#MeToo and the Middle East

The phenomenon of sexual harassment predates the Weinstein scandal by thousands of years. Men have acted with boldness and primal manners for almost all of their existence in the presence of women as well as in their absence. The new wave of anti-patriarchy that is sweeping through the US, supported by fierce advocates in Hollywood, the media, and the political class has brought the issue firmly to the forefront of the social debate. The question is explored with passion and zeal mostly in Western societies, and less so in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Why is that?

Well, because the issues of one’s privacy or one’s individual rights have always sprung from the Western schools of thought from Aristotle to Marcus Tullius Cicero, from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, and from the suffragettes, to the Civil Movement. The issue is not about women or sex, only, it rather is about one’s dignity as a human being, about one’s respect as a full member of society. Individuals in the Western world are more important than the group they form and in which they live. Individual rights are more critical than collective duties and societal obligations and surely are more crucial than State policy or official authority. “Civil Disobedience”, which was written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 advocates the right of the individual to reject and even violate a law, even if duly enacted by congress, if such law contradicts one’s morals or beliefs. The price for Thoreau was to be imprisoned for disobeying the law, but it was never his right to disobey. That is a natural right given to all creatures by their creator, or for the more secular-inclined souls among us, by nature itself.  No congregation of people, be it political, social or religious, could infringe, deny or alienate such rights, even though governments -the instrumentality of the people's will - never fail to restrict the power of individual freedoms under many pretexts.

The anti-patriarchy drive that has been ushered by the #MeToo movement will take root in societies where individual rights are protected not only by law, but by history and societal behavior at large. The right to bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment is no different from the right not to have to endure verbal, moral or physical abuse of sexual or other nature. It derives from the root of the principle of Habeas Corpus which was instilled into ancient laws to prevent one’s body from unlawful detention.

The Middle East is not a society of individuals but rather of clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and religious and racial minorities. People in such region do not see themselves as individuals collaborating to live in a communal setting but rather communities tolerating individuals living among them, albeit with reduced rights. The Government or the Regime, the Church or the Mosque, the King or the Ruler, the Sheik or the Head of the Tribe, the Feudal Lord or the Warlord do not treat their fellow citizens as individuals but as a group whose first obligation is to kowtow to their absolute will or face exclusion from the community. Men and women alike are dealt with in such a manner, although a harsher treatment is reserved for women especially in certain countries where both religious edicts and tribal customs cast them into a lower sub-group. Their rights are often subjugated to those of the official authority and to the male’s individual will. One often hears the specious declamations that women in the Middle East are less sexually harassed than in Western societies. Apart from this statement being false in almost every way as emprical evidence shows, the clue could be because they are cast away from society. So, the opportunity for harassment -not the will to do so- is somewhat remote due to physical constraints. The separate living spaces, the veil, the male guardianship system, the blood crimes or so-called honor killings, are all practices that act as a natural barrier for men from...

The phenomenon of sexual harassment predates the Weinstein scandal by thousands of years. Men have acted with boldness and primal manners for almost all of their existence in the presence of women as well as in their absence. The new wave of anti-patriarchy that is sweeping through the US, supported by fierce advocates in Hollywood, the media, and the political class has brought the issue firmly to the forefront of the social debate. The question is explored with passion and zeal mostly in Western societies, and less so in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Why is that?

Well, because the issues of one’s privacy or one’s individual rights have always sprung from the Western schools of thought from Aristotle to Marcus Tullius Cicero, from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, and from the suffragettes, to the Civil Movement. The issue is not about women or sex, only, it rather is about one’s dignity as a human being, about one’s respect as a full member of society. Individuals in the Western world are more important than the group they form and in which they live. Individual rights are more critical than collective duties and societal obligations and surely are more crucial than State policy or official authority. “Civil Disobedience”, which was written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 advocates the right of the individual to reject and even violate a law, even if duly enacted by congress, if such law contradicts one’s morals or beliefs. The price for Thoreau was to be imprisoned for disobeying the law, but it was never his right to disobey. That is a natural right given to all creatures by their creator, or for the more secular-inclined souls among us, by nature itself.  No congregation of people, be it political, social or religious, could infringe, deny or alienate such rights, even though governments -the instrumentality of the people’s will – never fail to restrict the power of individual freedoms under many pretexts.

The anti-patriarchy drive that has been ushered by the #MeToo movement will take root in societies where individual rights are protected not only by law, but by history and societal behavior at large. The right to bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment is no different from the right not to have to endure verbal, moral or physical abuse of sexual or other nature. It derives from the root of the principle of Habeas Corpus which was instilled into ancient laws to prevent one’s body from unlawful detention.

The Middle East is not a society of individuals but rather of clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and religious and racial minorities. People in such region do not see themselves as individuals collaborating to live in a communal setting but rather communities tolerating individuals living among them, albeit with reduced rights. The Government or the Regime, the Church or the Mosque, the King or the Ruler, the Sheik or the Head of the Tribe, the Feudal Lord or the Warlord do not treat their fellow citizens as individuals but as a group whose first obligation is to kowtow to their absolute will or face exclusion from the community. Men and women alike are dealt with in such a manner, although a harsher treatment is reserved for women especially in certain countries where both religious edicts and tribal customs cast them into a lower sub-group. Their rights are often subjugated to those of the official authority and to the male’s individual will. One often hears the specious declamations that women in the Middle East are less sexually harassed than in Western societies. Apart from this statement being false in almost every way as emprical evidence shows, the clue could be because they are cast away from society. So, the opportunity for harassment -not the will to do so- is somewhat remote due to physical constraints. The separate living spaces, the veil, the male guardianship system, the blood crimes or so-called honor killings, are all practices that act as a natural barrier for men from unleashing their predatory behavior. Hence, women are secluded, like pariahs in some societies, not out of respect as often claimed but by fear of someone harassing them and bringing shame into the family, or tribe or clan. Thus, the notion is more perverse than meets the eye. It is not that harassment is viewed with scorn or disdain, but rather the consequence of it is, and not onto the women who suffer from such acts, but on the male elements of her family, clan or tribe.

So, to recapitulate, the Middle East is not a bastion for individual freedoms. Within this narrow space for liberty, women occupy an even lower category that is segregated physically from the rest; and within such cast system, the crime of sexual harassment -no matter how abject- is shunned because it could bring dishonor to the male relatives of the victim.

One could jealously observe the many Western movements that claim the just cause of Habeas Corpus and ponder upon the idea of a #WeToo movement for the Middle East that purports to champion the just causes of liberty and dignity for all sexes.