McDonaldization in the Darwish Household

       
          Today in class, we discussed the theory of McDonalization, which is a process where society is increasingly run like a fast food restaurant. While the professor was explaining the four dimensions of this concept, I could not help but notice how the processes relate to my everyday life and family structure. The first dimension, efficiency, is the optimum method of completing a task. My family is heavily reliant on schedules, and everyone planning their week in advance. We like to know what everyone is doing for us to decide when is the best time for us to gather as a family and what is the best activity we can during that time span. With my schedule, I plan when I should complete my homework, extra curricular activities and miscellaneous errands without it interfering with my family activities.
          The second dimension is calculation. This is an assessment of outcomes based on quantifiable rather than subjective criteria. With my example, we “calculate” the best time for us to spend time as a family after everyone has informed our parents with our schedule for that week. We usually spend every dinner together during weekdays and dedicate our entire Friday to our family. This step is essential as it decides what time we should all gather together and how much time we have available. This will determine whether we’ll be staying at home, going out to a restaurant, or watching a movie at the cinema.
         The third dimension is predictability, which is the production process organized to guarantee uniformity of product and standardized outcomes. This relates to my family structure as every week, we are able predict that we will gather during dinner, as well a lunch on Friday. Also, when our schedule is complete, we can predict what to expect for that week and hopefully assume a certain outcome.
          The last dimension is control. This is the substitution of more predictable non-human labour for the human labour, either through automation or the de-skilling of the workforce. One of the main reasons my family and I are able to spend a lot of time with one another is because of our smartphones. We are able to send messages to our parents informing them with our schedule for that week and thus they are able to tell us immediately what activities they have planned.
          Personally, I prefer having a formula set up on how one should behave as it brings a certain standard of efficiency to one’s life. With this schedule, I am able to complete all of my tasks and spend a lot of time with my family and friends as well. Every day is productive and effectual.

Here are some photos of three past family activities that we have completed at home (All photos taken with my Iphone camera):
- Movie night

-Breakfast buffet

-Outdoor gathering when the weather is nice

Displays of Gender-Specific Behavior in a Family Gathering

      While visiting my hometown over the weekend, I had to attend a family gathering. Unlike our normal family gatherings that occur every weekend (which include only around ten immediate family members), this gathering included three of my grandmother's first cousins once removed, my half-great uncle's children and their children, and other relatives I could not even name. Needless to say, it was a large number of invitees–– so large that the dining table did not fit.

The dining table that only fit the fifteen seniors of the family

      Common perceptions of Saudi Arabian family gatherings would immediately hold the assumption that they are gender segregated. That is not the case with all gatherings, as it differs between families, and it is definitely not the case with this gathering. Fortunately, due to this lack of segregation, I was able to observe displays of both male and female "power" in this gathering.

What was not the case in my family's gathering.

      Males in the gathering sat down for the majority of the gathering's duration. They spoke of serious matters. Whenever a topic would become increasingly grim or sensitive, a man would typically immediately change the subject by the means of comedy, such as ridiculing the issue at hand in a light-hearted manner or cracking a random joke. As predicted, the only time the men got up was when the lamb (the main meal of the gathering) was ready to be served. For readers unfamiliar with Arab cuisine, the lamb was served whole––head, limbs, and so on. Three men had to carry the lamb to the table, an act that can easily be considered a public display of masculine power by many.

       Most of the females in the gathering never actually sat down. They would task themselves with helping the maids set up the table and serving juices and dates to the guests. Those who sat down engaged in typically female conversations. Mothers discussed schools and children, while younger females discussed recent restaurant openings and the latest trends. Eventually, more serious social topics were discussed, such as the recent changes in the sponsorship system in the country. As one may expect, though, this topic was only discussed by the women as soon as a man initiated the topic and then involved the women in the discussion. This is no way indicative of a lack of intellect on the women's part, certainly not from a sociological perspective. This is merely indicative of what topics seem to be socially acceptable for women to discuss amongst themselves, even if the women are well-informed of social matters such as the Saudi Arabian sponsorship system (a system that is also implemented by the country's GCC neighbor Qatar).

      Interestingly enough, a strange manifestation of segregation was also noted. While the gathering was strictly not gender segregated, the majority of the invitees had the tendency to isolate themselves by gender anyway. Younger females, including myself, sat in a further, more isolated part of the room. It was isolated enough that we could not see the other side of the room but still hear the rest of our family converse. The men and older women, such as mothers and grandmothers, were seated in the main, larger section of the room. Nevertheless, they, too, somewhat divided themselves by gender. Some women sat with the men and some men sat with the women. I found that it all depended on the topic that was being discussed at the time, and was not due to any particular social discomfort with the other gender. The same could be said about the way I was seated with my younger female relatives. We probably only chose to be isolated because we wanted the freedom of discussing our lives abroad as international university students.

      Despite changing times, displays of both masculine and feminine behavior remain the same. The same concept also applies to expectations of masculine and feminine behavior, and everyone acts accordingly to avoid social "punishment". Despite the fact that at some points during the gathering, I felt that I did not want to discuss food and fashion, I felt that I had no other choice...somewhat. While I could have initiated a serious topic with both the males and the females in the family, my attempts would have been dismissed most likely due to my young age and gender. While that is in no way a sure determinant of intelligence, and while everyone in the gathering most likely believed that, society constructed it otherwise. In such a large setting, everyone feels that it is safer to stick to the boundaries set by social norms. I am almost certain of that because I know that in our smaller weekly gatherings that only include my immediate relatives, I can more confidently discuss serious matters and I would be taken seriously. Despite the fact that all of my immediate family members were present, that same confidence was not present due to the socially sensitive situation we were placed in due to the large number of family members, all with differing ages and, of course, genders.

My Son, The Breadwinner

    In the class reading the breadwinner system was basically about the man being the main provider for his family. This is where the word breadwinner comes from the explanation that the person is the one who provides bread, which is an important part of the daily meals of family. Being a breadwinner doesn’t extend to the providing for the house itself. Being a breadwinner also directly connects with the idea of having the control and power in the family.

     Earlier this month, I went to a comedy show hosted by Chris Tucker. He is an African-American stand up comedian, who grew up in the black community his entire life. Chris made fun of a lot of topics. Mainly, how his dad used to treat him and his brothers. He jokingly mentioned that his dad used to be the person who provides for the family. However, after Chris became famous after Rush Hour movies almost every one in his family quit their job. This extends the meaning of being a breadwinner to different levels. Before the meaning of being a breadwinner was exclusive to the husband and wife.

   However, when the children of the family become adults, there is a chance of them becoming the breadwinner of the family, this was the case for Chris Tucker. However, during his hilarious stand up comedy he mentions his dad personality when his dad was the breadwinner. Stating that his dad used to spank him and his brothers with a belt every time they did something wrong, this emphasizes on the power of being a breadwinner. The connection of being a breadwinner and power seem directly proportional.

     In general the unemployed men who are married to an employed wife the wife are less likely to to do anything at home. This can be explained that if the wife is the person who provides for the family, she is the person of power in this relationship since she’s the one with the fat wallet. So, men feel intimidated by that. They feel that their masculinity is threatened, so, they don’t do any housework even though they have nothing else to do!

In this video Chris makes fun of his uncle and how his uncle goes to him every time he needed money.

Breadwinners and Homemakers

The family usually divides the work between them, wives and husbands. Two terms must be defined that describe the couple’s roles. The first term is the breadwinner system, it describes the husband who works and earns income to support the entire nuclear family. The other term is the homemaker, it describes the wife who stays at home and does the domestic duties.

The Traditional Breadwinner and Homemaker

The traditional family consists of the breadwinner husband and the homemaker wife. In this patriarchal society, the husband is the head of the family and holds the power, because he has the ability to provide money or food for his wife and children. The traditional breadwinner husband seems to have the cultural respect. On the other hand, the homemaker wife usually lacks of control over one’s work, because she has to spend her day at home taking care of the house and the children.  

Breadwinner Wife and Homemaker Husband

In this system, the husbands and wives switch their roles, as the wife becomes the breadwinner by going out to the work, while the husband stays at home taking care of the children and do the domestic duties.

Since this system is out of expectation, husbands who are laid off or do not work tend to do less homework. This is because husband is expected to be the breadwinner not a homemaker, as he feels his masculinity is being under threatened. In this particular situation, some households may have some tension because of switching of the roles between the husband and the wife. The fact of nobody wants to feel useless, unappreciated and overloaded. Everyone wants a consequential work, so this lead to both of the couples be in the working field.

Families of the 21^st Century

In the last generation, it is noticed that many women are moving to the working field. Many women don’t want to continue what their mothers did, being homemakers. They are bored from cleaning, washing and doing all other house duties plus taking care of the children. Today’s women have other priorities other than marriage. Most of the women want to study in universities and have different degrees. Moreover, men in those days want to get married to those who are with graduated from universities, so that they have the opportunity to work. Husbands support their wives to work now a days to help their husbands from the income perspectives and to get the best for their kids. This situation may not matter to husbands with high income, but still women want to show themselves outside the house area.

The secondary shift

In sociology, the secondary shift known as the jobs that working wives do to run the household after they finish the workday. In Cinematic Sociology book, it indicates three types of couples. The first type is the traditional couple, in which both of the couples work outside the house for wages, but it is expected from wives to complete their domestic duties once they come back home. Besides, it is expected from husbands to their traditional duties such as handling the car problems. The second type is transitional; in which the husbands help their wives in the domestic duties. The third type is egalitarian; in which the couples divide the domestic duties between them. However, most of the times the wives have the majority of work, because they have the ability to organize and make all the work is done. The secondary shift helps both of the couples to drop their stress and both of them are benefiting from this arrangement to have a successful happily marriage life.

What Choices Do Single Saudi Arabian Mothers Have?

Note: Throughout this blog, I refer to single mothers. This includes both divorced mothers and widowed mothers.

      In the previous week's sociology class, family work dynamics were discussed, particularly how work impacts the family and how outside forces impact work in the family. In this blog post, I will investigate the role of work in the families of single Saudi Arabian mothers. In order to analyze this phenomenon, though, one must first understand both past and recent variations in general family work dynamics.

      The most significant outside force to first impact work is the industrial revolution. The revolution changed what was commonly home-based work in farms to factory work, which may have distanced and maybe even severed familial relations with the patriarch (or the father) due to long hours of work away from home. This has lead to today's predominant breadwinner system, a system in which the man works to support the entire family while the woman is left as the primary caregiver.

Source

      Recent socioeconomic changes in today's world have caused even stronger and more complex changes to how work functions in familial contexts. Due to recent economic crises and increasingly high financial demands, the breadwinner system no longer sufficiently provides for an entire family. Instead, one often finds that both parents work now, particularly in Western countries such as the United States of America or France. As divorce becomes more socially acceptable in such countries, one also finds an increase in divorce rates, which are also catalyzed by other socioeconomic factors.

Source

      Different cases or arrangements of the function of work in the family lead to different advantages and concerns. When both parents work, surely the family gains more financial stability, but that could be at the expense of bonding with one's child/children and maybe even partner, which could lead to tension and dissonance in familial relations. Single mothers also find themselves having to fulfill the role of both the caregiver mother and breadwinner father. These are merely a few examples of the many influences variations in work could affect the family.

      The aforementioned examples all have a variable degree of choice from at least one aspect. One could argue, for instance, that single mothers chose divorce. In the case of single (or widowed) Saudi Arabian mothers, though, choice is a factor that has long been unfamiliar. One can quickly assume that in the severely patriarchal (or male-dominant) Saudi Arabian society, restrictions are bound to be placed upon this particular type of women. What one may not easily understand, though, is the extent of the restrictions placed upon single Saudi Arabian mothers by the country's male guardianship system, the finest example of extreme patriarchy.

       Let us assume that a working single Saudi Arabian mother––after she has been granted permission to work by a male guardian, of course––earns enough money to support her children. She has the choice of enrolling them in the city's best school. She could easily save enough money for their futures. She may even choose to travel with them simply because she wants to. They are her children, after all.

      Unfortunately, choice is not an option for single Saudi Arabian mothers. Unless the children have a cooperative, responsible father who is in mutual agreement with their mother for the sake of their well-being, irresponsible fathers often opt to place children in incompetent schools due to free or meager tuition fees, despite the mother's capability of affording better educational options. Fathers also have the right to immediately "claim ownership" of the children, not through legal procedures, but by simply barging into the mother's home and taking the children away (otherwise known as kidnapping). According to the male guardianship, such insane measures are technically allowed (although certain courts may overrule such measures).

      Widowed mothers, who are often old in age, must begin relying on their son(s) after their husband's death. For instance, my paternal grandmother must ask for either my father or uncle's permission in order to travel, even having at nearly eight decades of age. My uncle has often expressed strong dislike towards this policy, saying that a responsible and mature woman should not require the constant permission of her youngest son, an opinion shared by other Saudi Arabian men alike. My maternal grandmother, on the other hand, has no sons nor brothers. Instead, travel permits must be approved by a government official––a strange man, no less. Honestly, the incompetence of the male guardianship system can be proved merely through that ridiculous example. The irony.

      What choice do these women have? What happens when the male guardianship system places the fates of these women into the hands of irresponsible men, unwilling to perform their duties that are so integral to the guardianship system? While the option of "switching" the rights of irresponsible husbands to responsible fathers or brothers does exist, the legal process is both lengthy and daunting, similarly to many other legal procedures in the country, which follow an often obscure and unnecessarily complex hierarchy.

      In some ways, the Saudi Arabian male guardianship system echoes the breadwinner system. Never mind the fact that both are male-dependent. Both are absolutely incompetent in today's demanding world, which demands for women to have a choice, whether it is the choice to work or to invest in the lives of their children––choices that are "basic", to say the least.

“No. This is the WOMAN of the house!”

People are social creatures. It means we depend on others to tell us what to do, what is right and what is wrong. As much as we deny it, we like rules. We create them to follow them and let others follow them so we can have a sense of security and stability. Rules can be made in the form of law or just “common sense.” What is socially acceptable or what society thinks is normal plays an important role in our lives as it shapes our behavior and attitude towards things.

Media plays a big role in conveying these ideals and making us believe that they are the norm. These things can range from stereotypes about certain races, messed up standards of beauty and representations of family dynamics.

Here in the Middle East, everything is about family. We live with our families and only leave when we create a new family of our own (and sometimes we don’t leave then). We go on vacations with family, eat with family, work in family businesses, achieve things to make our family proud and most importantly, the end goal of every single one of us (the bachelors) is to have a family someday. We are slaves to our families to put it simply. It is not really as scary as it sounds, but it would be really weird if we all have the same end goal.

I guess the reason why things go down this way is because of the culture and dominant religion. People must not have relationships outside of marriage (not that this stopped anybody). Once people get married, they should start thinking about their legacy and stuff, so yeah, kids are a yes yes if you can have them. And then of course, there is nothing really else for you to do than work to please your family for the rest of your life.

However, we all know that things in real life aren’t that boring. We all really have different lifestyles and a lot of us youngsters are not even thinking about having a family. Yes, we are one selfish generation. But the truth is, we just tasted freedom now. With the rising levels of education, people, especially women, are becoming more and more independent. Right now, all we’re thinking about is how we want to finish our education, get a good job and spend money on spoiling ourselves. Nobody said anything about finding a hubby or raising babies.

The point is, there is a possibility that the breadwinner system is going to change. The breadwinner system is a tradition where the husband works and earns income to support the entire nuclear family. Women are getting good education now. There are greater chances for better jobs and more income. They will be soon providing for the family and they will have more power. Of course, I’m talking right now like I’m from the 50s and this does not already happen. But we all know it does and it is becoming the norm. People used to get married at the age of 13 a while ago. Can you believe that?! Now, there are a lot of people in their 30s who are enjoying the single life. I was interested in what other people my age think about the breadwinner system and if they believe it will always be that way. So I asked them:

I was also interested in knowing what they think about the media’s representations of family in this region. You see, once you turn on the TV and watch an Arabic soap opera all you see is love affairs, family, kids, families, divorce, love affairs… you get the point. Arab people love drama but they always have the same old story. Daddy and mommy have kids. One of the kids wants to get married to this person that daddy and mommy don’t approve of because they already hooked them up in an arranged marriage. Kid elopes with lover. Daddy kills kid. Daddy also secretly loves his secretary or something. Parents get a divorce. Kid’s lover dies in some freak accident. Seriously, it’s like they use this template for every single show!

Anyways, what I cannot find is representations of another type of family. A family where mommy is dealing with midlife crisis and working her way through the second shift. The second shift are the jobs that working wives do to run the household after they finish the workday. Why can’t they be single mothers raising their children? That’s drama right there. Why can’t it be that the father doesn't have a job and the mother has to raise him too since he won’t do anything around the house? But what if he does help around the house? What if he likes to cook and clean? What if there is no mother? What if they were two dads instead? Too many questions and only one answer: Because it is weird, it is wrong and it is not normal.

I personally think that things will change around here. Maybe not soon, but, eventually. Student films are already being made representing different kinds of families and tackling these sensitive topics. So perhaps one day we can turn on the TV and watch Youssef take care of the twins while his wife, Sara, cures her patients.

Tartans Got Talent

No, it is not a TV show; but an event that took place in Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar(CMUQ) in Education City this Thursday. The event showcased the talents of the various students studying in Carnegie Mellon, which included singing; playing instruments; rapping; beat boxing; and comedy. Other than that, the event is nothing like the show; there are no buzzers involved & nobody is judging anything. This event was open for students of all universities and even parents and siblings of students studying in CMUQ.



Since we covered Globalization and Glocalization for the previous class, I was thinking of the event in terms of five major elements of globalization – Multinational corporations; Ideology of capitalism; Governments; Resistance & Consequences. Lets start with the first element- multinational corporations. Now in every event that takes place inside CMUQ comes with free food for students. For this particular event the Shater Abbas restaurant was the sole caterer. Also, I had noticed the university had spent a large budget on special lighting and other effects for the area.



Hence, in this case, the restaurant and the companies providing the lighting and the audio equipment are the multinational companies involved.

Capitalism- The involvement of the multinational companied automatically paves way for capitalism or profits. Here, the restaurants that catered for the event earned a hefty profit. As mentioned earlier, a big budget was spent for lighting and audio equipment. The company responsible earned a big profit; also I have heard that the company increases its price for the effects every year. Moreover, the same event will occur next year as well and the Student Affairs dept. are planning to make it even better than this year.


Government- The forms of government involved here were the Student Affairs Department & the student body government (Student Majlis). All the performances were signed up and approved by the Student Affairs one week prior to the event. Also, Student Affairs and the Student Majlis handled the budgeting together.


Resistance & Consequences- There were a few conservative who were frustrated and disliked when girls were dancing during one of the performances. Moreover, there were a few students who were unable to participate as they came from conservative family backgrounds and their families were against it. All this contributes to resistance aspect of globalization. The consequences are not that many; however there are a few financial fallbacks. Since a large budget was allocated for the quality of this event; the other events that will be organized in CMUQ will be low-budgeted or cancelled (For example, previously there would a be a lot of free food events where every event staged within CMUQ would be provided with few food. However, in the recent years, very few events provide food due to decreased budget).

Every year, the event attracts hundreds of students across Education City from various universities.