What happened to Rania's empowerment of women?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

What happened to Rania's empowerment of women?

  • It's all about lies

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • void

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by shah reza@Apr 26th, 2004 - 11:36 am
WHAT HAPPENED TO RANIA’S EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN?
I voted it's all about lies,an ather way just a lot fuss for nothing and show propaganda.
 
I don't think that you gave us much of a choice here. Your poll is very biased.
 
I don't think that you gave us much of a choice here. Your poll is very biased.

I agree. How about giving us the option "Rania has nothing to do with Haya's marriage."
 
Originally posted by madonna23@Apr 26th, 2004 - 4:07 pm
I don't think that you gave us much of a choice here. Your poll is very biased.

I agree. How about giving us the option "Rania has nothing to do with Haya's marriage."
Yes i agree that QR doesn't have something to do with Haya's marriage,but she shows that she only talk talk and talk,if really she doesn't approving poligamy,the lesser thing to do is to don't take presence it that,at least she wasn't at Ali's engagement,she could to do the same in haya's engagement ,a way to show her disaprovement,but as i said what she says is a thing and what she acts is an other thing :angry: it's all about a show propaganda but the truth come out on now surface :rolleyes:
 
Sorry, I didn't vote for this because it's pretty obvious the opinion of the 'poll-starter'. (Don't know actual word.)

But as far as 'empowerment' goes-from what I learned in Women's Lib 101 is that empowerment is the right AND responsiblity to make the decisions that affects your personal life. If PH wants to marry a man many years her senior with a wife of 25 years! and many kids-then that is her right and responsibility under the definition of 'empowerment'.

So sorry girls, I think QRania is supporting empowerment by supporting PHaya in her decision to marry a man she loves.
 
Haya did not need Rania's "empowerment" to marry her Old husband. Haya is known for strong will power and her independence. Besides, assuming that she supports Haya's decision, this does not mean she is empowering her...maybe she is empowering herself as the new in-law is rich... :p
 
The thing that is a little weird is that Rania is patron of a program that helps women work at home--because their husbands won't let them out of the house! Is that a good thing? It's in the Jordan Times.
 
Originally posted by Bubbette@Apr 26th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
The thing that is a little weird is that Rania is patron of a program that helps women work at home--because their husbands won't let them out of the house! Is that a good thing? It's in the Jordan Times.
Yes, well, "empowerment" one step at a time instead of no steps at all.
 
The thing that is a little weird is that Rania is patron of a program that helps women work at home--because their husbands won't let them out of the house! Is that a good thing? It's in the Jordan Times.

She is interested in what is called small projects, and people involved in these projects are not the women who can't work out because there husbands won't let them to do, but for poor families with small budgets to start a small project at home or with a group of people.

is that good or not? yes and no, for those poor people it can be useful, but on the long term Jordan economy can not be improved by the small projects, it requires a huge projects that can employ a large number of people.

It seems that there is no coordination between her and KA who is interested in large projects of computer industries and others which depends on the foreign investors so its contribution to jordan economy is minimal, they should both understand that the true development need large projects with patriot investments.
 
what's empowerment? Idin't find it in my dictionary
 
Originally posted by alola@Apr 26th, 2004 - 11:39 pm
what's empowerment? Idin't find it in my dictionary
in other words,that's meaning making things and life better ;)
 
According to dictionary.com

empower means.......

1) To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.
2) To equip or supply with an ability; enable: “Computers... empower students to become intellectual explorers” (Edward B. Fiske).

And a not so short discussion on its derivative 'empowerment'.....

Usage Note: Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word empower is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with the legalistic meaning “to invest with authority, authorize.” Shortly thereafter it began to be used with an infinitive in a more general way meaning “to enable or permit.” Both of these uses survive today but have been overpowered by the word's use in politics and pop psychology. Its modern use originated in the civil rights movement, which sought political empowerment for its followers. The word was then taken up by the women's movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all political persuasions have a need for a word that makes their constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in control of their destinies, empower has been adopted by conservatives as well as social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena into other fields. ·The Usage Panel has some misgivings about this recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of the verb empower depends on the context. Eighty percent approve of the example We want to empower ordinary citizens. But in contexts that are not political the Panel is markedly less enthusiastic. The sentence Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be stages of experience that empower the individual garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The Panel may frown on this kind of psychological empowering because it resonates of the self-help movement, which is notorious for trendy coinages.
 
Don't be surprised if K. Abdullah pulls a second wife into the spotlight out of nowhere. There are rumors flying around that he may marry either a Saudi or Emirati princess. but then, I've been hearing these things for years and nothing has ever happened.
 
We all have to keep in mind that "empowerment of women" in the Middle East takes a different for than it does here in North America or in the rest of the Western world. Women's issues there are very different than the ones here.
 
She is interested in what is called small projects, and people involved in these projects are not the women who can't work out because there husbands won't let them to do, but for poor families with small budgets to start a small project at home or with a group of people.
is that good or not? yes and no, for those poor people it can be useful, but on the long term Jordan economy can not be improved by the small projects, it requires a huge projects that can employ a large number of people.
It seems that there is no coordination between her and KA who is interested in large projects of computer industries and others which depends on the foreign investors so its contribution to jordan economy is minimal, they should both understand that the true development need large projects with patriot investments.

I think it's better than nothing. At least for those people that need it, it is a short term solution that gives them a sense of accomplishment. You are right about large projects needed for the long-term, but I think you have to start with small steps. I believe there's a long-term plan in motion but it will only come in effect with the new generation of Jordanians who are being taught new skills in schools and encouraged to think big. The future of Jordan literally rests on them. It's up to KA and QR to initiate the changes and that's what they are doing by inspiring youngsters through new initiatives that gives the new generation hope. That's really all they can do at this time, set up the stage and be inspiring.

Also the problem you are talking about affects all Arab nations, not just Jordan. It's what each country needs to tackle.

TC
Barbara
 
What about honor killings? One thing I have never understood is how the JRF (KA, QR, QN, PA, and others) can speak out against honor killings, yet not put, if not a stop to them, at least the perpetrators behind bars for life. After all, it is an absolute monarchy. There is very little need for others to approve of anything the JRF wants to do. Can anyone shed light on that for me? It's puzzling.
 
Originally posted by papillon@May 8th, 2004 - 12:18 pm
What about honor killings? One thing I have never understood is how the JRF (KA, QR, QN, PA, and others) can speak out against honor killings, yet not put, if not a stop to them, at least the perpetrators behind bars for life. After all, it is an absolute monarchy. There is very little need for others to approve of anything the JRF wants to do. Can anyone shed light on that for me? It's puzzling.
From what I have read Jordan still has a parliament (mainly men) and it appoints a judiciary (all men).

Obviously these men feel threatened by the thought of giving women equal voting rights or the right to vote as they feel rather than how the men in their familys instruct them to vote.

You also have the cultural aspect. The dowry system is now illegal in India but it still goes on and young women who have little or no dowry either don't marry and are ill treated by their families or marry and are ill treated by their in laws.

I agree that honour killings are abhorent but it is a sad fact that a peice of paper saying that it is illegal won't stop it and there will always be ways to cover it up and people who are prepared to lie to sheild the perpetrators.
 
Thanks, Wymanda. Yes, I know it's partly a cultural thing, which the JRF cannot necessarily control. But in terms of the legal codes that permit these crimes to go virtually unpunished, KA could overturn them by royal decree if he wants. It wouldn't stop the murders, but it would allow the murderers to be punished. It's a start, and it would send a very strong message to the people that the JRF really DOES abhor these practices and is willing to put its power behind its words. Life or death. . .it seems like one of the more worthy causes to stick one's neck out for.
 
Originally posted by papillon@May 7th, 2004 - 11:35 pm
Thanks, Wymanda.  Yes, I know it's partly a cultural thing, which the JRF cannot necessarily control.  But in terms of the legal codes that permit these crimes to go virtually unpunished, KA could overturn them by royal decree if he wants.  It wouldn't stop the murders, but it would allow the murderers to be punished.  It's a start, and it would send a very strong message to the people that the JRF really DOES abhor these practices and is willing to put its power behind its words.  Life or death. . .it seems like one of the more worthy causes to stick one's neck out for.
They could start by making them illegal.

Another poster mentioned the Parliament. However, Parliament (when there is one) is subordinate to the King, and the PM is apppointed. Moreover, the system and electoral laws are set-up in such a way that they favour tribal leaders, who in turn vote the way the RF wants them to. Quid pro quo.
 
Originally posted by papillon@May 8th, 2004 - 12:35 pm
KA could overturn them by royal decree if he wants. It wouldn't stop the murders, but it would allow the murderers to be punished.
Yes, but would they be punished?

As I said you have a judiciary made up soley of men. It would be unlikely that they would hand down sentences to fit the crime. Most of them probably condone what these animals do.

The only alternative would be for KA to intervene and become lawmaker and Judge. This defeats the whole three arms of government scenario.

* Legislative
* Judicial
* Enforcement (Police)

Is KA to be all three rolled up into one man? I thought that was called a Dictator!
 
Originally posted by wymanda+May 8th, 2004 - 5:41 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 8th, 2004 - 5:41 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-papillon@May 8th, 2004 - 12:35 pm
KA could overturn them by royal decree if he wants.  It wouldn't stop the murders, but it would allow the murderers to be punished.
[/b][/quote]
Um, why not? People are often punished by the regime (headed by the king, by th way) for comitting_no_ crime other than speaking out (sometimes against the RF). Making the act illegal is certainly a start. You can't expect people to comply with a law that doesn't exist. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, by making it illegal, they will at least send a message and be able to socialize the younger generation appropriately.

A more likely reason might be because that the killings tend to be conducted in tribal areas outside the city, and the RF is weary of alienating tribal leaders because that is the base of its support.


As I said you have a judiciary made up soley of men.

I'm sorry, you're wrong, and to me at least, it seems you have a distorted image of Jordan and the actual power of the RF. Indeed, make no mistake, the King is the one with the power in the country. Anyway, *there* are female judges (at last count 19 of them), and over 1000 female practiding femal lawyers. So it is not solely the domain of men.

It would be unlikely that they would hand down sentences to fit the crime. Most of them probably condone what these animals do.

Personally, I'm astonished that you can that with such certainty. I may be mistaken, but your comment seems a litle ethnocentric to me. The judiciary is comprised of educated, trained individuals, not village parochials, and in theory, is independent. However, there is often interference by the executive branch (which is headed by the King). Moreover, the Judicial High Council (which appoints, promotes, and disciplines judges), is appointed by the King, as is the country's top Judge (who serves in the appeal court). All judges are appointed by royal decree.
Certainly you're not saying that the King appoints people who condone honour killings? Furthermore, all judicial reform/development are instigated by the royal court, with the King being deeply involved (as was the case in 1999-2000).

The only alternative would be for KA to intervene and become lawmaker and Judge. This defeats the whole three arms of government scenario.

* Legislative
* Judicial
* Enforcement (Police)

Is KA to be all three rolled up into one man? I thought that was called a Dictator!

Um, he already does intervene. Heavily. Moreover, the executive branch *does* promulgate legislation, the King dismisses parliament at will (for years), he appoints the senate (with loyalists), apppoints the government, approves or rejects all laws, is involved in the judicial system (see above), and is involved in enforcement (ie those who publicly speak out against the regime are punished).

:flower:
 
Sean, I see that you are understanding my point. In effect, KA is a dictator, as unpleasant as that word is to many of us. Jordan is not at all a democracy, so the three branches of government do not provide the checks and balances that we see in democratic nations. I guess I still don't understand why KA can't change by royal decree the penal codes in Jordan to be consistent with the Constitution (which provides for gender equality), see what kinds of sentences are then handed down to the killers, and, if they remain far too lenient, issue another royal decree with mandatory sentencing guidelines. It seems to me a way of making mere words of support to the women of the country have actual backing from the very top. The fact that KA or other members of the JRF who have clout haven't done more makes me think they really don't think these crimes are so awful.

But, Sean, your point about maintaining good relations with the tribal leaders is insightful to me. That could be the missing ingredient for me, perhaps explaining why no actions have been taken. Thanks.
 
Sean, I see that you are understanding my point.  In effect, KA is a dictator, as unpleasant as that word is to many of us.  Jordan is not at all a democracy, so the three branches of government do not provide the checks and balances that we see in democratic nations.

Hi Papillion.

Of course I see your point! :) I've written about the ME here extensively. We're on the same page.


But, Sean, your point about maintaining good relations with the tribal leaders is insightful to me.  That could be the missing ingredient for me, perhaps explaining why no actions have been taken.  Thanks.

Anyway, tribal relations is, in fact, the missing ingredient. Tribal (Bedioun) support is very important to the Hashemites. It helps keep them in power, especially since there isn't any love loss between the RF and the Palestinian majority. That's why the country's electoral areas favour rural areas over urban ones.

I guess I still don't understand why KA can't change by royal decree the penal codes in Jordan to be consistent with the Constitution (which provides for gender equality), see what kinds of sentences are then handed down to the killers, and, if they remain far too lenient, issue another royal decree with mandatory sentencing guidelines.  It seems to me a way of making mere words of support to the women of the country have actual backing from the very top. 


It's obvious you're familiar with Jordan's political system. IMO, such a change is the fundamental first step in changing attitudes within society. One would think it would be a relatively easy for an authoritarian leader to make the necessary changes. However, in this case, the political will is lacking.

Indeed, even in democracies, where governments _are _actually accountable to the electorate, the executive branch often has to take the 'bull by the horns' and pass (sometimes unpopular) legislation that protect the rights of the minority and/ or traditionally marginalized groups (look at the Indian constitution) from the tyranny of the majority regardless of the political fall-out.

Going around talking to religious leaders etc. like Rania does , isn't going to change much, IMO. Particularly since the RF has no moral authority with Islamists. After all, these are the same people the regime persecutes and marginalizes (giving rise to more radicalism) with impunity.
 
Originally posted by Sean.~@May 8th, 2004 - 2:55 pm
One would think it would be a relatively easy for an authoritarian leader to make the necessary changes. However, in this case, the political will is lacking.

Indeed, even in democracies, where governments are actually accountable to the electorate, the executive branch often has to take the 'bull by the horns' and pass (sometimes unpopular) legislation that protect the rights of the minority and/ or traditionally marginalized groups (look at the Indian constitution) from the tyranny of the majority regardless of the political fall-out.

My observation, exactly. All the words spoken against these crimes by the JRF ring hollow, once one realizes the power they have to change things.

Yes. That's why it's not called followership, but leadership! ;)
 
A more likely reason might be because that the killings tend to be conducted in tribal areas outside the city,

are you sure? I notice that the crimes happens more in the cities, as there are poor places there and hetrogeneous mix of people while rural areas are more homogeneous, conservative and abiding by relegion. I could not find any sources about the geograhical distribution of these crimes, do you have any?

and the RF is weary of alienating tribal leaders because that is the base of its support.

I remember that the tribal leaders participated in protesting law 340 of honor killing and they said that it is againest the Arab morals. while the lawyers are who supported the law.
 
are you sure? I notice that the crimes happens more in the cities, as there are poor places there and hetrogeneous mix of people while rural areas are more homogeneous, conservative and abiding by relegion. I could not find any sources about the geograhical distribution of these crimes, do you have any?


Yes, I'm pretty sure. This isn't to say that honour killingts don't happen in the city as well (or are you referring to crime in general?), paticularly among the lower socio economic strata and the uneducated. But it is the rural areas that tend to be more conservative and tribal, and thus more concerned with things like "honour". I do have statistics somewhere, and I can look for them. Anwar Syed had written a good analysis on the phenomenon. I will try and find the link for you. In the meantime, here is one news story/example on the subject.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1778891.stm


remember that the tribal leaders participated in protesting law 340 of honor killing and they said that it is againest the Arab morals. while the lawyers are who supported the law.
*Some* tribal leaders protested. And I don't think all lawyers supported the article. For those who don't know, article 340 states that:

'.A husband or a close blood relative who kills a woman caught in a situation highly suspicious of adultery will be totally exempt from sentencing.'

Btw, is it just me or are there lots of laila's on this board (same name, different spelling)? It's hard to keep track of who is who!! :flower:
 
Getting back to the original question of what's happened to QR's empowerment of women, one question I have is how can she really be effective when she stretches herself so thin over so many complex issues, both domestic and international? Does she delegate the actual work on these issues to her staff, then just do the site visits, speeches, and events herself? Given that all of us have only 24 hours in each day, and she has not only her official duties, but also her roles as wife and mother to look after, it just doesn't seem possible from a purely mathematical view for her to give each of her "causes" much personal attention. If it doesn't seem like she's made much progress on the empowerment issue, I would suppose it's in part because she isn't really able to focus much of her time and effort on it.

Anyone else ever wonder what the actual commitment level is to all these causes she presumably supports?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom