An Ancient Solution to a Modern Dilemma?

There isn’t much argument about the fact that globalization and economic challenges are swiftly changing traditional roles in households all around the world. These changes often mean that women end up juggling full-time jobs, house chores, child care, and marital commitments, leaving them with hardly any personal time at all. Faced with such burdens, women who want to preserve some kind of sanity often resort to one of two options. The first is to give up their ambitions and dreams to remain home and watch life pass them by. The second is divorce. Neither is the lesser of two evils.
So what is the solution? How can a “modern” woman pursue her dreams without breaking her family? Well, actually there is a third option. Polygamy.
I know that the word itself carries a heavy connotation of some sort of backward tribal practice. But the idea of taking more than one wife is something that has been practiced throughout history and is absolutely legal today across many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
Personally, I never thought that I, a hard-core feminist, would live to say this, but the truth is this middle-ground solution allows women to enjoy the best of both worlds. Not just that, but the whole concept is also economical and environment-friendly. Studies have shown that the recent economic crisis has forced more couples to live together to cut costs. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing considering how much is saved from sharing the same rooftop, energy sources, transportation means, etc. The same idea could be applied here, but just a little more broadly.
Anyways, my first and foremost interest is what works best for hard-working professional moms. After all, who has time nowadays for a full-time marital commitment?
But to be fair, I have to suggest that the same option of polygamy be made available for women who wait endlessly for partners who have fully-loaded schedules.

Painting by Adeline McCarter

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

It seems like ages since I have last posted a new entry (well, about a couple months is more like it). Anyways I’m putting my rusty keyboard back to work as the deadline for a paper on public relations and blogs is approaching. And what is more appropriate to explore the subject than blogging about it, right? Here, though, I’ll try exploring it from a political point of view since I’d better not be controversial or sarcastic in my research paper.
Had Shakespeare lived in our public-oriented, technology-laden, twenty-first century, he might have been quoted as writing “to blog or not to blog: that is the question”. Indeed, blogging has become synonymous with many individuals’ existence. Almost like an avatar that reflects your moods, interests, opinions, etc. And since corporations and governments have been showing growing interest in public-anything, such as public relations and public opinion, these virtual podiums readily find an eager audience. A daily dose of democracy, you can call it. But then what does that say about governments that block access to popular weblog sites after detaining a number of bloggers? Stories of particular Syrian and Iranian bloggers come to mind here. Does that mean that these governments are uninterested in practicing democracy, God forbid?
Purely for the sake of maintaining some kind of faith in our leaders, I’m going to revert to optimistic romanticism. So I’m going to go ahead and assume that those governments and leaders are taking the advice of Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria in his book “The Future of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad”, where he argues that the proper way for developing countries to eventually enjoy the fruits of liberal democracy is for their governments to rule with an iron fist in the initial phase until capital markets are strong enough to eventually demand democracy.
Alas, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Not-So Happy International Women's Day

The International Women’s Day website says that women’s day “has been observed since the early 1900’s”. Throughout the rest of the page, it goes on to chronicle some of the milestones in women’s fight for their rights. I do not have any doubts regarding the life-changing achievements of those great women. But my question is what took them so long? Why does it seem that the last century was the only time in history when women dared ask for equality? Civilizations, at least the well-known ones, have been patriarchal throughout thousands of years of human existence. Is that an indication of women’s real place in society? Are we getting it all wrong?
Our daily language and lifestyle has been so entrenched with feminist rhetoric that no one dares ask these questions out loud any more. It is considered so un-PC to question women’s rights that even ultra-conservative Muslims in God-forsaken deserts would try to disguise such insinuations under subtle patronizing tones. Yet history, religion, and even biology seem to conspire against women. I have yet to hear of a male colleague calling in sick because of a really bad PMS!
So fellow feminists, if you will excuse me, I really want to know whether we are doing the right thing or not. I do not mean to snub years of struggle and suffering to enjoy the rights we currently do. I am simply wondering for the hell of it. After all, freedom of thought is what you worked so darn hard for, right?
Of course, this does not mean at all that I will give up driving that monstrous truck any time soon. Nor will I stop going to work, studying for grad school, caring for my lovely 2-year old, or doing house chores. But at the end of one of those daunting days, I can’t help but wonder.

(Painting by Sara Shamma)

Arab Unity after Gaza?

On 15 February, the Doha Debates in coordination with the BBC hosted a heated discussion on whether Arab unity after Gaza in dead and buried or not. A whopping 77% of those who attended the debate voted for the claim that we should start offering our condolences; while only 23% still had a flicker of hope.
I was among the 77%; not that I believe that the recent bloodshed in Gaza is what caused the split among Arabs. The split is merely a symptom of a chronic disease which has roots deep in history.
Arab states, as of their political borders today, were sliced up by the colonial powers mid-twentieth century without the slightest regard for the varied ethnic and religious groups that lived in the region. As a result, these groups found themselves confined within artificial borders, and asked to identify with their newly-created states and governments. Naturally, whenever an Arab state was not gripped by a despot, people busied themselves with fighting each other for power, for land, or just for the heck of it. Lebanon and Iraq are perfect examples of countries that came tumbling down after autocratic regimes were ousted. No, I’m not promoting dictatorship in any way. What I’m saying is that Arab nationalism is still an unripe concept, and sectarian violence will continue to prevail at least until a firmer sense of patriotism is forged. So how can Arabs unite when oftentimes they lack a sense of affiliation within their own tiny artificial countries?
If you think about it, Arab unity is not really dead. It hasn’t been born yet. Yes there were periods in history when some sort of unity prevailed in the region under the Caliphate rule of Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans. But the Caliphate of those times ruled their people under the name of religion not nationalism. And even then, things did not always flow smoothly as some group was always fighting another for power, for land, or just for the heck of it.

The First Century after Beatrice

Amin Malouf writes in his novel The First Century after Beatrice about a disaster that plagues humanity, and sends different ethnic groups adrift. To digress a little before I start my review, I cannot but marvel at the fact that Malouf wrote his novel originally in French, I read it in Arabic, and now I’m writing a review of it in English. So even if some rift tears humanity apart, I believe that we can always count on literature to help bridge the gap.
Now back to the novel. The catalyst in this story is a tiny bean sold on the streets of Cairo as a magical cure from bearing female daughters. A visiting French entomologist stumbles upon the beans and decides to keep some as a souvenir. However, this ill-fated souvenir leads to the discovery of an epidemic that will soon teach humanity the importance of the natural balance between genders.
Apart from the obvious theme of sexism, Malouf also tackles a variety of other controversial issues ranging from racism, international development, to population control. The issue of population control is particularly relevant today which is why the BBC recently published an article on the subject under the title “Population: The elephant in the room”. What is notable, as well, is that Malouf divides the world into mainly North vs. South, as opposed to the traditional West vs. East, which is probably a bit more accurate.
Personally, I truly appreciated Malouf’s ability to incorporate very interesting and relevant ideas in an enjoyable and believable memoir. The novel, however, takes a more apocalyptic tone as we approach the end, echoing the looming gloomy end of humanity. It also adopts the style of a preachy lecture, which inadvertently but inevitably affected my ability to enjoy the novel as a novel. So overall, I’d give it a 3.5 out of 5.

Confessions of a Non-vegetarian

Disclaimer: this article may gross you out, especially if you’re reading it early in the morning while having breakfast.

One time, I just woke up in the middle of the night and couldn’t get back to sleep. Soon enough my mind was wandering and thinking about random issues. Here is one of the whacky thoughts that occurred to me that night: imagine a woman early on in her pregnancy with a vague fetus in her belly not quite resembling a baby yet. Somehow someone for some reason manages to extract this fetus from the womb of the mother, fry it in butter until golden brown, and then eat it for breakfast.
“EEUW!! That is so disgusting” is probably what you’re thinking right now. “That is the weirdest sickest thought I have ever heard” could be another one. But actually it isn’t that weird or sick as most of us apply this concept every morning while preparing omelettes or sunny-side ups. The weird thing actually is the fact that many vegetarians don’t even mind consuming eggs. Hello, eggs don’t grow on trees! They are dead fetuses.
This might be the mummy-hormones turning me into a softy, but can we go back to basics for a minute and think about how we turned so unconsciously cruel. At what point did it become ok for us to grab other creatures, end their lives with a slit of a knife, and simply prey on them?
Of course, the idea of vegetarianism isn’t new at all, as a quick glance around will show. Many practicing Buddhists, for example, refrain from consuming any type of meat. Jesus is thought by many Christians to have been a vegetarian. In Islam it is quite permissible to opt for vegetarianism as a lifestyle choice.
As I mentioned in the title of this article, I haven’t come out of the closet as a vegetarian – yet. While it’s true that I haven’t had any meat or eggs in a while, and the idea of feasting on dead carcasses is troubling me more by the day, I still don’t want to rush into any kind of labels. I already carry more than enough.
Either way, the bottom line is in times of troubled politics in a place like the Middle East, this issue might not be making headlines. Still, it is a grave matter for everyone and it deserves to be given due consideration.

(Painting by Hristian Kunchev)

Ever Wondered How Many Mothers you Really Have?

What exactly defines your mother tongue or native language? Is it the language you first learn to speak? Or is it the language you are most fluent in – if for whatever reason that happens to be different from the first? In such case, could one have two or more mother tongues?
According to the first definition, my mother tongue would be Tagalog, which I lost many years ago. According to the second definition, it would be either Arabic or English, both of which I learned later in life. But I can’t really decide. So do I have more than one mother tongue? Nah, I’m probably closer to a lingual orphan in that sense. The confusion, however, does not stop at the boundary of definitions.
Apart from the obvious function of language to express, a mother tongue also has political implications. Your language of origin is an identity card that defines your group of belonging and loyalties. Choosing to divert from the group by employing another language is often seen as a form of betrayal, and therefore is a source of disappointment within the group.
This simple concept was so much more feasible when different ethnic and lingual groups’ interaction with each other was limited to the occasional exchange of merchandise a few centuries ago. The Arab merchants who imported goods from neighboring countries did not have to worry about MTV Arabia streaming 24/7 right into their living rooms. They were also most likely to speak, read, write, think, and blog in their language of origin. This can be hardly said of today. Physical and virtual interaction, through the web, with people of different cultures and languages has become a part of daily life even in some of the most xenophobic communities. So here’s a thought: language shouldn’t be considered as something you’re born into anymore, nor should it be pegged to a nationality. It would be much more practical for language to be a question of choice.
Would this cause all ethnic groups of the world to eventually adopt a single language if they had the choice? Not, likely. There will always be eager Orientalists and Occidentalists on both sides of the equation to keep it balanced.

(Painting by Filipino artist Angeles)