطى, and government officials equally threatened by her ideas about justice and integrity حكومة اللصوص. These two categories of people combined with the ignorant public الغوغاء who saw her mere presence a danger to their non-existent social cohesion wanted her to die, so she left to stay alive.

Far from idolizing her, this woman is a solid role model to every Arab girl out there. She’s educated, she’s strong, she’s unafraid to voice her opinions, and she thinks for herself. What more do we want our girls to turn out to be? Forget the people who call her a tramp منحلة أخلاقياً without knowing anything about her life and contributions to political and social life in Egypt, forget the people who call for Allah’s help against the devilأعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم when they hear her name because she is a woman, forget all the hatred directed towards her because she personifies what Arab people fear: an intelligent, strong woman who gets some air time to “corrupt” their girls’ minds امرأة .فاسدة تدعو إلى الانحلال What every person must do is learn for themselves and form their own opinions, and I learned this the hard way. It pains me to admit I was prejudiced without even realizing it at the time.

As I said before, Saadawi’s biography resonates with me to a great degree. I recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about the life of Egyptian women and Arab women in general, and about Saadawi herself. I have a lot of respect for that woman now, and I am sure you will too after you learn about her life.