Yesterday I came across an ad in the newspaper for the ‘Al Tazaj’ fast food restaurant asking for employees to work for them in their branch in Amman.
What caught my attention is their explicit request of ‘veiled’ females which I find as a disturbing blunt discrimination.
I do realize that this happens on a wide scale in our society, as of some employers prefer to hirea specific sects people whether it is based on religion preferance, sex preferance or even origin preferance.
But what I don’t acceptable is to take it from an individual level and promote it publicly in newspapers.
Don’t we have rules in Jordan against discimination?
How could our government accept such ads to pass through the cencorship?
Would we end up in a more blunt discriminating ads? like, we are hireing christian females! or only those of Jordanian origins can apply! or yet maybe we are exclusive to a certain family members! or only for males, … etc
We get appailed of the news around the world of the discrimination taking place against veiled women in the west. We shout and scream about human rights, and their freedom to choose for themselves, yet we practice discrimination against un-veiled women in our country! Keeping silence about it only make us look as bad hypocrites.
Our censorship deparment should pay more attention to our citizens rights rather than of only censoring materials that don’t comply with the government strategies.
Why is publicly stating our descrimination against anybody else better than keeping it to ourselves? Is having problems ok as long as we do not show it in public? I think it is as bad to think that veiled are better than unveiled ones as publishing this in public.
I think that this person asked for veiled women not because of personal preference but because he’s running a business that required him to satisfy customers who are themselves discreminating…
The good thing about this is that if this is hapenning publicly now then we can finally say that we have a problem and we DO have the proof.
Adham, discrimination is bad whether it happens in discretion or publicly.
My point that while we can try teach our children more tolerance, we can’t really control an employer preferance when he does it secretly on an individual level.
What we can do is at least call for our government to act when such discrimination happens this clearly, and in public.
You are right, I think the same. The restaurant seems to take this policy in order to satisy a discriminating customers, but we shouldn’t let this be an excuse.
You sure reply very fast! Anyways,
Anyways, what I wanted to say that its good that people like this are coming out so that when we go out too and say that we have a descriminating society, weather in jordan or in egypt or anywhere else, nobody attacks us and accuses us of destroying the “reputation” of our country! Now these people won’t have nothing to say…
Adham, who are those people, and who are we?
first of all there are anti-discrimination laws regarding the workforce.
second of all its strange that you’re essentially calling out for censorship; as if censorship was a remedy for anything.
third of all it wouldn’t matter. all the laws in the world wont stop an employer from hiring based on his or her own model unless we want to call on the government to start legislating against what’s in people’s heads.
hooters only hires big breasted women and if we had one in jordan that had an ad in the paper along these lines i doubt anyone would complain.
lastly, if people find this ad offensive and discriminating then they should call the ministry or the newspaper or file an official complaint in one’s district.
people should exercise some social activism as opposed to arguing that the government isnt censoring enough (or the right things)
It’s funny because I’m taking a class (Employment Discrimination Law)that is talking about this same issue.
It is not againts the law to discriminate in general, it is against the law to discrimintae on the basis of protected characteristic.
Each country has it’s own set of protected characteristics, in Alabam, USA:
I’m not sure about Jordan’s law.
Now the question is is the organization asking for a Hijab uniform? meaning it doesnt matter what religion you follow as long you wear this uniform? if so, they are off the Religion discrimination law.
If men also have to wear this uniform then they are off the gender dicrimination law.
But who we kidding, they are asking for Muslims females with hejab.
He can still be off the hook even in US courts because of BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification)
As NAS said Hooters only hires females with large shusmos.
Is it acceptable for organizations to proactively build a customer-facing workforce that reflects the racial, ethnic/cultural makeup of its customers? If I have a car dealership that aims to improve its success in selling to women, is it acceptable to proactively recruit women sales staff? Absolutely, say most people in the industry.
And I thought I can never use what I take in college…LOL.
Observer, VIVA magazine had an interesting article on this last month, but it was opposite discrimination. I think Khalidah mentioned it on her blog. Nas was featured in a letter to the editor in this month’s issue with an interesting angle.
Uhhh… I’ve seen small-hootered women working at Hooters.
Nas, I agree with you, we have to be more active as a socity. I guess it is a good idea to complain. I wonder where can I just do that? Maybe on the website of the newspaper?
As for me calling for censorship, I find it odd myself. It boggled me last night thinking of what to reply to you because I am against censorship, but I guess one that is meant to protect people’s equality would be fine. We have it anyway, but unfortunatly for the wrong reasons in my opinion. Why not use it to protect people’s rights?
As for hooters, would they explicitly advertise for a large boob’s women? I don’t think that they can pass away with that in the west world.
Ofcourse there is no law can stop an employer to hire what he wants, but there can be laws to make it hard on him to discriminate.
Palforce, thanks for the good addition. I didn’t know that the law can be against certain charistiristics that differs from a country to another. I wonder what we have in Jordan.
For me, I perceieve this ad to disciminate again sex and religion. Maybe it wouldn’t be that bad if they asked for women who are ready to wear the hijab at working hours only if that serves their business model.
Kinzi, I ll try to check VIVA magazine and Khalida’s blog. Thanks 🙂
they would not get away with it in the western world but they would in jordan…
my point being…discrimination in job hiring has been around for ages in jordan and it has been more blatant than this simple ad.
the ABSOLUTELY ONLY reason ANYONE is saying ANYTHING about it NOW is NOT because they suddenly care…
…but because religious conservatism is starting to boom in Jordan and the Arab world and that just scares some people because suddenly how religious they are on the most superficial level determines whether they get a job or a bank loan.
but hardly no one complained over a decade ago when religious women were marginalized constantly for the pretty secretary. the number of those women back then was much larger than these women now. but no one said anything then.
its disturbing that this issue is only talked about now, when the “non-religious” feel threatened.
Kinzi, I went over Khalida’s blog and read the post. It is article of VIVA. Thanks again for pointing it out to me.
I can’t speak for others. I can only speak for myself and what I post on my blog.
The reason I wrote about this subject not because I feel threatened by the religious conservatism although I do feel threatened with the increase of religious extremists.
I wrote about it just because I observed it reading the newspaper, and felt the misjustice and discimination this ad promotes.
Yes, no one can control this kind of discimination, but we can raise our voices to stop it from becoming publicly accepted.
If it has been happened for ages in Jordan without anyone mentioning it, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong, and we can’t try to stop it.
that’s not the point i was getting at.
the question where were these voices a decade ago or two decades ago or more, when covered women were being discriminated against because they wore a veil?
it seems this whole issue has one big giant spotlight on it NOW because the tables seem to have turned. and yes i believe the general rise in islamic convservatism has led to a rise in certain social reservations otherwise absent.
i could care less on a personal level as it’s wrong both ways…but i find the issue to have a hint of hypocrisy.
“where were these voices a decade ago or two decades ago or more, when covered women were being discriminated against because they wore a veil?”
What voices you are talking about? Here you are argueing my voice against discrimination. I haven’t been around a decade ago.
If you are talking about others who have been around for decades and didn’t say anything while now saying something else then you can talk about hypocrisy.
And talking about some rights without talking about other rights doesn’t mean that a person is hypocrite. He may simply talks about his current observation of events.
What’s wrong is wrong. You can’t counter an argument of something wrong by saying that the person pointing this wrong didn’t point out another wrong.
observer, im not talking about you or your post…im talking about the general mood, the general spotlight, be it on blogs or in magazines or in newspaper articles. it’s suddenly become a big deal.
why it wasn’t a big deal a decade or more ago is an important question to ask. something is happening in the present that makes the situation unique enough to warrant such discussion.
Nas, I guess that an answer to your question would be that people are more aware of discrimination and human rights these days much better than a decade ago.
very doubtful when it comes to this topic.
if anything, it has more to do with elitism. the closer one is to the center of the ripple effect the more inclined they are to complain about it.