For all their pro-active publicity, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice can’t seem to keep its mission straight. Saudi Gazette/Okaz report on an incident in which the religious police in Riyadh took it upon themselves to disrupt a British Education fair, sponsored by the British Council, because it involved ‘intermingling of the sexes’. No Commission authority seems to know anything about the incident, which is being investigated by the Riyadh Emirate.
Probe into Vice cops raid of British universities fair
Abdullah Al-GhamdiRIYADH – The Riyadh Emirate on Tuesday ordered an investigation into last Sunday’s disruption of a British Universities Fair at Yamamah College here by members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Haya) objecting to intermingling of men and women.
The investigation order was issued by Acting Emir Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz.Fair supervisor Abdulaziz Al-Sharikh said the vice cops entered the campus late in the afternoon posing as representatives of a government body. College security staff could not stop them.
Once inside, the Haya men went around asking Saudi women to leave the fair at once, he said.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
January:28:2009 - 23:57
I read this the other day and thought about how the religious police never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Also, what a selling point for the British university reps. They could point and say “This is what DOESN’T happen at England’s universities. So, sign up here if you disapprove of the mutaween’s activities.” Let the brain drain begin and see where Saudi society ends up in 15 years or so. Young people leave countries when social conditions don’t meet their approval. Why stay around when you’re treated this way?
January:29:2009 - 01:05
Well, up ’til now, Saudis have a very strong tendency to return to the Kingdom after foreign education. It sometimes takes them a while–long enough to get a PhD—but they come back. I think the danger of brain drain in the KSA is markedly less than in countries that are economic disasters.
Perhaps those who get a chance to see for themselves that a liberal education does not mean rooting like hogs in depravity can come back and serve usefully to make reforms. I’d like to hope so, anyway.
January:29:2009 - 08:37
Once again if I raise that issue with collegues or friends they will not believe me and tell me: how could you live many years in such countries ? I never lived in KSA, only in neighbouring countries, but for the average Westerner all of the Middle Eastern countries are similar, aren’t they ?
Let’s hope (as you say John) that more Saudis will get the chance to leave KSA, see that there are sound people living outside, then come back home and serve their community.
February:01:2009 - 19:19
No sorry Michel, not all of the countries are the same…. Is Utah similar to Florida? If you wanna compare Lebanon or even Syria to KSA, you will find a huge difference in alot of things even the language. Yes they all speak Arabic, but all have different lingos. Secondly about this event,,, you have to have lived here and understood its people— both sides of the coin— not just what we as westerners think is right or fair. I guess it depends upon how the Haya behaved, where they rude and beligerant or well mannered? You have to understand this society. We cannot just come and impose our own ideals. There are many many women who are highly educated, honestly, I worked with many and interact with some on a personal level and some of them would not want to go to a mixed gathering— its just much more comfortable than going to a crowded place where you are going to maybe get jostled or bump up against strange men. I as one, who have come to understand their ‘method to their madness\ if I may, have found that what these women say is really true, I also have enjoyed ‘freedom’ by being in women only activities. Its not so ‘backward’ as people make it out to be.
February:02:2009 - 08:26
Kirsten,
Thanks indeed for your post;
apparently I have not been clear in my own post; the opinion I was expressing (… for the average Westerner all of the Middle Eastern countries are similar) belonged to collegues & friends of mine not to me;
as my experience with Saudis is recent(one year only) I will definitely trust people like you when I need reliable information on KSA; now my 25 years over the Middle East and my knowledge of Arabic (though Al Lougha Al Fous’ha only) have given me a certain knowledge of the diversity and ways of doing of Iraqis, Omanis, Kuwaitis, Yemenis, etc
But you’re right one needs to learn more from others and that’s one of the reasons why I’m here on this blog where many of you know a lot about KSA and feed me with varied and interesting information.
February:02:2009 - 09:15
I agree that many Saudi women are happy with their circumstance. There are many others, though–particularly those yet to move into the middle class–who suffer from the deprivation of even basic human rights. Speaking out for them is not saying ‘my ideals are better than yours’, but instead demanding that a minimal set of rights be recognized. There are Saudi women and girls who live in conditions not far removed from chattel slavery. Even the Saudi media reports on them, so it’s not any ‘cultural imperialism’ driving the discussion.
Issues like women’s driving or the mandatory nature of the abaya are trivial. Much of the argument against them, coming from the West, are driven more by the perception of feminism than of basic human rights.
I don’t think that arguing against marrying off 8- or 10-year-olds to older men is cultural imperialism. I don’t think that permitting Saudi women the same access to law as is given men is ‘imposing Western values’.
I absolutely agree that at least some Saudi women are the most competent, brightest, and accomplished women on earth. They are far from the majority of women in the Kingdom, however.
February:02:2009 - 13:06
Yes, John, I think alot of your points are valid. I believe that no country can claim being without problems. HRC here is working on outlawing the child bride cases. One thing that makes me very upset when I hear about it happening, especially like in India and Pakistan, are forced marriages. This is so much against the rights of women that are listed within the religion itself. Women are supposed to give their consent, otherwise the marriage is null and void. I remember clearly when I got married the Sheikh specifically asked me if i was being pressured into this union! You are right about the driving and abaya. One princess told me that there are much more urgent issues within the kindgom for women than those two. As it is, the use of abaya and especially the face cover is really looseing up– in Jeddah and Khobar you can find women in jeans at times! And now young women often do not cover their faces.
Just to add some funny information— in several of the schools I have seen in Riyadh, when a school starts they do so with the girls section! It means that girls are entering schools at a higher rate and more and more women’s colleges and universities are being built to try and keep up with the need and demand of women seeking higher education.
February:02:2009 - 13:10
Michel, it would be interesting to hear more of your trips… I wish more people could come to these countries– however sometimes I become very upset with the decay and filth when Islam demands cleanliness of both person and home…. but when it comes to public spaces, people seem to think others will pick and clean up.
But its really an eye opener to really go to the countries and find out all what we new growing up is not really true.
thanks
February:02:2009 - 13:44
Saudi women are shaming their male counterparts when it comes to education and willingness to take jobs. The men had better start pulling up their socks, or to be perhaps more culturally sensitive, pull down their thobes.
February:02:2009 - 13:45
Something I noticed living in the Arab world is that while there is great respect for personal property, public property doesn’t have a mental niche. If no individual owns it (i.e., is responsible for it), then nobody owns it and nobody is responsible for it. Trash in your walled compound? Throw it over the wall and it’s gone! All tidy and clean… inside the walls.
February:02:2009 - 14:23
I think the driving issue is actually very important for two reasons. Firstly, it is a high profile example of the medieval interpretation of “guardianship” of women. Once they can drive it will blow the top off a lot of what is happening here.
Secondly, probably most Saudi woman/households cannot afford a driver (then there is the whole issue of COMPETANT driver) The educated middle to upper class, and royals can all afford a driver and don’t seem to realize how badly off their less economically able sisters are doing. I have worked with women here, who have the bulk of their income paying a taxi driver to get to and from work.
Anyway, as someone who feels it is an “in my face” insult and reminder of my inferior status everyday- not being able to drive IS a big deal.
February:02:2009 - 14:42
February:02:2009 - 16:13
I agree with both points you make. I think, though, that there are more important or larger issues that need to be addressed first. Guardianship on the whole needs to be re-examined, not just the part that interferes with a woman’s driving. Her abilities to travel where she wants, when she wants, with whom she wants strike me as more fundamental than how she wants.
This isn’t to deny the symbolism of driving a car, of course. But by focusing on driving–as many critics in the West do–is to lose sight of the more fundamental question beneath it. That is why, in my experience, so many Saudi women just start rolling their eyes when a Westerner starts on about driving.
February:02:2009 - 23:53
Kirsten said, “One princess told me that there are much more urgent issues within the Kingdom for women than these two.”
ONE GREAT HUMBLE MAN GAVE ME THE answer to the question of what the more urgent issue is…The issue IS….Bang Tut Tut… Drum Roll PLEASE
——— WOMEN HAVE NO LEGAL STATUS IN SAUDI! ———-
February:03:2009 - 14:12
If women can drive it automatically weakens mens guardianship. The reason I think it is important(besides the obvious) is it’s well-positioned, and high profile and will push the guardianship issue immediately.
I’ll believe it isn’t important, or that it is mostly symbolic when unpriviledged women trapped at home- or spending most of their hard earned wages on taxi’s- tell me it isn’t a big issue. This is not a place with good public transport. Or where you can go walk to the store or the park. Being stuck year after year, in your home all day, can be like living in a cage. It isn’t healthy. It is a very big deal for most women. But these women are not the ones who have a voice in the media or who interact with the westerners when they visit here.
And then there is the generel disfuction to society. Here is how it goes. Husband drives kids to school. Then takes off mid-day to drive them home. After work hours he takes care of shopping for the household Dr. appointments etc. If your child gets sick- your husband had best take off work. Exam schedule at school? Father takes off work. I can’t believe anything gets done here.
On the positive side, women can now travel on airplanes within the kingdom without a note
And Sparky, that isn’t true. Women DO have legal status in Saudi Arabia. They own property, have bank accounts, are issued ID cards and have passports. BUT they have a male guardian. We never get to really grow up.
February:03:2009 - 14:35
All your points are well taken. I, too, have heard Saudi men complaining about the burden women’s not driving places on them and their jobs.
Still, though, it appears that not all Saudi women–not only those who can afford drivers–have moral qualms about driving. I don’t think they should hold veto power, but neither should their opinions be blithely disregarded.
I think it’s an issue the Saudis need to address, but I see it coming as the result of other changes, not as the motor to make those changes. I can certainly be wrong.
February:03:2009 - 14:53
They are addressing it and we hope that first stages will come in a year or so. A lot of talk on the tables, but its really about implementing it. Streets are already really crowded, and driving can sometimes be dangerous, and systems for supporting women in case of accidents are not yet in place. I see that women driving will be a gradual change, but it IS coming. Its all about logistics.
About the cost of taxis etc… see the whole pic— they will have to afford a decent car and insurance. Its not like you are exchanging for something almost free…
Grace, thanks for answering Sparky as I just drew a complete blank on that one…. You know how I see alot of problems here? They are similar to what happens in the states as well… How many women cannot afford a second car? How many women are severely abused by their husbands? This is not just an Arab right of beating women… How many women in the state are sill seen as property of her husband— its still on the books of many state by laws… they just never took it off as society changed. Alot of women I bet do not even have their own accounts if they don’t work, and are left to the whim of their husband as to how much they get to spend per month. These and many more are social issues that affect women the world over.
There is room for improvement no matter where we look sah? I love this: be the change you want to see in the world!
It is very nice discussing things with you all— need more people like you
February:03:2009 - 15:25
There is an interesting article on Al Watan recently, I haven’t seen its English version but the writer really sets the heat on what happened in Yamama and also other incidents. A recent one for a Palestinian living in Saudi for his whole life and runs a photography club. He got permission from the officials to arrange a photography session trip. Vice police detained him and their argument started from illegal arrangement of a mixed event to Photography of elemnts with soul is forbidden.. to your Iqama says you are a student and you are not allowed to photograph here and he risks his iqama in Saudi (which he debunked all with official documents). If that doesn’t look like targeted attempt to convict the fellow of wrong doing.. they decided if they cannot skeletons in his closet.. they will have him sign on a piece of paper that he will never do it again.. illegally mixing with other sex.. such a phobia.. since the trip was into public landmarks in jeddah.
The article continues about the latest fumbles and contradictions of Vice police where they interfere in the government approved events.. and how their phobia left the park owner who organized a play for kids is now sitting in jail for four months… it discusses the fear mongering attitude of a mixed environment.. and how it hinders Saudi plans for the future.
I think it was relayed in other websites.. even Al Arabiya, I am not sure if it was translated though. http://alwatan.com.sa/news/writerdetail.asp?issueno=3049&id=9341&Rname=62
February:03:2009 - 15:41
Kirstin, I hope you’re right, that it is coming soon. I’ve been hearing that for the last 20 years though. They’ve had time to put the systems in place- if they wanted to. And so now I’m teaching my sons to drive- and then I’ll have more drivers! Which of course is another danger of the current system. I see these boys who look 12 driving around all the women of the family. I do take your point about car expenses. The point still is, it is a persons choice. I would never force ANY woman here to drive. But they shouldn’t stop me.
I really think they are crippling things with this gender apartheid business. The irony they don’t see, is that it is impossible to fulfill the required Islamic rite of pilgramage without it- including all the physical jostling. I think if it’s ok with God it should be ok with these Haya men. They all need a new hobby different than fixating on women.
And while I agree issues of domistic abuse etc are similar everywhere, I doubt there are any laws still on the books in the US that give men legal power over women, though of course circumstances can sometimes have the same effect. But legal protections are in place.
February:03:2009 - 15:45
John, It wouldn’t matter a great deal to me which comes first- the driving or the more equal legal status- but the round and round and excuses is sometimes ridiculous.
February:03:2009 - 17:36
The Haya will be its own undoing if it continues to irritate those who support it. Annoying people by telling them that what they consider to be decent behavior is, in the Haya opinion, a sin, is one way for sure to lose their support.
The fact that certain places are ‘protected’ against the Haya is not a secret in Saudi Arabia, either.
February:03:2009 - 17:40
Only ‘sometimes’ ridiculous?
February:03:2009 - 22:07
I stand by what I said in that women have no legal status. When a woman needs a guardian to transact on her “legal” behalf IMO she has no Real Legal Status. For example, let us say the Saudi government lifts the ban on women driving tomorrow that DOES NOT guarantee women the RIGHT to drive. Her legal guardian can VETO her driving and anything else in her life. If a guardian does not want his “whatever” to work, all he needs to do is call her place of work and say, “As her guardian, I do not want her to work.” And you know what, the work must dismiss her. Do you still believe women in Saudi have legal status.
Also, I argue “No Legal Status” = “We are not allowed to grow up”
So I differ on you concerning what is Legal Status. The only legal option a woman might have is to transfer her guardianship, and I do not have statistics on how easy it is for Saudi women to do this. Women in Saudi have an identity e.g. Photo I.D.s and that is quite recent the government has pushed for women to have them. And again I differ with you in terms of legal status.
I posted a while back about a husband who refused to do the paperwork for his own child. He had divorced the mother and the mother’s own father and brother refused to take the husband to court. The girl’s uncle had to take the husband to court. Would the mother have the right by herself to sue in court…or would she HAVE to appoint a power of attorney. Because we are not allowed to grow up, we are not even allowed to question such absurdities.
A woman needs a man/ “guardian” to do her legal transactions. Unless, that has changed, please enlighten me on the subject. Also can a women get a passport without her guardian’s consent? I am not trying to dismiss what little progress has been made. I am making my point and standing by it.
February:03:2009 - 22:30
“In law legal status refers to the concept of individuals having a particular place in society, relative to the law, as it determines the laws which affect them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status
February:03:2009 - 22:51
Sparky,
Yes they have legal status. You do not need your guardian to do your legal transactions for you. They do not have EQUIVILANT status with men- but it is still legal status- even according to the definition you just posted.
Saudi has a largely uncodified law- which lends itself to more than the usual amount of absurdity at times when there are court cases, and outcomes hinge on the particular judges interpretation of Shariah. These strange things happen to both men and women in court. But yes, women have more of a disadvantage because they have fewer rights.
February:03:2009 - 22:56
John,
///The Haya will be its own undoing if it continues to irritate those who support it. Annoying people by telling them that what they consider to be decent behavior is, in the Haya opinion, a sin, is one way for sure to lose their support.////
I’d like to think so. They don’t have as firm a grip in Jeddah. And it is good they can no longer take people into custody. And certainly the newspapers seem allowed to write about peoples “problems” with them.
Yes some places are protected- not Starbucks!
And I did mean “ridiculous” without the qualifier!
February:03:2009 - 23:04
I agree with you that the uncodified nature of Saudi law leads to absurdities and abuses.
But I also have to agree with Sparky, to a large extent anyway, that when a woman cannot go into a courtroom to prosecute a case or defend herself, she indeed has something less than full legal status. When women get on the wrong side of the law (or the Haya), they cannot sign papers accepting responsibility by themselves and for themselves. Instead, they have to have a male take legal responsibility. That’s less than ‘equivalent’.
February:03:2009 - 23:06
In areas where people are willing to think for themselves–and have at least some in the government supporting them in that–then the Haya loses power. Where people are either happy to be told what’s what, or where local government will always side with the Commission, it holds onto it.
Still, the whole ‘wasta effect’ makes the entire enterprise hypocritical at the very least.
February:03:2009 - 23:29
Grace
Banking transactions are not what I had in mind when I said, “legal transactions”. At this link http://www.answers.com/topic/transaction there is a Law Definition of “legal transactions” which states “The doing or performance of some matter of business between two or more persons,..” I know a few stories of women trying to register the name of their company and needing their “guardian” to do it for them and doing it incorrectly at that.
“UN CEDAW Committee Reviews
Saudi Arabia on Women’s Rights available at: http://www.wunrn.com/news/2008/01_08/01_14_08/011408_saudi.htm
‘Without a man’s consent, a woman cannot study or get health service, work, marry, conduct business or even get an ambulance service in an emergency,’ she said.
Are you saying the above is untrue? Unless some recent laws have passed, I can assert the above is true.
Another article “Saudi Arabia: Male guardianship policies harm women” is available at:
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Saudi-Arabia-Male-guardianship,3039
Also Grace can you please back up your assertion in your first paragraph with proof or examples. You said, “You do not need your legal guardian to do your legal transactions for you. They do not have Equivalent status with men – but it is still legal status – even according to the definition you just posted.”
I think we have established common working definitions of “legal status’ and “legal transactions”. The humble man I referred to in the previous post # 14 happens to be a well respected Saudi in an important position in society who understands these issues (“women’s issues”) well.
I would have to disagree with you especially in regards to the definition I posted; unless, you can provide evidence to back up your assertions I stand by my position.
Thank you
February:03:2009 - 23:56
DW I agree that men are absolutely abused too by the Vice. I just defend women mostly because I am a woman myself.
I think men need to say “Enough of this nonsense to the Vice!” and then women’s dignity will automatically follow.
And everybody should be walking their dogs, cats or lizards down the street. Bring your pets or animals with you…
Animalistic intermingling
February:04:2009 - 01:39
This is brief because I have an appointment to go to. But yes, I know the business laws for women have changed significantly in the last couple years. They do not need a “kafeel” to do everything for them. There does not have to be “women’s” sections of every business- there are now some non-segregated working environments. However, the Haya doesn’t like it and there is a sort of turf war between 2 ministries about the mixing that goes on.
Some of what you have said is absolutely true- I never claimed that women had equal legal status- just legal status. There is a difference. However, you have a point and want to stick with it- so I just suppose we disagree.
February:04:2009 - 02:17
Sparky,
We have established perhaps a definition of legal transactions- but not legal status. They are two different things.
As for
///The humble man I referred to in the previous post # 14 happens to be a well respected Saudi in an important position in society who understands these issues (”women’s issues”) well.///
I know lots of these- and I’ve never heard one of them make this claim.
February:04:2009 - 03:43
Sparky,
“While there is no law prohibiting women from obtaining licenses to open businesses, they face many obstacles. Applications for licenses in most sectors were denied because most governing ministries did not have women’s sections that could monitor the business. Even though the commerce ministry abolished the requirement for a woman to have a male representative with her whenever conducting business transactions with the government, reportedly many government agencies still insisted on this requirement.
In hospital settings and in the energy industry, women and men worked together, and in some instances women supervised male employees. The 2005 labor law expanded the right of women to maternity leave and required employers to provide child care if they employed 50 or more female employees.”
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100605.htm
So the legal status has changed- implementation remains quite spotty but definately progressing. Otherwise there would be no need for the just-passed-laws about sexual harassment which has now become a problem with the increasing mixed workplace. I personally know several people working in gender mixed environments.
I have been personally waited on by women, working with men, in shopping malls as well. And I was personaly stopped by an undercover woman security agent in Toys R US for opening a game box (I wanted to make sure all the pieces were there).
February:04:2009 - 09:12
Hi Grace,
Your examples still have nothing to do with “legal status”. The humble man is the President of the Human Rights First organization, Ibrahim Mugaiteeb, and he has been jailed many times and violently interrogated in the past. He gave me permission to use him name as I am a member of the organization as well and he fears little lest the truth.
Your examples only further support my claim. Specifically, “Even though the commerce industry abolished the requirement for a women to have a male representative with her whenever conducting business transactions, reportedly many government agencies still insisted on this requirement.”
Yes, you will not find many humble men making such claims. The statement “women have no legal status” was said to me only five months ago, so I doubt a lot of laws have been passed in that timeframe to make that statement at this point untrue. Yes, we can agree to disagree.
The reason I am harping on this is because you said a princess said to you there are more urgent issues than women driving and that is the same thing Ibrahim said to me. He then said, “women have no legal status” and said “mature up a little!” So what was the more urgent issues according to the princess that is if we are going to prioritize. I would say child marriages and all laws protecting the rights of children are a priority. What about a women’s “legal status” to protect her children?
February:04:2009 - 10:34
Sparky,
BY DEFINITION Saudi women have UNEQUAL LEGAL status. This man is wrong on this point. I know who you mean, and I respect his work- that does not mean he is always right. He was probably trying to highlight the inequality of it. And I know women with business licenses in their own right- it is fairly recent, but it certainly is happening.
And that is my only point. You (and he) are misusing the terms. There actually ARE people here with no legal status- those are the bidoons- and they really have it bad.
But yes, the status of women is terrible, unequal, etc. etc. I think our quality of “legal” status is a violation of human rights in and of itself. But you can’t redefine the term just because a man, no matter how knowledgable said something.
And that’s not what a princess said to me. You are mixing me up with someone else.
February:04:2009 - 11:04
According to the definition I posted I still think women do not have a legal status and I would agree it is horrible. I think the beduins have no identity (records I.D. etc.) which would also make them have no legal status.
“In law legal status refers to the concept of individuals having a particular place in society, relative to the law, as it determines the laws which affect them.”
What is a women’s place in society relative to the law when the law requires her to have the following?:
1. Wakil — A legal proxy.
2. Wali al-amr — The guardian who acts on behalf of a minor or any person not qualified to act in legal matters on his or her own behalf.
3.Wilaya — Guardianship or the appointment of a person to act on behalf of and in the interest of a person of limited legal capacity.
Perhaps the word “NO” is too absolute, but it is pretty close to it when women have in actuality no legal capacity to legally represent, defend or pursue, by themselves minus 1,2, 3, those laws which affect them.
I apologize for confusing you with Kirsten regarding what the princess said.
All I can say is Thank God for outside pressure…
Sidenote: My bank account would always freeze…WHY? Because my iquama would expire and I would have to wait on my sponsor to renew it. I can’t act by myself to renew it. So whenever my sponsor got around to doing it and when I could get to the bank, that is when my money would be available to me. If my sponsor wanted to take his sweet old time, granted there is a small fine for being late, I would have no other choice but to wait and be out of money. There are so many more examples like this….
February:04:2009 - 13:20
This is getting ridiculous. Children in the US have a legal status. Women in Saudi have one as well. For that matter slaves in the American south had a legal status. Their position relative to the law, was that they were property. An owner could beat or mistreat them- anywone else would have to pay compensation. The owner could sell them. They had a clearly defined relationship with the law.
Saudi women no longer need wakil’s I know many that function without them. I have a friend here who has been going through an extensive court case over some business issues and she represents herself.
Is the law uniformly enforced? No. Is the type of status good? No. Is there room for massive improvement yes. Is it fair no. Do women have legal status? Yes. By your definition they do.
Bedouins DO have legal status for the most part- unless some of them fall in the “bidoon” catagory. Bidoons have no citizenship, no passports, no school, no rights to anything.
The situation here is dire for many women I know. To confuse it with claims they have no legal status just detracts and makes you look wrong right from the start. False claims don’t help. There are PLENTY of legit things to find wrong.
And BTW I have friends in abusive situations, basically hostage to child custody/economic issues. They still want to drive. Not being able to complicates their day to day lives. I don’t see a need to prioritize. I never tell people their issue should wait. They are all important because they have the same root which is the whole guardianship business.
February:04:2009 - 15:15
Might we agree with the following?
I think both Sparky and Grace are correct in what they’re saying, but seem to be talking past each other in assessing the details of the other’s arguments.
February:04:2009 - 18:26
It does get ridiculicious at times…
I never said children in the US do not have a legal status.
At least slaves had a position relative to the law like you mentioned; They were property. Women have a representative or a proxy if you will, as their a legal status, so in effect the proxy is the legal status of the women which hypothetically means another human being is that woman. Perhaps that is ridiculous to you and other readers, but I can asssure you there are others out there who would understand where I am coming from. I do not find debate ridiculous at all. New learning is aquired etc., etc.,. I appreciate your postings.
Perhaps for legal business transactions, some women have begun operating without a wakil/ proxy, but I wonder if they have the other factor too which is ‘wasta’.
Just as there is the cutting edge disparity in workers wages’ for unjust and baseless reasons; so is there uneven application of laws passed that supposedly give a woman the right to have an independent legal status apart from a proxy in examples relating to business transactions. Assuming the application/ enforcement of those laws (e.g. a business transactions) is not granted what recourse does a woman have in regards to her legal status? Can she go to the courts alone and sue or does she need a representative? Male guardians are impersonators.
When all else fails, the “legal status”, assuming they have one, sucks. At least with property it is clear where one stands or sets and one is categorized as at least an object.
February:05:2009 - 03:27
Actually John, even at its best implementation women do not have equal rights. My only point here is that they DO have legal status. And that has really been my only point. Not that it is a good or adequate status- because as a woman living here- I assure you I know it is not.
Sparky,
I do know women who have gone to court, and not legally needing a wakil is a big step. Simply because it is a necessary first step. In the US when discrimination became illegal, the law was not applied evenly and people could still arque it isn’t equal.
As I’ve said. Women can and do go to court. And they use proxies as well (as do men sometimes-it is basically a power of attorney). And no- Male guardians are not all impersonators. Some are very concientious of trying to fulfill their responsibility to their female family members at the request of those same women who are so practically disadvantaged. Many of them would like the laws and enforcement of laws changed as well.
February:05:2009 - 11:37
The institutionalisation of “male guardianship” is impersonation. I do not believe a man helping his family or defending them etc. constitutes impersonation. I believe that Islam does have some rules which are grossly abused and misrepresented by the institutionalisation of “male guardianship”.
I took my husband to court once about 8 years ago. He made a scene and we were both kicked out as a result. Basically, it came down to the judge saying, “You and your wife get outta here.” which left me only more confused. Women going to court by themselves (without representative) is weak…at best. Perhaps things have changed and I really hope that things have and that there are success stories.
Would you agree that a woman’s legal capacity which falls under the category of “status” is grossly limited and at times non existent due to the institionalisation of “male guardianship”.
Definition of Status
Sum total of an entity’s legal capacity, duties, liabilities, rights, and standing.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/status.html
Definition of Legal Capacity
Power provided under law to a natural person or a juridical person to enter into binding contracts, and to sue and be sued in its own name.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-capacity.html
February:05:2009 - 12:35
Sparky,
////Would you agree that a woman’s legal capacity which falls under the category of “status” is grossly limited and at times non existent due to the institionalisation of “male guardianship”.////
I’m not sure what you mean by falls under the catagory of status- but I absolutely agree, with one sad exception.
It seems to me if a woman is tried and convicted of any crime, the punishment meted out is as if she is fully adult. Seems to me if we are paying the full adult price for mistakes, we should get the full benefits of adult decision-making.
Overall, I don’t know how much has changed. I’d say the cutting edge is further along definately, and a few things especially in the business world have been codified- probably because of WTO membership. But application is very inconsistant.
February:05:2009 - 21:12
I agree with your statement,
“It seems to me if a woman is tried and convicted of any crime, the punishment meted out is as if she is fully adult. Seems to me if we are paying the full adult price for mistakes, we should get the full benefits of adult decision-making.”