Talaaq 3 Times She Said

and i disagree with AA`s views on marriage. Marriage is about rights and security, and creating a stable ground work for kids if the couple chooses to have any.

As someone who is very (touch wood) happily married myself, I can, nevertheless totally understand what I think AA was trying to express. The very machinistic nature of arranged (or even other types) marriages always made me shudder. I don`t know anyone who has not observed at least one couple as the one described above.

Things like good looks, education, salaries, etc. are gone over with fine toothed combs, while essentials like emotional health, viewpoints, outlooks, etc. which define relationships are sidelined. Some people get lucky, regardless, but too many men and women are condemned to stay in lackluster marriages with people they could care less about. I applaud the protagonist in this story, since she took active measures to become her own person.

Good work, AA.

AA writes: ``Marriage is just one vehicle. It serves culture. It upholds capitalist divisions of labor. Hence the protection for the more exploited and less propertied of the two workers in this regime.``

Marriage is indeed a cultural product, but saying that it `upholds capitalist divisions of labor` is, I would respectfully suggest, a bit exremist. There are horrible marriages, and there are great ones. Why blame marriage the institution ? Blame those who abuse it.

Saad

Saad,

I feel you`re taking my statements out of context.

You say: ``Marriage is indeed a cultural product, but saying that it `upholds capitalist divisions of labor` is, I would respectfully suggest, a bit exremist.``

It may be a bit extremeist in your opinion. But if you agree that marriage is indeed a ``cultural product``, then the rest is an extension of that. Marriage serves certain socio-economic functions. One of these may be an efficient division of labor where one parent does primary child rearing and the other primary wage earning. A myriad of combinations exist for parents to divide responsibilities, ofcourse. However, traditionally biological differences have come to signify who does what. And these have established gender roles, so a lot more women give up work, take up part time positions and thereby forgo careers to care for children. Which is why we have significant protections of meher and alimony and such for the one who economically marignalizes herself in a union.

By no means do I mean disrespect by elaborating my point to such an extent. But that is why I was analogizing it to ``divisions of labor`` where the worker is economically marginalized vis-a-vis the owner of capital. And this, by no means, is my original argument.

You say: ``There are horrible marriages, and there are great ones. Why blame marriage the institution ? Blame those who abuse it.``

I am not blaming marriage as an institution. I am merely talking about its cultural and socio-economic functions. I am not suggesting marriage as an institution is responsible for horrible unions. I may be saying sexist pressures in society are reflected through dynamics of this institution as well. If society is still patriarchal, then its baby institution is bound to reflect that. Of course there are great marriages. Not for one second do I doubt that two people together in a non-marital relationship, a marriage or a brief encounter can make something great.

In short, yes of-course I think two people can function outside of the systemic shortcomings of an institution and actually create complete intellectual, spiritual and economic equality in their union. ?

A culture that teaches its women to allow themselves to be despised this way is not a culture that is helping humanity evolve. Why does this culture ENCOURAGE women to tolerate with silent submission maltreatment and emotional neglect in marriage? The man never has to raise himself to a higher level, (be it spiritually, economocally, emotionally or in responsibility); it is his woman who is required to preserve his ``manhood`` by lowering herself, so that he always looks like he`s that ``degree above her`` that is his right by the Almighty Creator. Why, she`s guilty of violating natural Law if she shows signs of growing and evolving faster than her spouse.

Which one here it the dysfunctional spouse? The easy answer is the cruel husband, but the true answer is the wife. Why does she allow herself to be despised and treated so badly? The situation is unbearable 10 years into their marriage, and yet she stays in it for another 15 years! What is the use of Talaaq at that stage, all harm and damage a divorce would save her from has already been done. Why did she stay? for everybody but herself. The more I read, the less sympathy I had for her. By the time she got up the self-respect to get herself out, it was too late. If she had gotten the courage 15 years earlier, she might have chose to get out then---OR, maybe she could have used that courage to shape her marriage into more of what she envisioned, what she needed; not what she passively sat and let it become.

Salaam... enjoyed reading your article! However, I think the reverse is quite possible also. We tend to forget that a South Asian woman can also make life hell for a South Asian man. Come to think of it, who is the victim/survivor in this story? The one who is tortured or the one who is being tortured?

shukriya,

mariam

good article. thought provoking. i was astonished to read replies of some of the people who doubted its truth and validity. as a mental health professional in u.s., i am aware of many other statements made by husbands. this is pretty much same in eastern cultures as well, if not worse. differens remains in accepting a divorced female. in west she is relatively protected by society but in east ``divorce`` sometimes is compared with bieng handicap. people sympethise with you, either will be angry at you or treat you especially but not on a similar ground as an unmarried woman.

another important aspect of the article is that marriage is always and always a culturally flavored institution. before societies emerged there was no marriage. and even in sixties many people lived in communes, shared love, shared companionship, shared responsibilities and even shared children. single child would have multiple fathers and would live in a sex free social setting. i dont think that aa is advocating that, but i do think that she believes in the ill fate of a woman married to a wrong man and due to the societal barriers can not set her self free. if she leaves early, she is told that she did not give it a full chance. if she stays for, waiting for him to change, she is labelled as someone wanting to be maltreated for long and then blamed for that. more than often she is told to stay in marriage for the kids, as aa wrote the product of such disrupted unit will only be more diturbed and then the cycle begins.

i know guys staying in marriage for all the above mentioned reasons as well. i dont think that the idea of the article was to convey the sexist approach towards marriage, but to get across dysfunctional marriages. and the role society, (which is generally comprise of humans) play to make it more hard to break free. at the same time it is important to question our feelings and responses towards divorced individual. can we, the educated males, look at those females in a more acceptable way. what if my sister or my daughter wants to leave her husband??

once again a thought provoking article for the males of `90s.