Comments on: Womens Learning Partnership: for Rights, Development and Peace

By: Rumbold

Rumbold — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:57:56 +0000

Excellent points Sonia; poverty and lack of connections in certain countries effectively disenfranchise large numbers of men- nobody listens to them and they cannot get justice if they are wronged.

By: sonia

sonia — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:31:26 +0000

Hi Umm Zaid thanks for your comment and it’s good to hear about this whispering campaign! And generally an insight into the situation in Jordan. Yes change definitely needs to happen, i suppose Queen Rania hasn’t the authority in the end to make these kind of changes happen, but interestingly as you point out, she has a lot of attention and media watching her, and one would hope she would push for something like this as much as possible. Of course it always also turns out that figureheads have to ask some bureaucrat to get things done. But still. I wonder if you’d seen the survey page on the Citizenship Campaign site - they are trying to gather as much info as poss on how it is in diffrent countries, it might be an idea to fill that survey in - the more people are putting information about their experiences across - the better.

By: UmmZaid

UmmZaid — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:28:03 +0000

In Jordan, there is a grass roots campaign (and by “grass roots” I mean from one woman’s ear to another) to make sure that we are all registering to vote and planning to vote, because of the growing momentum to change the citizenship laws so that we are truly equal.

Right now, there are many children, men, and women living in a sort of legal limbo because of this. I spent two and a half months — and a lot of money — this spring jumping through the hoops of residency b/c I do not have the right to bestow nationality on one of the kids. I am told I must petition the King. Yet his own wife goes on Oprah or to Vanity Fair and talks about how she wants this to be made equal. Well, that was 3 yrs ago. Now, the women of Jordan are working to try and change it themselves.

By: sonia

sonia — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:34:30 +0000

good one Rumbold - the key point is that somewhere along the line, some men decided it was alright to vote for these two particular women. till women actually can do what they want, without necessarily having that patronage..

also its not just a gender thing. if you’re a poor man, forget it. so it’s a pretty complex situation…all depends on a nexus of factors that determine your ‘power’ and the ‘place’ you have in society. Personally i’m an individualist, i think that any individual, regardless of background etc. should be able to do all sorts of things. and in different situations, different people are favoured.

there’s plenty of discrimination against men - say in the UK. i think in places like Bangladesh, because there is such a large gender gap, it is something to highlight.

By: Rumbold

Rumbold — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:59:48 +0000

Men will vote for women, but they will not allow women to vote for men.

It will be interesting to see if the army takeover destroys the power of the two begums, and if so, whether any more women emerge in their places.

By: Sumera

Sumera — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:54:47 +0000

Nepotism still rules the roost in some parts of the world.

By: Achelois

Achelois — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:44:20 +0000

I’m so sick of patriarchy! Blah!

Just publicised this on my blog.

By: sonia

sonia — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:54:31 +0000

yep Rumbold, very good point. Yes essentially its’ a dynastic thing. Generally how you are perceived depends on who your family is. Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of Sheikh Mujib who played the key role in the formation of Bangladesh, and Khaleda Zia is the widow of Ziaur Rahman who used gained power through a military coup in 1977.

The dynastic relevance is very significant in this particular dynamic, people generally tend to support one or the other party based on historic events.

By: Rumbold

Rumbold — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:48:44 +0000

What I always find strange about countries like Bangladesh is that while for the most part women are marginalized, there will be a few that rise to the top (like the heads of the BNP and Awani League) and men will happily follow them. Is it because the family name is the most important thing, rather than the person who has it?

By: sonia

sonia — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:19:05 +0000

thanks leighton and good points Daniel. I personally think in terms of individual rights and equality - because often the whole feminism thing tends to try and sort out one set of problems - but sometimes reinforces ‘groupthink’. and the idea - as far as i can see - is to get away precisely from this ‘groupthink’ which is what led to the idea that one group is one way ( therefore does one thing and has one set of rights) and the other group is another way and does another thing and so has another set of rights. And gender stereotypes and all that crap.

The thing about the nationality laws in Bangladesh - for example - is annoying is that Bangladesh as a nation has signed up to the UN Conventions that are about reflecting equality of individuals - so technically they have agreed to the right of women to equal citizenship. But we are stuck with some old laws which have wording which needs to be changed to align with the wider principles we are signed up to. But of course to get that wording changed in a place like Bangladesh - is difficult. This is what the effort is about. this affects me directly as any kids I may have won’t be a Bangladeshi national and would have to apply for visas to visit Bangladesh! cRAZY. so much for the ‘motherland’ idea!