"Algeria has a law designed to defend women from being made homeless by divorce; a prospect heightened by a severe housing shortage. Advocates, however, say the law is not enforced and women are still winding up in the streets," writes Ilhem Rachidi in a somewhat scatterbrained article.
It caught my attention that some women end up in the streets, literally, not metaphorically. This is a new phenomenon, since previously divorced women were expected to return to their parents' or brothers' house (isn't this one of the justification why a brother gets more of the inheritance than his sister?) Giving custody of children to women, which is what the 2005 Algerian law does, is a huge improvement on what other Arab and Muslim countries have. It took a war of independence and a civil war to get that. Iranian women are targetting particularly these laws in their protests, which the governemnt cracks on.
Afterthought: my comment above doesn't do justice to the issue of custody. For a fuller understanding of the variations regarding the custody laws (and the different meanings for the term), see the discussion in the comment section below.
37 comments:
What are you talking about?
ALL Arab countries and the Islamic law give the custody of children to the Mother!!! It's the most unfair thing to the FATHERS in the case of a divorce
I know Egypt has decided to award the wife (also) the house in the case of a divorce. But only if she had kids. I'm not sure about other countries, but the father is obligated to supply appropriate residence to his children
In any case, taking the "Mo2akhar" or the postponed dowry, plus the alimony, child support...etc should be enough for a the divorced lady until she's able to continue on her own.
qwaider,
Which planet you live on? Qwaider planet?
The Arab and Islamic laws limit women's custody: a woman can have custody of her children up to a certain age (in Palestine I believe it's 7 for the boy and 9 for the girl) then they go to the father because he pretty much "owns" them. She's just raising them for him. Also a woman loses this limited custody of her children in case of remarriage, or if she's not Muslim, or if she moves to a residence too far from the father's etc. etc.
Also custody is different from guardianship. Usually women have custody, i.e. they do the hard work of raising the kids, but no guardianship rights, which go to the father. In other words, she can't decide anything about their life or future.
Do you know how many women I know who stay in bad marriages because they are afraid of losing their children?
What is needed is just laws that give joint custody to both mothers and fathers equally. All the time, not only till the kids are out of diapers.
Excuse me, but get a reality check and go read the law a little bit more, this is totally absurd. I'm just going to assume that you just didn't know, and not the other idea which is, you deliberately hiding the truth. Or lets say, refocusing it to make an alternate point
First of all, the woman gets the custody of the children. Not only that she gets child support despite the man's wishes. The law forces a man to pay for their welfare, in addition to paying the mother for taking care of them
Next thing is that IF the mother is to remarry, the custody goes to her mother, then her aunt, then her sister then to the father's mother and finally if all of these refuse only then the biological father get the children.
Yes, true it's for a specific period but you answer me one thing, after the age of 15, what do parents have to really do with their kids? They're just off. So the time is split almost equally between the two. Although countries like Jordan upped that number to 15!
This on it's own is an injustice against the father, who has no custody of his children nor does he even have a choice to have the custody even if he wishes to have it.
The only agreement that someone is allowed to go back on and that is annulled by removal of the cause is the agreement to give up the custody by the mother. So even if she was not fit (due to illness) once that is gone she gets the custody back.
The reason she loses the custody is that the child is often left with a non-relative older male in the house, and I don't want to give you the statistics in the US about how 900% of all children with step fathers like that are more prone to being molested in some shape
Don't get me started about women who stick in bad marriages because just as she's screwed up in that marriage don't expect the man to be over cloud 9, because he is not. He's also suffering and even with his choice to end it with an easy swift divorce yet, he remains and suffers too!!
Women do suffer in this world and have millions of issues, but this doesn't mean that everyone else don't suffer, and you should be able to see this.
There is no easy way out of this, there is no simple solution to a problem as complex as divorce with children. Deciding who's the best parent is not an easy task, no matter how hard people try.
It's better to be stuck in a bad marriage and raise the kids properly .. than look at the immediate self interest and have the innocent kids pay the price of their parents poor decisions and judgement
As for guardianship, it would e interesting to put that in context when the Father doesn't even have the right to see the children (yes, often the case)
Not every divorced woman is a victim...
Not every woman is a victim
Thanks Amal for the background info.
A stay at home mom has a clear disadvantage, because she depends on the man for money and has no way to support herself, unless her family helps her. In a divorce it would help a women be able to get a job that she can support her children with. This seems difficult in Palestine, what about other industrialized Arab countries?
I am not sure what Qwader is talking about, but I was wondering if his description isnt of wealthy women. what is the difference in experience in geting divorced with rich(minority) and poor(majority) women?
I'm just stating the law in the cases of custody. Women are not at a disadvantage regarding the custody of their children. The man is.
Women being at a financial disadvantage at a divorce means she was at a disadvantage during the marriage and before. Probably that's due to her lack of economic resources. So the issue was there even before marriage. In fact, marriage might have prevented that from happening.
An educated working woman, during, through and after marriage is definitely at an advantage and should e encouraged at all costs.
I just want to be clear we are talking about women in middle East, right?
Is marrige laws in the gulf better for women?
Qwader, are you talking about women in the Gulf, or America?
Really what percentage of women in Middle East have access to an education and financial independence to men?
What Qwaider argued is in quotes, my response follows:
"Excuse me, but get a reality check and go read the law a little bit more, this is totally absurd. I'm just going to assume that you just didn't know, and not the other idea which is, you deliberately hiding the truth. Or lets say, refocusing it to make an alternate point"
Wow, Qwaider, you are generous. You're saying that I'm not deliberately distorting the truth, but I'm ignorant.
Let's see.
I said that women have limited custory of children (which you admit) and that they don't have guardianship (which you also admit). Then in what way is what I said ignorant or distorting?
"First of all, the woman gets the custody of the children."
Limited custody. Up to a certain age.
"Not only that she gets child support despite the man's wishes. The law forces a man to pay for their welfare, in addition to paying the mother for taking care of them"
child support is a right for the children. He brought them into this world, he pays for bringing them up. It's called responsibility.
"Next thing is that IF the mother is to remarry, the custody goes to her mother, then her aunt, then her sister then to the father's mother and finally if all of these refuse only then the biological father get the children."
Can you please give me your source for this? Because what I know is that generaly this is not the case. A woman who remarries loses custody of her children to the father and HIS family. One of the complaint is that the father's family--even distant relatives--is privileged over the mother's family. Feminists are asking for equality in that regard so the mother's family have similar rights. This is the case if the father dies and the kids are beyond the age they can stay with the mother.
remember we are talking about the laws. Not about individual cases that you know were the kids went to the mother's family out of choice.
"Yes, true it's for a specific period but you answer me one thing, after the age of 15, what do parents have to really do with their kids? They're just off. So the time is split almost equally between the two. Although countries like Jordan upped that number to 15!"
You're kidding, right? Or is this one of Qwaider planet's facts of life? In most countries the age is not 15 (is it 15 for both boys and girls in Jordan or only for girls?) If I were living in Palestine and were to get a divorce right now, my 7 year old son will legally be given to the father.
Frankly, I don't know any Arab or American kid for that matter who is "just off" at 15!! off to where exactly? But this is besides point: a woman should not lose her kid whether he is 5, 15, or 25.
"This on it's own is an injustice against the father, who has no custody of his children nor does he even have a choice to have the custody even if he wishes to have it."
I believe that both mothers and fathers should generally have joint custody. If you believe the current system is not just, try to make it more just to both men and women. I'm consistent. You should try to be consistent too and not whine about the deprivation of men and not acknowledge the depriavation of women.
"The reason she loses the custody is that the child is often left with a non-relative older male in the house, and I don't want to give you the statistics in the US about how 900% of all children with step fathers like that are more prone to being molested in some shape"
Hold on! Do you really want to talk about child sexual abuse and incest in our society? It exists you know. It's not talked about and there are not laws to protect children. And for your information, most sexual abuse cases happen by a close relative: father, brother, cousin, uncle. So perhaps the solution is to keep kids away from all male relatives?
The remarried woman loses the children for two reasons both to protect the interest of men, not hers or her childrens: the ex-husband doesn't want his children "go" to another man. But most importantly, the new husband doesn't want to raise another man's children.
And I really don't like the stereotyping of step fathers. It smacks of we have anticipated all these problems and figured it all up and therefore our system is better than theirs. I think we have enough problems in our societies and should stop feeling smug about our family values and such bs.
"Don't get me started about women who stick in bad marriages because just as she's screwed up in that marriage don't expect the man to be over cloud 9, because he is not. He's also suffering and even with his choice to end it with an easy swift divorce yet, he remains and suffers too!!"
We are not talking about individual cases. We are talking about the law that affects large groups of people differently: one group is called women and the other is called men. I can tell you lots of sob stories about women who are ruling their husbands bel kundara, but this is not the issue. I can tell you about women who are in stronger social and economic position than their husbands and can manipulate any system to get what they want. But that is not the issue again. So please stop always distracting from the main issue by bringing up exceptions and examples that do not fit.
"Women do suffer in this world and have millions of issues, but this doesn't mean that everyone else don't suffer, and you should be able to see this."
If you've been reading this blog for two days, you'd know that I do speak up on behave of men who suffer: men are victims of racism, colonialism, militarism, poverty, and a sexist system that gives them power over women but takes away from them the possibility of a more humane relationship with women.
As a feminist, I want liberation for both women and men from sexism and patriarchy. Are you in?
"There is no easy way out of this, there is no simple solution to a problem as complex as divorce with children. Deciding who's the best parent is not an easy task, no matter how hard people try."
no body said it's easy, but somepeople are tying to change things to make them better. Are you with them or against them? Sometimes it sounds like you believe the system is perfectly just as it is and sometimes you complain it favors women.
'''''
"As for guardianship, it would e interesting to put that in context when the Father doesn't even have the right to see the children (yes, often the case)"
Insane system. A man who doesn't even see his kids or know anything about them is legally their guardian! while the mother who is with them doesn't have a say. It got to change.
"Not every divorced woman is a victim...
Not every woman is a victim"
Again you miss the point big time. No body is saying every divorced woman is a victim. A woman can be rich, has a strong clan behind her and can get her way with a less socially or economically powerful husband. But this is not what we are talking about. And of course not every woman is a victim. But generally speaking there is a system of opperession agains women. It's called patriarchy. Some days you deny its existence altogether. Some days you say patriarchy is not that bad.
oppression of women is systematic, my friend. The sooner you realize this, the easier a just society for both women and men will be achieved.
Thanks Amal for the time you put into replying to Qwader.
:P
Thanks Amal for taking the time to reply, I highly appreciate this
Allow me to start by saying that Ignorance on a matter is not a Shame. Denying facts based on what you heard and what you twist of the facts is not.
The Shariah states that:
The Custody of children are for their mother [Absolutely] without contesting it. Not only that, if the custody of the children was one of the conditions of divorce. The divorce will happen but the condition will be considered void.
That is the law, and your ignorance about it's content is really not a bad thing. You just simply didn't know.
A little google got me some results, here: (Islamic) As for the gulf states (which state that custody for male children is until they become men and for girls until they get married is here
As for who gets the custody after the mother, Article 192 of the Jordanian law states:
191. وفيما يتعلق بالحضانة فقد نصت المادة (154) أن "الأم النسبية أحق بحضانة ولدها وتربيته حال قيام الزوجية وبعد الفرقة ثم بعد الأم يعود الحق لمن تلي الأم من النساء حسب الترتيب المنصوص عليه في مذهب الإمام أبي حنيفة". لكن المادة (156) حرمت الحضانة للتي عقدت زواجها على غير قريب محرم من المحضون، إذ نصت على أن "عقد زواج الحاضنة بغير قريب محرم من المحضون يسقط حضانتها". وأما المادة (162) فقد حددت فترة حضانة الأم التي حبست نفسها على تربية أولادها وحضانتهم إلى بلوغهم. أما فيما يتعلق بالنفقة فهي على الأب أما في حالة إعسار الأب فإن الفقرة الأولى من المادة (170) نصت على أنه " إذا كان الأب معسراً لا يقدر على أجرة الطبيب أو العلاج أو نفقة التعليم وكانت الأم موسرة قادرة على ذلك تلزم بها على أن تكون ديناً على الأب ترجع بها عليه حين اليسار وكذلك إذا كان الأب غائباً يتعذر تحصيلها منه".
And Abu Hanifa states:
قال ابن شاس رحمه الله في اجتماع الحواضن: (والنظر في أطرف:
الأول ـ في النسوة: والأم أولى من سائرهن بالحضانة، ثم أمها، ثم جدة الأم لأمها وإن بعدت، ثم الخالة، واختلف في خالة الخالة، هل هي كالخالة عند فقدها أم لا؟ ثم الجدة لأب، ثم جدة الأب لأبيه، ثم الأخت، ثم بنت الأخت، ثم العمة، ثم بنت الأخ.
I think this is enough for you to get started
I am one of the people who are protesting the injustice being inflected against MEN in this case and ask the it should be lifted!
Why should the woman have the custody?
Why should she get paid to stay home?
Why should she get paid to get married?
I ask for justice and equality, Have the woman participate in the marriage life as much as the man is participating, and TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE. Inheritance ...etc take it all, and make it equal. I don't mind
That's part one of the answer, and I'll look at the rest now
Part2:
====
Limited custody:
True, it's also limited to the man as well. If you argue that she should have full custody without any time limit then what exactly is the father?? When does he get to enjoy his kids?? why does he have to pay the price of the divorce which he may or may not be his choice or fault?
Child support:
I agree it's a right for the children, why doesn't the mother pay to support her own too isn't she accomplice in bringing these innocents to this life?
Who gets the custody:
I think I stated enough references.
What you hear is 90% lies that the "Evil man took away my kids" not only does she get her kids by Law, Religion and Tradition she also get paid to have their custody. No one comes even close to her priority. After her, comes her mother!
If you have a source that contradicts what I told you (and not the word of mouth) I urge you to produce it
And I am talking about the LAW, The SHARIAH and tradition. Which all state the same thing
Age of custody:
(Shariah) states it's 9 and 12 for boys and girls. There are other interpretations that say 7 and 9.
The Jordanian Law states it's 15 for both, AND they're asked where they want to go next
In Kuwait, the boy till he come of age and for a girl TILL SHE GETS MARRIED! So father, forget it!
Please don't ridicule Qwaider Planet, I fail to see how this is related. Or supports your argument. Other than shows how weak, insecure and baseless argument you have
Double check the Jordanian law, the number has been increased to 15 on directions by Queen Rania. It had a lot of buzz few years back. All I'm asking you is to double check. And you 'll see that I'm giving you the facts
If you get a divorce, (god forbid) your 7 year old son will go to your mother, and your sister after that, then your aunt then your husband's mother and FINALLY the husband
15 years old is really old kid, what's left to teach, coach and enjoy from your parenthood? the evil years of teenagers?! The truth is, the father has missed out on EVERYTHING in his son/daughter's life. For the divorce that he may or may not have been his fault
You say a woman should not lose her kid at any age, I agree, I add, A man should not lose his kid either at any age!
Joint custody:
Oftentimes that's not a simple or easy thing to do. It might work, but it's not that easy. Especially in the cases where there was a bad divorce going on
I didn't whine and you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I stated my resentment to the unequal treatment of men. I'm being consistent.. I don't really need to prove anything for you... But I expect you to respect me. EVEN when I prove you wrong!
Losing custody:
I don't want to talk much about this, but yes there is incest in all societies, but when the male (new husband) is not related to the step-son/daughter he feels they're free game
my 900% figure is straight from father's rights statistics. They're proved and documented.
There are laws against child abuse in every society on earth (check, prove me wrong if you can, but the key is PROVE) You stating something that doesn't exist is really not proof of anything
As for why "you think" she loses the children. Interesting, so it's always for the benefit of the man SOMEHOW! Do you realise how ridiculous this conspiracy theory against women sounds!?
Stereotyping of stepfathers? hmmm, I just happen to hear about one of those doing something crazy here or there, the most recent was yesterday where the stepfather molested his wife's 17year old daughter and he's a COP! (read about it here: teen-molested)
And I kid you not, EVERY, SINGLE, DAY!
LOL@ Ruling husbands bel kundara, you do have a sense of humour after all. These are not exceptions. And the examples are very related to what YOU stated earlier, I had to respond
So woman is stuck in a bad marriage, how is it even remotely possible that the man is having the time of his life? Is it possible? Just tell me if it is!
People suffering cliche I said, stands, and I salute you for your efforts. I don't see much wrong in a patriarchal system.. but that's for another time
Hard choices with custody:
"There is no law set in the universe beyond amendment", I would like to see some change, I would like to see more justice, I would also like to see some justice for men. It's really sad and painful to see so many laws favoring women when so little favor men. Don't you think?
And I said it before, and I will say it again, I WOULD TRADE PLACES WITH AN ARAB WOMAN IN A HEARTBEAT
Guardianship:
You took it out of context again, it's unfair that the father doesn't get to see his children. No matter what conciliatory title you give him... This is the sad part. And by default granting women the custody is NOT FAIR
Missing the point:
No I didn't miss the point. You are trying to victimize women and specifically divorced ones to achieve specific additional rights.
I would boldly say that there is a 50-50 chance that the person in front of you is not the victim. Regardless of the woman's social status
I disagree that the system of oppression is only targeting women. Patriarchy is not a bad thing, Just like Matriarchy is not a bad thing. If the man is raised right, he knows that he has more obligations than he has rights THAT'S the root of a patriarchal system MALE are OBLIGATED to serve more.
You want that abolished... by all means ... You think that will bring justice and equality? You're dreaming
I've never lived oppression against women. Not in my immediate circles, not in my extended family and not in the Arab society which I lived most of my life in deep contact with.
Does it still exist? Absolutely, I have no doubt that it does. I just didn't see much of it!
Question: In the US we have free speech and its a law written down, but in reality there are attacks on this speech, political prisoners, unjust prosecuting, ect.
Could what the law states not be different from the practice?
Isn't civil justice better then islamic law for women? Are there not different interpretations of islamic law from progressive to reactionary, especially conserning women????????
Could civil law be better, because not every one agrees with the same religious interpretations? How about Christian women, do they have to follow this law, is it eaiser to get a divorce/custody for them?
Is this why muslim women can not marry non muslim men?
Even when talking about these laws, the unwritten laws of class, tribal of family codes, social stigma, shame, honor, also play a role in divorce that a written law does not even touch on?
Plus, who rules on these laws, religious men?
@Lena
Freedom of speech is one thing but day to day actions is another thing. In freedom of speech you have person vs the system. While in these cases you have one person vs another
civil rights, are not necessarily better than Islamic law. In fact, for over 1400 years the Islamic Shariah remain superior to anything available. For example. The woman's right to accept marriage. That's a new thing. (some areas it's not being practiced and that's true) The woman's right to have property (just go 100 years back in the American civil law, and you will see that it was not the case)
The list is endless.
Oftentimes we hear from people that Civil law this, Civil law that. And turns out, most of it meets certain group of people's needs. The group that made a better argument for it. There is no fairness for the most part.
You have to see that Islamic laws concerning women were ground breaking at the time. Making certain practices like infanticide and others prohibited were really revolutionary at the time (they were being practiced, and unfortunately they're still being practice around the world)
Marrying non Muslims is another matter, lets talk about it in a separate discussion.
The Islamic society doesn't recognise class, tribe. family or anything else. It has laws that govern these issues. For the most part when people try to innovate and be even more strict that the religion they decide to kill for honor or what ever which is purely unislamic
Most laws are upheld by the courts. There are no religious men in most of the Muslim world, not including Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Hi Everyone!
I think I found out what Qwder really thinks of women's oppression and feminism. If you can understand his "musing". He lumps Feminism, Atheism, Muslim haters together as abhorant personalities that are "unnatural".
So, this is why he visits Amal's site to do "research" for his hack theories?
I believe I was right about qwader, he doesnt want to debate about how to fight for womens rights, instead his goal is to disorient and stop such debate.
I was just doing some research of my own.
Ta
In his own words, from his strange little website:
Feminists, self hating Muslims, and neo-atheists
Posted by: QwaiderOn: 02/28/2007
Over the past few years, as I followed on a number of issues, these things kept popping up over and over. I'm not condemning anyone here, I'm just trying to rationalize such phenomena, because frankly, I just don't think it's natural.
I know MANY people will be inflamed by this article, but I will go ahead an post it anyway, I believe we really need to rationally, logically, and scientifically analyze some of these phenomena
Revised
Why do I think it's unnatural?
Because the majority, of the masses don't really suffer from most of what many pitch as the issues of the Muslim society. In fact, it's to the contrary. Many, many embrace the Arab, Muslim culture with all it's sides, Women equality or inequality included.
I'm seeing a trend here, and I will try to create a profile around such personalities:
The profile:
A woman (or a man) often abused by their deeply (but foolishly) religious parents. Sometimes this lady has been circumcised or treated unequally compared to her siblings. She might have also lost chances due to some female hating individual. There's also the possibility of trauma due to a lost relationship where she rationalised the consequences as stemming from her weakness as a female in comparison to the Male's physical superiority, or social bias
She would often have better qualifications than her "luckier" male counterparts, would also be of average or below average beauty, because pretty women never feel inequality, in fact, they get treated even better than men!
The resultant personality
This persona might end up with so much anger, and feelings of inequality compared to her male siblings even though she has better qualifications than they do. Therefore she decides to rebel, and directs all her frustrations and anger towards Arab or Muslim men and culture in general.
That's not all, this rebellion might be so extreme that they thrust themselves in a confrontational position with the religion and society. In effect causing them to be categorized as enemies of Islam and the Arab culture. This ignites a cycle of violence which escalates and instead of their confronting their issues with the foolishly religious father, they end up condemning and confronting the whole religion and society.
They immediately proceed to find cavities that appeal to the western modern and liberal thought regarding certain aspects of the religion that might be considered (if taken out of context) as if it contains contempt to Women or promotion of hate, terrorism and violence towards others. Not because they believe in them, but due to the fact that these issues appeal to the progressive, liberal west.
What does all this mean?
The real issue is with the skewed paternal image. Certain individuals who are rebelling against their father figure. however, instead of directing this towards their real biological father, they "pardon" their biological connection and resent the whole society instead (they hold everyone to blame for their father's mistakes). But also because there is comfort in attacking faceless figures. Like the society, religion or even god, and not someone closer to their heart like a father.
They would often refuse to comprehend other people's ideas regarding these matters especially when someone tries to prove to them that it's usually not the case with other people, and that experiences do vary a great deal
At the end this leads to positions where the ego will just overcome everything and the whole matter becomes proving how valuable they are to this world. Or how much enlightened they became, compared to the masses of ignorant people
On the flip-side
People raised by more moderate parents end up happier, oblivious to all these issues and live a much happier life regardless of their education level. They might sympathise with a number of issues but they don't feel that they've been dealt a bad hand, and don't have the tendency to just disrespect the society or it's beliefs in general.
...
It's important that the parents make sure that their sons and daughters feel justice and equality at home, and make sure that gender related issues are dealt with in a very conscientious manner. They really don't want their children to grow up to be upset of everything in their life and blame it all not on the right culprit but on the whole society
I might be way off, but I'm seeing this trend very often these days. To the point that it's almost crystal clear that the majority of these ladies(and gentlemen) have not had a healthy family life... And this is not an accusation or a condemnation in anyway.
I guess we came a full circle, everything starts with the family ... and ends with the family ... What's a family without a woman?... Nothing! So everything starts with the woman, and ends with the woman! Even women oppression!
I have committed a major sin in this article in the views of many, I have literally stereotyped a class of people ... I don't see anything wrong with that frankly, but many ... and I mean MANY ... do
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not really against people who are working HARD to achieve social equality and justice, nor am I against people seeking to better themselves and conditions. What I'm trying to do is to dissect the reasons of what made certain people the way they are and how this is justified internally in their own minds
Qwaider,
first let me say that I didn't mean my reference to Qwaider planet in disrepect. It was meant as an inside joke and was used as metaphor: i.e I wasn't referring to your actual project. I have no reason to disrespect that site. I actually get many hits directly from there.
Second, my aim in this discussion is not to score points or win arguments. I'm interested in listening an dlearning. So when I asked you to please give me a reference regarding the Jordanian law, I mean it in earnestness and not as a way to corner you or because I assume you are lying.
The custody laws differ in various Arab and Islamic counties. Morocco, Tunisia, and Turky are among the most liberal. If you read the article you sent me about Bahrain, you will see the disastrous situation they are dealing with there regarding women's personal status laws. The 4 Islamic schools differ in their specification, some are more liberal towards the mother than others.
But with all said and done, we come back to this: women have limited custody, limited in terms of the age of the children and in the case of their remarrying, being non-Muslims, moving to a far residence, or being "immoral."
You ask why should women have custody at all? that this is discrimination against men. It is meant as a way to balance the other powers men have: a man can divorce unilaterally, a woman can't. A man can take another wife, a woman can't.It also comes out of a gender ideology that mothers are natural nurturers, not fathers. If you are objecting to this, you are objecting to Shari'a law, not my law.
You ask why a woman should get paid to stay home?
because a man decides if she can work outside or not. A man has that power in many of the countries under discussion, including Jordan as far as I know. A woman needs her husband's permission to work. If he doesn't want her to work, he got to support her. But I'm with you. It's nonsense. Both men and women should be equally responsible for their children's economic and other needs. But for that to happen, a man needs to give up the idea that he is a woman's guardian and that she owes him "obedience."
You ask:
Why should she get paid to get married?
good question. I always hated that part. What he's buying with the money is her obedience and his "guradianship" over her. This is obsolete and offensive.But it's part of the patriarchal system, not my system.
In sum, if you want more equitable laws then speak up against all unjust laws: if you don't want a woman to get custody (does this mean you want what I want, which is joint custody?) then you need to argue against men's guradianship, sole right to divorce, unrestricted polygamy (I'd argue against polygamy per se but I know you won't go that far).
I really like the changes made to the moroccan law. Here's a link to an article I hope you'll find useful. http://www.prb.org/pdf06/ReformingFamilyLaws_MENA.pdf
I'm not going to respond point by point to the rest of your post because I feel I've aleady dealt with all points and you are barely reading what I write.
ps. the cutody age in Palestine is 9 for boys not 7 as I stated earlier.
ps2, note that my post was about two specific countries, Algeria and Iran and about women there protesting. There is a good film I recommend called Divorece Iranian Style. It's a documentary. A camera videos the dealings in an Iranian family court and how the sytem deals with them and they deal with it.
@Lena,
Thanks for republishing. Much appreciated.
I am a social observer, a critic, I have my own ideas and I have every right to think what ever I think
If I didn't hold utmost respect to Amal, I wouldn't have wasted my time and energy here to discuss these issues.
I'm by no means a blog troll, it's not my intention to disturb the peace here. But what are we doing if we don't rock the boat for all the norms, one of these is the ideas of victimising women.
It's my absolutely belief that any woman who holds her own in any discussion will not be without her rights. All she needs to do is challenge it
Anyway, I do agree that there are a lot of areas that need improving.
As I said, I would give all of that away, (polygamy, divorce rights ... what ever) for equal treatment! And we're far away from that
You said "Women lose their kids" when you meant "Women lose custody"
Same applies to men, upon divorce they lose their kids until one day they get them back when the kids no longer know them anymore
Anyway .... we talked enough around here, Lena, if you need to discuss anything any further, you know where I live ...
oh by the way, I wasn't talking about Atheist in general, I'm talking about the brats playing atheist! But ... good that you got offended... you did no effort to respond ... I guess you're not that passionate about it anyway
waal! what a kerfuffel!
Actually I have heard about these laws in Jordan in which yes women are favoured in custody. Their laws are based on shariah which automatically awards custody to the mum when the kids are small, then the father when they are older... except I am unsure whether it is an automatic custody exchange or whether it is up for discussion. Either way, I do not see a sex bias in this law/rule, since the benefit of the child is the priority, they need their mums ALOT more when they are little, and they need a hell of alot of attention, which is why the mum is entitled to alimony and child support... the kids need her to be able to prioritise them when they are little... When they are older it is their right to live with their dad and be with him.
These laws are also safety net laws, if the parents come to a mutual agreement e.g. joint custody, then great, if they cant, fall back onto the safety net... see?
If she remarries, does she have to hand her children over to her mum when they are little? I dont know. But personally I think that it is best, they need nurturing when they are little, the best for this is their mum or grandma etc. not the dad or the step-mum, or the step-dad.
Divorce is traumatic, especially on the kids, these rules make the best out of a horrid situation. I dont want my kids to live just with me, or with me and a step dad, or with dad and stepmum, or with others etc. I want them to have the best, and if the best I can offer is a non-hideously bad marriage, then I will grin and bear it till whenever.
Some interesting things here :d
laila,
joint custody is not an option in most Arab and Muslim counties. Feminsts are asking that it becomes the default law. If you believe joint custody is the best option, then you should hop on the feminist bandwagon.
and a woman should not lose custody of her children because she remarries. It's one of the most unfair rules against women I've ever heard about. Her ramarrying shouldn't make her an unfit mother.
That's a lie Amal and you know it.
Feminists are not after getting the woman rights but rather getting the woman rights at the expense of men! And that's unfair
The woman shouldn't have the custody to begin with. It's unfair to deprive the man of his children.
Why? Because the woman is equipped to nurse them!?
A woman getting remarried is putting her own personal interest ahead of that of her children, if the husband wants them he SHOULD get them.
Unfortunately the law awards her mother the custody...
In other words ... she lost nothing!
Qwaider,
Please don't be a broken record. Here's a feminist talking to you, in flesh and blood, who would like to see joint custody as the default. Feminists end up compromising by asking for an extension of the custody age of children not because they like that law, but because they are told not to dream of changing Shar'a law. It's their way of interpreting shari'a law to give women more rights. Joint custody is not Shari'a but should be. Do you think Queen Rania is against joint custody? but would happen to her if she makes it the law of the land? The Jordanian Islamists will eat her alive.
I explained to you yesterday why women get custody in the first place. Are you questioning Shari'a? Good. Then do something about it.
If a woman getting married is putting her personal interest before her kids, why doesn't a man getting remarried lose custody as well for the same reason? Double standards.
The law does not always award her mother the custody. If that was the case, Iranian women wouldn't be out in the streets risking jail because they want more just laws.
please don't be a knee jerk feminist basher. it's boring.
So you never answered my question:
are you for joint custody or not?
If not, what is your solution?
Amal,
Joint custody is an option, and only works if there is understdanding between the mum and dad, otherwise the children are traumatised even more.
The issue here is not the circumstances under which a man or woman is considered a fit or unfit parent... the issue here is what is best for the kids... which scenario maximises happiness/stability and which minimizes risk to their well being.
Turning this into a feminist or chauvanistic or sexist issue, as you are focusing on women's rights, on whether the laws are male dominated/dictated or whether they are women dominated etc. the issue is the children... they are the victims that suffer the most in a divorce, and the most impressionable.
If a mum or dad is going to kick up a stink about THEIR rights in a custody dispute then I really feel sorry for the kids. They should be thinking what is best for them?
Qwaider:
"A woman getting remarried is putting her own personal interest ahead of that of her children, if the husband wants them he SHOULD get them."
No, we are looking for the interests of the children here, not punishment of the mum for wanting a life. Why should he get them? if they need nurturing when they are little then either the mum or grandma should get them, or stay with the mum and step dad. From what I can gather, it is not a case of the kids cannot stay with the step dad, but more a guidline.
laila,
I really give up! Where is joint custody an option? We are talking about Arab and Muslim counties, where the default LAW is NOT joint custody.
and how are feminists demanding reforms in custody laws violating children's rights exactly?
btw, these feminists are not creatures from outer space. They are Muslims who happened to notice that some laws, both religious and secular, are unfair to women AND their children.
I'm not bashing Feminists I'm just setting the record straight. On the other hand you are being way too biased about this... Anyway, lets get to the point
Joint custody will not work, for many reasons.
A) It might be impossible for the two parents to remain in the same geographical proximity
B) The child will suffer from lack of authority. He doesn't know who is the parent. Let alone the residual effect of being the "odd man out"
=====
I challenge anyone to give me a single reason why the mother is a better choice, think of absolutes here like, "She will Always [Your reason here ....]"
A father might be the best person to take care of the child. In fact, feminists should ask for fathers to shoulder more than the historical responsibility and make the children the father's problem in the case of a divorce. But it's just convenient to ask for EVERYTHING. The woman gets to be the supreme winner in the divorce ahead of the father AND the best interest of the children
Laila,
When a woman is remarried, she's introducing an alien element to the life of the child. This element might not have the best interest of the child in mind. As I have stated earlier and according to documented statistics, children living with step fathers are 900% more susceptible to molestation than the ones living with their biological father. For girls, almost ALL suffer from one form of violation or another.
Lets drop logic for a second here and think about it. Statistics DO NOT LIE.
Now, Put on the logic hat again. A father woken in the middle of the night by the cries of his son/daughter is more forgiving than a step father. Take that and apply it to any other annoying interruptions.
When the woman "delegates" the custody to her mother. She's not losing anything at all. She's got the custody of the child. She has deprived the father from his child and basically drew a wedge between the two AND at the same time she's getting her mother paid to do this! Now what can be more convenient!?
If the father takes the custody of the child, the ex-wife is not obligated to pay a single cent ... how ironic!
Yes, I totally object to the Shariah law in this case, I think it's unfair and needs to be changed, in favor of the fathers. Not the mothers
Similar measures need to be taken regarding Dowry Moqadam and mo2akhar junk that feminists don't talk about
Amal,
What arent you reading in my posts:( I said default law is as stated, little kids to mum, big ones to dad... this is not a mandatory law, and IF parents agree on joint custody it is acceptable i.e. the law does not forbid it. Since joint custody does not always work and is heavily dependent on cooperation of the parents, I dont think it should be the default option, as it could subject the kids to more (avoidable) upset.
I never referred to feminsist as aliens... I was saying that you were looking at the issue of custody from the eyes of someone looking for the best interests of the woman, which is what I disagreed with. Maybe what is best for the child is not always what is best for the mum, but considering the dependence of the child on the mum and his/her vulnerability, the onus is on us/parents to do what is best for them. It sucks, but that is what I am told is parenthood.
Qwaider,
"When a woman is remarried, she's introducing an alien element to the life of the child. This element might not have the best interest of the child in mind. As I have stated earlier and according to documented statistics, children living with step fathers are 900% more susceptible to molestation than the ones living with their biological father. For girls, almost ALL suffer from one form of violation or another."
6ayeb, and er where did I advocate living with the step-dad? I only said it could be acceptable in some cases. We look upon the step father as a stranger to the kids, and that is why we object. He could be a relative of their from the dads side, like his brother... would you object so strongly then?
Bas like I said, whatever is best for the kids.
Lets drop logic for a second here and think about it. Statistics DO NOT LIE.
"Now, Put on the logic hat again. A father woken in the middle of the night by the cries of his son/daughter is more forgiving than a step father. Take that and apply it to any other annoying interruptions."
A mother is WAY more forgiving then a step mother or father even.
"When the woman "delegates" the custody to her mother. She's not losing anything at all. She's got the custody of the child. She has deprived the father from his child and basically drew a wedge between the two AND at the same time she's getting her mother paid to do this! Now what can be more convenient!?"
This only applies when they are very small, like less than 9!And she is losing having her children home with her... not easy. The kids maybe are too young to live with their dad, they need a mum then... scientifically even the most important years of a childs life are between birth and 5, when he/she needs their mum... and the closest person to their mum is ther grandma.
The grandma gets nothing, the kids do though, and once they come of age, get older, then maybe they live with their dad.
This is not a maleist issue, it is a childist one... whatever is best for them.
"Yes, I totally object to the Shariah law in this case, I think it's unfair and needs to be changed, in favor of the fathers. Not the mothers"
Then I seriously hope that no one listens...
"Similar measures need to be taken regarding Dowry Moqadam and mo2akhar junk that feminists don't talk about"
*sigh* that is whole other issue...
"A mother is WAY more forgiving then a step mother or father even"
We're comparing a Father to a step-father. Not a father to a mother!
And you're wrong, that's what we inherited as "givens" what makes it so? Some fathers are more compassionate, forgiving and loving than the mothers.
She's losing not having the child in her home!!? What about the father!!? He's losing the child to the GRAND MOTHER! This is NUTS!
Show me your scientific evidence that the child needs his mother beyond childbirth. Let alone their grand mother!
These are the kind of things that we take for granted. They're not proved anywhere, have no logical or scientific base and we just go ahead and generalize them anyway!
Few months ago there was this mother who pulled out her son's antistenes with a coat hanger because he was crying while she was having sex! FREAKISH but true! These incidents prove that "Mafi 7ad a7san min 7ad"
Why isn't it in the best interest of the child to live with their biological father!? Who wouldn't molest them and would love them because they're part of him!? Parents are 1st class relatives, grand parents are 2nd. If the child can't live with his mother (for fearing for his life and welfare from the alien male) then the father should be the natural choice!
I hope people listen. The pendulum will swing in the other side eventually, and social justice will happen.
Remember, we're talking about the best interest of the child ... not the mother, and not the father!
The sad part is that most men are totally unaware of these issues because no men ask for rights of anyone! We sympathize with women, and mothers. No one sympathizes with men and fathers! But being at a close proximity of not one but 3 similar cases made me realise how unfair this world could be to men!
Qwaider,
let me see if i understand you right:
you are against joint custody.
you are against women having any custody of their children, even when the children are young.
you are against women getting a dowry
you are against women getting an alimony
you are against women getting child support
So what you basically want is for a father to have all the rights and no obligations.
you may have had bad experiences that distorted your view of the world (just like you accuse feminists of and made you have 'unnatural' tendencies and views.
What I'm hearing--to stay on the positive side and not have this discussion degenerate further--is that you feel, from personal experience, that the laws are not fair to men. I'm not ruling that out. Things are changing. In some places women are working outside and earning as much as the father. Therefore, we do need to change the laws to correspond to people's realities. As I said before, check the moroccan family code. you may like it.
but wait, you want all for fathers.
you won't like it then.
Ah-haah !! We got to the bottom line... I love it!
Here's what I want:
1) Men and women are equals and based on that every case is to be looked at in this light
2) Men providing is not a given
3) Women receiving is not a given
4) Women having custody is not a given
5) The child's best interest is the first priority and this means the burden of custody in the following order:
A) Mother (if single)
B) Father
C) Grand mothers if able
D) Grand fathers
E) Aunts and sisters
6) A bank account in the child's name is established with both parents participating in the costs associated.
7) IF the mother gives up custody in exchange for benefits (like to get a divorce) she doesn't have the right to regain it
8) If the child experiences any bad treatment from any side, he's entrusted to a committee that will decide the best location for him to be in
9) Avoid having the child in a house that will have adult males
10) If the mother is to get a second divorce, the reason doesn't go away to preserve the stability of life for a child
10) In the case of geographical distance, the single parent gets the child AND child support
11) The child is to be entrusted with the parent that will have the least amount of change (ie, remains in the same school, same house ..etc), if these circumstances don't participate in a negative situation for the child
12) Encourage keeping siblings together and not separate them between the parents
13) As part of the divorce proceedings. One parent (the party requesting the divorce) is made aware that they will most likely lose the custody, because "THE PERSON REQUESTING THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE IS THE PARTY CAUSING THE INSTABILITY IN THE LIFE OF CHILDREN" regardless of the gender of the parent requesting that. This rule is overlooked if both parents are seeking divorce at no fault. Cheating, Adultery, domestic violence, incarceration and other factors negate the effect of this rule
So every case is one on it's own. Not all are the same
I'm disappointed in you Amal, you do sound like an intelligent person, but you don't pass an opportunity to ridicule the person in front of you, or undermine them. But I think I stated my case. Some people are just going to cry blaspheme ... I think not..
Qwaider,
my showing the problem with your argument is not to undermine you as a person. And if you go back to what you said and what i said, you will find that I've been far more respectful of you than you have of me. I didn't call you ignorant or a liar. I have maintained a restrained tone throughout because this is the atmosphere i would like to have on this blog. Not interested in flaming anybody. I've tried to understand where you are coming from. I made it clear i'm not trying to score points. You, on the other hand, have not showed any interest in understanding the other side.
The disappointment is mutual then.
As to what you propose here, I feel we are going in circles and wasting my time. You spend two days arguing that women should not get custody, that fathers should. Then now you say mothers are first choice. funny how you call a woman filing for a divorce getting a "benefit". I will leave it to other people to agree or disagree with you. Got better things to do, like posting to this blog.
Qwader,
I have already stated what I think of you and I think you are dishonest comming to this site.
Your theories and even the answers that you gave me about Islamic courts lacked facts and were insufficient generalizations. My questions remain unanswered.
I believe you dont want to learn about Atheism, Socialism, Feminism because you just want to disprove these ideas and say they are unnatural to the Arab and Muslim world. Too bad I come from a family of those kinds of people, including ones that fought and died for Palestine.
Amal, You really really disappointed me again. Once you were faced with a viable option You didn't even look at it, you didn't give it a chance you just dismissed it.
Don't you think I wasted my time as well on getting a point across? Don't I deserve that you look at it with an open mind and see if it might work?
My god Amal, you sound so simplistic at times and I know that you're not. But this is your way of undermining the opposite [and very valid] argument... Allow me to explain..
Whoever seeks action in a marriage (or anything else) is doing this for 1 of two reasons. Preventing harm, or bringing benefit. In the case of a divorce, If one is not preventing harm (eg domestic violence), then there is some sort of hidden benefit (eg marrying someone else? male or female). I hope I made my self clear. At the end of the day it's someone changing the normal course of life and chose to "give up" on a family FOR a reason. That person shouldn't ALSO be rewarded by the law. I'm not saying men or women, that person.
@Lena,
Your opinion of me is irrelevant. I did state facts for you and you refused to take them. You could have proposed alternate facts IF you had any. But you didn't present anything
I might be the only honest person commenting on this site, because despite the whole atmosphere, I decided to remain true to my beliefs and did swim up the stream. I could have just agreed and relaxed...
But .... this is not about me! We really have an issue at hand, and what better than discuss it, and maybe come up with a solution. A template if you may for future advances on that front.
Atheism is just another religion to me. Many don't even know what it is and those I call the neo-atheist the "it's cool" people. Who know nothing about it (really)
When was disproving ideas a Sin!? Isn't this what every idea you mentioned (Atheism, socialism, feminism) tries to do with the social paradigms that we live through? And its my deep belief that they're unnatural, imported ideas to the Arab and Muslim world. And with all due respect to your family that adds nothing to the cause at hand
I too come from a family that has many who fought and died and were prosecuted for Palestine, many of which were communists and socialists leaders. So I am well aware of what where you're coming from. I just chose to have other ideas. Is that really a sin!? Isn't it my right in a democratic world to believe what ever I want to believe?!
Qwaider,
one last time maybe you see the light:
You can sit and devise your own system. But it's not in a vacuum. when you talk divorce, you are talking about unequal laws: in most Arab and Muslim countries a man can divorce his wife at will. A wife can't divorce her husband unless she goes to court and make a case, which usually means showing evidence of harm, then the judge decides. See the difference? This puts women at a disadvantage that carries on to other aspects including custody. Example, husbands pressure their wives to give up custody of children (limited as at it is) in return for granting her a divorce. So a woman is stuck: either she stays in a bad marriage or gives up her right to her children. you say you know 3 fathers who were treated unjustly. I know ten times that number of women who are being blackmailed by their husbands. So I'm not interested in utopias and your own designer communities. I'm interested in solving actual inequities on the ground that affect women.
When you say kids shouldn't be with strange males not related to their father to justify denying a woman child custody, you are ignoring the fact that incest cases happen between blood relatives all the time. So deal with that. Don't stereotype all step fathers as potential child molesters. If a woman said that, she'd be accused of sexism and stereotyping male sexuality. All the step fathers I know are good men. And I happened to believe that men are not innate sexual predators. The law has roots in a tribal mentality that put blood relations over all and where clan was important and children "belong" to their fathers.
I would agree with you that a woman's right to nafaka should not be a given, but ONLY after the male guradianship on her is lifted. You can't ask a man not to spend on a woman when he had the power to prevent her from working. right? Give her equal rights to employment and mobility in a marriage then remove the queyama issue. Make child care an equally shared task between men and women, then there will be no "preference" given to the women to care for the children when they are young. (I emphasize that custody in this case means she takes care of their daily welfare. But she can't decide issues relating to their lives. The father is the one who does. He can decide to marry his daughter without the mother who is raising her having any say in the matter. Which happens by the way so it's not just a theoretical issue).
And I havn't even talked about non-Mulsim mothers married to Muslim men. They get nothing regardless how young the children are. Or about a mother who doesn't want to raise her child Muslim. Then she loses custody even if he was hanging from her breast. but that is another can of worms.
Again, I ask you why would Iranian women, 33 are in jail right now, risk jail and the ire of the Islamic State if they didn't have real issues. Just a conspiracy of feminists who every now and then just like to go to jail for this or that reason? A western infiltration against the Islamic republic? You need to show more respect towards people fighting for justice. It's their struggle that made the state hault the stoning of women that was practiced up to recently.
I can go on for a week just dealing with the issues you refuse to see or deal with. Bass really Qwaider. This is it for me. I'm sure I'll be posting on similar topics and we can take it up there.
good night.
Thank you Amal for taking the time to respond... I saw the light, maybe you need to see it too, maybe you will get off your ivory tower and understand that women are not always the victim and that in many cases they are taking the law to their advantage and victimizing men and the whole family
Now to your argument:
My system is not out of vacuum, it's designed with the welfare of the children in mind.
I totally agree that that laws are unequal, but they're unequal in the favor of women. Not men
A man may divorce his wife at will, but he has an obligation to fulfil when he does, IN ADDITION to the penalty the law forces him to pay for alimony AND awards the mother 1 to 3 years in the case of "Talaq Ta3asofi" (or divorce with no reason). So in addition to alimony, mo2akhar the women is awarded the equivalent of 1 to 3 years of Alimony. I know the law VERY VERY well in Jordan and this is the case. You may ask any lawyer friends you have. And they will undoubtedly confirm it
As for divorce proceedings themselves. Women in Jordan are allowed to Have 2 different types of divorce one is called "Ibra2" as in she drops all her rights. For the divorce (DOESN'T INCLUDE THE CUSTODY) and the second is called "Khul3" and in this case she gives the man back his dowry in exchange for the divorce
IN ALL CASES THE CUSTODY CAN NEVER BE DROPPED! Say what ever you want THE LOW DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW IT!
EVEN if the women agrees to give up the custody for the divorce, she gets the divorce but the condition is void! So SHE GETS THE CUSTODY.
Again, I KNOW THIS LAW BY HEART! You on the other hand are stuck in the 18th century listening to accounts of people who may or may not be truthful.
The 3 father I'm talking about are IN MY IMMEDIATE CERCLE. I know them by first, middle, and last names. I know their children's' names. I know their ex-wives names, and I even know their families. I was one of the people who tried to mend and negotiate between the two. And know EXACTLY how things are run.
Regarding Incest,
If you read my words above correctly, I said, they are 900% MORE susceptible to molestation [than regular children] who might also be subject to that. This is a FACT, a Statistic! Look it up. I am not stereotyping anyone, I am giving you sold hard statistical proof! They didn't say ALL step fathers are doing this but that the kids are 900% more susceptible to this. Would you allow your child to be with an foreign adult male with these odds?!?
ALL step fathers you know are good? Looks like you know none! You bash men and and in the case of stepfathers you are reserved. Funny. Next time you say anything about how "men" are sex-crazed, I'll remind you of this
Who cares about guardianship!? Take it .. please TAKE IT!! And take a kiss on top of it!! I don't care about that, if she's being an EQUAL in a rights and OBLIGATIONS then by all means Take Qyameh ... and don't ever give it back!
In Islam, along with ALL Islamic societies living now, the women is ASKED to marry, there is a ritual of her being set off by the father, and there is nothing wrong with that. If he's not available the mother can take care of that.
I've seen so many women marrying off their daughters. And influencing their husbands, but why are we even talking about this. This is not FATHER daughter issue. This is A Father-mother issue.
Non-Muslim mothers, what about them!? How about we resolve the issue for Muslim mothers first, then consider diversifying the issue to include all others. Including mixed religion marriages.
I really don't know what is going in Iran, what they practice is their own version of Islam and I don't know much about it to judge, I know about the Sunni based Shariah, and I know about the Law in Jordan. These are the two things that I disagree with. And I totally respect people who are shedding sweat and blood for just and worthy causes. And I assure you, what I'm talking about is unrelated.
Amal, Why don't you see it the way it is? There are certain things in the Shariah where the women received more rights than she should. And others where she received less. Maybe in general it's less. But this is one case where father's rights are being violated.
I've had couple of fathers cry in front of me, and their wives, begging for mercy while the women sat there, unaffected and untouched. we were 7 people in that room, and we all cried for his begging to get his kids or have joint custody and to absolutely no avail. She wanted to keep them and she wanted him to cough up the cash.
I did a lot of research into these issues and discovered the truth in what I am telling you. Believe me, in many cases (lets say 25% of them) The man is the victim. The children pay the price for having a bad mother. You know as well as I do that there is no way that 100% of women are good, and that 100% are victims. Shouldn't these 25% of fathers have a chance? I appeal to you humanity, to your compassion, to your mercy on the little kids to just open your mind, and heart to these and consider their fate.
If you remain unconvinced, that's your prerogative, but rest assured, there are victims out that the worst thing that ever happened to them, was .... their mother
Qwiader,
I agree with you that fathers have a right to raise their children too. I will add that children need daily contact with both mother and father. I believe fathers can be as great nurturers as mothers. I don't believe that naturally women are more fit to raise children because of some essential qualities they possess that men don't posses. I think this is part of a sexist ideology and a rigid gender polarization. This is why my ideal solution if I were Queen Amal is to work towards insitutionalizing shared physical and legal custory. not easy. but nothing is easy. impossible? not impossible. it's working in other places.
Of course you need to create equality between men and women first. This is a long process. women should be treated as independent human beings, not dependent females who need a male guardian (father, husband, brother, uncle etc.). They should be allowed to work. Without getting anybody's permission. The man will stop being the economic and legal head of the family. both men and women will be able to initiate divorce. If all this happens, a man does not need to pay woman a mahr or mu'khar or nafaka. Just as she does not need to pay him to let her have her divorce.In this system, a woman will not be infantalized, treated as a dependent, needing her father's or male guradian's persmission to marry. A woman should be able to marry whomever she chooses, move around freely, work freely if she wants to. In other words, have the rights a man has. and when she has these rights she can have the same obligations.
As to divorce: I know that some temproary sets of rules were introduced in Jordan regarding divorce that allow a woman to actuall initiate divorce. They were scraped off in 2002, right? The rule a woman doesn't lose custody if she asks for a divorce (but loses financial rights) must be relatively new. Is it another of Queen Rania's doings? But it's not the law everywhere. I think it's excellent because it recognizes the blackmail a husband has the power to exert on a wife who wants a divorce. It is an improvement. But why should the woman lose her financial rights if she wants a divorce? Remember she's been obedient, not working, raising the kids the way she was asked.
When the man divorces his wife he does have to pay her, one year maintanance (and a mu'khar that with inflation may not be worth much). But remember why. He is part of a gender system that says he is supposed to support the wife. An employer terminating an employee has to pay him some compensation for years of service. No? The woman then has to make the man cough up the money--many men will find many ways of not coughing the money, and she can spend a good chunck of time chasing him to get something. in most cases, the courts are overbudened and dont' have ways of inforcing this.
Twwalet 3alik.
to sum up: i realize there are some bad mothers. there are also some bad fathers. it's not what we are talking about. even after all that was said and done, you support custody for the mother because you find joint custody for some reason unacceptable. if you don't like the current sysetm, make it more equitable for both men and women. yes, for the sake of the children, of course.
I went back and read my post that started this debate. I think the way I stated my point can be misunderstood. I will add a note to qualify. I think what I've been saying here explains better what I think is an equitable system and what I mean by custody (actually the article on algerian women doesn't specify legal custody so they might be talking about physical custody only).
btw, i never said that men are sex crazed and I never bash men. I bash sexist men and bash oppressive patriarchal practices. big difference.
I really hope your friends will be able to remain part of their kids' lives now and later.
Post a Comment