Maha had dreamed of marrying her non-Jordanian boyfriend. However, she soon realized that it was impossible. She witnessed her sister, Samar, suffer through the same experience after her non-Jordanian husband passed away. Maha had to end her own love story, which had spanned five years and was tainted by family pressure and a broken heart.
Maha had watched her older sister suffer from the effects of marrying a non-Jordanian. They had to live in Jordan with her children, and things were very difficult at first. There were no financial facilities available for the children of the Jordanian mother, making education and healthcare costs a burden for the poor widow and her already struggling family. Amendments in the legal status gave Samar’s children some privileges, but as they grew up and exceeded the age of eighteen, they faced additional difficulties with travel, education, work, property, and health. This constant struggle turned Samar’s family into a source of worry for Maha’s family, who decided not to repeat the painful experience with any other marriage of their daughters. The use of nationality as a weapon against women’s choices not only affects their personal lives but also puts a burden on their families.
Samar’s marriage to a man from the country of her mother, who easily obtained Jordanian nationality after marrying her father without any issues, shows clear gender discrimination. The father has the freedom to marry without unfair legal consequences, while the daughter’s choices are restricted and can make her life extremely difficult if she chooses to marry outside her country. The father’s children automatically acquire Jordanian nationality, whereas the daughter’s children are denied their mother’s nationality, and she suffers the consequences of this deprivation.
Maha closed the option of marrying a “non-Jordanian,” and she was not alone in this decision. All the daughters of the family, and everyone who witnessed her sister’s painful experience, chose to do the same. When reading some comments on a previous article about Jordanian women’s right to confer nationality to their children, Maha’s story came to mind. Some men’s gloating comments angered me, such as “Whoever marries someone from outside her country should bear the consequences” and another asking, “She didn’t like anyone from her country, so she chose a stranger?” It seems as if women are required to be tortured, taught a lesson, and made an example of to limit their options and enforce compliance.
We live in a society that denies women their right to choose. It employs Shariah, laws, and customs as weapons against them. It confines them to a state of perpetual waiting, with only a few miserable choices.
In another scene, several months ago, the Jordanian embassy in Romania hosted the wedding ceremony of a Jordanian man and a foreign woman who had fled her country due to the ongoing war. Congratulations were offered to the couple with happiness and joy. The woman will easily become Jordanian upon marriage, while Samar’s children will have to bear the burden of the war in their father’s country in their everyday lives and livelihood.
Therefore, Samar serves as an example to every Jordanian woman to be satisfied with the limited options available to her. Women are denied the freedom to marry whomever they choose, in addition to other restrictions that limit their choices in education and employment. Women’s travel for education and work is still only acceptable in relatively liberal families and prohibited for women from conservative families.
As a result, women have two options: they either become determined to prove themselves by fighting and pushing through closed doors, risking losing the support of their family, which is often conditional on obedience, or they give up and resign themselves to a life spent waiting behind the only allowed doors, accepting what lies beyond them out of a lack of other options.
Thus, the expression “the girl made her choice” in the Arab world is inaccurate and misleading. Girls do not have a true choice, as their environment imposes certain choices upon them. Were they to exist in other, more open environments, free from the repercussions of their choices in the Arab world, their decisions and orientations would undoubtedly be different.
Read More
I do not exclude “love” as one of the available options. However, love is also influenced by the mind and the available choices. Here, I recall a story of a friend from university. She was well aware that marrying someone from outside her city was not allowed. Whenever she met a young man, she would inquire about his city of origin. If he was a stranger, she immediately dismissed him from her mind. When she eventually met the first young man from her city, she believed she was in love with him. However, she knew beforehand that any other option would lead to pain and destruction. She was aware of the limitations and the extent of her resistance and confrontation ability.
We live in a society that denies women their right to choose. It employs Shariah, laws, and customs as weapons against them. It confines them to a state of perpetual waiting, with only a few miserable choices. It creates crises for them and offers solutions that are in its interest and violate what remains of women’s dignity. If women reject the choices of society, they are labeled foolish and unwise. They may even be deemed selfish and held accountable for what is known as “spinsterhood”.
Nowadays, many men view any woman who seeks opportunities beyond the limits imposed on them by the law as a threat. Many Arab women have taken advantage of their right to travel for work or education and have even chosen to marry foreigners with “strong” nationalities, enabling their children to lead dignified lives in different countries. Through education and work, women have armed themselves with the tools to face the challenges of the times, even if their homeland abandons them.
Women must recognize the extent of the discriminatory laws in their country and stand firm against gender-based discrimination. Such laws treat women as second-class citizens, an affront to their dignity and humanity. A prime example is the law that discriminates against women when granting nationality to their children in the case of marriage to a non-citizen. This law aims to limit women’s options and deny them equal opportunities for choice.
