Introduction
Women’s rights in the middle east is gaining more momentum now than it has in the past years. Reformation is the key to moving forward, but democracy still must change in order to enact and continue future progress for women. There are still heavy limitations on what women can and cannot do, which hinders progress, but sources say there is progress on the way. Women’s rights, and whether the United States can interfere, is the cornerstone of progress abroad. Governments are still following age-old rules and using religion as means to push back and deny rights to women in the Middle East. Sources say there is progression underway in certain regions, from more women in government to local laws allowing women more participation in …show more content…
Men are considered the head of household and therefore control the cash as well as their family. In some areas, speaking against the man is considered a crime. Isobel Coleman, in her journal “The Payoff from Women’s Rights” highlights why giving financial control to women can be such a boon. A prime example of this, “Increases in household income, for example, benefit a family more if the mother, rather than the father, controls the cash.” Why is this important? Women are much more likely to make educated and intelligent decisions with money compared to men. She notes that increases in female income made children 20 times more likely to survive, as well as average health of children skyrocketing; giving women more financial freedom improves the lives of themselves and their families. Apart from this, Coleman goes into why microfinances, letting women borrow money, is a powerful tool towards economic advancement. She references the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, founded by Mohammed Yunus, and his reasoning that if poor people were granted small loans on reasonable terms, it could “add up to create the biggest development wonder.” What struck him was that women were much more consistent in paying back loans. Because of the launch of the microfinance wave, “women now account for 80 percent of the world’s 70 million micro borrowers.” Such high numbers must say something about women …show more content…
Repressive regimes are more likely to increase violence and discrimination against women due to the pressure of military intervention. Often, those countries interfering, do so for their own political and economic interests. Dursun Peksen, author of the piece “Foreign military intervention and women’s rights” says, “Since the political regime in the target state is protected by self-interested intervener states, they are less likely to be compelled by the pressure from the domestic opposition…to strictly enforce women’s rights.” He is saying that the prioritization of strategic interest leads to a lesser chance of women’s right being enforced. Isobel Coleman, in her piece published in the Foreign Affairs journal, says “This marriage of convenience threatens Washington’s policy of advancing women’s rights. The “marriage of convenience” she references is the protection of repressive regimes because of the priority of strategic interests as mentioned above. Women’s rights will not have a chance to push forward if they are not prioritized by the United States government. International pressure to improve the rights of women also plays a big role in how the government deals with these issues in foreign countries. The authors of the article “Middle East Democracy” published by the Washington Post, also say that “The United States has a lengthy laundry list of other priorities in the region…” If
Women’s rights in the middle east is gaining more momentum now than it has in the past years. Reformation is the key to moving forward, but democracy still must change in order to enact and continue future progress for women. There are still heavy limitations on what women can and cannot do, which hinders progress, but sources say there is progress on the way. Women’s rights, and whether the United States can interfere, is the cornerstone of progress abroad. Governments are still following age-old rules and using religion as means to push back and deny rights to women in the Middle East. Sources say there is progression underway in certain regions, from more women in government to local laws allowing women more participation in …show more content…
Men are considered the head of household and therefore control the cash as well as their family. In some areas, speaking against the man is considered a crime. Isobel Coleman, in her journal “The Payoff from Women’s Rights” highlights why giving financial control to women can be such a boon. A prime example of this, “Increases in household income, for example, benefit a family more if the mother, rather than the father, controls the cash.” Why is this important? Women are much more likely to make educated and intelligent decisions with money compared to men. She notes that increases in female income made children 20 times more likely to survive, as well as average health of children skyrocketing; giving women more financial freedom improves the lives of themselves and their families. Apart from this, Coleman goes into why microfinances, letting women borrow money, is a powerful tool towards economic advancement. She references the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, founded by Mohammed Yunus, and his reasoning that if poor people were granted small loans on reasonable terms, it could “add up to create the biggest development wonder.” What struck him was that women were much more consistent in paying back loans. Because of the launch of the microfinance wave, “women now account for 80 percent of the world’s 70 million micro borrowers.” Such high numbers must say something about women …show more content…
Repressive regimes are more likely to increase violence and discrimination against women due to the pressure of military intervention. Often, those countries interfering, do so for their own political and economic interests. Dursun Peksen, author of the piece “Foreign military intervention and women’s rights” says, “Since the political regime in the target state is protected by self-interested intervener states, they are less likely to be compelled by the pressure from the domestic opposition…to strictly enforce women’s rights.” He is saying that the prioritization of strategic interest leads to a lesser chance of women’s right being enforced. Isobel Coleman, in her piece published in the Foreign Affairs journal, says “This marriage of convenience threatens Washington’s policy of advancing women’s rights. The “marriage of convenience” she references is the protection of repressive regimes because of the priority of strategic interests as mentioned above. Women’s rights will not have a chance to push forward if they are not prioritized by the United States government. International pressure to improve the rights of women also plays a big role in how the government deals with these issues in foreign countries. The authors of the article “Middle East Democracy” published by the Washington Post, also say that “The United States has a lengthy laundry list of other priorities in the region…” If