Comments on: Constitutional Amendments: The 15th Amendment and Jordanian Women

By: Tololy’s Box » Blog Archive » 1st woman appointed as chief of court

Tue, 29 May 2007 06:59:58 +0000

[...] I hope Barakat and other leading Jordanian women would work to ensure that our laws do not contradict the constitution, like I found previously regarding women in the Jordanian labor law. [...]

By: tommy

tommy — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 04:33:11 +0000

The problem with Jordan is that there isn’t a proper division of power in the country. If power isn’t divided in such a way that no one person or group can arbitrarily overwrite the constitution de facto, then the constitution, whatever it may stipulate, is going to be pretty meaningless.

By: Tololy

Tololy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:25:40 +0000

Thanks Electro for the second time. I am sorry it took me
this long to post a reply, but as my most recent entry will tell you, I was
ill.

Jordanian law is not based on the teachings of Islam. Isn’t it a civil law
based on some European (French?) model? The constitution says that Islam is the
religion of the state, true, but laws outside marriage/divorce/inheritance/etc.
cases are not really Islamic (Note that I am not complaining, just stating the
obvious). Otherwise the state would force all women to be veiled by making it
illegal not to be veiled.

As for your second point, I do not advocate creating laws that go explicitly
against the will of the people. All I ask for is the removal of that most
unnecessary article from the Jordanian Labor Law. If women are oppressed
socially, and they are, why make it an article in the law to confirm their
misery?

That should be a first step towards liberating working Jordanian women.

By: electro

electro — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:59:54 +0000

Well said… probably we’re on the same page, but I have couple of points to stress, maybe to better understand the regulators’ point of view.

One) it states in the constitution article "2" (pray, pardon my ineloquent translation): "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic language is its official language", Islam as you may know has relieved women from any alimony duties and responsibilities, but also providing her with the choice incase she wanted to work, on the sole condition of her husband’s consent (family if she’s not married), that rule was consumed by tradition so that either the "choice" part is forbidden, or the whole concept of working is. But still, as the constitution denotes, Islam is the country’s religion, and Islam didn’t give total liberty to women when it comes to labor. And that fact is taken into consideration and is clearly stressed in the constitution, Article (23), paragraph (2-d) that says: “Special conditions shall be made for the employment of women and juveniles”. Therefore the law is -sorry to say - totally constitutional.

Two) "It must be someone’s duty to achieve social progress, and I think the government and the various laws are most equipped and capable of doing that, don’t you?" … mmm… I guess I don’t, laws that enforce laws that are not publicly welcome by the masses tend to create problems, take the Communism in USSR and Taliban for example.

All in all, I loved your post and the civilized manner you made your point, I’m sorry if my choice of words suggested anything but respect to your opinions. Looking forward to your next posts.

By: Tololy

Tololy — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:36:53 +0000

Hello Electro, I have a couple of things to say regarding
your comment and I hope you accept them as part of a civil discussion.

First off, I was very relaxed when I wrote that piece, thanks.

Second off, while I respect your opinion, I disagree that the law is not
demeaning or sexist. It is extremely sexist. To quote you "they did not name a certain profession
that women are prohibited from" therefore at any point in time they can
name a number of professions that women are prohibited from.

Besides, who are "they" to decide what women
can and cannot do, and go so far as to enforce these restrictions by law? If
this is a "special case paragraph for special cases" then why don’t
we have a similar one for women? At least be equal in inequality.

Article 67, 70, 71, and 72 of the Jordanian Labor Law
are all concerned with the needs of working mothers. Indeed, they are "considerate to women and contribute to the welfare of the
society." But don’t you find that the law’s only pro-women articles are a
bit too oriented towards "a woman’s traditional role"? I do, and I
find it fascinating.

I would like to comment on the
last part of your comment, that "regulations
taht [sic] are set here should go with the ‘mind of the
people.’" It must be someone’s duty to achieve social
progress, and I think the government and the various laws are most equipped and
capable of doing that, don’t you?

To argue that laws must always reflect social
restrictions means that society will always remain in the dark with no hopes of
recovery. It also means that laws should be passed in Jordan to
protect the killers charged in the so-called "honor crimes," and
there are laws of this nature. They ignited reaction, didn’t they? Ask yourself
why.

The point is, women in Jordan are socially restricted in
many, many ways. The law and those who compose it should at least reject that
(if we are to ever have a progressive society) instead of making it more
common, and making it legal.

By: Sewmouse

Sewmouse — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:42:16 +0000

I live in the United States. Have done all my life. Born and raised here. Born before the "Feminist" movement. I’ve lived in both ways - "Protected" by government and societal norms, yet restricted, and free of both "protection" and restrictions.

Electro, I do know one thing - if I had it all to do over again, I would STILL consider that:

equal pay for equal work,
the right to vote,
the right to own my own property,
the right to make my own decisions,
the right to education,
the right to freedom of movement and freedom of choice,
the right to decide for myself who to marry, or when, or if,
the right to say NO,
the right to dress and eat and do as I wish,
the right to a profession - of MY choice
the right to be a HUMAN BEING, and not PROPERTY

would STILL be more important to me than having some dork open the door and bow as I pass thru, or move out of his seat on a bus.