One of the arguments for why we need to lose thousands of American lives and spend trillions of dollars on wars against Muslims is that we are protecting women from oppression. Enlightened European or American laws and customs will enable women to enjoy a much better life than they can have under Islam-influenced government and therefore 10 or 15 years of killing is justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country says that Morocco derives much of its law from “Sharia jurisprudence.” Mom and I enjoyed a bus tour around Casablanca as part of our September cruise. The tour guide was a self-described “feminist” in her mid-50s who gave us her perspective on the status of women in Morocco.
“Since 1999 we have women working in all occupations,” said the guide, “including judges, doctors, and police officers.” She added “By law they must receive equal pay,” and the audience of American women (median age: 70) erupted in applause (most of those applauding their working Moroccan sisters had themselves been sustained by the labor of a man, either by being a stay-at-home wife or a successful divorce plaintiff).
The guide said it was “normal” to have 6 children, though the latest generation may have only 2 or 3. She herself was one of 9 siblings (the population has tripled since 1960). If both parents work, who takes care of these children? It turns out that public school runs from 8-12 and 2-6. It costs about $2 for lunch and supervision from 12-2 if both parents are working or busy. The guide explained that she left her children at school all day whenever a cruise ship was in port. [Why such a long school day? The kids will have Arabic in morning and French in afternoon. Plus it is “compulsory” to learn a third language, which is typically English. Thus approximately 75 percent of Moroccans speak at least some English. I later talked to another guide who sends her children to private school in which all instruction is in French or English.]
The biggest change for women, according to our guide, was in 2003 when Morocco adopted “divorce law modeled after Europe.” Prior to 2003, a woman could obtain a divorce unilaterally, but not with a cash profit: “She walked out with her clothes and the children if she wanted them.” After divorcing her husband, a woman would have to rely on wage labor, the income of a new male partner, or family support. Since 2003, however, a female plaintiff will automatically get the house, the children, and what the guide called a “pension” (alimony and child support) that is determined by the judge. Unlike in the U.S., however, where a plaintiff might have to fight for 1-3 years to get these things, a Moroccan women can get them immediately and without any litigation costs. Our guide explains that the woman is entitled to an immediate divorce if she goes before a judge and alleges that her husband hit or threatened to hit her (in the U.S. a plaintiff can get a de facto divorce with an allegation of domestic violence, but still may have to go through the formalities of a trial to make it final).
She then asked for permission from the group of American senior citizens to “say something dirty.” This was readily granted. The guide then explained, with the assistance of some hand gestures, that the second ground for an immediate divorce was “if the husband wanted to have sex from the back, which is prohibited by the Koran [Wikipedia].” Was a demure female plaintiff really expected to relate conversations from her bedroom in front of a potentially male judge? No. The guide explained that “The woman doesn’t have to say this in court. She takes off her shoe and turns it upside down to show the judge.”
What if a plaintiff doesn’t want to allege domestic violence or specific bedroom requests? “She needs to go to a few meetings with the judge. If she can’t agree with her husband, the marriage will be declared irreconcilable and divorce will be granted.” (i.e., a plaintiff simply needs to stonewall to obtain a no-fault divorce)
[Consistent with the 70-year-old woman who approved of a father walking out on his wife of 15 years, and breaking up the nuclear family that his two young children had enjoyed, so long as he could find a more agreeable sex partner, the audience of American seniors was generally warm to the idea of a parent going to the courthouse to get rid of an unwanted spouse.]
If divorce and getting the house, kids, and cash is easier than in the U.S., remarriage is more costly for the woman. “The husband can reclaim the house and the children if she remarries.” Remarriages before the children reach adulthood are rare. Note that this tracks former U.S. law and custom. Most of the profits from marriage were via alimony, which was expected to last just a few years until the recipient got remarried and alimony was thereby terminated. The assumption was that alimony recipients wouldn’t want to have sex outside of marriage, but that they would want to have sex with new partners, so that it wouldn’t be possible to simultaneously tap a current and former sex partner.
Cruise passengers asked the guide about polygamy (Wikipedia). With profitable no-fault divorce available after a single courtroom appearance, absent consent from all wives, it would be practically impossible to sustain traditional simultaneous polygamy in Morocco and, indeed, a 2004 law codified that, requiring written permission from an existing wife before a man could marry a second wife. (Of course, with American-/European-style family law, Morocco now has serial polygamy in that multiple women may be living off a single high-income man.)
What if family court litigants were never married? Is it possible for a Moroccan to obtain the spending power of a primary care doctor by having sex with a medical specialist? “She can get paid. She can get something,” responded the guide, “but there is a limit.” Out-of-wedlock children are not as profitable as children of a marriage. As in the U.S., DNA testing is used by courts when ordering cashflow.
From a structural/legal point of view, women in Morocco are in many ways better off than women in a lot of U.S. states. There is no risk of being the loser in a winner-take-all custody fight. There is no risk of paying child support or alimony to a man. There is no risk of being ordered to share parenting with a discarded husband. Revenue from the marriage and children will not be impaired by legal fees because, as long as a female plaintiff can prove that she is female, she is guaranteed to prevail.
Why sacrifice American lives and trillions of dollars under the banner of freeing women from the chains of Islamic government when, in fact, women under Sharia-influenced law may be doing better than under the laws of many U.S. states?
Related:
Full post, including comments 
