After the Palestinian election results and the recent win of Hamas, it was made apparent that women had been a big chunk of the vote and potentially responsible for the victory.
Thousands of volunteers, including female university students, were sent door-to-door to deliver Hamas' message -- that Islam protects women, that it offers them equal partnership with men, on the job and at home. While short on details, Hamas campaigners also promised free education for girls.
The question is what does this mean for women's rights? (Really?)
Seventeen of the 132 new legislators, or nearly 13 percent, are women. That's twice as many female legislators as in the outgoing parliament -- ostensibly a breakthrough in the male-run Palestinian society.The female Hamas legislators are newcomers to politics, recruited by the male leadership because of their appeal in their communities.
While many of the female Hamas activists are educated and accomplished, the group is pushing a conservative agenda.
Saleh said she would not oppose polygamy, which is practiced in the West Bank and Gaza, because it's in line with Islamic law. While under current practice, only men can end a marriage, Saleh says a woman should be able to end matrimony if she agrees to leave without a penny.
For me that is just not okay, but I do think it is great that women mobilized in general and that there are more women in the Parliment. What this truly means for any type of a feminist agenda is yet to be seen.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women vote in record numbers for Hamas..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1745
the hamas thing is a trip... these folks got elected by a decent margin.
i mean, dang, compare it to the US...
hamas got, what, a 57% mandate in an election that turned out 74% of eligible voters?
in 2000, bush got 47.87% of the vote by 50.4% of eligible voters and, in 2004, he got 51% of the vote of 56.2% of eligible voters...
seems like a pretty strong mandate to me... and, as a strong proponent of self-determination, i say "whoo hoo!" also, i think that it speaks volumes that hamas has female activists who are making their place within the organization and within the government... change will come from that...
radical change... people do better speaking up for their own intersts than other people coming in and telling them what's best for them.
it's also pretty fabulous that a group that spun off from the "muslim brotherhood" has opened itself up to not only using women in a grassroots capacity to turn out voters but has opened up a space for women to make policy... if the government stays stable (which depends on international interactions as well as the capacity of hamas to stay as corruption-free as they were when fatah was running the show), i think there will be quite a space for women's voices to be heard...
powerful... i hope that these folks can reign in the more violent elements more quickly than israel was able to reign in folks like sharon ('cos, well, if one of the cats resposible for the sabra and shatila massacre was able to come around and work for peace in his last years, who know what can happen...)
these are some crucial times... peace and blessings
I must preface, admitting a degree of ignorance in this region.
But I should think that basic human rights and not feminism are the issue here, therefore any step forward is should be heralded as a step in the right direction.
Peoples of the world should be entitled to run their own affairs at their own pace, whilst remembering we do not all seek the same destination.
beautifully put, nt... really...
i gotta take issue, though with the comment that "basic human rights and not feminism are the issue here" because basic human rights are feminism and feminism is all about ensuring basic human rights to all people. while there's certainly the adherents to a sort of liberal feminism that speaks specifically to issues affecting first-world women - glass ceilings, reproductive rights, etc., feminism, in its entirety, is not bound by this. further, it's very tricky to encourage ensuring "basic human rights" yet not ensuring the even distribution of those rights.
I do not disagree with you pucklish, but I just think it is counterproductive for "western" cultures to impose their ideals ... at this point.
My reason is this: if in this day and age of global "reductionism", the ignorant are only partly so, having the benefit of seeing what's coming. This then gives them the ability of foresight sans experience, and creates an environment of fear. i.e. don't show all your cards at once.
Don't forget a lot of women in other cultures actually "cherish", what to us, is tantamount to oppression ... and please don't misconstrue my intent. For want of a better illustration ... a wild animal that has be caged and mistreated, needs first, to be freed from fear and then assimilated back to its habitat. We are not so very different, fear can mark one forever, the hope would be, that the up and coming generation aspire to the greater good ... hence "Hamas campaigners also promised free education for girls."
Many men in other cultures are equally oppressed, uneducated and ill-informed which is hardly an environment conducive to debate, leading invariably to a flow-on effect to women. This is why I was asserting that basic human rights becomes the issue.
Take for instance the issue of vaccination, some were informed it was covert sterilisation, now how do you fight that ... education is the only way. Inspire to aspire that way one has a population base that demands change.
I live in an egalitarian society, yet still there are issue that are not … issues I mean. There are so many injustices, contradictions in this world, and on many levels, from one extreme to the other. Some cultures habitually abort foetuses for no other reason than the XX factor, to our own culture where the paternal name is the line of choice.
There is one eye and vantage point that has shaped how we look and talk about cities: that of the architect/interior designer. It is but one view, yet it predominates. A raft of glossy magazines reinforces the message. They are supported by an industry waiting to sell its product. There is a vast architectural publishing industry and so far more has been written about the look of places, but in very restricted terms, than the sounds and the smells of the city, for which there is no market to sell to. Occasionally you sense the architect and their critics reflect in each other’s glory.
Too few architectural critics and urban writers write with the ease and insight of James Howard Kunstler, who reflects a view of city life in its full dynamic. Instead, usually the tone is rarefied, its vocabulary dense, arid, precious or even pompous. The pictures are beautiful, yet lifeless and rarely peopled. The architectural object comes across too much as isolated, as if it had landed somewhat disconnectedly in the urban landscape. This is a reason why the profession stands accused of being self-referential. There is much left out; you are often not sure that someone is talking about a city within which people live. The confident tone and selfunderstanding reinforces the view that it is the architect who is really the city-maker.