Interesting-sounding panel discussion of women’s rights in the Mid East. I thought this point – about the attraction of patriarchy in dictatorships – was well-made:
Darwish placed the blame on the patriarchy of the Middle East.
“In the Middle East, men struggle with little freedoms because they, too, are oppressed by the dictatorship,” she said. “Women are the one aspect of control in their life, so inside the home, the men rule.”
Narrowing the discussion to Muslim women, Darwish said, “A woman in the Middle East must answer to everyone, and her honor and purity is the business of her family, her neighbors, and sometimes, even the virtue police.”
At the same time, I’m not sure if I entirely agreed with this:
Darwish said the solution to human rights abuses toward women in the Middle East is democratization and that it will be impossible to improve women’s stations without proper democratic institutions.
Do “democratic institutions” include things like a civic commitment to equal treatment of the sexes, protections for minorities against dictatorship by the majority, and a safe civil society for dissent? It seems to me that these freedoms may be more essential than mere Democracy – and may be preconditions for a successful liberal democracy. Women in Iraq and Afghanistan have the vote (in theory), but in many areas can’t walk the streets with bare faces without fear of violent reprisal; freedom to vote doesn’t guarantee freedom in any substantive sense. Democracy is one element of freedom, but it’s not the only element, and maybe not even the most essential element.
The conflict between democracy and women’s fundamental human rights is a topic I’ve blogged on several times already, generally in the context of Iraq (1 2 3 4 5 ). Women’s liberty in Iraq, already in decline under Hussain, have sharply plummeted since the U.S. invasion. The ability to vote for religious fanatics who are determined to end women’s freedoms is not freedom in any meaningful sense, and ought not be celebrated as freedom.
Unusually for panels with this subject matter, Israel wasn’t ignored:
Panelist and NYU politics professor Hani Zubida discussed Israeli women’s rights from a socio-political perspective.
“The notion of equality [in Israel] is a double-edged sword … women can no longer say that they are being discriminated against, because they were given this equality with suffrage and ability to join the army,” Zubida said. “However, there is disenfranchisement of Israeli women through the mechanism of the army … the military as a social construct does not accept women as equal.”
I’m glad they didn’t ignore Israel, although there’s no doubt that Israeli women are far better situated than most (all?) of their counterparts in the Mid-East. Zubida’s point – that formal legal equality can be used to dismiss other legitimate concerns (“you’ve got the vote, so what are you complaining about?”) – is one that in theory I agree with. But I wish the article had given more detail about Zubida’s argument; the quote from her really isn’t enough to know what specific problems she’s talking about.
The question of liberty versus democracy is relevant to Palestine, as well. I favor independence for the occupied territories as an independent Palestine, but I do so without much enthusiasm, largely because I suspect that a Palestinian state, while democratic, would nonetheless be hugely oppressive to Palestinian women and Palestinian queers. From the BBC:
A number of gay Palestinian men are risking their lives to cross the border into Israel, claiming they feel safer among Israelis than their own people. […]
In practice, Palestinian gays end up being placed under virtual house arrest because of the fear that they may be potential suicide bombers. […] However, many Palestinian gays say they would still rather live under house arrest in Israel, where homosexuality is not considered a crime, than at home.
In a way, U.S. leftists regarding Palestine are in a similar position as U.S. right-wingers regarding Iraq; in both cases, the Americans are advocating the creation of a new government that will virtually certainly be brutally oppressive to both women and queers. And both groups tend to sweep this fact under the rug.
(Incidentally, gaymiddleeast.com seems to be a good source of news stories about queer rights throughout the middle east).
Pingback: The Uncommon Man
Pingback: TigerHawk
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Best in Blogs: April 7, 2006/Candide's Notebooks
Pingback: Liberal Blogosphere
Democracy isn’t even an element of freedom. Freedom isn’t about who makes the rules—it’s about what the rules are, and there’s nothing sacred about democracy. If democracy will result in more freedom than other forms of government, then it’s good. But if the people can’t be trusted to respect the rights of others, then some other form of government may be preferable.
Iran is a good example of this. They have democratic insitutions, albeit modified by and refracted through the lens of the Islamic Republic’s interpretaion of Islam. Women can vote; women make up about 50% of college students; women are lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.; and yet, at the same time, women’s rights are trampled on in pretty much every corner of society, from the family to employment to courts of law and more.
One point.
You said “Women’s liberty in Iraq, already in decline under Hussain, have sharply plummeted since the U.S. invasion.”
The reality was that Iraq was the most modernized Middle East country before the Iran/Iraq war, women enjoyed a greater freedom within the dictatorship then they had in recorded history.
On the otherhand the rise of Iran’s dictatorship brought the opposite result. (Oppression of women within a society which was starting to open doors for women).
That was true years ago. But as Hussain’s power declined during the sanctions years, he made more compromises with the religious fundamentalists, which led to a decline in women’s rights in Iraq in comparison to their pre-Gulf-War peak.
At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten from the reading I’ve done.
Also, I’d say that Israel is more modernized than pre-invasion Iraq was.
Amp,
I wish the article had given more detail about Zubida’s argument; the quote from her really isn’t enough to know what specific problems she’s talking about.
Just a quick fill-in to the Israel/Army thing (it’s very much a recognized problem here in Israel – at least among feminists…)
Contrary to much popular opinion around the world, the IDF is NOT fully integrated. Up until about a decade ago, there were NO women in combat units. None. Over the past decade this has started to change (we have a few female combat pilots, a few integrated infantry units, integrated anti-aircraft units…but a woman in a combat unit is still the – rather uncommon – exception), but it’s recently enough that we have yet to see the effects.
So, the basic status up until quite recently was only men in combat units.
Of course, in the military, you can’t advance beyond a certain rank without “field experience” (defined sa service in a combat unit. Henceforth, whenever I say “combat service” or “field experience,” I mean the same thing – service in a combat unit – not necessarily actually seeing combat. Though combat units in this country almost always see at least some action). Also, promotions might be influenced by combat experience (two candidates, both pretty much equal, one WITH combat experience…guess who gets the promotion), and certain positions are available only to those with past combat experience. So we have a situation in which women were barred from rising beyond a certain rank, as well as barred from certain key positions.
In a militaristic society like Isael, military service means a lot. “What did you do in the army” is a standard “getting to know you” question throughout your entire life for both men and women. There are hierarchies of service…with combat unit service waaaay at the top of the list. It affects your employment options (some employers deliberately seek combat veterans), not to mention the fact that Israeli politics is a veteran’s playground. Former Commander-in-Chiefs (a military position appointed by the Minister of Defense) almost always enter politics after they are discharged. The Minister of Defense is usually (actually, I can only think of a couple that WERE’NT) a former Commander in Chief, or at least the CIC’s 2nd in command.
Former generals and high-ranked officers are snatched by the business world and instantly appointed CEOs and VPs and what-have-you. And remember what I said before? due to the combat duty thing, mostly men reach these ranks.
Not to mention that seving together in a combat unit is the ultimate “male bonding” experience. And in a small country like Israel – that counts. You have to understand just how small this country is: do you know the “6 degrees from Kevin Bacon” game”? In Israel, you can usually find a connection WITH ANY RANDOM STRANGER ON THE STREET via one or (at the most!) two other people. A lot of times through military service (“Oh, yeah, I think my sister served with your cousin at XYZ”).
Another issue is Reserve duty. Men (and not women) serve in the Reserves until their late 40s. Mostly those who are (wait for it…) in combat units. For about a month every uear or so, they are re-united with their (male) comrades, reforging homosocial bonds that exclude women.
Last but not least….women who are active in politics and social endeavours are often taken to task when attempting to present a non-mainstream position regarding “Security” (that’s the catch-all word used to describe the complex situation we have here with the Palestinians, our Arab neighbours, etc.), such as “maybe killing and starving people does not give them an incentive for peace.” They are told to sit down and shut up, since they were never in combat and therefore can’t really understand what’s going on.
And of course, in ANY sort of competition for public office or recognition, combat experience and high rank count.
So the result of the non-integration in a VERY militaristic society means that:
1. Women cannot reach high rank or serve in several key positions in the military, in a society that desperately venerates high military rank and combat expereince
2. Women are barred from key political positions that are the exclusive territory of former high-ranked military personnel
3. Key positions in the civilian market are often given to high-ranking veterans….which cannot be women, due to the reasons explained before
4. Women’s participation in public discourse, especially where issues regarding (real or perceived ) national security, is very much open to criticism due to lack of “true understanding” brought about by no combat experience
5. Women are barred from using the “Old Boys’ Network” which in Israel mostly means people you served with. To those who will say that women also serve and bond…well, yeah, but combat duty creates homosocial bonds like no other, bonds which are strengthened over decades in Reserve duty (which women do not share). Also, due to everything mentioned above, it’s them men in combat units who often become powerful civilians, who then help their good buddies from the unit, who are all men.
So yeah. We have legal equality here. Things are pretty OK. But there’s still a wage gap, still discrimination, still harassment and rape (though not in percentages as horrifying as in the US), still lack of equal footing in the political and public spheres – and none of it is helped by the place and significance of the (extremely and traditionally) patriarchal military in our personal and national consciousness.
– Tefnut
An incredibly important topic. Maybe the most important for world peace, because if women socialized to care rather than kill, as women in the Middle East are, started taking their full part in politics throughout the Middle East, it would change the whole tone of the place.
I also agree that democracy isn’t enough. Economic power is the absolute first necessity, in the sense of having a right to your own money, own inheritance, and own paycheck.
All that said, though, I think you’re misunderstanding Darwish. “Democracy” doesn’t always mean “right to vote” in the rest of the world. What’s often meant is a much more nebulous concept that includes freedom of expression and religion, human rights, and so on. Which is actually very similar to what you’re saying.
Tefnut, thank you very much for that post. Nice to have things explained by someone who knows what she’s talking about. :-)
Quixote, I think you’re probably right that Darwish meant “democracy” in a broad sense.
Actually, the men in the Middle East, like the women, are opressed by other factors as well. An imporatnt but downplayed force for the men is the total, absolute conformity that is expected of them. There is constant pressure to conform, to be and act like everyone else. There is so much tension just watching eveyone else, how they behave, and have them watch you, judging whether you are exactly like them. I know many who have a sort of built-in and nurtured agoraphobia- they make sure they look a certain way exactly before they venture out. This varies among Arab countries- it is much less in Egypt, but it is quite important in the Persian Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia. That is one reason why so many travel abroad whenever they get a leave, just to recover from these pressures. Sort of like being in Junior High School in the US.
Cheers
Mohammed
infidelus.blogspot.com/
Iraq’s Beauty Queen Resigns After Four Days
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1825659
I am reading this and am delighted that this issue carries out so well.
I would like to start by saying that most of my talk was omitted in the article.
What brought me to add my thoughts to this discussion was Tefnut posting. While I referred to the military (IDF) just as one of the mechanism that contributed to the gender gaps, it was portrayed in the article as the only one. Even thought I agree with the assumption that it is an important and central issue, mainly due to the centrality of the security issue in Israeli society. It is far from being the only issue, there are multiple arenas that are ignored, business, academia, family, ethnicity religion and so on and one and on.
While I was trying to make a point and referring to the military, I also made multiple other arguments about the socio-political gaps and other social institutions that contribute to the gender gap.
One final thought, when assessing comparatively women status in different countries/societies I find it very problematic using terminology such as “Things are pretty OK”, these are the exact same words used by oppressors to maintain their control over the oppressed.
Best
Hani Zubida.