Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Is Egypt really the worst Arab state for women?

After Amman was the rated the third "Ugliest City in the World" and Beirut the 20th "Top City in the World", using vague criteria such as "dirty, chaotic streets and ugly buildings looking like they're crumbling on top of each other" (in reference to Amman not Beirut!), the polling community has come up with a new ranking system: worst Arab states for women. And Egypt won, apparently due to a "surge in violence and Islamist feeling", whatever that means.

Now I am not going to make the argument that Egypt doesn't deserve the title when there are countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen in contention. I am not an expert on how it is to be a woman in Egypt these days, enduring harassment in the street on a daily basis, nor have I ever been a female citizen of Saudi or Yemen. But I am almost certain that as a Lebanese woman, it in no way feels like I am supposed to be worse off than a woman living in Somalia, a country that still refuses to sign the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. I do not believe that as a woman living in Tunisia, with full citizenship rights, I would be worse off than a Jordanian woman, exposed to "honor" crimes and denied the right to pass my citizenship to my children, where the glass ceiling feels like fortified cement. Something doesn't add up here.

This strangely designed poll by the Thomas Reuters Foundation is reminiscent of the annual Transparency International  poll in which people from different countries are asked about the perception of corruption in their country. The headlines always goes something like "Lebanon most corrupt country in Middle East". In fact, it is simply an indicator of people's perception about corruption, because there is no other way of actually measuring corruption (you can't just go up to a politician and ask them if they accept bribes - well let's just say it gets more complicated). This poll basically asked "336 specialists" their own opinion on whether statements like "Women and men have equal access to run for all elected positions in public office" or "Girls are expected to give up their education sooner than boys" in their country. As complicated as the statements were to confirm, more problematic were answering questions like: "Current inheritance laws are biased towards men.", an issue that has a basis in religion.

What bothered me about this poll is first, the obviously strange and inexplicable results. The second thing is that many of the questions, such as "Marital rape is recognised by law and punished" or "Female genital mutilation is a common practice in this country" can be clearly answered through a little bit of research. They are not really perception based. Another problem is using the indicator of access to health care, as Karl noted, which may not be a sign of a gender equal society but of a rentier state, compared to a country that does not provide public health care to any of its citizens.

I am not sure why the Thomas Reuters foundation decided to conduct their study in this manner, but it has not shed any light on the issue of gender discrimination in the Arab world, as we ended up with one more useless list of countries ranked at someone else's whim.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Women in the constitutional amendment

We are, supposedly, living historic times in the Arab world. Democracy is peeking its head everywhere we look, but a full presence has not yet been secured, at least in my opinion. Let's for a minute turn our eyes to the "democratic" state at work: the Republic of Egypt. It is indeed an important achievement. Egypt is now debating its new constitution, and the discussion is public. How much of the public discussion will be taken into account for the draft constitution, I don't know. But it's a definitely a step forward.

As part of the discussion (yes I am aware that I am not Egyptian but I'm putting my 2 cents in anyway), let's have a look at one of the proposed articles on offer, Article 36. Here's a quick translation I made:

The State commits to to all legal and executive measures to enshrine the principle of women equalling men in political, cultural, economic and social life and other aspects, that does not go against Islamic Shari'a. The State will provide free maternity and child care and will guarantee for women protection and social, economic and health welfare, the right to inheritance and ensure agreement between her duties towards her family and her work in society.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of gender issues can clearly see that equality is not really at the heart of this article, but the appearance of it is. I will not venture to argue whether Islamic Sharia' does allow for equality between men and women because I am clearly not an expert on the subject. I will just make a few remarks from my own reading of the article.

The phrasing "the principle of women equalling men" is obviously problematic. It's not "equality between women and men", as if to say that somehow men are superior and they will advocate that women equal them as much as possible.

The mention of women and her role as a mother in the same article that is meant to advocate equality is more evidence that gender equality was not really taken seriously when drafting this text. Social, political and economic rights is not the same topic as caring for a family. The family should be the responsibility of both parents, but the writers here do not seem to agree.

Which brings me to my last point: how is it the state's responsibility to interfere in the woman's decision to juggle work and family? I am referring to the statement "ensure agreement between her duties towards her family and work in society".

No. They are not serious. This article is a joke. And judging from the feedback on it, it will probably pass.

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

What's a little beating between spouses?

It is statements like this that keep me optimistic about the future of the human race:

“We do not support violence against women, but God allowed a certain form of beating,”

This gem was uttered by Salafist preacher Yasser Borhamy, aka "godfather" of El-Nour Party in Egypt. To be fair, he did argue that even though the husband is permitted to beat his wife, no physical damage or scar should result from the beating.

God bless him.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Are we all Egyptian?

In solidarity with the Egyptian revolution, many have claimed "I am Egyptian", joining Facebook groups, changing their status or tweeting similar support statements. Personally, I never had it in me to make such proclamations and I couldn't quite understand why. Until Monday, around midnight.

The interview with Wael Ghonim, Head of Marketing at Google MENA who was detained for over 10 days during the January 25 revolution, was as disturbing to me as it was beautiful. It was disturbing because watching the raw honesty and pain in which Ghonim spoke somehow helped me connect every single event that's been happening in Egypt, not for the last few weeks, but years. The horrific torture and murder of Khaled Said was not a one-off incident but a systematic mode of operation by the Egyptian regime, a regime that has no problem running over peaceful demonstrators as if they were insects. It is only now that I see the ugliness in its full form. These are not spontaneous protests by people who have had enough. This is a well-planned long term revolution of a people who have had enough a long time ago, but were waiting for a spark to ignite their flame.