This article by Laurie made me think about the matter. I think that American public sexism against First Ladies is the most extreme: the US male population (and even female) can't handle any first lady who does not suppress her intelligence. Americans can only handle a First Lady who only talk about combating obesity and running noses among children. So to the Middle East: I would not say that I have discerned any disproportionate or sexist hostility to First Ladies there--and I am sensitive to the matter. To be sure, criticisms have been made about some First Ladies and some have been ridiculed but not less than their husbands. The antics of Queen Rania can only invite ridicule, as do the antics of her buffoon husband. For example, you never hear criticisms of Algerian First Lady, or the First Lady of Libya (as much as Qadhdhafi is hated), or Sudan or Syria, for example. Rafiq Hariri was hated by many in Lebanon but his widow was not attacked, nor the wife of Sa`d Hariri. So it is not indiscriminate across the board. I also don't think that all motives of attacks on Queen Rania are from racist, anti-Palestinian sources, although some suffer from regime-inspired racist anti-Palestinian attitudes. Susan Mubarak was not a target of attacks at all: but her sons were. So it is certainly not across the board sexism. The families of Tunisian and Jordanian First Ladies did enrich themselves. It is a fact. And in Syria people focus on the corruption of the cousins of Bashshar (the Makhluf who are notoriously corrupt) but not on the family of Asma' Al-Asad, whose family did not engage in corruption at all. (thanks Laurie)
PS I don't mean to belittle the health significance of combating obesity among children. But you know what I mean.
PS I don't mean to belittle the health significance of combating obesity among children. But you know what I mean.
