Yet another question about marriage

ANGELA

This is ludacris. 

BH

No it isn't.  The Quran makes it clear that the man is to be the one responsible for taking care of the family.  Since that is Allah's command the laws of an Islamic society should be fashioned in such a way as to see that it happens.

If I am not mistaken, you are a Mormon, correct?  This discussion is moot regarding you because Islamic law would not apply to you.

ANGELA:

Who are you to decide that just because my husband works I should be passed over for a position because I'm a woman?  How do you know if my husband's income is sufficient for our needs? 

BH:

My friend, I didn't decide that a man was the one responsible for his family.  As for your husband's wages, he probably would be able to make enough for you and him and any children you have if the married women were not in the workforce.  Labor wages would go up. I know that conventional wisdom states it was the feminist movement that got women their jobs and to some degree it is true.  However, it was the businessmen behind it for the most part---they wanted women in the workforce thinking they would work for much cheaper wages than men. History has proven this true and not only do the women work for much less it drives men's wages down too because of the increase in competition for jobs.

My grandfathers both worked and were responsible for bringing in the paycheck.  They were factory workers and could afford a home, a car, and raise children on what they made.  Now, where I live a man and a wife could work in a plant doing almost the same thing and still not be as well off as my grandparents were.  My father was a teacher and he was the only one who worked.  He didn't make a lot of money teaching school but still managed to have a home for his family, a good used car, ect.

ANGELA:

Let me put it this way.  If YOUR system was in place.  I would be destitute with a husband who could not walk.

BH:

No. One, you are not a Muslim yet and therefore Islamic law cannot be bound on you.  Two, you are in a situation different than what I was speaking of earlier-and  I am ashamed that I did not think of the circumstance you are in where the husband can't work due to health issues.  I would have no problem with you working (assuming you become a Muslimah one day) and moving as far up the ladder as you can because you have to be the breadwinner.  You are in a situation where your husband simply through no fault of his own cannot make a living for both of you.

ANGELA:

My husband was the main bread winner.  He worked very hard, but it wasn't enough.

BH:

I understand and believe everything you say.  However, the reason he wasn't able to do so is because of the economic factors I mentioned above.

ANGELA:

  I had more education than he did.  So I worked too and often found jobs equal to or better than his, these enabled our survival.  However, when he hurt his back, my income alone was not sufficient to support our family, but it was enough for us to keep afloat. 

BH:

One, you are not a Muslim and therefore cannot be bound by Islamic law.  Two, your circumstance is different than what I posted about earlier.  I have no problem with a Muslimah working and going as far as she can up the career ladder if her husband through illness cannot work.

ANGELA:

Now, according to your system.  My job would have been given to the male equivalent who applied at the same time.  Why?  Not because he was more qualified (in your proposal both are equally qualified) but because he was a man. 

BH:

I explicitely stated that a married man should have priority over even an unmarried man, though I believe that an unmarried man or unmarried woman should be able to earn enough to take care of their basic needs.

ANGELA:

We both have families, but according to you, I didn't need the job as bad, because I'm married.

BH:

True.  But I did not know of your special circumstance either.

ANGELA:

Now, in your senario, I would not have my job.  John Smith would have my job, because he has a wife and kid.  Not to mention, John is capable of working in a factory and I am not.  But because he and I both applied, he was given preference. 

BH:

If John were a Muslim with a family to support and you were a Muslimah who had a husband able to work and take care of his family, yes that would be the case.  True, John could be told of a factory job and instructed to go get it. this may save your position for a time until another married man comes along who can do yours, assuming your husband could be the breadwinner.  As such is not the case for you right now, your job would be safe.

ANGELA:

Now, when My husband was hurt...I had no job to cushion the blow.  I would have had to spend weeks looking for a job, being passed over time and time again because preference is given first to men with families.  Because I shouldn't have to work in a perfect society.

BH:

Assuming you are a revert in the situation, I have no objection to you working because your husband cannot.

ANGELA:

I would love not to have to work, but You cannot discriminate against a candidate because of sex. 

BH:

I am only trying to find out a way to implement the laws of Allah in a practical way. Allah has stated that a husband must work to support his wife and children while a muslimah can work and spend her money on herself.  I could gripe about this but I will not.  Why?   Allah willed it to be such and I knew that when I got married that was a sacrifice I was going to have to be willing to make, just as a woman who chose to get married knows that she is going to have to make some sacrifices on her own---one of which is that the jobs paying enough to support a family with are going to go to the married men.

ANGELA:

You must solely chose on qualifications.

BH:

Theoretically, anyone can be trained for a job--it is just a matter of someone teaching you how to do something.  I seriously doubt that out of the thousands of men out there one can't be found to do a certain type of job.  I never said pull all the married women out of their jobs and replace them with married men overnight anyway.

ANGELA:

Oh and lastly, why should sex be any kind of factor?

BH:

Sex isn't the factor.  Allah is.

ANGELA: 

As an employer, I would prefer to have the best candidate for the position. 

BH:

True.  The employer better see to it that the married man gets the training he needs to do the job right

ANGELA:

This will strengthen my company. 

BH:

Yes, following Allah's law no doubt leads to blessings.  However, if the employer does not follow Quranic ethics he will no doubt receive a curse from Allah.

ANGELA:

Its not about the man with the family, its about the quality of work.

BH:

It is about neither.  It is about following Allah and pleasing him.  If a man was a cheat in his business yet was very prosperous, even to the point of running his honest competitors out of business, would that still make what he did right? 

I say that the businessman better see to it that the married man gets the training he needs or finds a married man out of his applicant pool that can be trained to do the job.  Keep in mind I never said to just yank the women out and replace them with married men overnight.  I said replace the women who have husbands who are able to support them and only when a married man is able to fill in the replacement.

ANGELA

  If he can't meet the requirements, they he can't have the job.  He wants the better job, he needs to have the better skills.  That's economics.

BH:

Agreed.

Frankly BH,

The idea that women in the workplace are creating the inability for men to take care of their families is falacy.  In a perfect world (the one in which you are talking about), God's laws would rule.  Therefore, I would be Muslimah and Shariah would be the law of the land.  People would pay their zakat, orphans and widows would be cared for and the rich would help the poor.  But, you cannot justify your statements.

One of the most wondeful aspects of your Prophet was his fairness to women and his giving them their equality in the world.  His own wife was his strength after his first vision.  She was a business owner.  Not him.  She was the financial power in the family. 

Are you saying that somehow Khadija, the wonderful and beloved wife of the Prophet, was somehow doing wrong because her business was detracting from the male traders around her?  Because she created competition and they were unable to take those goods that she traded that she was preventing men from caring for their families???

That is what you're saying in a nutshell.

There are fewer women in positions of authority then men, because of lack of education in the past.  Now, when a woman reaches a place of power, its because her skills are superior to the men around her.  She has to work harder, better and more efficiently than her male counterparts to get the same recognition and often for less pay.  She is not the cause of the men below her not having opportunities, she has earned her place.

Your just blaming successful women for lazy, unsuccessful men. 

ANGELA: Oh and lastly, why should sex be any kind of factor? BH: Sex isn't the factor.  Allah is.

Men and women are equal before God.  Therefore, even this conclusion is wrong.  If God had intended for women not to work at all, then he would have not given us the skills.  He would have revealed to Muhammed that we could not work. 

The revelation of Men being the maintainers of women was probably more geared to the men that don't take care of their families more than it was to those men who do and fall short.  Its not an absolute, or else why would a woman be given the choice that she can give her money to her husband even though she doesn't have to.

I'm going to assume that these basic truths are not taught in the Campellite church anymore.  I know Islam teaches them because that has been a focus of my learning is the place of women in Islam.

In today's age, when the average mortgage in the US is around $1100-1200 and the median income according to statistics is less than $45000.   That's $15,000 a year just in housing expenses.  Now, most families fall below that $45000.  A person that makes $10.00/hr only makes. $21,000 a year. 

Its not women in the workplace that are keeping men from earning enough...its that one income is no longer enough.  With and unemployment rate of about 5.4% we are hovering right around where we should be.  In areas like Utah, there are more jobs than people to fill them.  In places like Flint, Michigan, unemployment is almost 50%.

Its not about men vs women in the workforce.  Its about economics.  You cannot just start replacing women with more qualified men.  Because in the end, you'll create an atomosphere that is discriminatory and hostile to women who have the skills.  There will always be the question...how did she get her job?  You would essentially make it harder for the single woman to provide for herself or like me, where I had to be the main bread winner.  By enforcing a preference for married men over women.

I could use a slightly different analogy...racism.

Immigrants move into an area and take jobs from the people who have lived their for generations.  There are many who think preferential treatment should be given to native citizens before giving the jobs to immigrants.  Why?  Because they're entering the workforce is creating an inability for the locals to survive.  Why are they getting the jobs?  They are better qualified. 

The blame for a man not being able to take care of his family is totally with the man.  If he's not earning enough, he needs to do what my husband is doing.  Get an education.  That's not the employers responsibility, its HIS responsibility.  If he cannot get the education or training, then he needs to look at cost of living.  He should get a smaller home, cheaper cars.  But, its up to him to make it work.  He cannot blame the woman who went to college and improved herself.  He cannot blame the Sudanese engineer who against all odds pulled himself out of abject poverty.  He can only blame himself.

(On a side note BH, did you recently get passed over for a position because of a woman????)

There are a few countries like Saudi where women are not out in the workforce in the numbers as they are here in the US.  And those places have higher poverty levels and higher unemployment rates.  Its not about women keeping me from work.  Its about people bettering themselves in the workplace.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister Hayfa.  I remember that was one point they stressed at the Women's Shelter I worked at.  Many abusive husband's keep their wives at home and out of work so they cannot leave them.  Then when the woman finally does leave the abusive situation, she has no skills, no experience and no financial cushion.  I know a woman who was a stay at home Mom for 26 years.  3 of her 5 children were grown, but she still had two left at home.  One night, her husband turned to her and said, "I don't love you, I never have."  The next morning he was gone.

She had no job, no money of her own, and a 25 year old Music degree. 

Now she never needed to work, but do you think anyone gave her a job that supported her family?  He left her with a mortgage and two children.  And minimum wage doesn't cut it. 

Saying that a woman shouldn't have a good job just because men are supposed to be the maintainers is very short sighted. 

Being in an islamic country does not gaurantee anything. Though I am not Saudi citizen, I can tell you if I was, I would still be facing certain issues that are common to all us women. women are routinely fleeced of their inheritances and even there are mnay cases where working women sacrifice their entire wealth and the husbands use this money to get a second wife. These kinds of stories are a dime a dozen. And in this backdrop, Islam seems a little hard to understand, especially the part of men being protectors.

I should have added this on the last reply. while saudi has its own problems, we should remember that there have always been men that had jobs and men that didnt. As there will always be those who get things done and those who complain about 1% competition from muslim women