Upside Down

I just finished watching a very thought-provoking documentary titled Against Me about 7 women in a Middle Eastern context who were struggling to get their basic rights and custody of their children in a system that refused to validate them as equal human beings. Granted, the scenarios were set within a specific religious context but the microcosmic glimpse into their difficult realities shook me up a bit.

I remember the first time I watched Not Without My Daughter. The book had sat for years amongst many other books on our packed bookshelves but when we bought the DVD and sat down to watch it, I was spellbound. And terrified. Reacting emotionally to what is the reality for an undefined number of women married to controlling men, I called up my American friend who was dating an Iranian man at the time. Have you watched this movie? Are you sure you know what you're doing? While both my friend and her boyfriend were Christian, so that their framework of reference was different than the one portrayed in the movie, I was still worried. Unconsciously, I stereotyped him just as people stereotype after major terrorist attacks.

My friend ended up breaking up with her boyfriend for other reasons. I found myself 15 years later living in the Middle East again and this time I'd come with the plan to stay indefinitely. God willing, I would find someone, settle down, have kids, and live the expected life. Somewhat naive, I didn't consider what it would mean if I settled down with someone from the country I was living in. If we were both Christian, then surely God would bless our marriage and everything would be okay, correct?

Til I watched the documentary and realized that my presupposition was not necessarily fool-proof. I'd gone with a friend who was passionate about women's rights and we discussed it in the cab ride home. Was it better to marry in a civil court only, so that religious laws would not prevail, and the civil court would grant more rights in the case of a divorce? If both parties were Christian, but the man decided to get a divorce, did the laws of that country grant the right of custody to him regardless of the woman's request? Was there such a thing as a pre-nup?

We weighed the balance of the Western model where women are awarded more equality in their rights with men, though this also brings more responsibility to contribute to the financial stability of the household whether through working full-time or even being the primary bread-winner in certain cases, versus the Middle Eastern model where men are expected to solely provide for the food/shelter/clothing for their family but women have less rights in society. Was one better than the other?

Did women have more power in the Western model, or was power necessarily defined by financial independence? Did buying power really expand a woman's freedom or was it restrictive because now she was expected to pull her weight in contributing to the family's financial freedom? Was the Middle Eastern woman able to more fully embrace her role as a woman who could trust in her husband to take care of her? Did she lose power due to certain legal limitations or could she use her feminine ability to manipulate and get what she wanted in the end?

Cultures and systems are set up to meet certain ends and in this culture, the woman may not make the final decisions but she also will not have the final responsibility. Of course there are different scenarios, such as where the father or husband has died and the woman has to provide for herself, though these scenarios still insist that if there is a male relative in the picture somewhere, he should consider it his responsibility to ensure that she is taken care of. Women are allowed to be the weaker gender.

It's an age-old story, the widow of Nain whose only son had just died, and Jesus giving him life. To my mind, now steeped in this cultural context, Jesus did so not only because He had pity on the poor woman who had lost her husband and now her son, but because He understood the culture and that she would struggle without a male presence to protect and provide. He healed her son in sympathy and she could once again hold her head high in society.

Perhaps this is why the laws give children to their father in the case of divorce. I am not agreeing with it one way or the other, but am merely attempting to understand the logic. In the context whereby the man is responsible for his family, it is logical to give him custody of those who need him the most--his children. His wife often returns to her family but if he has any sense of honour, he will have to provide for the ones who are a part of his very DNA.

In an ideal world, divorce doesn't happen. Of course this idealized view is not reality, so we come to the next step. Divorce happens, whether due to abuse, unfaithfulness, incompatibility, infertility, or other reasons. None of these cases make it easy for the woman and if she does not have a family to return to, it is even harder for her to manage, particularly with children.

Here is where the dilemma comes in. Should the children be awarded to the father merely because he may be able to provide for them better than the mother may be able to because of her status? Women often marry before completing an education, while men may be more educated than them. Or they may have a degree but no work experience, while men are expected to provide so they have a job. In many cases leading to divorce, the man is the primary perpetrator of violence or unfaithfulness or abuse in one of its many forms, and to entrust young children with malleable minds into his hands is not right.

A single mother with the poorest of capabilities but a heart rich in love is better qualified than a working father who can provide the sterile basics of a home/clothing/food but no emotional attachment to the child. This is my humble opinion and unfortunately it will not win any Oscars as it is based in an emotional rationale. Yet studies have shown over and over that what really matters to a child's ability to thrive and grow emotionally is that they are nurtured by a parent (parents if possible).

As with any society, there are no absolute answers to the question of what is right and what should be expected and what should we fight to change? I stepped out of the cinema this evening a little shell-shocked into the realization that laws can dictate a life that was never the intent to begin with. Those women never planned to get a divorce or to have to fight to see their children for more than 3 hours a week. They were not aware, they were not educated in the laws, and their lack of knowledge became their miserable destiny.

I used to pride myself on being educated on the various ways that women can find themselves trapped and I vowed never to let myself get into a similar situation as the brave women I knew who had to silently endure indignations they never deserved to even know. Yet I am realizing there are still things I have to learn and life is not as simple as we think it is when we are young and blissfully in love. Marriage is a solemn binding contract and should be considered as such. After all, for each of those seven women, the terms of the contract became an impossible vise that would grip them for the rest of their lives.

This must not always be so. We have to stand up, speak out, and silence those who have shamed women for asking for their right to raise and love their children. Regardless of religion or culture, children deserve to be taken care of by the one(s) who are capable of doing so in the best way possible. This is what should be determined by the courts. Gender should not be the determining factor; love and loyalty should be.