The Essence of Diversity

Last spring, I have been to Washington D.C where I visited my brother whose doing medicine residency in the states. It was a beautiful place filled with many buildings and awesome cuisine.

However, one of the things that had grabbed my attention is how the art and the theme of the place is different than from what I have seen in Doha. In Washington DC, the buildings have this Greek theme that emphasizes the earliest forms of Republicanism. Also the parks are green and filled with many historic-reflective statues such as Abraham Lincoln statue at the National Mall.

Whereas, in Doha, the architecture of the buildings is more headed towards the future. There are these tall buildings with smooth semi-cylindrical shafts that can be found in the west bay districts as well as these glossy zigzag shaped buildings. Also there are so many indoor malls here and there.

I believe that the contrast of such cultural objects that we see in Washington D.C and Doha is important because each symbolize the culture and heritage of the country and its people. If all cultural objects were uniform, there would be no point to traveling to faraway places because there would be no art diversity which makes things seem more vibrant and interesting. Likewise, my trip to Washington D.C would not have been as interesting if I have not been exposed to new and different aspects of infrastructure and building architecture. Of course, the variance of the themes in each region occur because of social forces such as the background of the country, religion, and economy. For instance, the city planners and architectures along with other individuals are basically influenced by such social forces, therefore, implementing different kinds of themes for their respective regions.

The million dollar question

Last week I visited the Art Institute in Chicago, I came across some of the most beautiful paintings I have ever seen. They were a variety of paintings by Claude Monet, Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali.



After reading Grazian’s theories about popular culture and what makes objects significantly more popular than others however, my perception of the paintings before taking those theories into consideration was completely different than what it was after I put that theory lens on.

Artists like these are legendary. Their works of art are sold for millions of dollars. A regular person may think that that’s due to the fact that they’re brilliant artists and they produce beautiful paintings. Thinking with a sociological mindset however, I know that that’s not true. A piece of art, any piece of art, is admitted into the pop-culture category based on its perceptions from the consumer. A work of art is considered an object of popular culture once it gets recognition, whether it was positive or negative.

A product is not the work of one person; these paintings are not just works of art from the artist. There's an entire production process that delivers these paintings from the artists canvas to our museums. There's a whole procedure that starts from the person buying that plain white piece, to the artists who paints, to his manager who sells it, to the producer that auctions it off to many different museums, and finally to the museum that displays it for us beautifully under the illuminating lights.

Why are these pieces of art considered magnificent million dollars works, while graffiti is considered vandalism? Graffiti can be beautifully genius sometimes. Who’s to say one is better than the other? Who defined one as professional and the other as amateur? One can put graffiti in a frame and call themselves artists. If only graffiti artists would go that production process.

Why is this considered vandalism?



While this is considered a million dollar piece of art?



What defines an objects status in society isn’t its quality, but its perception by the consumer. All art is a form of expression. They’re all equally culturally significant no matter how ridiculous or obscene one of them is thought to be. But when a certain producer wants to make a sale, they can change the objects image in the consumers’ minds. A splash of paint on a plain white canvas can be sold for ten million dollars, while a message about society or oppression expressed through graffiti is considered "garbage".

Wajda by Haifa Al Mansour

For this active blog post I went to the Museum of Islamic art to attend the movie wajda, which was directed by Haifa Al Mansour, the first Saudi women to direct a movie. The movie discuses the issue of women’s right in Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia specifically. It portrays the life of wajda, a young girl who always dreamt of riding a bike, but the fact that it is not accepted by her society made it difficult to make her dream come true. It was surprising for me to know that women in Saudi Arabia before two weeks ago they where not allowed to ride a bike! And they only allowed them to rid bikes two weeks ago but with restrictions such as they can only ride bikes in parks and recreational areas, and they have to be accompanied by a male relative!

The movie is an example of neo-feminism because it talks about personal choice, and how wajda is fighting so hard to make her dream come true. This movie though it talks about an issue that is only in Saudi Arabia (bike and cars) but it discusses the issue of women’s right in middle east, yet not a lot of women were interested to come and watch. Before going there I expected to see more Qatari specially women attending such movie! However, there was about 12 Qatari attended this movie. The way she discusses the problem of women driving and girls riding bikes is by show the society’s attitude toward the problem.

When looking at the problem it is not only men to be blamed but also women!
I was wondering why women were not present in this movie! Most women in Middle East don’t appreciate women who fight for their rights! Is it the society that restricts them not to fight for their rights or is it that they are really happy with their lives and what they have? Why they are so reluctant to fight for their rights?

Women in Middle East care a lot about their reputation and their families’ reputation. Thus, they do what’s allowed and appreciated by the society. The pressures they face from the society around them force them to obey and conform. So, it is not usual to see women present in such places. It is not that they are not interested but they do what is expected from them.

After the movie there was a discussion with Haifa Al Mansour, the director, she talked about what inspired her to write it, and the difficulties she faced directing it. One of them was that she could not be on the street when they were shooting out doors, she had to stay in a van and talk to them through the phone. There is no rule that restricted Haifa not to be on the street when they were shooting but the fact that the society will not appreciate it she stayed at the van. from my opinion, women's right in Middle East countries need women's voice, determination.

The Arab Feminism Wave

My parents are dentists (scary, I know). When I asked them once how much they make and they told me, I realized that my mom makes a little bit less money than my dad. When I asked her about the reason as to why they give my dad more money, she said, it’s because your dad is the man of the house and in this culture he is the one who is supposed to take care of the family, so they give him more money for household expenses.

This conversation happened when I was a child, but I still do remember how shocking it was for me because all I thought about then was how unfair it would be for me when I grow up and decide to be the woman of my own house, no man involved. Would they give me more money? Aren’t I the breadwinner too?

Certainly, things in Qatar have changed (not the salary thing though, it’s still intact in the government sectors) but women are still thriving for better chances of equality and fairness. Most of the mothers I know are prime examples for the second shift. The second shift is the jobs that working wives do to run the household after they finish the workday. They all deserve that extra money since they contribute to the household… like a lot!

Anyways, more and more young women are becoming quite the neo-feminists. Neo- Feminism does not have a social agenda; it emphasizes personal fulfillment above all else. Young women focus on their education and jobs, not for the purpose of supporting a family or building one, but for their own personal wants and needs. It’s the concept of “Spending my money on myself.” That’s why you see a lot of girls in Education City and a lot of them with designer shoes.

Shopping is a big thing for girls here. Not for me though, I really hate shopping (I’m more of the amusement parks kind of person). Consumer culture is pretty popular here and the fancy malls we have aren’t helping. All adds for all sorts of products try to target these neoliberal women and tell them, “hey, you work hard, you deserve this” or “You want to be different and brand new, then you gotta do this.”

Like seriously, nobody is benefiting more from feminism than big corporations. Despite the fact that I’m a feminist, I’m a little bit tad suspicious about all those chick flick movies and “be the independent women” kind of messages that circulate in media. Because, is it just me, or the more feminist you are, the more shopping you gotta do and the more sexualized you otta be. No, thank you, sir. This Dove short film really got me thinking about this:

Perhaps we should be careful with those who claim to be supporting us when all they really are doing is milking our money and altering our perception of ourselves.

Who are FEMEN anyway?

The phenomenon of protesting naked took over the media in the past year. Women who consider themselves free go out in the streets topless to introduce their issues and to bring attention to them. These women are not asking for women right as much as they are asking for their “own” rights. This Neo-Feminist movement started by a group that was founded in 2008 called FEMEN. Their first topless protest was against sex tourists. The FEMEN group started appearing on the media as something wrong, but it inspired other women to defend their own rights. My example here is Alia Al-Mahdi who is an Egyptian girl, and she was the first Egyptian girl to do a topless protest.
Since Egypt is now ruled by Mohamed Morsi - an ex-member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - , it is not surprising that there are people who are against the Islamic System. While Al-Mahdi was in Europe, Al-Mahdi and her friends went to the Egyptian embassy in Sweden topless holding signs that says “NO to Sharia Constitution”. This a message of a FEMEN Arab about “her” rights for not wearing hijab, and getting her own freedom. Al-Mahdi caused a huge argument among the Arab countries, especially Egypt, with the proposals of some Egyptians to not consider Al-Mahdi an Egyptian after what she did. This new FEMEN move by Arab women are called the "topless jihad".
In Islam, the women rights are equaled with men, but to an extent. For some of the conservative countries such as Saudia Arabia, Women are not allowed to drive or work a decent job. Two days ago, the first Saudi women attorney/activist was registered. This woman did not go out and did a topless protest. From my perspective, it is not freedom if you just take off your clothes. Women who take off their clothes are indicated as prostitutes no matter what their needs/wants were. There is always a way to convey your message to the community.
In my opinion, in the sociology, the three waves of feminism were nothing but a start for what we are seeing these days; women using nudity to ask for their rights. Women should have the rights to work as long as it does not conflict with any religious context (no matter what was their religion). Also it is not the women rights to use nudity and disturb people to get what they want.

Fashion & feminism

Every chick flick movie is entitled to at least one montage sequence that shows the protagonist going through a “makeover” that usually consists of extensive shopping and beauty treatments. Everyone goes shopping, whether male of female but it’s known universally that women shop for fun, and sometimes, they consider shopping a stress reliever.

So what is it that makes women enjoy shopping? Is it the pleasure of buying clothes that will change how we look? Or is it the pleasure of just spending money? If you ask me, for a long time ago, shopping has turned from a process of attaining essential needs to a process that reinforces what Hilary Rander calls in her book, autonomous individualism. In her book Neo-Feminist Cinema, Rander attributes the autonomous individual to the woman who apprehends her pleasure for herself and whose health can be measured by the body’s capacity to experience itself as pleasurable. So shopping is now a way of proving one’s independence.

So, Do the female representations in media effect our own perception of power and being a feminist? Well, being surrounded, or suffocated, by the media that advocates for consumerism played a role in turning most women into neo-feminists. According to Rander, Neo-feminism means, “control over one’s body/face/self, accomplished through the right acquisitions can maximize one’s value at both work and home.” Although we might not be aware of it, we shop for the pleasure of having the power to choose what we want and how we look.

Although being a shopaholic in some way contradicts with one of many things that feminism stands for, that is liberating women from being sexualized in media, it seems that Neo-feminism has changed this view. Neo-feminism encourages consumerism and individualism, while on the other hand; feminism had always advocated for female solidarity and independence. So it is still possible to be a feminist and a shopaholic? 

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.