Wednesday, April 29, 2015
What's the connection?
After reading about the complex political status of women in Iraq during the regime of Sadam Hussein and also about the lack of civil liberties and personal and political freedoms within Iraq during that same time, do you perceive any connections between the democratic freedom (democratic being defined very broadly here) of a country and the political status of women in that country? In other words, are countries that systematically deny women the same rights as men more likely to be non-democratic governments/dictatorships? If so, what do you think the connection is? If you don't think there is a connection, explain why not. Please cite examples from the text, but you are also allowed to use your outside knowledge of other countries' governments and political practices to inform your thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteIf you look at history and even today, I think it is very apparent that there is a connection between democratic countries and Women’s rights. For instance we live in a Democratic country and here women have the same rights as men. Although there are still gender equality problems women face, they have more rights and liberties then many other countries. The same can be said for women living in England, and France. However, as we find out in “Between Two Worlds,” women living in Iraq do not have the same freedoms. On page 125 it reads, “In Iraq, a virgin is no longer considered marriageable material if she is raped. If she has an understanding family, they will embrace her and help “cover her honor” by arranging for her to marry the man who raped her. “ After reading this I was disgusted. Clearly in Saddam’s society, if a women gets raped it is her fault. This is ludicrous, in America whomever the rapist was, would be put in jail. Now this is an extreme example, but still it shows that women in democratic countries have much more liberties and freedoms compared to those living under the rule of a dictator.
Although I agree with Brendan that the liberties of women are generally greater in democratic societies than in dictatorships, gender disparity still exists in democratic societies today. For instance in the United States men and women do not have the same rights; women are paid less and generally hold fewer positions of leadership than men. Furthermore the punishment for rape is not as simple as the man always being put in jail. Especially on college campuses rapes are covered up in order to preserve the name of a university. Student attackers are often only suspended as a consequence and a victim is either forced to take extreme action or live alongside her attacker. That being said, Zainab’s perspective on women’s rights leads us to believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse than we can imagine in a democratic society. Her perspective on marriage in particular is striking as her two relationships convey the dominating expectations of men: “[Ehab] seemed to think he was entitled as my future husband to tell me what to do even though I was thousands of miles away.” Although Zainab has grown up in a liberal family, the reader quickly realizes that a typical Iraqi woman’s body is not her own, a concept that is generally accepted in democratic societies.
DeleteI think it is complicated to define the status of women based on political regimes, because there are so many other elements at play. The way women are regarded in society is more deep-rooted than whether or not a country is democratic or not. As we learn in “Between Two Worlds”, Zainab and her family members enjoy certain luxuries and rights that western woman have. They are not forced to cover their bodies because of Hussein’s regime and how close they are to him, yet in many middle-eastern countries it is common to wear a hijab and dress more conservatively as an expression of faith. Zainab makes it clear that woman’s rights in the expression of clothing were not oppressive due to the political regime. I think that Iraqi culture, which has spanned so long is what causes the negative and oppressive treatment of woman in the novel, not the politics. In the United States women fought for the vote, were not given it, and now there is still massive gender inequality despite the democratic regime. I think that it is very apparent that woman are treated brutally in Iraq, as portrayed in the memoir, however I don’t think Hussein’s government was the reason why.
ReplyDeleteI believe that countries that deny women the same rights as men are more likely to have non-democratic governments because equality is not second nature in these settings. Obviously, Zainab does not live in an environment that fosters healthy relationships between men and women. Under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, women are oppressed, as highlighted by the nature of the system of marriage in Iraq. When Zainab has the opportunity to leave and get married in America, her mother tells her, "This is your chance, honey. Take it. Don't stay here and be like me. Escape. This is your chance to be free" (162). Although Zainab still finds herself oppressed while in America, I believe that this is because her oppressor (Fakhri) comes from a dictatorial government, and that the mindset from his earlier life has carried over to his life in America. The culture of dictatorial governments teaches that it is just for some people to be better, or higher ranked, than others. Because Iraq has a dictatorial government, inequality is dominant, so discrimination is more accepted. This leads to the "bars" that Zainab and her mother see all around them (162).
ReplyDeleteI don't think that that is necessarily true. I think that gender equality, or lack thereof, has more to do with the historical attitude towards women of the country in question. For instance, the first female leader of the modern world was Isabel Peron, who took over her late husband, Juan Peron, as the president of socialist dictatorship of Argentina back in 1974, five years before hussein became the official ruler of Iraq's own socialist party. And while her regime was so bad that she ended up being arrested by her own army in 1976, put into house arrest for the next five years, convicted of corruption charges that had caused a national economic meltdown, and eventually exiled to Spain, she did do a lot to improve women's rights and pave the way for them to hold important jobs in the government.
DeleteHere we have an example of a government with a similar kind of dictatorship as Saddam's, with a similar self-destructive tendency, at nearly the same time, only that the Argentine regime valued women and even viewed one as it's leader, whereas the Iraqi regime's elite enjoyed spending their weekends at one of their "rape palaces."
The difference is that in the americas, which originated from colonies, women were given relatively more respect from the beginning, because they needed to work just as hard as men for the wellbeing of their colony. Meanwhile, Iraq has a long tradition of arranging marriages, and even forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist to "withhold the honor of their family." Sure, while democratic governments encourage equality among their citizens, not all of them consider women to be just that, which leaves them even more oppressed than in an all male dictatorship, because at least everyone there is oppressed to a certain extent.
I agree with Kat and Elizabeth, many democratic countries give women the same rights as men as written in their constitutions, but the structure of these countries societies does not create an equality between men and women. A clear example of this is the United States of America, there has never been a women president. The laws of the United States of America allow for anyone over a certain age to run for president and yet there has never been a women president. This is not the political system, but instead society oppressing women and viewing them as second class citizens. What I am trying to convey here is that whatever political force is in power does not affect the equality between men and women. In Zainab's situation I do believe that the government oppresses women, but they also oppress men. The Iraqi society though is very strict about how women act and dress. Zainab has the choice to marry, to go to the United States and many other choices, I am not saying she has unlimited freedom, but she has just as much freedom as most men in Iraq coming from what I have read in her book. When Zainab comes to the United States she is in a worse situation then when she was in Iraq. Yes she was always scared for her life in Iraq, but she had her family and lived very comfortably. Once coming to America and marrying Fakhri things become miserable for her. She is forced to do chores around the house and is oppressed by her husband. The link between government and the oppression of women is difficult to find because almost all countries in the world have oppressed women, there for governments can not be blamed. I am sure there are instances where a government has targeted women, but for the most part it is societies biases and aggressions towards women that form an inequality.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is the practice of social equality. For democracy to work, all members of the state must have the freedom and right to contribute to the system of government. Thus, there is a correlation between the democratic freedom of a country and the political status of women in that country. A country's overall civil liberties are based on the personal and political freedoms of the lowest member of the society or the minority. Women in Iraq had more liberties than I previously had expected, especially Zainab’s more progressive family. Yet still, a woman was extremely dependent on her husband. This over-dependency is shown in both of Zainab’s failed marriages, as well as her mother’s marriage. Zainab is finally and emotionally dependent on her husband when she arrives in the US: “When he picked up my two suitcases off the baggage carousel, I felt as if he were literally holding my whole life in his hands”. Zainab’s mother faces a similar situation, as she wants to leave Iraq but is trapped because of her husband’s wish to stay. In addition, Iraqi women are treated as subservient and lack ownership over their own bodies. In the US, women have more liberties and therefore have the right to do things such as vote.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm kinda being repetitive here in saying that the democracy intends for every citizen to have the same rights but where it falls short is that there are cultural and societal aspects that play a bigger part in gender inequality. For example the Kurds have a long standing policy of women's rights and equality even though they have been in an area where oppressive regimes put women down. In regards to Zainab and her experience in this situation I think her intial freedoms as a child hurt her in the long run because it set up not only marriage but also adult life in general as a women to be some what of a let down because there isn't as much gender equality as she thought there would be. This is evident in her relationship with her husband in marriage.
ReplyDeleteI agree that culture is the primary driver of women’s rights. However, a political system is generally deeply ingrained in a culture. American culture is focused on liberty and freedom and thus it is possible for women to have a lot of freedom. The states in the Middle East have traditionally been ruled by a single dictator or king and as such that political system has been ingrained in the culture. As such when a specific government or leader tries to restrict or loosen women’s rights that government is often times just an expression of the culture. For example in America we have a culture of freedom and as such women have a lot of rights. In some other cases women have tried to gain some rights but those attempts failed because the culture did not permit it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I certainly believe there is a correlation between the state of democratic freedom of a country and the status of its women, one must question whether or not a causal relationship is present between these two factors. Does the presence of a dictatorship necessarily entail the systematic oppression of women? I would argue that this is not necessarily the case, at least not at all times. It is evident from Zainab's description of the hardships Iraqi women face (e.g.: Uday's "rape palaces," Radya's relinquishing of her education to financially support her brother's education, etc.) that Iraqi women are deprived of many civil liberties and basic human rights, ones that some American women are privileged enough to have. Although I do not believe that the political subjugation of women is only present in dictatorial regimes, I would say that Hussein's authoritarian dictatorship worsens the severity of the inequality faced by women because the face of this regime, Saddam Hussein, is a misogynistic bigot who condones -- or more accurately, encourages -- this type of behavior, whereas the leader of a democratic country such as the United States would be much less likely to do such a thing. It's important to note, however, that women are treated as second-class citizens in the United States as well. In regards to the domineering behavior Fahkiri exhibits towards Zainab, I would not say that this prejudice is solely a result of the Iraqi culture's influence of Fahkiri, because I could see a non-Iraqi, American man doing just the same as he. Nick mentions that America is governed by a culture that champions freedom and liberty. However, the obstacle that prevents women from being complete equals to men in the United States is that fact that these ideals of freedom and liberty are ingrained into the law through a top-down approach that makes it such that the American legal system can appear to be completely unprejudiced (even thought it's not), while the American culture still remains largely sexist towards women. In order for women to have the status of first-class citizens in a democratic country such as the U.S., reforms to law would have to be made not as a result of a top-down approach but rather from a grass-roots type movement in which ordinary people, rather than privileged, detached politicians, would appeal for laws or amendments they deem necessary for American society.
ReplyDelete
DeleteI agree with both Nicole and Kat when they mention that it is hard to establish a causal relationship between the status of women in a country and the type of government in charge of this country. There are so many other factors that we have to take into consideration. However, it has been proven in the past that women rights are more likely to be respected in a democratic state. During a period of war, women are the target of torture, rape and other atrocities.
It is interesting to see how Zainab portrays in her book the status of women under Saddam. And I believe that there is an interesting contrast within her own life. Of course, we now know that her perception of life under this dictatorship is biased as she was very privileged. But, for instance, one day she can walk alone in the city without any chaperone and the other day she will be terrified while waiting for Saddam’s visit. So it is interesting to see how Saddam wants to give her the illusion that she is free but actually keeps a huge control over her and her family. We can notably see the power of the control he has over women through Zainab’s mother. It seems like she is the one who is the most affected by his actions and his dictatorship. Finally, I agree with Nicole when she says that "the hardships Iraqi women face" are evident and undeniable.