First of all, I consider myself a major proponent for the woman's right to vote. In my view, it was simply the most logical stance, considering that the fairer sex represents more than half the population. Their voting is a representation of what their priorities are, what topics they believe in, and which candidates they believe will keep them on their mind come victory time….At least that how it's supposed to work in theory. The fact is, as proven by the 2003 elections, women put in power the very same men who prevented them from winning their rights in the past 40 years: Political Islamists. Unlike some of my liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, I believe that political parties based on a morals campaign with rightist tendencies is an important part of Kuwaiti politics which completes the Yin Yang of our beloved parliament. Whether or not I personally would endorse them is unrelated to the whether or not I feel more comfortable having a conservative in a seat of power in order to provide some much needed perspective. Having said that, I naturally expect all women, conservative or otherwise, to disagree with me wholeheartedly given their particular history with these individuals. It turns out, women agree with me even more than I agree with me: and that is a very sad.
The last election, people attributed the strange trend of women voting on the fact that the gender represents newcomers to politics in general. Some even said that next time, they will be more prepared and the awareness among this entire population of Kuwaitis that have been done a great injustice for the past decades will increase. Now while I like to stay optimistic, I can safely say that this is about as likely seeing a polar bear wandering our beautiful deserts (Don't get any ideas, Coca Cola).
Let me give you a tangible example of why I feel that this election will have us seeing woman elect more of the same, the same being Islamists or non-female candidates. The National Democratic Coalition has succumbed to pressure from the public and finally included a woman on their three person ticket. This time, Kuwaitis will have 4 votes, and the party decided to leave one seat open as a strategic way of guaranteeing more votes. The lady has a PhD and is well known among the academic circles, with a background in woman's rights movements in
"Considering that she has the same political tendencies, that she is an educated woman, and that she has woman issues on the brain, you gonna vote for her?" I curiously asked. "I won't vote for her just because she's a woman, but I will vote for her if she's actually better than the other candidates". Woman, meet your Achilles heal and the reason why you will yet again fail to reach a seat in Parliament. The question is this: I'm advocating that women vote for this woman because she is a woman? Answer: BIG YES.
I am not a woman, and therefore I don't belong to this "minority" group. My feelings are less strong towards women issues, because no matter how much I support positive reform, not being a woman myself, impedes the feeling of being mistreated by society for so long. The woman has been refused her rights for 40 years! How in God's name do you expect a gender totally new to politics to be "better" than 40 odd male candidates who have a) been doing this for years, b) have tried every single approach to winning a seat until they found the one that works and c) have developed a loyal constituency in the 40 years you were busy reading about politics rather than joining in? You can't and she won't. So stop conceding to the complexes imposed on you by the men of our society that have made you weary of voting for a woman just because she's a woman. Islamists vote for Islmaists just because they are, tribals do the same and so do people who vote on a same religion bases. If you, the women of
21 comments:
Women in the US go for Obama for the same reason - just not ready yet to believe in themselves and their own competence or that Hillary could be the best candidate. Tragic. It's just going to take time, I guess.
if you ask me, i would never vote for a woman unless shes Margaret Thatcher *the Iron Lady* because she was VERY GOOD at what she did and her books and the testimonials from presidents/kings..etc proof that.
women are emotional and it wont help anybody to put an EMOTIONAL figure on a any seat that will help change/fix/control the shape of our future, i think that we had 2 females who were ministers and oh boy did that go well?
im not against women taking seats in the parliament, but im against what ive SEEN from them so far while their in charge, because as far as i know, ma39ooma and nooriya were the ELITE political women in kuwait, and look what happened after they took charge of things.
ahmed
shakhbary with the woman are emotional line
sweetheart join us in 2008.
as for nooria and ma39oomah, they didnt have a chance to do anything with ppl barking at them.
So what happened?
imsikaw a chair for years and only made things worse? NO
dont go pointing ur finger at nooriya and ma39ooma, point em at the imbeciles who were lurking around corners waiting to prance!
and saracen, u thought i wouldnt agree with u, and i really didnt want to
but i do.
if i had a chance to vote in these up coming elections i would vote for a woman just because she is a woman.
now if i had a choice between a few, i would definitely pick the one that shares my political beliefs and what not
but on eshda3was ballad there will be a tick next to a womans name.too bad im not voting.
as for the catching up, well the way things are going, its a rabbit and the turtle scenario!
eshda3wa
wether you like it or not women are emotional and thats it, you cant define allah sob7ana w t3alah when he said that, thats why men RULE *Literaly*
the very existance of mankind happened because of man ruled, im no racist but thats a fact
and yeah, as for ma39ooma and nooriya, lol, heres 2 tiny things of the many things thats happened from them
1- ma39ooma
the minute she took hold of the MOWA9ALAT she defined hackers all over kuwait and well, lets just say that that didnt go as plan for ma39ooma :D, and lets not all forget what she did with DEEWAn il 5adma when she removed their 6 months of overtime because she thinks that ITS TOO MUCH FOR AN EXTRA 3 HOURS WORK FOR THE PAST SIX MONTH *ah! i really hated her guts when she did that, i had plans for that!*
2- nooriya, she neglected almost 90% of the issues in the TARBIYA and instead of focusing on a better education..etc, she was focusing on what should girls wear and what colour should it be, should private school be all wearing the same uniforms of the gover. schools? she even created a committee for such projects!? im sorry but if there was a vacant place in RALPH or ARMANI il let you know nooriya.
but..in the end, women, cant live with them and cant live without them.
;)
My first priority when it comes to voting is my country and not my gender. That said, inshalla ya rab bithn Alla a really great honest decent wonderful woman enters this majliss. Ana atmanna hal shay.
ahmad, I remember hearing of a woman, sa7abiya, "emotional" or not, who fought with the rasool salah Allahu 3alaihi wa salam and she used to go in front of him so that he doesn't get hit. She was incredibly brave. His own wife, Aisha rathya Allahu 3anha was basically an Islamic scholar! People from far places used to seek her knowledge! These are just examples of wonderful Muslim women who did amazing "manly" things in Islam. What if they ran for parliament? Would you cast doubt on their competence as MP's?
women are emotional not stupid
women are emotional not deaf blind and dumb
women are emotional not incompetent
women are emotional in your opinion.
how do u define emotional? that they get teary eyed?
and answer me this... how long were the two women in a position to make significant change?
are you tell me that the minit a man holds the position hes going to wave his magic unemotional hands and fix every single problem?
or wait a second weren't men in position of power all this time *shockshockshock*
in every field women entered they excelled. This is no exception.
woowoowoow, cease fire! the Ahmed© is under heavy feminine attacks :P
first, im against haivng woman in the majliss, not now at least, dont think that im racist, its just because ma39ooma screwed up BIG TIME and nooriya ma qa99irat ba3ad, MAYBEEEE as members of the parlimant they will do something good, but as ministers? NO and a 10000 NO! and 1001night, your giving me an example of il saida 3aisha rathiya allah 3anha, ok thats nice, lets go to that catagory
1- il saida Sara told sayidna Ebrahim 3laih il salam to dump il sayida Hajer in the desert *emotional decision because she was jealouse she wanted him to do a dreadful thing*
2- il sayida 7owwa 7annat 3la sayidna adem 3laih il salam to eat the apple in which we were all have been forsaken because of this Emotional *curiosity* act.
im not racist and im not saying that they are bad women, those are Sayidat of the entire humanity, but im saying even the Holy ones made dreadful Emotional mistakes
my advice to you, choose a battleground that you really know your way in it next time, thank you for your opinion :)
eshda3wa girl what were we thinking! Ah the calamity of choosing the wrong battle ground we're doomed I tell you we're DOOMED what were we thinking?! How could we! How DARE we!! *cries in bitter shame and agony*
Oh dear, there I go being all emotional again! Time to do some shopping wohooo purses!!! Now that's a battleground I do know my way around!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
1001 nights
battle ground what battle ground?
oh no we women cant be in any battle
damn education, damn those people that tell us we can be anything we want to be, and damn those women who took over the work force, and those taking up precious spaces in universities!
they tried to keep us out! by god they did! requiring higher grades tougher requirements!placing obstacle after obstacle! but damn them women that just wont stop trying
wont take no for an answer!
what next!
we should just stick to cooking and cleaning
apparently thats the only thing our emotional little hearts can handle
eshraych elyoom asawe im6abag ezbaide?
Ok this comment is going to be an ugly one, but hold your horses everyone.
I understand completely that the voting for a female for the mere fact that the voter is a female to accomplish something tangible in this election. I’m not going to lecture on that fact that we are using the same condemned twisted methods others use to reach that precious parliament chair but let’s weigh the pros and cons.
Women are majority in the population but consider their distribution among the five districts and you’ll know that 4 out of 5 she doesn’t stand a chance in winning the elections. Now if we are hoping for politically intellectual voters then should we really start teaching them that it’s ok to vote based on gender? Do we really hope to solve that matter in the future and procrastinate it till a chair is reserved for a woman candidate? We’ll end up preaching them into what we’ve labeled as sin and still haven’t reached our goal to represent them in parliament. If we start teaching them that it’s ok to vote based on gender alone then by the time she actually gets elected which is not in the following 10 years they’ll actually start practicing that as a natural tactic.
Am I speaking ideally? Yes I am, but don’t those who wish eliminate all sorts of corruption and misdealing are aiming for an ideal parliament?
If the woman is the right candidate and the voter believes in her program and her capabilities then she’s earned that vote and the same goes for men as well.
Let's not get blinded by our racism.
Not all me were great, not neither all women shall be. Hell, we are still politically immature and this implies on both genders and specially women. Does it always have to be about men dominating women? The main issue that raises an eyebrow at women is that they get emotional when they discuss their political rights and how they've been ripped off from their rights for all those years. Crying over a spelled milk isn't going to solve anything. What amuses me that some feminists go all jumpy when a guy discusses a woman's performance. Meanwhile women got their rights after passing the motion in a fully men parliament.
Both genders have Kuwait as their first priority (ideally) so there is no point in preferring one gender over another as long as the best are elected (again ideally).
Wow...I'm not sure where to start. I feel like I'm entering the field
in the middle of the game. Nonetheless, I'm going to do my best to try hit all the points:
Ahmed: In my honest honest opinion, I feel that using religious examples for a political discussion is weak. I hope you take that in the spirit of debate because of course that is how I mean it. The issue here is not who convinced who to eat an apple. Or whether or not women as a gender are capable of being Jealous. Kane and Abel (Qaabeel ow Habeel) killed each other with some of the most graphic descriptions of all time. Does that mean that men are all killers?
Madri...mashoof inna la 3laaqa. As for women being more emotional, its a generalization. Which is fine, but then we should generalize as being smarter (they get higher grades then the men in this country by miles and miles), they are more compassionate to the suffering of others, and more attached to the needs of the people because of their God given maternal instincts. Thats if we want to continue down the twisty path of generalizations.
Now, you did say that Margaret Thatcher was "VERY GOOD" so I don't think that its fair to corner you as someone who is anti-woman per say...Just someone who doesn't think the Kuwaiti woman is there yet. I disagree wholeheartedly, but thats most likely because I've seen the opposite on a daily basis. Nouriyah Al-Subee7 stood unemotional, logical and strong in Abdulla Al-Salem Hall... For all the issues you discussed regarding the failures as a minister (which is opinion, not agreed upon by any major part of the nation), well that just makes her AS good as the men and their failings. I just don't feel the emotional or even incapable argument is strong enough anymore because its been proven otherwise. But in any case, you made the exact point I was tryin to make the whole time...and I'll come to that in my next garga box, lol.
Eshda3wa + 1001 Nights:
I think I've made my stance on this fairly clear in the box above, and that I think it is inaccurate to label women in such a way. Having said that...Ahmed made my point. He is the majority of Kuwait. I honestly believe that. So when 1001 Nights says, "I'm going to vote for who ever is best", you are wavering to the beliefs of the men in this country that feel that "women aren't ready". You give her the seat, and she may shine...but because the policital machines of men have had a 40 year head start...it maybe years upon years before a woman "outshines" all the men in the game.
Right now, in very convincing ways, you both argued the same point. That there is more to women than emotion and such things. Yulla, 3aa6ooha 9otkum. I know Esda3wa agrees with me (yay :-)) bes its time to tell others and scream it off the top of your voices as minorities do. Because make no mistake...while you may be more in number, you are a minority in a legal sense as well as the the way the rest of the populace treats you. Its time women choose who best represents them and if that person is yet another man, then it truly will be years before you as a minority get your full rights.
Touche: Your comments are always welcome and our horses will be ready just in case.
Without going into too much details, I'm going to say that I fully disagree with you. Democratic processes all over the world include this type of thinking: I'm going to vote for the person who will best represent me and my people. Obama will be depending on the African American vote and some Republican African Americans switched just to vote for him.
Yes, I understand your point about "mushaaraka bee ta5reeb" the population in terms of election mentality. I would argue that such stratification already exists within the society. So associating the concept of voting for someone who best represents me as a person in terms of being "corrupt" is something I disagree with.
Having said that, I truly feel, as a man, that I could never fully represent the needs of a woman. Just like a white affluent Christian will have trouble understanding the poor Latino immigrant.
The reason we have no Margret Thatcher, or at least seems as such is because half the population oppressed the other half for 40 years, and that is far from spilled milk. That's a reality that every woman should repeat to herself when she wakes up in the morning. What is the type of thinking that allows such things to happen? Yes, it was there in the US and Europe before that, bes i7na Kuwaitiyeen. Our grandmothers are the ones who ran the country, and stores, and schools while the men where out at sea for months at a time. If anything, while women were fighting for the right to vote in the US, our women were meeting each other discussing everything from food to politics.
So its not too much to ask for them, not me or you as men, but them to reclaim their rightful and dare I say historic place within society before other polarizing forces try to take them back even more.
I'm really happy about this entire discussion because even as I write, I learn.
well this was one of the best debates thats ive encountered so far in the blogsphere, but i have a tiny little weeni confession to make :D
i kinda deliberately provoked 1001nights + eshda3wa just to see whether theyr gonna be emotional in their answers or logic, well i think i proofed my point specially with 1001night's last comment, so i apologize if i struck a chord :)
i really wish that we would get a Women the best in the Parliament *as long as they stay IN the parliament and not something higher..for now* because believe it or not, im not anti-women.
q80 saracan: im glad that we share the same idea in this, but most ppl would think that ppl like us are anti-women because we dont want them to be in a higher places then members in the parlimant *ta3al fachich w raggi3 3ad :\*
Q8saracen, I don't like the notion of women feeling victimized and thus given a running start to get a seat in parliament. I don't like the feeling of being victimized period. Bass no more. Let her run and let her be convincing and let her outshine them and let her lobby and let her get elected FAIR AND SQUARE. It's not because I don't believe in women being politically acclimated that I am saying this; it's BECAUSE I think a woman CAN do it that I think so. You imagine the message it sends when an amazingly competent and visionary woman wins and then you hear people say well yeah she only won because she was a woman and got the women vote!
ahmed, I wasn't being emotional I was being sarcastic Alla yhadak waathi7 ya3ni! :) Also, you might wanna read what Q8 saracen wrote again because I'm pretty sure the two of you have anywhere near the same idea.
1001_nights; ok, you win, congratulations, may you always be right to whoever judge your opinions and ideas..etc whatever the issue is i just wish that one day you would take ppl's opinion seriously and Respectfully in the future.
1001 Nights: I completely understand what your saying. At the same time, not to beat a dead horse, but we should keep something clear: when a tribal person wins, people say its because the tribe gave him the vote. The same with the Shiite candidate as well as other segmentations. It doesn't lessen from his ability because it is how he/she preforms in the Parliament which dictates that. It is a regular political practice that is applied in all democracies. People give the vote to those who best represent them, and women should be best represented by women. Either way though, I would like to believe that there are such women involved in the race that could earn your vote fair and square. Just don't judge them too harshly, because they've entered the race with only one leg. (A little too graphic, huh?)
Ahmed: I have to say, as a writer, I've enjoyed the witty banter between you and Eshda3wa and 1001 Nights. I honestly think that's what blogging is all about. I think everyone entering the 'sphere has to have the understanding that he or she will hear stuff they don't agree with. I'm happy that my readers maintained the appropriate level of respect while injecting some highly appreciated humor. Can't wait to see the controversy over what comes next...(evil smile)
Woah, I was just exposed to a whole lot o'static in the comments page.. is the world stable rite now?;p
As for my comment: where shud I start..? well, I bileev that the women voters in general shudn't vote for a women, merely becuz she's a women. I mean yes I do understand ur underlying reason behind such an action (supporting the same gender), but there are A LOT of incompetent, uneducational women out there in the playing field that shouldn't have even thought of campaigning themselves at all!
And should they reach the parliament, I fear they'll distraught the good that's left of our public's vies towards us. I fear them misrepresenting our views and beliefs, and I fear them not accomplishing things that other capable candidates could have accomplished if they were granted that same position. Once again, the only reason I bileev this is because there are A LOT of incompetent, unskilled female candidates running this year-round.
Having said that, there still is another side to the coin.. there are some competent, academically honored female candidates that deserve a seat in the parliament, regardless. Once overlooking their CV's and their many, many accomplishments both locally and internationally (as a representative of Kuwait), one will be able to bileev that such an individual, regardless of the gender, should indeed be granted a seat at the parliament?
Why? Because with the necessary knowledge, true love for our country, and having all the necessary skills needed to excel both as a disturbance handler, a figurehead for our country, and an academic leader, this candidate will able to attribute towards improving our society, politics, and many other sectors.
So I guess wht im trying to say here is that when a person votes, they should vote for the most competent and well-deserving individual, not whether they r a male or a female. And should that well-deserving person be a female, then all the better! But should I be given the option between a great male candidate (there are a few) and an incompetent female candidate, I would choose the male simply because I wouldn't want to add corruption to what was already corrupted. After all, in the end we all want what's best for beloved Kuwait.
Choose wise; there actually are some female candidates running whose qualifications are beyond what's needed for a parliament member to acquire.
Lone Ranger'ess: Many share your view and I respect that. I also think that there are many women in this election that do meet the criteria, if not surpass it. Just yesterday, I saw an interview on "Scope TV" with someone that I saw myself voting for, so incompetence isn't the issue in this election.
I'm just wary of women sabotaging themselves and then calling it democracy. You, or any other woman don't need to show the world why you deserve the right to vote. It is your State given right, as it is mine. So there is no need to prove your worthiness by voting for the man because he is more experienced (when I say you, I mean women in general of course).
After all, put a PhD on the male side and a PhD on the female side and then weigh the rest. The male has most likely had experience in Parliament before...which of course is impossible for the woman because she just won her rights. My point is...well, that Women are their own worst enemy. So be aware, and don't sabotage each other or yourselves. Women will put women in power...it will never be the men.
q80 S., i agree.. women candidates will likely win due to a majority of women votes.
i also agree that women, by nature, are each other's worst enemies. so basically, its either a win/lose situation..
but nevertheless, if a female candidate is well-deserving, then both genders should direct their votes towards her.. and same goes for males candidates. and when we vote, we shudint mix our papers between our "social" perspective of that candidate, and out "political" perspective.
i guess it all has to do with whether you are attentive and logic.
This is great info to know.
Post a Comment