|
Jordan Family Relationships
The social milieu in which a Jordanian family lived
significantly affected the position of the wife and her degree of
autonomy. In rural agricultural areas and among the urban poor,
women fulfilled important economic functions. Traditionally, some
women of poor urban families worked outside the home, and rural
women performed a wide variety of tasks in the household and in the
fields. Such women occupied a position of relative importance and
enjoyed a modicum of freedom in their comings and goings within the
village or neighborhood. Although casual social contact between the
sexes of the kind common in the West was infrequent, segregation of
the sexes was less pronounced than in traditional towns. Among the
traditional urban bourgeoisie, women fulfilled fewer and less
important economic functions. Artisan and merchant families earned
their living from the skills of the men. Women's responsibilities
were more confined to the home. Among the new urban middle class,
women occupied a variety of positions, some of them contradictory.
Some women of this class were educated and employed, and enjoyed a
fair measure of mobility within society; others, also educated and
skilled, lived a more sheltered life, with minimal mobility. Both
groups of women frequently were seen in the streets wearing Islamic
dress
(see Jordan - Women and Work
, this ch.).
The allocation of space within the home was often genderspecific . The houses of prosperous urban and rural families
traditionally contained distinct men's and women's areas: the
reception room where the men of the family entertained male guests
and the women's quarters from which adult males other than
relatives and servants were excluded. Less wealthy urban or rural
families were unable to conform as easily to the standards of
segregation. They could not afford the extra room for male
gatherings. In poorer rural areas, men and women often socialized
together in the house.
Status within the household varied considerably depending on
sex, age, and type of household. In principle, men had greater
autonomy than women. Their movements in public were freer, and
their personal decisions were more their own. Within the household,
however, younger males were subject to the authority of senior
males, their grandfathers, fathers, and uncles. Decisions about
education, marriage, and work remained family affairs. Older women
exerted substantial authority and control over children and
adolescents, the most powerless sector within a household.
Household structure, whether nuclear or extended, also
determined the extent to which women wielded power in a household.
In a household with multiple married women, senior women held more
power and could exert more control over younger wives. Younger
women often preferred to live in a nuclear household where they had
more autonomy in running the household and in child rearing. They
were then more subject, however, to the direct control of the
husband and had to manage the household alone without the help of
other women.
Children were given much affection and attention. Although not
spared spanking and occasional harsh scolding, children were
indulged and given much physical affection by household members and
neighbors alike. Their behavior was tolerated with amusement until
close to the ages of four and five. Children then were expected to
assume some responsibilities in the household. Little girls at this
age began to help their mothers with household chores and to care
for younger children.
Segregation by gender was tied closely to the concept of honor
(ird). In most Arab communities, honor inhered in the
descent group--the family and, to a varying extent, the lineage or
clan. Honor could be lost through the failure of sisters, wives,
and daughters to behave properly (modestly) and through the failure
of men to exert self-restraint over their emotions toward women.
For women, the constraints of modesty were not confined to sexual
matters. Also, women could be held accountable for a loss of honor
though they might not have had any obvious responsibility in the
matter. Loud speech, a woman's bearing or dress, or her appearing
in public places could lead to a loss of honor. For men, overt
expressions of emotions (such as romantic love) that revealed
vulnerability to women could cause a man's strength to be
questioned, leading to a loss of honor. Men were expected to be
above such matters of the heart. A wife's failure to behave
properly reflected on the honor of her husband and his kin, but
even more on her father and brothers and others of the group from
which she came. A man's failure to conform to the norms of selfcontrol and invulnerability to women shamed his immediate and
extended kin group.
Above all, honor was a matter of reputation. Perceptions were
as important as actions or events. An offense against honor could
be very lightly punished if it appeared that only the person's
family knew of it. Harsher steps were required if persons outside
the family knew of the offense or believed it to have occurred.
The penalties for violation of the honor code differed for men
and women. Custom granted the males of a family the right to kill
female kin known to have engaged in illicit sexual relations. A
more common practice, however, was for the families involved to
arrange a hasty marriage. Men who lost honor through their actions
were ostracized and lost face and standing in the community.
On the one hand, the segregation of women worked to minimize
the chances that a family's honor would be lost or diminished. On
the other hand, the education of women and their participation in
a modern work force tended to erode the traditional concept of
honor by promoting the mingling of the sexes in public life.
Data as of December 1989
|
