A few days ago, I interviewed my first male candidate. He is considered to be a progressive in the Middle East, travelling all over the region to conduct workshops on civil society development and election monitoring. As the interview unfolded, it certainly felt as though I was seeing the light.
I noticed in the interviews I conducted so far that the women would be at a loss of words to explain why their strategies had failed; a dejected, frustrated, and sometimes resigned look that suggested the explanation was right there but they couldn't quite grab it. I finally understood why.
There seems to be a disparity in understanding the status of women in the country between men and women. This gender dynamic, when coupled with toxic relationships with the West, completely undermines the women cause.
Women activists see their female counterparts as unequal citizens that are oppressed by a dominantly patriarchal society. There is certainly ample evidence to back this up: blatantly discriminatory legislation, low participation rates, and violence just to name a few. The case seems clear, as it did when I spoke to each of my women candidates.
However, when I put this before my most recent participant, it all became jumbled. He managed to effectively dismiss these differences as trivial matters. Then, he would slowly play up the idea that these activists, NGOs, and concepts of women's rights in fact, were just slaves to Western (see American) organizations. He would divert the entire issue of women's movement, into a critique of American hypocrisy and imperialism.
This puts women's organizations in a dilemma. Their financial resource pool must rely on 'Western' organizations to operate - there is a near consensus on this matter. However, what enables their work unfairly delegitimizes their cause at the same time. They are so caught up in defending their funding and operational work that the real issues are pushed under the carpet.
He particularly brought forth the example of CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), as if saying, if the Americans don't sign it, then why should we? Since when was American policy the framework for morality in the Middle East? Did he ever think it might be a stance against 'American imperialism' by signing a document that the States did not ratify?
Then there is the matter of discourse. This has come up several times. The word gender was slandered by the media and certain religious leaders to mean 'homosexual'. A newspaper even suggested that the CEDAW document itself 'homosexual' in nature. This destroyed the campaign to ratify this convention and make constitutional amendments that would include women.
My male candidate seemed extremely angry at this, as if to say, "Serves you right for using such blasphemous language!" Ha ha, you used taboo word number 1234332. You don't get your rights this time around!
Do you see the theme? The most trivial issues, nuances in language or funding sources or a single article in a 40 page document, are used to delegitimize the entire cause itself. These organizations are left cleaning up the mess and scandals, while policy decisions are made under their noses. By the time they look back, it's all over and crucial political openings (which are hard to come by in this region in the first place) are missed.
It happened to me too. I was so busy digesting the irrelevance and moving the discussion back to the issues that I missed important openings to ask critical questions...
This is pretty much what goes on again and again and again and again. No wonder these women are exhausted.
I noticed in the interviews I conducted so far that the women would be at a loss of words to explain why their strategies had failed; a dejected, frustrated, and sometimes resigned look that suggested the explanation was right there but they couldn't quite grab it. I finally understood why.
There seems to be a disparity in understanding the status of women in the country between men and women. This gender dynamic, when coupled with toxic relationships with the West, completely undermines the women cause.
Women activists see their female counterparts as unequal citizens that are oppressed by a dominantly patriarchal society. There is certainly ample evidence to back this up: blatantly discriminatory legislation, low participation rates, and violence just to name a few. The case seems clear, as it did when I spoke to each of my women candidates.
However, when I put this before my most recent participant, it all became jumbled. He managed to effectively dismiss these differences as trivial matters. Then, he would slowly play up the idea that these activists, NGOs, and concepts of women's rights in fact, were just slaves to Western (see American) organizations. He would divert the entire issue of women's movement, into a critique of American hypocrisy and imperialism.
This puts women's organizations in a dilemma. Their financial resource pool must rely on 'Western' organizations to operate - there is a near consensus on this matter. However, what enables their work unfairly delegitimizes their cause at the same time. They are so caught up in defending their funding and operational work that the real issues are pushed under the carpet.
He particularly brought forth the example of CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), as if saying, if the Americans don't sign it, then why should we? Since when was American policy the framework for morality in the Middle East? Did he ever think it might be a stance against 'American imperialism' by signing a document that the States did not ratify?
Then there is the matter of discourse. This has come up several times. The word gender was slandered by the media and certain religious leaders to mean 'homosexual'. A newspaper even suggested that the CEDAW document itself 'homosexual' in nature. This destroyed the campaign to ratify this convention and make constitutional amendments that would include women.
My male candidate seemed extremely angry at this, as if to say, "Serves you right for using such blasphemous language!" Ha ha, you used taboo word number 1234332. You don't get your rights this time around!
Do you see the theme? The most trivial issues, nuances in language or funding sources or a single article in a 40 page document, are used to delegitimize the entire cause itself. These organizations are left cleaning up the mess and scandals, while policy decisions are made under their noses. By the time they look back, it's all over and crucial political openings (which are hard to come by in this region in the first place) are missed.
It happened to me too. I was so busy digesting the irrelevance and moving the discussion back to the issues that I missed important openings to ask critical questions...
This is pretty much what goes on again and again and again and again. No wonder these women are exhausted.
No comments:
Post a Comment