Abused, Discriminated Against and Labeled as the Enemy
Written by Raghda Butros
In addition to the importance of discussing the rights of girls and women in our society, I believe there is also a need to rethink our attitudes towards the Jordanian male.
In Jordan’s public school system, boys are transferred to all boys’ schools at age nine where they are suddenly surrounded by all male teachers, school administrators and support staff. Given the conservative nature of many of these communities, this creates a situation where boys have no contact with girls or women outside their immediate family. As a result, girls and women remain a complete mystery to boys and young men, and are not perceived as individuals in their own right. In addition, and apart from their mothers, boys do not have a single authority female figure in their lives, which further contributes to the objectification and stereotyping of women by men in our society. On the other hand, male authority figures -teacher and administrators- often resort to a mix of physical abuse, intimidation and humiliation as means of “education’.
I have seen first hand several examples of children, particularly boys, being beaten with sticks and hose pipes in Amman’s public schools. This is in addition, of course, to the verbal, emotional and psychological abuse that the children are subjected to in the form of cursing, belittlement, mockery, ridicule and humiliation, amongst others.
There is no excuse whatsoever for allowing this kind of behavior in schools to continue. On paper, corporal punishment in schools is prohibited, but in reality it is an everyday occurrence and the teachers and school administration are never called on their behavior.
I realize it’s a complicated issue to deal with. I have had numerous discussions with teachers and I know that while they condone beating children and claim that it is the “only way” to deal with rowdy or difficult students, there is also a feeling helplessness and a lack of tools at their disposal to do otherwise. This is in addition to the fact that they too were brought up in this way and to the other disturbing fact that parents sometimes encourage teachers to beat their own children as a way to make them “better behaved”.
With the older boys there is the dilemma as well, that by not allowing the teachers to hit the students; the students would then sense weakness and beat the teachers, which even under the current set-up, sometimes happens.
Teachers and school administrators need to be trained, counseled and treated fairly by the system, but they also need to know that any abuse they inflict on their students will be met with tough and immediate measures that no “wasta” would be big enough to get them out of. We cannot sit by, as a government or a people, while our children are subjected to physical and emotional abuse on a daily basis at public institutions that are set up to serve the people.
It’s no wonder so many boys in the 8th and 9th grade in Jordan don’t know how to read and write. The problem of fear and abuse is at the heart of much of our children’s inability to learn and to become socially responsible citizens. It is also no wonder that so many boys opt to drop out of school, and given that so many others are taken out at a young age to work and support their families, society ends up with young men robbed of their right to an education and the opportunities, and widened horizons that this brings.
I have also seen firsthand than when boys of all ages are able spend time in an environment where girls are present and where women are teachers/managers/mentors, this goes a very long way to creating a healthy environment for interaction and a natural process of relationship-building which ensures that both boys and girls begin to view each other with less suspicion and helps breakdown some of the stereotypes. As a result, I am a strong advocate for having women teachers/administrators at boys’ schools in Jordan and allowing for schools to remain co-educational for longer. In the meantime and in parallel, kids need access to after school outlets where boys and girls can interact and take part in joint activities in a safe and nurturing environment.
Another crucial issue is that, this being a patriarchal society, there is an assumption that young men enjoy a host of privileges that young women do not. While it is true that boys and young men enjoy more mobility than their female counterparts, they are also subject to different forms of harassment and discrimination, and ones which are considered acceptable by society. For example, young men are not allowed into many public spaces around the city, including coffee shops, restaurants, shops, malls, souqs, hotels, swimming pools, amusement parks etc.
Young men, especially those from lower-income communities, are deemed guilty and are not even given the opportunity to prove their innocence. As a result, they tend to not know how to behave and may behave badly, in the few areas where they are permitted, or where their access cannot be barred. Rules and regulations for use of a certain space should be made clear to everyone, male or female, who wishes to access that space, and strict enforcement should ensure that people respect those regulations or else be asked to leave. We are not however, very big fans of enforcement it seems; people smoke freely in no-smoking areas, litter unabated and flaunt their disrespect for the rules, but enforcement entails more hard work and constancy than blanket discrimination, so we opt for the latter.
People in our society need to be allowed to be able to move freely and to exercise their constitutional right of access to all public spaces regardless of age/ gender/ socioeconomic status, so we can set ourselves on the path towards a natural and healthy state of existence and co-existence.
Barring boys and men from public spaces is against the Jordanian constitution, which grants equality to all Jordanians under the law, but this is a fact that few people seem to realize. Only by preserving the right of the individual but by raising the value of the individual, both male and female, and his/her contribution and presence in public life, the result is more conscious, responsible citizens who have a higher stake in the overall shaping and preservation of society and its norms.
Raghda Butros is an urban activist, grassroots community organizer, social entrepreneur, the first Ashoka Fellow from Jordan, and the founder of Hamzet Wasel, a citizen-led initiative in Amman.
What you say makes perfect sense is theory, but were they to allow groups of single men into malls for example, can you imagine the harassment women will have to go through? Just take a look at the groups of guys outside Mecca Mall on a Thursday evening just waiting for a girl to come in to slip a sleazy comment.
I can't describe the harassment of women, even from the experiences I've witnessed, but I can comment about the guys. While it is difficult, we can't blame the young boys, we have to blame the examples before them, the inability to mingle with persons of the opposite sex, and an lack of positive examples. When the only way you know how to interact with women is from the Hollywood movies, the porn online, and the examples of their peers, there isn't a need to wonder why some young/old men act like this.
Farah, there should be strict rules in place and fully enforced to control this kind of behavior. In time, boys and young men will realize that they will be given access to and remain in public spaces based on their respect for the place and for others. Right now, they're barred on the basis of gender and can do nothing to change that reality. Partially as a result, they act out and harass others who can acess these places freely. When they're not allowed in, they hang around outside in big numbers with nothing to do, and that encourages macho behavior, resulting in harrassment of women and street fights etc.
I agree with Raghda. I am a mother of two teen boys and there are very few places they are allowed to go with their male friends. It is completely unfair to bar the entire gender based on what a few might (or might not) do. In my experience in West and East Amman, regardless of social strata, most teen boys are not aggressive with women and will generally behave appropriately when given a chance. They are much much more harmless than they tend to look! Yet, they are not even allowed to do something as harmless as going to a movie theater or entering a mall, (which incidentally, even when they do, shopowners treat them like thieves)
I agree with Raghda. I am a mother of two teen boys and there are very few places they are allowed to go with their male friends. It is completely unfair to bar the entire gender based on what a few might (or might not) do. In my experience in West and East Amman, regardless of social strata, most teen boys are not aggressive with women and will generally behave appropriately when given a chance. They are much much more harmless than they tend to look! Yet, they are not even allowed to do something as simple as going to a movie theater or entering a mall, (which incidentally, even when they do, shopowners treat them like thieves)
Raghda, what kind of strict rules? Reporting to security? Then it would just be a game of cat and mouse between them (assuming women would even report the harassment). I think such a problem needs to be treated at the source, i.e. interaction with females from a young age (co-ed schools, though good luck with doing that in Jordan…). But allowing unaccompanied males into such spaces doesn't solve anything in my opinion, it just exacerbates an already existing problem.
Farah,
Raghda is talking(I think and correct me if I am wrong) about a long term process..Segregation at young age doesn't help, and the process of continued segragation later on adds to the problem. What was once physical segregation later becomes psychological and somehow evolves into a second nature.
I hate the way some public places and malls (like Mecca mall) behave towards Males.
I do not enjoy shopping in my country.
Iam single which makes it impossible for me to enjoy my weekend in my country in some places that only allow families(couples) !
I think there needs to be someone to hold each of the sexes accountable for their actions. We shouldn't just accept the way people handle situations and leave it for the next person. That is the easiest way to get out of it and we tend to be very good at it.
I also don't think letting the sexes mix is a good idea either. Seeing western highschools first hand has shown me the power of lack of parenting has done to young people and how they behave. There is a balance…but both extremes will never do. We need to educate our youth and not tell them they can't do something without a reason. “Because I said so…” isn't the greatest answer for a 16 year old.
Yes Mohanned, that is exactly what I am saying, thank you.
Farah, treating the problem at the source is essential and I've suggested at lease allowing female teachers into boys schools, since co-education would be a very hard sell. In the meantime, we need to also look at ways to deal with the existing reality and punishing all boys because of the behavior of a few is not the solution.
Reem, it would be great if one or both of your sons could share some of their experiences and feedback on the issue with us. Do you think they or their friends would be willing to join in the discussion?
I agree with Raghda. I think female teachers would be a great idea in boys schools. They would provide boys with good role models and would likely be more sympathetic/gentler in their approach. I think the problem we have is that fathers/male teachers, , try to “toughen up” boys to make them “men”, at a very young age. Teaching boys kindness, treating them gently doesn't make them less masculine, but provides them with a way to be less aggressive in their behaviour. Achieving that early on, at school, is the way to go.
Spaces outside the sphere of the home are, implicitly, public, and therefore, any exclusion of access is a form of blatant discrimination.
In fact, as a feminist, I find your suggestion that unaccompanied males be banned from public spaces because they 'might' harass women problematic, as it is the same logic that drives those who argue against having women in public life because women need to be 'protected' from the male gaze and/or lust.
Creating spaces where Jordanian woman are free of harassment is not sustaining healthy societal values, not even from a woman's perspective. All it does is expand the circles where women are present, without solving the inherent problems that cause their marginalization in places they are not. Therefore, if it means having to listen to a few remarks in a mall by a group of unaccompanied males, then so be it. But these males are exercising their communicative and interactive techniques. When this strategy fails, eventually, they will adapt. Citizenship, as a value, is a performed and experiential acquired-identity. Males must be allowed access and space to exercise their rights of citizenship, and inclusion is of absolute necessity for this purpose. In fact, our emancipation, as women, is tied to the ability of males to do so.
Ala', as a young man who has experienced this kind of discrimination and some of the violence that exists at boys' schools, it would be great if you would share with us what you think some of the solutions to these issues might be.
well, iam with the solution of assigning women teachers at boys' schools.
I got my primary education at UNRWA school (10 years). And my secondary school was a gov one (2 years). So 12 years with men teachers :)
In general, i noticed that there are some students who quit school because of being afraid from their teachers.
There used to be several ways of punishments. My cousin left school at 14 because he was afraid of being abused by a teacher. Other boys left school because they can not do the homeworks which means they would always be beaten and crying .. they hated the school and left..
I think if our teachers were women then the case would be completely different. When a woman teaches boys, boys feel much couraged ,eager to learn and interact. Boys will not hurt a woman because she will be like their mothers or big sisters. Having to deal with women in early stages will make it normal in boys' life. Which will results in a new generation that does not face the current problems.
After finishing school i thought this kind of problems became history.. but it seems it is not only our schools that discriminate us. It is also our society! Whether you mention public places that do not welcome males or you mention our policemen who believes women claims more than men.
We need people to support our Men Rights.
just my $0.02..
It is not just that boys do not have encounters with females aside from their mothers in their adoloscence, it is a total failed society, a society based on tribalism instead of civility, yet had forgotten all the good sides of that tribalism! A society that eats what it does not produce and wears it does not weave. A society that looks on femals as harem, and yet thinks that it is a role model for the world! The fault is not just on the face, it is structural.
I don't think any completely segregated situation is good for either gender. In my opinion, it leads to the worst of either gender emerging as the compelling force of the group.
Raghda's idea of adding female teachers and administrators is a great one, but will have to be implemented by the men who are the powers that be. This system (which does victimize boys who are not considered 'strong') has been sustained by the status quo, which is for the most part, controlled by older men for whom it worked. So did minimizing women, and their influence. These days, it doesn't work any more.
Having women around will create a more merciful and motherly atmosphere, (hopefully) create respect for female authority figures, and it will also add a female perspective on justice to protect younger boys from the abuse (physical, psychological and sexual) of older boys that goes on uncorrected.
Huge classes are a problem. Boys especially need smaller classes with more personal attention, accountability and interaction.
About mall segregation, it has been over-done. Before malls, when I shopped in Jabal Hussein, running the gauntlet of aggressive pack-like teen boys was like submitting myself to harassment. There has to be a balance. I say give them another chance, let mall security throw out the ones who blow it.
There has to be a place for them to practice civility and good manners, and observe other men who do, too.
I wonder, to what extent are our theories and views regarding the male and female roles in Jordanian society in sync with the general populace? It seems a little to simple to suggest that boys should be taught by female teachers and that adolescent males should be allowed free entrance to public places, such as malls or parks.
And while current policies do not necessarily solve the problem they do, in my opinion, seem to be in sync with the preferences of the society at large.
Can we safely argue that the majority of Jordanians prefer to segregate their daughters and sons, having them taught at all-female and all-male schools by all-female and all-male teacher respectively?
Can we safely argue that if we took a vote, most would condone keeping groups of teenage males out of public places that are geared more towards families?
Some of us may disagree with such views, but do they not remain the prevailing views of a majority? And if so, is there not something to be said about respecting the views of the majority?
Naseem, while I see your point, I disagree that the issue here is one of preference by the majority. Equal treatment of all Jordanians is a constitutional right, and the basic principles which govern the functioning of societies are based on the notion of social contract.
This means the people consent to delegate a portion of their freedom to the prevailing authority in order to maintain social order and manage the joint public sphere on their behalf. A service provider, such as a mall or shop etc., is given permission to operate by the government on behalf of the people in order to serve them, and as a result, this service provider does not have the right to deny access to a segment of society of its choosing, which is what is being done in this case.
The principles of social contract, guided by the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and which guarantees equality to all Jordanians, means that even if the majority of Jordanians prefer to see a certain group excluded from public life, this exclusion is both illegal and unconstitutional.
This brings me to another point regarding the wishes of the majority versus universal rights. If the majority of people in Jordan supported violence against children in schools, the government would still be obligated to protect children and enforce regulations that ban and prevent such abuse. Similarly, if the majority preferred not to educate their children, government would still be responsible for enforcing mandatory education for its citizens.
Kinzi,
It would almost be a relief if large class sizes were the real reason. I saw the very same issues with kids in 8th and 9th grade not being able to read an write in classrooms of 50 kids in Jabal Nathif, as with kids in classrooms of 8 and 15 kids in Beidah and Jabal Qalaa. I think the issue is more complicated than that and that our public education system needs to be thoroughly re-examined.
Thank you for mentioning Jabal Hussein. It helps us to remember that men and women or all ages mix and interact all over the country, at universities, government institutions, hospitals, on the street, at the park, in shops, at the movies etc., and while harassment does exist and should be tackled, its not so widespread or at such level that we need to start enforcing a blanket ban of all young men to achieve public order!
While democracy, or democratic expression as called for by Nasseem is very important, we have to remember the socio-political philosophical base on which these democratic principles are based. Social contract provides for the rule of law for the public good. We have in Jordan one of the most balanced and progressive constitutions that if abstractly implemented provides the conditions for a healthy society.
The collective will of the people cannot and should not go against the two important notions of the rule of law and of the conditionality of serving the public good. Anything that goes against those notions, no matter how popular, would be legally invalid.
I know it sounds very theoretical, but this is what, in my opinion, it boils down to. If we accept one form of discrimination, at any level, there is no guarantee of where it will stop.
If we accept that people may generally condone discrimination against young males in public places then we will have to accept other form of unconstitutional discrimination say against senior citizens in restaurants!! There is no knowing where this will stop….
I agree with Baker and Raghda.. the will of the majority doesn't have to be respected in instances where that choice is clearly discriminatory. You can't argue that it is unfair to discriminate against women, and therefore inflect the same discrimination against men.
Also, rule of the people/democracy can only really be beneficial when you have a law that protects it. I honestly believe that democracy is not the first step to a progressive and liberal society, but the last step. First you need to establish a system that works, with laws that are enforced and respected, and institutions that are functioning and serving their people properly (and all of that can happen in an authoritarian regime), once you have that, then you can have a truly democratic nation.
Raghda, agreed, class sizes are not the main issue, But having raised three boys in and out of an expensive local private school, the difference between their behavior and ability to learn in a class of 30 compared to one of 15 is huge. When a teacher can teach, and not just practice crowd control, education happens.
One thing we can all do to about bad public behavior is address it firmly and kindly. If we are out and pack-attitudes are interrupting the general peace, I go talk to them. Encouraging them to be their best goes farther than screaming and condemning, and somehow the respect that is given them is then returned and helps them rise above a lowest common denominator of action.
I agree with Raghda, Baker and Ameera. Should we not seek to end domestic violence and dishonor killings because it is a accepted by a certain percentage of the population?
The problem is that all of us become flabbergasted and shocked when these young full of energy young males, with lots of empty / void time on their hands, express and vent their frustration and anger violently, in private and in public. If these young men were not angry and frustrated, why would they participate in violence against public property, targeting their schools, in universities and against each other in hordes and in real time war like strategies? why would they burn tiers and throw stones and use fire arms against if not heavy artillery……
How can we explain violence in universities? What about the latest problems in Ajloun, Maan, and Hay al Tafayleh…. Common people… we have to connect the dots…
I think this article creates a vision of where we would like to go as a society in the future, and I think it is a good vision that everyone can agree on.
The puzzle is what small steps and changes we have to do as a society to actually get there. I think one of the most effective changes we can do is what Raghda mentioned about involving female teachers and even classmates in the lives of teenage boys. I can testify from my own experience growing up in an all male private high school in Jordan that kids in all male schools graduate with a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with members of the opposite sex.
Also, someone might want to make the point that we should keep in mind that most of our universities are coed anyway, so these kids are going to finish high school and then they're going to be walking and talking with members of the opposite sex, and sometimes even being taught by them in college anyway. So really what is the point of separating them in high school to begin with?!!!
Although the Jordanian constitution grants equality to all Jordanians “before the law,” (and not in all spheres), it does not recognize gender/sex as one of the grounds for non-discrimination. Article 20 of the constitution only prohibits discrimination that is based on “race, language or religion.” This is one of the loopholes in the Jordanian constitution which has the effect of compromising the rights of both Jordanian females and males.
Another point of law which the writer argues is that “Barring boys and men from public spaces is against the Jordanian constitution, which grants equality to all Jordanians under the law.” There are two points which I would like to point out: First, “coffee shops, restaurants, shops, malls, souqs, hotels, swimming pools, amusement parks” cannot be considered public spaces. Most of the establishments mentioned by the writer are private companies and accordingly they have the power to draw the rules regarding who can or cannot access them. Not necessarily something i agree with but this is how things are run in the corporate business sector.
Second, i am not for the idea of claiming the existence of rights which are not granted in the constitution as the writer seems to claim. Expanding the scope of the Article 20 to include a “right to access public spaces” because we are equal before the law has no foundation at all. In fact, there is no “constitutional right of access to all public spaces” or even freedom of movement in the Jordanian constitution. Nevertheless, recently Jordan lifted its reservation on freedom of movement under CEDAW,
Jordanians at large, especially those working on the grassroots level, should be aware of the limitations of Jordanian laws in order to better address them. Giving a false impression about what rights we hold is misleading and can steer us away from acting against some of the main frameworks that are fundamental to promoting equality.
Finally, i agree with several points namely the need to have gender-mixed after school programs. Even activities for males alone are essential especially with the absence of programs addressing their needs and the traditional concentration of programs on females alone. Although young males should be able to access malls and coffee shops, investing their energies in more meaningful activities is necessary.
Dalia, I appreciate your reply and the clarifications you have made about the Jordanian constitution. You're right to say that a thorough understanding of the constitution is essential, and I would therefore appreciate it if you could help us understand it better by answering the following questions related to the article:
1. Since the constitution does not recognize gender as grounds for non-discrimination, does that mean that gender can legally be used as grounds for barring people from public spaces or discriminating against them in other ways, or is non-discrimination based on gender implicit under the banner of “equality for all Jordanians before the law”? If not, then this is an issue that requires further research and advocacy.
2. While privately owned coffee shops, restaurants, shops, malls, souqs, hotels and swimming pools are indeed private property, do you agree that they are established to provide a public service and therefore should be accessible to all? If not, would it be acceptable for example for private establishments to bar people based religion, race or language, which you mention are specifically stated as a basis for discrimination under the constitution? How about barring people due to disability for example? Wouldn’t that become an ethical question, and what would then be the legal recourse for individuals who face this kind of discrimination? What about publically owned spaces that are managed by the private sector for example an amusement park owned by the Greater Amman Municipality and managed by a private company? Who has the right to decide who can be granted or barred admission from such places?
Dalia, I appreciate your reply and the clarifications you have made about the Jordanian constitution. You're right to say that a thorough understanding of the constitution is essential, and I would therefore appreciate it if you could help us understand it better by answering the following questions related to the article:
1. Since the constitution does not recognize gender as grounds for non-discrimination, does that mean that gender can legally be used as grounds for barring people from public spaces or discriminating against them in other ways, or is non-discrimination based on gender implicit under the banner of “equality for all Jordanians before the law”? If not, then this is an issue that requires further research and advocacy.
2. While privately owned coffee shops, restaurants, shops, malls, souqs, hotels and swimming pools are indeed private property, do you agree that they are established to provide a public service and therefore should be accessible to all? If not, would it be acceptable for example for private establishments to bar people based religion, race or language, which you mention are specifically stated as a basis for discrimination under the constitution? How about barring people due to disability for example? Wouldn’t that become an ethical question, and what would then be the legal recourse for individuals who face this kind of discrimination? What about publically owned spaces that are managed by the private sector for example an amusement park owned by the Greater Amman Municipality and managed by a private company? Who has the right to decide who can be granted or barred admission from such places?
Raghda, you bring up a good point with regard to public parks. I have worked on sports programs in one of the GAM-run parks in East Amman, and I noticed that the guard at the gate of the park invariably acquires the task of moral police and decides who is allowed in and who isn't, based on his own, personal, (and unreasonable)”moral” criteria. In fact, one father, who came to the park to pick up his daughter after soccer practice, was kept out because “he didn't look like a father”!
Hi Raghda :-) here is my humble answer, although I think this topic is worth more debate and reflection.
I think that in order to draw an accurate answer to the questions you brought up, the idea of public space should be better defined and trimmed down. What constitutes public space? Are public universities, schools, health care systems, public parks..etc, part of that public sphere you are referring to? Many activities and life elements make up that space, and access to them enables or denies one opportunities. My point is that if so you can rely on laws that are specific to ensuring equal opportunity, and thus access. In article 6 of the constitution, the government ensures for all Jordanians equal education, work and opportunities –within its limits). This can be relied on if you can build up the argument in a way that these males/females are denied opportunity because of this ban. As for “equality before the law” article, it is an exhaustive list in my opinion, what else can justify that the rule of Islam on having two women testify in the place of one man is still in force, in addition to other state practices in relation to family law and so. Like you said there needs to be further research and pressure on the government.
As for your second question, although “privately owned coffee shops, restaurants, shops, malls, souqs …” provide services for the public, I don’t think, unlike the government, they are obliged to provide access to everyone, that’s why restaurants use dress code rules and other ways to filter the people they want/don’t want. In this case, not all males are denied, only those who are single and most of the time, who appear to be from a low-income background. This situation is sad and troubling, especially given how these kids are made to feel and how they will react in the future towards society. On another level, there was an interesting case last month about a man who was denied entry into a restaurant in Abdoun for wearing a dishdasheh. He filed a lawsuit against the restaurant, but he later dropped it as the matter was dealt with through il-jaha. It would have been interesting to see on what grounds he filed the complaint. Anyway, it is worth looking at the by-laws of such companies and shops, if they have any, local statutes and international agreements which Jordan is party to. Although international law is mainly concerned with state action rather than the private sector, but this is changing..
These was a great piece, Raghda. Thanks for sharing :).
These was a great piece, Raghda. Thanks for sharing :).
[...] My picks: Abused, Discriminated Against and Labeled as the Enemy [...]