AWRITER I hold in high esteem has reproached me for addressing the issue of women's rights from the perspective of progress rather than human rights. Actually, my position on the issue of gender equality is informed by a conviction that both aspects are equally important. I have always advocated the need to grant women full equality with men from both perspectives: as a prerequisite for society's progress and as a basic human right. The twoaspects are not mutually exclusive but compliment one another. In fact, one of the most important indicators of a society's progress is the status it accords to women and how they are perceived in the prevailing cultural climate. I have for long championed the cause of equal rights for women, not only because I firmlybelieve they are ��" at least ��" equal to men in all aspects of life, but also because a society that subordinates women to men cannot hope to make any headway on the path toprogress. The institutionalised concept of male superiority, the so-called machismo ethos, works not only against the interests of women as a group but of society as a whole. I have no doubt whatsoever that male chauvinism grows from the seeds of male insecurity. A confident man who believes in himself, his intellect, his abilities and with a strong sense of self does not need to assert his superiority over women. As chairman and CEO of a giant multinational corporation, the experience of dealing with thousands of young men taughtme that the more modest their capabilities, the more insistent they were on clinging to the chauvinistic culture that relegates women to a lower status than men. It is understandable: those who fail at the public level have nothing left but to assert themselves artificially in their little private domain. Strangely enough, the generations that grew up in the fifties and sixties, like myself, are more progressive on this issue than later generations. Several factors have contributed to this phenomenon. One is the more high-profile role that was coming to be assumed by women. With more and more women receiving an education and participating in the workforce, the myth of male superiority was effectively shattered. To compensate for this blow to their self esteem, many young men sought refuge in a kind of mythical victory, invoking their innate superiority on no other grounds than their gender. As previously mentioned, many years spent closely observing the attitude to women among the men I worked with confirmed the existence of an inverse relationship between a man's lack of self-confidence and his willingness to accept that women are equal to him in all respects, and that, indeed, in some respects they rank higher. The first person in history to receive the Nobel Prize more than once was Madam Curie. That alone is enough to silence those who claim men are superior to women, and it is far from being the only instance of public recognition of a woman's excellent achievements. But diehard male chauvinists dismiss the argument that brilliant women like Madam Curie, who are light years ahead of them in intelligence, knowledge and success, testify to the fallacy of the male superiority theory, and claim that such women are exceptions that confirm the rule. In fact, the only reason women were not allowed to realise their full potential earlier is that for centuries they were subjugated by men, who then claimed they were unfit to take part in, let alone win, the race. For if women are men's equals as human beings, their value surpasses that of men in certain areas, notably as mothers, the first teachers of humankind. Last year, the first female judge was appointed to Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court. This is an important step in the right direction, but needs to be followed up. The appointment of women to all levels of the judicial system is the only way to end what is an affront to the norms of civilised behaviour. If we start the process now, in twenty years' time we can have a judicial system comprised of 50 per cent women. This is a natural state of affairs that should prevail in all aspects of life. A society that restricts important positions to men uses up only half its potential in the way of intelligence, performance, productivity and education; it is a society running on half steam. Not surprisingly, a society that does not make full use of all its assets remains in a state of underdevelopment, for how can a person run on one foot? Women's organisations have worked and continue to work tirelessly to promote the status of women in society. Yet theyare required to do even more, to set in place a comprehensive plan designed to put anend to the reactionary male chauvinist culture dominating our society ��" in the family, in education, in religious institutions and in the media. A campaign should be launched to drive home the point that the only source of a man's blind belief in his innate superiority over the opposite sex is a tremendous lack of self-confidence. Free people like to deal with free people and the opposite is true. The only men I hear propounding outlandish theories about their superiority over women and the inability of women to hold leadership positions are frustrated men who are themselves devoid of any qualities of leadership or elements of superiority. Any society that views women as unequal to men contrives to find references and 'evidence' to support its perception, although the attitude has no religious or legal basis, but is a purely cultural phenomenon. It follows that the more developed a society's educational/cultural environment, the less inclined its members are to subscribe to the primitive belief that a person's worth is determined by gender. In a developed society, people no longer need to ask a question that is reactionary by its very nature, namely, are women equal to men? There are clear examples that prove the issue in its entirety is a cultural one. Despite the existence of Qur'anic texts enjoining men to release a wife who no longer wishes to continue the marital relationship, and prohibiting them from keeping her against her will just to hurt her, the legal system has for many years legal device that allows them to do the exact opposite: the infamous beit el ta'a, whose only purpose is to enable a man to hold his wife against her will, to hurt her, both psychologically and financially. This is a flagrant example that epitomises the backward attitudes prevailing today, in total disregard of several sources that could have been interpreted progressively in the context of a more enlightened cultural environment. Although the system of beit el ta'a was a disgraceful legal, social, and cultural travesty, when the Government enacted the khula'a law, empowering women to exercise a human right that no fair-minded person can oppose, it stuck in the throats of thousands of our men. How could the law deprive them of a tool of brutal injustice that was in their hands? If they had a reasonable amount of self confidence, this long overdue legal development, which represents a very important step forward, would not have bothered them at all. One can only wonder how a man, who wants the law to help him keep his wife locked in a marriage against her will, can reconcile his attitude with such values as manliness, chivalryand honour. The long and glorious history of Arab male chivalry, decency and pride is rendered meaningless when one man keeps his wife in a marital relationship which she does not want. The second part will be published next Thursday. Heggy is the 2008 winner of Italy's top prize for literature “Grinzane Cavour”. http://www.en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Tarek_Heggy http://www.tarek-heggy.com
