Cairo Papers In Social Science Volume 24, Number 3, Fall 2001 An Investigation Of The Phenomenon Of Polygyny In Rural Egypt

About the pagination of this eBook Due to the unique page numbering scheme of this book, the electronic pagination of the eBook does not match the pagination of the printed version. To navigate the text, please use the electronic Table of Contents that appears alongside the eBook or the Search function. For citation purposes, use the page numbers that appear in the text.

CAIRO PAPERS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE is a valuable resource for Middle East specialists and non-specialists. Published quarterly since 1977, these monographs present the results of current research on a wide range of social, economic, and political issues in the Middle East, and include historical perspectives. Submissions of studies relevant to these areas are invited. Manuscripts submitted should be around 150 doublespaced typewritten pages in hard copy and on disk (Macintosh or Microsoft Word). References should conform to the format of The Chicago Manual of Style (footnotes at the bottom of the page) or of the American Anthropological Association (references with author, date and page parenthetically within the text). Manuscripts are refereed and subject to approval by the Editorial Board. Notification is usually prompt, within three months of receipt. Opinions expressed in CAIRO PAPERS do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or of the American University in Cairo. The editors welcome diversity of subject matter and viewpoint. EDITORIAL BOARD Donald Cole Anthropology, A UC Sohair Mehanna Social Research Center, A UC Mostafa K. Al-Sayyid Political Science, Cairo University Michael Reimer History, A UC Asef BayatHo Sociology, A UC Enid Hill Political Science, AUC

Nicholas S. Hopkins Anthropology, A UC Earl L. Sullivan Political Science, A UC Dan Tschirgi Political Science, AUC Tarek Hatem Management, A UC da Rashad Social Research Center, A UC

Iman Hamdy Editor Annual Subscriptions (4 issues) Individuals: US $35 (LE 35 in Egypt) Institutions: US $50 (LE 40 in Egypt) Single issues: US $16.95 (LE 15 in Egypt) Subscriptions and other correspondence should be addessed to: Cairo Papers Office, Dept. # 218 The American University in Cairo P.O. Box 2511 Cairo, Egypt

CAIRO PAPERS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE Volume 24, Number 3, Fall 2001

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PHENOMENON OF POLYGYNY IN RURAL EGYPT

Laila S. Shahd

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN CAIRO PRESS

Cover design: Randa Shaath Copyright © 2003 by the American University in Cairo Press 113, Sharia Kasr el Aini, Cairo, Egypt 420 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10018 www. aucpress. com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval ystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, 1mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright owner. Dar el Kutub No. 11674/02 ISBN 977 424 766 3 Printed in Egypt

CONTENTS AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Research Purpose Research Sampling Fieldwork

1 1 2 8

CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CONCERNING POLYGYNY Movements and Legislations against Polygyny in Egypt Existing Approaches on kinship and Gender Relations in Traditional Societies Results of Previous Research CHAPTER THREE: FACTORS LEADING TO POLYGYNY AMONG EGYPTIAN FARMERS Overview Reasons for Polygyny Conclusion

11 11 13 16

19 19 21 33

CHAPTER FOUR: FINANCIAL DYNAMICS AND RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF POLYGYNOUS HOUSEHOLDS 36 Overview 37 Upper-Class Farmers 39 Middle-Class Farmers 47 Lower-Class Farmers 49 Conclusion 60 CHAPTER FIVE: POWER RELATIONS IN POLGYNOUS HOUSEHOLDS Overview Means of Gaining Power by the Wife in a Polygynous Marriage Power of wife and Order of Marriage Conclusion

64 64 66 84 86

CHAPTER SIX: SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUSANDS AND WIVES IN POLYGYNOUS MARRIAGES Husbands' Attitudes.90 Wives' Attitudes

90

---93

CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Gender Relations in Polygynous Marriages Handling polygyny within a broader context: A New Perspective for Personal Status Law Reformists

97 106 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

112

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my sincere gratitude to Dr. James Toth, who has set met a high academic standard and provided me with sound guidance. Dr. Toth also helped me maintain an unbiased approach in pursuing the research in order to warrant the highest possible degree of objectivity in the results. Dr. Cynthia Nelson deserves my deep personal thanks. Her remarkable encouragement--especially when I lacked the necessary self-confidence to carry on--has been of extraordinary significance for me. I will never forget her advice to me before starting my fieldwork, she told me, ''Use both your brain and your heart." I dedicate very special thanks to Dr. Saneya Saleh. Her distinguished knowledge of the Egyptian Personal Status Law has provided me with proficient counsel on my work. She offered me enlightening advice on to how to carry out a successful fieldwork—establishing rapport with informants before carrying out the interviews and mentioning to them the purpose of my research at the outset of the interviews. I would also like to express my gratitude to the women and men who agreed that their life experiences become the core of this study. They welcomed me in their homes and shared with me sensitive details about their marital lives. I would like to thank them for accepting me among them and trusting me. My deep gratitude goes to the late Dr. Mikhail Ibrahim Farid, and his wife who hosted me in their house in Kafr-al-Shaykh city during my fieldwork. Dr. Mikhail introduced me to one of the very well-known families of al-Kafrawy village, which in turn introduced me to my informants. Though his health was in bad condition at that time, he insisted on driving me every morning from the city center to the village and take me back in the evening. I doubt that I could have carried out my fieldwork successfully without his support and his wife's. Both my gratitude and love go to my dear mother for her continuous encouragement to me and her extended tenderness in the difficult times. My deepest love and appreciation go to my paternal uncle Fahmy and his wife Paulette who offered me great help throughout my Masters program. They hosted me in their house for days and weeks. I will never v

forget when they used to wake up in the early morning to prepare my breakfast. Their warmth, love, and care encouraged me and brought me tranquility especially during hard times. My utmost thankfulness and appreciation go to my husband Nader for his continuous concern and moral support in the different stages, especially at the times when I was disappointed. He was completely understanding and loving. Special thanks (as well as apologies) should go to my extremely organized brother who tolerated seeing my books and papers spread all over the place. Very special thanks go to my sister who helped me by editing the research in spite of her full workload. Sometimes, she had to stay late at night or wake up very early in the morning before going to work to work on the material so that I can submit it on time.

vi

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PHENOMENON OF POLYGYNY IN RURAL EGYPT

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Polygyny is a type of marriage in which the man contracts a marriage union with more than one partner at a time (Mair 1977:143). Islam allowed men to marry up to four wives and the Islamic law stipulates that the husband married to more than one wife must give equal love and economic support to his different wives (Ata 1987:39; Mair: 156). Most studies on polygyny have been preoccupied with two main issues. First, the causes of polygyny, and second, the sexual division of agricultural labor in agricultural societies. Fewer studies, however, have investigated gender relationships in polygynous marriages, particularly their economic dimension, and the status of women involved in such marriages. This research will use gender relations in studying the phenomenon of polygyny among Egyptian farmers in an effort to explore the causes of polygyny in a developing society. Issues such as distribution of roles between the husbands and wives, residential patterns, financial dynamics, and the status of wives involved in polygynous marriages will be the primary focus of this research. Research Purpose The construction of gender relationships among the sample of farmers is mainly based on the factors of production which in this case is land--the main source of household income and subsistence. Nevertheless, among many Egyptian polygynous farmers, land is not the only source of subsistence and household income. The size of land is limited and, thus, its production is not enough to cover the needs of a polygynous family. Wives' contribution to agricultural productivity decreases as they generate income from non-agricultural activities or from wage laboring. Thus, for polygynous farmers, particularly those with small size of land and too many family members, sources of household income are not only derived from agricultural production, but also from other sources as well such as nonagricultural employment. This raised several questions on issues such as 1

determinants of gender relationships among polygynous farmers. Also, if gender relationships among polygynous farmers are sometimes not based on land ownership then on what basis are they constructed? Another question is: how do gender relationships involved in polygynous marriages affect both the financial dynamics and residence patterns of polygynous families? Due to the scarcity of research that has dealt with the financial and residential patterns of polygynous households and the determinants of these patterns, I would like to explore the reasons for polygyny in the Egyptian rural society taking into consideration the modernization factors that it has been exposed to such as the horizontal and vertical increase in education, immigration, and obtaining income from sources other than agricultural production. Another area in which I am interested is power relations in polygynous marriages. I will particularly investigate competition between co-wives and how they gain status. In addition, the relationship between income-based gender relationships on one hand, and sexual relationships on the other hand, will be explored. Henrietta Moore believed that gender constructions are developed by both sexes in such a way that advances their interests in the various social contexts (1998). Moore's contention provided a counter argument for the one given by some anthropologists who indicated that gender constructions in small-scale societies are a reflection of social and economic relations in that society. My aim is to investigate gender relationships in polygynous marriages and to examine whether they are a mere reflection of social and economic factors in the society and whether they are subject to change as both men and women engaged in polygynous marriages aim to achieve their personal goals. Research Sampling Since my research focuses on the impact of the economic and social conditions on gender relationships in polygynous marriages, I studied these relations in the different socioeconomic strata—i.e., lower, middle and upper-class farmers. I adhered to one variable in defining ''class" which is the household income. Although I could identify the class of a polygynous family through the internal setup of the house and the furniture style, I preferred to base my classification on a more objective criterion. Thus, part

2

of my interviews focused on the sources of household income. Four main components were found to constitute farmers' household income: the size of land, livestock, wage-labor, and non-farm employment (see Table 1). As for determining the class of farmer, I used Mahmoud Abdel-FadiPs classification of the different socioeconomic classes based on the size of land. Abdel-Fadil classified classes in the Egyptian countryside into four categories. The first includes the poor peasants who own less than two feddans and the landless peasants who rent-in a small piece of land for subsistence. The second is that of the small peasants who own about two to five feddans. The third is the middle peasantry who hold from five to 20 feddans. Finally, the fourth category are the rich peasants who hold more than twenty feddans (Abdel-Fadil 1975:41-2). Abdel-Fadil's classification, however, was carried out in the period between 1961 and 1970 before the Egyptian economy had undergone the major changes that resulted from the Open Door Policy which started in the mid-1970s. Beginning 1970s, land has been undergoing fragmentation. I found that the maximum number of feddans owned by rich (upper-class) farmers did not exceed 12 feddans compared to Abdel-Fadil's estimate of over 20 feddans. I also found that middle-class farmers owned an average of two to three feddans and poor farmers owned not more that 20 qirats, compared to Abdel-Fadil's estimates of five to 20 feddans for middle-class and below two feddans for lowerclass farmers. Thus, economic changes have resulted in the decrease in the size of land owned by the farmer which led to diversification of the sources of farmers' income so that it is no longer limited to agricultural production alone. Through my research, I was able to conclude the following points with respect to farmers' income: 1) In general, both agricultural production (particularly cash crops) and dairy products make the greatest contribution to farmers' income. The smaller the size of land, the less likely it will be that the farmer will breed a large number of livestock as there would not be enough land to cultivate the necessary clover for feeding the animals. In addition, having a small area of land, the farmer would prefer to cultivate it with cash crops to gain higher income.

3

Income from land production cannot be calculated on the basis of the total production of crops. This is because part of the crops produced every season (an agricultural season is four months) is directed to household consumption and thus, does not generate any income. Thus, the smaller the area of land, the greater the proportion of production directed to subsistence as a share of the total production and vice versa. In addition, another part of the crop does not produce an income because it is used for feeding the farmer's livestock. 2) Certain expenses are incurred by the farmer during cultivation such as the costs of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides purchased from cooperatives. Such expenses can be estimated at an average cost of LE300 per feddan per season. During the agricultural season, the farmer gets from the cooperative what he needs without payment and the cooperative keeps a record of all his purchases. When the farmer brings his harvest to the cooperative to sell it, the cooperative then deducts all costs incurred by the farmer during the agricultural season from the harvest price. Thus, the farmer receives the total purchase price of the harvest minus the amount owed to the cooperative which constitutes his net income. This, however, does not apply to small-scale farmers owning one feddan or less who are exempted by law from payment for purchases from cooperatives. According to my interviews, one feddan of cash crops brings an average net income of LE700 per agricultural season while in the case of small-scale farmers,' the average net o income may be LEIOOO/season. 3) Concerning income from livestock, most farmers prefer to own buffalos rather than cows. Since buffalos produce more milk, they are seen as better investment. Farmers sell the buffalo milk and consider it an important source of household income. According to my respondents, a buffalo produces from six to seven kilograms of milk per day. The buffalo is milked twice a day and every time it gives about 3 to 3.5 kilograms of milk. About one kilogram of milk is kept for household consumption and the remaining five or six kilograms are sold in the market. The selling price of milk is LEI per kilogram, this makes a daily income of about five to six pounds and a monthly income of about LE150. This represents a net income since the fodder for livestock is cultivated on the farmer's own land. Some 4

farmers prefer that their buffalos produce offspring so that they can generate additional income or make a profit from the offspring. Farmers have several options for making use of the offspring. One option is to sell it as soon as it is born. Another is to keep it for many years during which the farmer sells its milk and the milk of its offspring. After it passes the age of pregnancy, the farmer can sell it for its meat. Not all the farmers, however, want their buffalos to produce offspring. One reason is that during the 10-month pregnancy period of the buffalo, the buffalo does not produce any milk. Thus, on one hand, the farmer will have to sacrifice the income generated from selling the milk which is estimated at a total of LE1,500 during the pregnancy period. On the other, the price at which the farmer can sell his newly born buffalo may not exceed LE1,300. In this case, it is less likely that the farmer will find the sale of the offspring an equally attractive investment as the sale of milk. Another reason for not wanting offspring is that unless the farmer can provide enough fodder for the new offspring from his land, then it will have to be produced at the expense of the area allocated for the cultivation of crops. Therefore, most lower-class and middle-class farmers do not prefer to have buffalo offspring in order to keep enough land for the cultivation of subsistence crops and cash crops. On the contrary, upper-class farmers would want their buffalos to reproduce since their land is large enough for cultivating the necessary clover. They breed the offspring until they reach puberty and then they may either sell their milk in the market or sell them at a higher price for their reproductive potential. 4) As for income from agricultural wage-labor, only lower-class farmers work as wage-laborers. In a lower-class polygynous family, at least three adult members would be working as wage laborers-the husband and his two wives. This assumption is particularly the case if the two wives are physically capable of working in farming and if their children cannot work because they are either too young or go to school. The average number of days that each member can work as a wage laborer is two days per week in the non-harvest season. Thus, in a polygynous household that has a husband and two wives, each can work an average of eight days per month which adds up to 24 days per month.

5

Interviews showed that during harvest time the average number of working days per week increases to reach four days. Thus, each member works an average of 16 days per month. This makes the total number of days that the three adult members can work together during one month of harvesting 48 days compared to 24 days in non-harvest days. The nonharvest season constitutes almost 9 months per year. In this case, the number of days that the three members are expected to work in these months are estimated at 216 days. On the other hand, harvest time lasts for three weeks every agricultural season and since there are three agricultural seasons per year, the estimated period for harvesting during the whole year is 9 weeks. With each member working 4 days per week during harvest time, he/she can work 36 days during the 9 weeks. Thus the total number of days that the three members can work together during harvesting is 108 days per year. Thus, the total number of wage laboring days worked by the three adult members in a polygynous family is estimated at 324 days per year. Since wage-labor is estimated at LE3-4 per day, the estimated annual income generated by the three members from wage-laboring is between LE972 and LE1,296. Thus, the average monthly return from wage-labor for such a family would range between LE81 and LE 108. On the other hand, there are several sources for non-agricultural income: public-sector jobs, income generated from privately-owned business, private-sector jobs, and petty trading. I chose public-sector wages to represent non-agricultural jobs because they constitute a regular source of income for farmers. As for the other sources, there are large discrepancies in their levels even those obtained by a particular class of farmers. Income generated from privately-owned business, for instance, may vary greatly according to the size of that business.

6

Table I Class Specification Based on Net Monthly Income (LE) Source of Income

Middle-class

Lower-class

Upper-class

lower-limit (16 qirats)

upper-limit (20 qirats)

lower-limit (2 feddans)

upper limit (4 feddans)

lower-limit (5 feddans)

upper-limit (12 feddans)

150

200

350

525

700

2400

(0 LS)

(1 LS)

(2 LS)

(4 LS)

(5 LS)

(10LS)

(LS)

0

80

160

320

400

800

Wage labor

81

108

0

0

0

0

Publicsector wages

60

75

60

75

110

130

Total net income

291

463

570

920

1,210

3,330

Land

Livestock

Notes: 1 feddan - 24 qirats (LS) = livestock and it includes buffalos

Income generated from working in public-sector jobs is related to the educational level of farmers. Most of the lower and middle-class farmers can read and write, and most upper-class farmers have finished the primary and even the preparatory educational level. Whereas lower and middleclass farmers occupy jobs that do not require educational degrees such as guards in public sector organizations, rich farmers occupy jobs of higher caliber such as in the water and electricity offices, and in the village councils. Consequently, while lower and middle-class farmers receive salaries of about LE60-75, upper-class farmers would receive salaries between LE110-130. According to the above categorization, I divided farmers into three socioeconomic classes, according to their net monthly income. Income of the lower-class ranges between LE291 and LE463, whereas that of the middle and upper-classes ranges between LE570 and LE920, and LE1,210 and LE3,330 respectively. Fieldwork I conducted my research in a village (named here al-Kafrawy) that is located seven kilometers away from the main city of Kafr al-Shaykh, one of the biggest agricultural governorates in the Delta. The population of the village is around 8,000 and the area of agricultural land is estimated at 10,000 feddans. Agriculture is the main activity of the population of the village as well as of the governorate. I conducted informal, in-depth interviews in the period from June 1998 to December 1998 with 25 polygynous families. This included a total number of 67 interviewees; 24 husbands, 41 wives, and two daughters-inlaw for a polygynous couple. According to this categorization, ten families are situated in the lower-class, seven families in the middle, and eight families in the upper-class. There are no families on the borderline between the different income categories which makes their classification into the different socioeconomic classes an easy task. I tried to interview wives first whenever possible to ensure that their replies would reflect their own opinions and views and would not be influenced by their husbands. I noticed that husbands were less willing to

8

provide detailed replies to my questions. They appeared more hesitant than their wives to discuss their personal lives in some detail. Due to the sensitive nature of certain questions, all interviews with wives were conducted in private with no interruption from other family members. I also requested that the bedroom doors be closed to ensure that the respondents would be confident that nobody else heard them. Interviews with husbands, however, were conducted in guestrooms out of respect for Egyptian social standards. As a result, these interviews were often interrupted by the entrance of wives, relatives, and children. In conducting this research, I depended mainly on two contact persons. The first is a relative who has strong contacts with a large number of families in al-Kafrawy as he offered veterinary services to them. This person helped me by introducing me to my second contact: a couple whose family is very well-known in the village and trusted by all other families in the village due to the favors they offer to others. The wife was also very familiar with all other families and escorted me on all my interviews. Since she introduced me as a family friend visiting'from Cairo, all respondents were eager to repay the favors by helping me conduct my research. The sequence of this manuscript does not differ from the sequence followed during the interviews. In both cases, I went from the less private topics to the more private ones. Chapter Two presents a literature review as well as an overview of the historical background on movements and legal sanctions against polygyny in Egypt. Chapter Three discusses the most important factors which lead to polygyny in rural Egypt. Chapter Four reveals the financial and residential patterns that prevail among polygynous families in different socioeconomic classes. Chapter Five discusses different power relations in the lives of women involved in polygynous marriages which include husband-wife relationship, wife-co-wife relationship, wifesisters-in-law relationship, and wife-brother relationship. This chapter also focuses on the areas of competition between wives in the different socioeconomic classes. Chapter Six deals with the sexual relationship between husbands and wives in polygynous marriages and deals with economic as well as social determinants of this relationship and how it affects the power of wives. Finally, Chapter Seven is an attempt to show how economic, political, social and cultural factors are involved in the lives of husbands and wives in polygynous marriages and how gender relations

9

are shaped between them. In addition, it launches a framework through which polygyny in rural Egypt can be dealt with by those concerned with reforming the personal status law in Egypt.

10

CHAPTER TWO HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Movements and Legislations Against Polygyny in Egypt Reformists of the Egyptian Personal Status Law in the 19th and 20th centuries have seen that polygyny is one of the factors leading to the subjugation of Egyptian women, particularly as far as women's enjoyment of basic human rights of individual dignity and equality. Reformists such as Muhammed Abdou, Qasim Amin, Hoda Shaarawi, Malak Hifni Nassif, Doria Shafik, Aziza Hussein, and Nawal al-Saadawi have demonstrated that neither the Quran nor the Sunna established polygyny. According to them, polygyny is an evil to be resorted to only in cases of extreme necessity and in order to avoid more serious ills. In addition, they emphasized that it is a source of inequality between men and women in society, thus a source of damage to the whole society (Al-Nowaihi 1979:40, 43). Efforts to obliterate polygyny started in the 19th century. Muhammed Abdou and Quasim Amin argued against it but did not take steps towards reforming the Egyptian Personal Status Law (PSL). In the beginning of the 20th century, Hoda Shaarawi took the first step in this direction by founding the first feminist organization in the Arab World through which she aimed at carrying out reforms in the PSL specifically with regard to the abolition of polygyny. Though El-Shaarawi's and other reformists' efforts led to issuing the first draft restricting polygyny in 1927, its provisions were not included in the 1929 PSL due to the opposition of Islamists who had a strong influence on the government's legislative authorities. Islamists believed that any attempt to restrict polygyny will lead to attacking the Islamic family structure. For them, this structure has to remain untouched since it represents the core of Muslim society (Nelson 1996:25,161-2; Kamal Eldin, Hill, and Graham 1985:20). During the fourth decade of the 20 th century, Doria Shafik revived the reformists' demands calling for the restriction of polygyny. Her demands took place within a broader context than her predecessors, that of enhancing 11

the political position of women in society. For her, women's political rights were the bases of their rights in marriage. Thus, for her, if women intend to ask for new rights in marriage, they should participate in setting the legislations to consolidate these rights through entering the Parliament. Again, Islamists criticized Doria's demands. Her demands for women's rights in political power attracted harsh criticisms towards all her demands including the restriction of polygyny (Nelson 1996:162 ). Proposals to restrict polygyny continued to be rejected during the 1960s and 19870s. President Sadat, though, had a strong preference to reforming social security legislations and he accorded great priority towards providing women with more security in her marriage. Thus, in 1979, Egypt's regime introduced some changes in the PSL. Henceforth, the woman had the right to file for divorce if her husband took a second wife (Al-Nowaihi 1979:47; and Hatem 1988:415). However, the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional in 1985. It was replaced by another law which mandated that a judge should determine whether a woman could get a divorce if her husband took a second wife or not. In 1994, a new amendment was introduced, whereby the judge was to give a divorce to the woman whose husband had taken a second wife only if she could prove that she was harmed financially from his new marriage. She had no right to ask for a divorce if she suffered a psychological or moral harm from his marriage (Kamal Eldin, Hill, and Graham: 17; and Hatem:415-6). Reformists tackle two main areas as far as polygyny in Egypt is concerned. The first area is abolishing it. They argued that the Quran permits polygyny on the condition that the husband is fair and equitable to his wives. As it is impossible for any man to treat all his wives equally, this was taken by them to be an indication that Islamic shari'a considered monogamy as the ideal condition of marriage (Ata 1987:39; and Nelson:62). The second area focused on gaining rights for women if her husband took a second wife. These rights included being informed about her husband's second marriage, asking for a divorce, and taking the custody of children. Reformists who discussed these two areas regarded polygyny as a social evil that either has to be removed or women should be empowered against it. Their attacks against polygyny, however, have not generated any attempt to study this phenomenon in the Egyptian society. Since they saw it as an 12

unfair right used by men against women, they could not see it as part of the social and economic structure of kinship relations in Egypt. Perceiving polygyny as a product of social and economic relationships established through kinship and as an outcome of such relationships has not been been subject to analysis by reformists. Thus, my research focused on these particular aspects, hoping to provide a better understanding of this phenomenon within the Egyptian society. Existing Approaches on Kinship and Gender Relations in Traditional Societies Understanding the nature of marriage is essential for understanding any kinship system. Marriage does not only allow the husband and wife to live together but it also allows them and their kin to cooperate in order to achieve common interests (Radcliffe-Brown 1950:3,46). Anthropologists have long recognized that kinship and marriage organize productive and reproductive relationships and the structure of rights and obligations in traditional and agricultural societies. Thus, the organization of marriage and of the relationships built around it should provide explanations to the organization of gender relationships (Moore 1988:36-7). Since I am interested in studying gender relations in polygynous marriages in rural Egypt, it is necessary to understand the kinship and marriage system in this society. This will help in understanding the status of women in polygynous marriage as affected by their access to different types of resources, their relationship with their own kin as well as the financial, residential, and sexual aspects of their lives. Furthermore, understanding kinship relations in polygynous marriages will provide explanations for polygyny in Egyptian rural society. Literature on the topic presents two approaches on gender relations in agricultural societies particularly in relation to women's involvement in production and their status in terms of access to resources and to means of production: the functionalist approach and the feminist-Marxist approach. The functionalist approach defines kinship relations only in terms of those relationships between men which give them access to power and authority. Anthropologists adopting this approach established a model through which the reproduction of society derives from the control of women's

13

reproduction potential by males. Here, social reproduction is determined by the production of labor which depends on the control over persons who reproduce this labor who are the women. Thus, according to the functionalist approach women are predominantly reproducers of new members rather than producers of anything of material or financial value in the society. As they ignored women's productive activities, they did not perceive a relationship between women's reproductive and productive labor which is a crucial determinant of the position of women in society. Therefore, the status of women in the society was not discussed through the functionalist approach. As a result, in dealing with kinship relations in small-scale societies, they perceived them in terms of productive relations only between men (Collier and Junko 1987:21-2; and Moore 1988:49-54). On the other hand, feminist-Marxist anthropologists reject the view of women's status as dependent on their reproductive role. Instead, women are active participants in the relations of production in traditional and smallscale societies. They gain status in society through their involvement in the non-domestic sphere. They occupy different status according to different degrees of access and control over resources. When they have access to financial and material resources by selling certain goods in the market, this represents a certain level of access to resources. When they control the distribution of income generated from selling goods, they achieve a higher status. Finally, the highest status women can achieve is when they own the means of production, which is land. The extensive entry of women into wage labor is an important determinant of their status since it provides them with more access to resources. Further, it affects the gender relationship between husband and wife by improving the status of women in the domestic sphere (Schlegel 1977:12-3, 27-8; Sanday; 1981:114; Toth 1991:216; and Moore 1988:32-4, 48-52) The functionalist approach accepts Egyptian rural women's low access to resources particularly those derived from marriage and patrimonial inheritance. On the other hand, the feminist approach focuses on rural women's increasing access to resources through their contribution to agricultural production. Research on Egyptian women's access to private property in agricultural areas has shown that women have little access to property particularly the means of production, i.e., land. Egyptian women are 14

accorded limited rights to property through both marriage and inheritance. Property is transmitted to women in the contraction of marriage. It includes both bridewealth and potential alimony. Bridewealth is known as mahr and it is paid by the groom and his kin to the bride. It is used by the bride's father to supply his daughter with household equipment and clothing necessary for her marriage. Deferred mahr (mo 'akhar sadaq), on the other hand, is an amount of money written in the marriage contract, and paid to the wife at divorce or at the husband's death (Saleh 1972:6). The payment of alimony is never fully guaranteed that the woman will receive it. It is never paid if the marriage is stable, and if divorce were to take place and the man does not have the necessary funds, then it will not be paid (Pastner 1980:149-152; and Joseph 1994:237, 245-6). Regarding property transmitted to women through patrimonial inheritance, according to Islamic inheritance laws, a woman is to receive one-half the share of her brother. However, women receive much less than acquiring half of their siblings' property. This is because property after the father's death is distributed among people with fixed shares as the wife, daughters, and sons, and among more distant relatives as well. The end result is that daughters have access to a small share of patrimonial inheritance. Furthermore, brothers may deny their sisters the inheritance of their share of agricultural property, particularly land, in order to prevent the alienation of land as it will be under the control of their sisters' husbands (Pastner 1980:152, 157; Joseph 1994:237; and al-Nowaihi 1979:41). Thus rural women's access to property and means of production is limited. However, there is evidence that their access to financial and material resources is increasing through their increasing involvement in agricultural production. The growth of the Egyptian agricultural sector since the 1960s led to the increase of rural women's involvement in agricultural production. This expansion has altered the traditional gender division of labor in agricultural work. Before that time, certain agricultural tasks were known to be carried out by men while others were known to be carried out by women. With capitalism, however, agricultural employers benefited from the cultural stereotypes existing in the rural society reflecting women as having lower skills, less physical strength and reliability than men, and offered them lower wages for carrying the agricultural tasks carried out by men. Thus,

15

employers replaced male labor by female labor at lower wages. When men were offered the same wages as those of women, they found that they will not be able to earn an adequate living. They preferred to work at higher wages in national infrastructure and construction projects. This encouraged male migration from agricultural areas and enhanced women's involvement in agricultural production. Women's contribution to agricultural production was even more enhanced by male labor migration to oil-rich countries in the 1970s and the 1980s. Having an increasing access to financial resources through agricultural wage-laboring, women got compensated for their low access to resources through marriage and patrimonial inheritance (Toth 1991:217, 219, 222-231; and Richards 1991:66-8). Results of Previous Research To study polygyny in rural Egypt, it was necessary to understand kinship and gender relations, particularly the status of women in this society. However, due to the scarcity of studies on polygyny, gender and kinship relations in polygynous marriages in rural Egypt, this section will focus on the literature on African societies in order to provide insights into the different aspects of polygyny, including gender and kinship relations in traditional societies. According to this literature, reasons of polygyny can be classified under four main categories: economic, cultural, political, and sexual. Economic reasons for polygyny include the degree of women's involvement in agricultural production, the reproductive potential of women, and the existence of large amounts of inherited wealth. The incidence of polygyny across societies is positively associated with the extent of female involvement in agriculture. Men tend to have several wives, when increases in the size of work groups result in increases in per capita productivity (Goode 1963:7-26; Whitebeck 1990:17; Boserup 1970:37-47; Jacoby 1995:941-43; and Klomegah 1997:7). Polygyny can also be explained by the reproductive value of wives rather than by their agricultural productivity. In societies where the "family" .is the basic unit of economic production, the family will prosper according to the size of male labor force. Thus, multiple wives are the means for providing the family with effective labor force through reproduction. In this

16

way, a direct relationship between the reproduction of male labor force through women's reproductive potentials and polygyny is established (White and Burton 1988:873; and Lee 1979:704). In families where there is large amounts of heritable wealth and there is a need for a large number of male heirs, polygyny may be an option to bring the largest number of sons to inherit this wealth. This is particularly true in bride-price social systems which allow the transfer of wealth from the parents of the groom (male heir) to the family of the bride whereby the marriage contract is made legal and the son and his wife provide the groom's family with the maximum possible number of heirs (Hartung 1982:3-11). Polygyny is a sign of social status. It maximizes the number of male family members because wives are also potential mothers of sons. Though sons have their economic importance in polygynous marriages, they are a symbol of importance and success in life. The polygynous man who wants to have a large number of male sons should possess a large enough property that requires a large number of sons to expand it. Thus, polygyny is a sign of wealth and success in life (Klomegah 1997: 76-7). Polygyny can be motivated by the need of alliances between extended families in order to serve certain political interests of individuals. In some societies, particularly in rural communities, positions of leadership are maintained through marriage alliances with families that are expected to provide a special support for acquiring political power. Thus, men may seek polygynous marriages to ensure the provision of a wide range of support from their kinsmen (Klomegah 1977:77; and Mair 1977:152-3). Finally, ethnographers observed the occurrence of polygyny in societies that adopt lengthy postpartum sex taboos which falls exclusively on women. In these societies, there is a great probability that the husband will choose another wife as a legitimate sexual outlet during the period of the taboo (Lee 1979:702). Research investigating gender relationships in traditional societies gave special significance to studying kinship and marriage relations as a way to understand the former. Researchers who discussed these gender relations in these societies concluded that the organization of gender relationships cannot be understood except when the organization of marriage and of the relationships built around it are understood (Moore 1988:30-8).

17

Studies conducted on household relationships in patrilocal extended families provided my research with an insight on competition between women residing in the same household over resources available in the household. Studies showed that while men in traditional societies gained political and economic power by having a large body of co-resident kin, women gain power by breaking up this body. They use strategies to persuade their husbands to set up separate households from that of their husbands' families to have more control on their husbands' resources (Collier 1974:90-1; Meekers and Franklin 1995:316-327; Friedl 1991:26-46, 66-87, 120-141). Other studies concluded that women in polygynous unions may adopt certain social strategies to obtain the maximum possible benefits from their husbands including money, love, and attention. Thus, while polygyny provides males with status because it increases their dependents, for females it implies competition between wives over husband's resources and emotions. Concerning husband's resources, each wife tries to secure more resources for her own children. (Meekers and Franklin 1995:316-327). . An investigation of the phenomenon of polygyny will be carried out among rural Egyptian polygynous families through an analysis of the determinants of gender relations in polygynous households. Financial, residential, and sexual patterns as well as power relations will be used to explore gender relationships and status of women in polygynous marriages in the following chapters.

18

CHAPTER THREE FACTORS LEADING TO POLYGYNY AMONG EGYPTIAN FARMERS

In this chapter, I would like to discuss the factors which lead to polygyny among Egyptian farmers. Those factors are economic, cultural, social, and sexual and they will be evaluated for the different socioeconomic classes in the village to know how farmers with different economic and social standards interact with these different factors and accordingly decide whether or not to enter into polygynous unions. Overview Polygyny is directly related to the level of subsistence and income. There are several factors that contribute negatively to this level among lower and middle-class farmers. These include wife's inability to contribute to subsistence and/or to income or the lack of children, particularly sons, to farm the land. Polygyny is likely to take place when divorce cannot be an option to resolve problems in the first marriage. This, however, depends on circumstances related to the wife such as barrenness and giving birth to females, and the socioeconomic class to which the husband and the wife belong. Different classes act differently when the wife is barren or gives birth only to females. Divorce rather than polygyny is more likely to take place among lower and middle-class farmers when the first wife is barren. By contrast, divorcing the wife for the reason of barrenness does not take place among upper-class farmers; polygyny rather than divorce is a more likely option. Upper-class husbands do not divorce their wives for barrenness in order not to jeopardize the economic and political relationships between their own families and those of their wives. Among all socioeconomic classes, polygyny rather than divorce is more likely to take place if the wife gives birth only to females. If the wife gets children whether, males or females, she is not to be divorced. It is not acceptable in the village that a man divorces his wife who has children by him for any reason, but it is acceptable that he takes another wife. Having

19

sons proved to be indispensable for farmers from different economic and social standards. Sons are more relied on in farming than daughters, since they are believed to be physically stronger and can tolerate working under tough conditions. Daughters, moreover, cannot continue to support their fathers after marriage, because then they will follow their husband's family. They support their husbands in their fields rather than their fathers. Finally, it is the sons who continue their father's lineage and not the daughters. Polygyny for sexual reasons is more likely to take place among middleclass farmers more than lower and upper-class farmers. For lower-class farmers, the lack of financial resources is a constraint for taking a second wife to meet sexual needs. For upper-class farmers, the political and economic relationships between the husband's family and the wife's family act as a constraint for polygyny for sexual reasons. Among lower-class farmers, scarcity of resources leads husbands to reside with their extended families. Co-residence leads to conflicts between the wife and her in-laws. The mother-in-law proves to have a strong influence on her son to the extent that she can push him to take a second wife. Conflicts between the husband and his in-laws may also lead to polygyny. Most of these conflicts take place as a result of financial reasons. They also take place as a result of interference of the wife's brother or father in the conflict between their sister/daughter and her husband. The husband gets offended when he feels that his wife is taking the side of her brother or father. He may find polygyny a way for punishing her for disobedience, especially if the wife leaves the house and stays in that of her brother or father. In this case, nobody in the village will blame the husband for taking another wife, since people will agree that a woman who leaves her husband's house deserves whatever happens to her, even if it means bringing her a co-wife. Last but not least, incompatibility between the husband and wife can be a reason for polygyny. When the husband's lifestyle changes due to exposure to another lifestyle outside the village and the wife is not up to it, the husband may find life with such a wife difficult and takes another who may be more compatible with him.

20

Reasons for Polygyny a) Farming. Egyptian farmers depend on their wives and children to farm their land. This is a major feature in the life of the lower and mi die-class farmers more than in the life of the upper-class farmers. Upper-class farmers are more likely to hire labor to farm their land rather than let their own familieis carry out such functions. In addition, Egyptian farmers depend on reciprocal help from their neighbors and relatives to work in their fields during harvest time. This is called zamala and it is based on exchanging help in times of need. Most middle-class farmers cannot depend on recruiting wage-labor to farm their land. This is mainly because the land is not large enough and the returns from land production will not cover the costs of the required wagelabor. The inability of lower and middle-class farmers to depend on just one wife and/or the children to farm the land is a major reason for polygyny. For example, Gamal, a middle-class farmer who owned about 2.5 feddans had lost all his children from his first wife Dawlat by the time the parents were 50 years old. The couple found that they could not depend on the help of neighbors and friends through the zamala system since they were unable to offer them back any help because of their old age. These circumstances continued for two years after the death of their last daughter during which they went through a hard time in order to farm their land. At the end, they decided that Gamal should take a second wife who could bring him children to work in the land. Ibrahim, a middle-class farmer, married Afifa, his second wife, after 8 years of his marriage to Karima. He could not depend on Karima in farming the land because she was not acquainted with harvesting or cultivation. She came from the town, could not adapt to the countryside lifestyle, and was not willing to learn farming. Realizing that he could not bear the load of work in the field alone, Ibrahim decided to take another wife. b) Birth of females or barrenness. The research showed that while barrenness among lower and middle-class farmers leads to divorce, it leads to polygyny among the upper-class. For lower and middle-class farmer, it is

21

very costly to have two wives. For the husband, the benefits of the infertile wife are limited. Though she can help the husband in earning an income for the household and can farm the land, she does not bring children who can make additional contribution to income and subsistence. Among the lowerclass, Fikri and Aziz mentioned that they were previously married but divorced their wives because they were barren. Aziz said that he never took his barren wife to see a doctor because he could not afford the fees. He waited for two years and when pregnancy did not take place he decided to divorce her and take another wife. As for upper-class farmers, divorcing a wife because of barrenness is not preferable. It can destroy the strong bonds and relationships between the husband's extended family and the barren wife's extended family. Talal said that the idea of divorcing his wife because of infertility was never an option for him. His uncle was married to her aunt, so if he divorced her, this would have caused problems between him, on one hand, and the uncleand the aunt, on another. Further, Talal indicated that there was a lot of business relationships between his wife's family and his own family and if divorce were to take place, these relationships would be jeopardized, something which his own family would blame him for. Thus, polygyny becomes the only option for having children. Mahran, who was one of the biggest landlords in the village and an educated man with a masters degree in agriculture, took a second wife after 10 years of marriage during which his wife did not bear any children. Mahran had takenk his first wife to several gynecologists in Cairo but all in vain. It was his wife and her parents who suggested after 10 years of marriage that Mahran should take a second wife to be able to get children. Mahran was hesitant because as he said, My first wife was the daughter of the ex-head of village 'umda when I married her. She was a delicate person and I thought that she will not tolerate having a co-wife. 1 wanted to give her the maximum chance to have children. Though my instinct to be a father was very strong and I was concerned about the necessity of having a child to inherit my wealth, I did not want her to feel that I gave her up quickly by taking a second wife. So I waited until her family suggested taking another wife.

22

The birth of females is a reason for polygyny among lower, middle and upper-class farmers. The occurrence of polygyny, however, for not getting males is more frequent among the lower than among the upper-class. In addition, the time interval between marrying the first wife who gives birth to females and marrying the second wife differs from one class to another. For the lower-class, birth of females leads to polygyny after a relatively short period of the first marriage (from two to four years). Among the upper-class, it occurs after a much longer time (seven to ten years). Unlike lower and middle-class farmers, many factors are taken into consideration by upper-class farmers which makes the decision much more difficult and thus takes a longer time. For lower-class fanners, they tend to take the second wife quicker because they need males to farm the land with them as they cannot afford hiring labor, contrary to upper-class farmers. Thus, the lower-class farmer's decision to take another wife is quicker because there is an urgent economic need. In addition, there is not much economic or political ties between the lower-class farmer and his first wife's extended family which may cause him to rethink or postpone taking a new wife in order not to expose such ties to danger. Another difference is found between the educated and uneducated upper-class farmers as far as engaging in polygyny for not giving birth to males is concerned. Among uneducated farmers, it is common that the husband takes another wife based on his belief that her biological structure allows her to give birth to females only. Educated farmers (those with intermediate or university education), however, are aware that the sex of the child is determined by the husband and not by his wife.Thus, when polygyny occurs for the reason of not giving birth to males, the husband does not take a second wife out of his conviction that changing wives may change the gender of the child, but because of the pressure on the husband by his parents who may not be literate and do not accept having females only. They push him to take a second wife to "get the boy." Atwa is an example of how unacceptable it is for the lower-class farmers not to have children, particularly males to help in farming. Aziza, his wife, said that because she gave birth to two girls, her mother-in-law looked down on her. Her mother-in-law told her that a woman who gave birth to girls should consider herself a barren woman and that only sons could be the support of their father. Aziza's mother-in-law convinced her 23

son to take a second wife to have sons. She believed that as the first two pregnancies resulted in having females, there was little hope for bringing males. Atwa's second wife gave birth to six females versus five females by Aziza. Thus, the research revealed that polygyny among farmers takes place due to barrenness and not giving birth to males. Among upper-class farmers, polygyny for resolving barrenness is more frequent since it is affordable. Nevertheless, it is less likely to happen among the lower and middle-class because they cannot afford it and prefer to divorce their barren wife before taking a new wife. As for polygyny for not giving birth to males, its occurrence is more frequent among the lower-class farmers than among the upper-class farmers. The time interval between the first marriage and the second marriage differs according to the socioeconomic class that the husband belongs to. Also, among the upper-class farmers the level of education plays a major role as far as the occurrence of polygyny is concerned. Educated farmers are less likely to take more than one wife to have males, but the uneducated do since education changes farmers' perceptions about reasons for having females rather than males as they get to know that the gender of the child is determined through the father's genes and not the mother's. c) Sexual reasons. Polygyny for sexual reasons appears to occur more frequently among middle and upper-class farmers than among lower-class farmers. Among middle-class polygynous households, sexual reasons appear to be among the most important reasons for polygyny. For husbands of the upper-class families, economic and political considerations are put in mind when deciding to take a second wife for sexual reasons. For lowerclass, economic reasons act as a constraint on taking a second wife for sexual reasons. The only class in which economic or political reasons are not constraints for polygyny for sexual reasons is the middle-class farmers. Among the middle-class farmers, kinship ties are not primarily determined by political or economic relationships like the upper-class farmers. Financial potentials of the kin of the husband and of the wife are not large enough to allow for establishing economic and political relationships between them. On the other hand, not being very poor, middle-class farmers are not

24

constrained by financial reasons in taking a second wife due to sexual reasons. Sexual reasons are not good reasons for divorce in the village. Farmers think that if the husband is not sexually satisfied with his wife, he can take another wife rather than divorce his first wife. Divorcing a wife for sexual reasons, particularly if she has children is an unacceptable action by the village moral standards of marriage. If people in the village know that a man divorced his wife and left his children because she does not satisfy his sexual needs, this will be very shameful for the man. First, it is not a good enough reason for divorce. Second, it will reveal a confidential aspect of his life before people. Therefore, the farmer who is sexually dissatisfied with his wife is more likely to keep her as his wife and take another wife to meet his needs, rather than divorce his first wife to take another one. Different stories were introduced by different wives of polygynous husbands that signify sexual reasons for polygyny among middle-class peasants. Raissa, the first wife of Ghazi, said that before her husband took his second wife, she had been suffering from cancer in the uterus. She felt severe pain during sexual intercourse with her husband. Her husband told her that she was not suitable for him anymore and decided to take another wife. Aisha, Ali's first wife, stated that she and her husband were on good terms until she started to have severe inflammations as a result of having a sexual relationship with him. She said, When the wife cannot comfort her husband sexually he will search for another one to provide him with what he needs. That was what Aisha's husband did when his wife could not have a sexual relationship with him as frequently as he wanted. He married for the second time eight years after his first marriage. Kamilia, the first wife of Ahmed, said that she asked him to marry a second woman because she had problems that prevented her from having a normal sex life with him. The reason was that her leg was broken twice as a result of falling from the roof of the house while storing clover. Kamilia said that she tolerated a lot of pain in her leg to meet her husband's needs. She did not want to have a co-wife before her eldest son had grown up and

25

could depend on himself financially to protect her. When all her children had grown up and her son got married and lived with them in the same house, she felt safe enough to tell her husband that she could not have sexual relationship with him. Ahmed agreed to take another wife and he asked Kamilia to choose the one she felt comfortable to live with. Polygyny for sexual reasons among upper-class families applied only to one couple which was Saleh and his wife Zeinab. Zeinab stated that her husband took a second wife when she herself was pregnant for the fourth time. When pregnancy made her too tired to have any sexual relationship with her husband, this was a source of tension between them and Saleh decided to take a second wife. d) Problems with in-laws. i) Problems between the wife and her in-laws. Problems between the wife and her in-laws appear to occur more frequently among the lower class than among the middle and upper classes. In the lower-class, conditions of life are tough which makes it difficult for the husband to live independently of his extended family. Thus, his wife has to cope with all the troubles that her in-laws (most probably her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law) can cause her, otherwise she will have to sacrifice her marriage. When problems build between the wife and the mother-in-law, and the wife cannot make enough concessions to please her mother-in-law, the latter proves to have a strong influence on the husband to the extent of being able to push him to take a second wife. The following two cases reflect the nature of conflicts among lowerclass farmers between the wife and her in-laws when the wife resides in the same house with her husband's family. These conflicts usually end up with the husband deciding to take another wife. Al-Sayed's first wife Fardous said that the reason al-Sayed had divorced her before he remarried her after 17 years was the bad relationship with her mother-in-law (who was her husband's step-mother) and her sisters-in-law who resided with her in the same house. Many conflicts took place between them when al-Sayed joined the army and left Fardous with his step-mother and his sisters-in-law. Fardous felt that her sisters-in-law hated her to the extent that she was afraid to eat the food they cooked lest they had poisoned it in order to get rid of her. Fardous decided to leave the

26

house of her parents-in-law when her husband was in the army and went to live in her parents' house. When al-Sayed returned, he went to Fardous and asked her to come back to his parents' house, but neither Fardous nor her parents approved, so he decided to divorce her and to take another wife. But when al-Sayed returned to Fardous after 17 years, she became one of alSayed's four wives. Had Fardous been on good terms with her in-laws, alSayed may not have divorced her, married three other women, and then got back to her after many years. Another experience which showed how problems between the wife and her in-laws can result into polygyny was cited by Samaha, Fikri's first wife. Samaha had to live with Fikri's eldest brother and his wife for one year during which her husband worked in Iraq. Her brother-in-law was a tough man and provided her and her child with little food. Her sister-in-law burdened her with a lot of work in the house and in the field taking advantage of the absence of Samaha's husband. Samaha decided to stay with her parents until her husband came back. Feeling that Samaha did not give him his due respect by leaving his house without his consent, her brother-in-law sent letters to her husband in Iraq informing him that his wife was disobedient. He also suggested to him that he should take a second wife as soon as he returned. He chose the new bride and went to ask for her hand on behalf of his brother. When Samaha's husband came back, his brother convinced him of what he did on his behalf and so her husband married a second wife. Conflicts between a wife and her in-laws residing with her in the same house can result in polygyny among the upper-class farmers as well. An example to illustrate this is the case of Faris. Hamida, his widow, recalled the conditions which led her husband to take a second wife. She lived with her husband's parents, brothers and sisters-in-law in the same house. Her mother-in-law divided the housework between Hamida and her sister-in-law in weekly rotations. She was biased to Hamida's sister-in-law because she was her own niece and was never satisfied with Hamida's work. Hamida's husband sometimes took Hamida's side and other times took his mother's side. In addition, Hamida felt jealous of her sister-in-law as her mother-inlaw made comparisons between them as far as beauty was concerned. Hamida admitted that her sister-in-law was much more beautiful than she was but she would have never hated her sister-in-law if her-mother-in-law 27

was not causing jealousy between them. In one of Hamida's quarrels with her mother-in-law, Hamida left the house and went to stay with her father. Faris went to reconcile her and to return her to his house but she refused. As he thought that this was disrespectful to him, he wanted to upset Hamida by taking a second wife within one week. Hamida regretted her action of leaving the house by saying "the wise woman should never leave her husband's house because its consequences are very bad." By "consequences," Hamida meant having a co-wife. ii) Problems between the husband and his in-laws. Polygyny resulting from conflicts between the husband and his in-laws appear to increase among the middle and the upper classes since most of these conflicts revolve around financial matters including the husband urging his wife to take her land from her brother whether it be land she inherited from her parents and/or her own share of land from the agricultural reform program. This may end by conflicts between the husband and his brother-inlaw. In addition, the trade transactions that take place between the wife's father or brother and her husband can result in conflicts between them. Examples of problems that occur between the husband and his in-laws which lead to polygyny among the middle and upper-class farmers showed in the families of Dessouki, Wahdan, Ali, and Hosni. According to Dessouki's first wife, Negma, her husband used to make her borrow money from her brothers who were working in Iraq and Jordan as a form of compensation for her share of inheritance from her parents' land which she had not taken from them. Since the death of Negma's parents, her brothers took over the cultivation of her land for their own benefit. One time she refused to ask her brother for money and her husband became furious and kicked her out of the house. Negma went to her brother's house and stayed with him for one whole year during which her husband took a second wife. Sayeda was another informant who mentioned that conflicts between her husband and his first wife over financial matters were the main reason for her husband's second marriage. Her husband, Wahdan, asked his first wife, Nabawiya, to sell the gold gift he had given her at the time of marriage in order to buy a small buffalo. Nabawiya went to her father and consulted with him before giving her gold accessories to her husband. Though her father approved of giving the accessories to Wahdan, he had

28

one condition which was writing the receipt of buying the buffalo in Nabawiya's name. Wahdan did not agree and when his attempts failed to convince his father-in-law, he decided to take a second wife as a way of taking revenge against Nabawiya and her father. Wahdan married Sayeda, a divorcee who had kept the gold gift that her ex-husband had presented to her in the engagement party. When Wahdan married her, he asked her to give him her gold accessories. She agreed and Wahdan sold them and bought a buffalo. An example of the extent to which the interference of the wife's brother in her marriage acted as a reason for polygyny was the case of Ali and his wife Aisha. Ali mentioned that whenever any conflict took place between him and his wife, she used to go to her brother and stay in his house until he went to her brother's house to take her back. Aisha's brother, however, insisted that Ali would pay a fine of LE10 for allowing him to take her back. When this was repeated several times, Ali felt that he was being exploited by his brother-in-law and that his own wife was exploited by her brother. He felt bad about his brother-in-law and about his own wife, particularly that she took her brother's side and asked Ali to do whatever her brother asked him to do. Ali was fed up by his brother-in-law's interference in the conflicts between him and his wife and decided to take a second wife. The case of Hosni represents an example of how the conflicts between the husband and his in-laws among the upper-class farmers can be a reason for polygyny. Hosni had a business with his brother-in-law for trading in vegetables. This business, however, closed and Hosni's brother-in-law claimed that Hosni owed him money. The brother-in-law took advantage of any problem that occurred between Hosni and his wife Baheya to urge his sister to stay with him for long periods of time and convinced her to refuse to go to her husband's house when he came to take her. As a result, Hosni decided to take a second wife when his wife left the house for long intervals. Nevertheless, after Hosni married his second wife, he realized he could not give up his first wife and insisted on making her return to him under any circumstances. Circumstances helped Hosni, as his brother-in-law was accused of beating a man in a wedding and the 'umda interfered to resolve the problem. The 'umda decided to impose a fine of LE50 (which was a big amount of money in the mid-1970s) on Hosni's brother-in-law to be paid as a compensation to the man who was beaten. Being a rich man in

29

the village, Hosni had a strong contact with the 'umda. Thus, he went to speak in confidentiality with him about his problem with his brother-in-law and both of them agreed to pressure the brother-in-law by making him choose between paying the LE50 and allowing his sister to go back to her husband's house. This was done in a big meeting in the 'umda's house where Hosni's brother-in-law chose to allow his sister to return to her husband's house in return for being exempted from paying the money. Hosni agreed with the 'umda that in case his brother-in-law agreed to let his sister go to her husband's house, Hosni would give the 'umda the LE50 which the latter was supposed to pay to the assaulted man. This was made on condition that no one in the village would know that Hosni was the one who paid the money. This case clarifies the extent to which upper-class farmers can use their own contacts and resources to solve their marriage problems. Hosni succeeded in getting his first wife back even though he had already taken a second wife. It is worth noting that the possibility of taking a second wife may have been much less if Hosni had found an earlier opportunity to convince his brother-in-law to let his sister return to his house. e) Forming alliances. Polygyny for political reasons takes place among the upper and middle-class families in the village. Sometimes the only means for upward social and economic mobility is involving oneself in the village's political circles. The only way to reach these political circles is by forming alliances through establishing kinship ties with families that are already involved in those circles. This was reflected in the case of Hamad. Hamad belonged to a different socioeconomic class before winning the elections and occupying a political post in the village. Before running for the elections, Hamad had two feddans which he inherited from his father—a land size which a typical middle-class farmer owned in the village. Hamad used to work as a messenger in Kafr alShaykh Bus Company, however after winning the elections he resigned from his job. During the period in which Hamad occupied political posts in the village, his economic resources increased and his standard of living improved greatly which upgraded him from the middle to the upper-class. Currently, he owns five feddans and has five buffalos, three cows, and one donkey. Furthermore, he built a new concrete house for himself and his 30

second wife. Hamad's upward economic and social mobility can easily be deduced from the fact that he separated his wives in two different houses which was one of the upper-class residential patterns of polygynous families in the village. The majority of the middle-class polygynous husbands did not separate their wives in two different houses located in different places due to economic constraints; an exceptional case would be separating wives in two different apartments but in the same building. Hamad's decision to take his second wife was the means for improving his social, political and economic standard. For him, the political goals that he wanted to achieve through his second marriage underlied the economic and social goals. According to Zakia, Hamad's first wife, her husband took his second wife because he wanted to run for elections in the local council. At that time, in order to run for elections, one had to win voters from 14 agricultural districts. Hamad had strong contacts with a neighboring village that he wanted to use in order to widen the scope of his voters and ensure his success in the elections. As he wanted to strengthen his contacts in this village, he decided to marry a girl from a powerful family which had a strong influence on the people of that village. Thus, he married Gamila who was the cousin of his best friend long before the elections and who lived in that village. Through this marriage, a large number of men in the village voted for Hamad and he won the elections. Hamad gained both economic and social benefits from his political post as a member in the local council. He said that when he succeeded in these elections, he applied for a post to become a member in the Agricultural Reform Committee and was accepted. This committee gathered every week to discuss the cases of agricultural violations committed by farmers. Hamad received two different salaries from his two posts in the local council and in the Agricultural Reform Committee. Hamad said that he gained a special social prestige from these governmental posts. He expressed his view when he said, There is no man in this village that has not had a problem that relates to his land at least once in his lifetime. It is my job to solve people's problems through my position in the Committee. I serve any person who comes to me to solve his problems. In return for the services that I do for people who seek my help, everybody in the village would wish to do me any favor.

31

f) Incompatibility between partners. Incompatibility between partners particularly among lower and middle-class peasants can be a reason for polygyny. When the farmer seeks a better standard of living either through working in urban centers or through working abroad, he is exposed to a wider range of modernization factors than those existing in the small community of the village. Spending long intervals of time in urban centers brings about changes in his views as to how his wife should be like. The story of Khaled shows how the incompatibility between him and his first wife led him to take a second wife. Khaled came from a lower-class family who owned a small piece of land, about 12 qirats. When farming failed to provide his family with their basic needs, Khaled went to Kafr alShaykh city where he rented the coffee-shop of the Spinning and Weaving Company which served the employees of the company during their break time. Khaled said that his character changed a lot since he worked in the city of Kafr al-Shaykh. His wife could not understand him any more and could not share with him his plans for their future. He added that his wife could not provide him with the kind of life that he expected to live. He expressed the difference between them which led him to take a second wife when he said, Whenever I invited my friends to the house for lunch, she could not prepare the meal which honored me in front of them as she did not know how to cook like the people of the city. She usually embarrassed me in front of my friends. I could not tolerate this situation and I needed a partner who could understand me. Khaled could not divorce his first wife because she was his cousin. He left her with their children to live in the same house with his parents and took a second wife and resided with her in her house. Ghazi is another example that shows how the exposure of the husband to a different lifestyle from that of the village changes his perception about how his wife should be. He was a middle-class farmer who had experienced upward economic and social mobility due to working in a Gulf country for two years. Before immigration, owned less than one feddan. Accumulating savings abroad he was able to buy one and a half feddans of land when he returned to his village. After his return, Ghazi opened a shop for selling

32

groceries and vegetables in the village. He wanted his wife Raissa to be responsible for the shop and to stay in it all day until he and his sons came from the field in the evening. Raissa, however, could not look after the shop since she was only interested in farming and rejected the idea of changing her life activity from farming to selling groceries. Further, she was illiterate and it was impossible for her to carry out the necessary accounts required for buying and selling. These circumstances made Ghazi think of marrying a young wife who was literate and can take over responsibility of the shop and so he married Kawthar. This story reveals that Ghazi's desire to diversify the sources of family income to include not only farming but also other types of non-agricultural activities like trading acted as the main reason for incompatibility between him and Raissa. The diversification of family income in Ghazi's case was attributed to the increase in family resources due to the husband's immigration and his accumulation of savings. Conclusion The factors which lead to polygyny among Egyptian farmers are economic, social and cultural, and psychological. Economic factors include the importance of having enough members, particularly males, to farm the land among lower and middle-class farmers. They also include the desire of husbands from the lower and middle-class to improve their economic standard by being engaged in the political spheres in the village. Their means to achieve this is through seeking marriage alliances which would ensure them successful political careers and thus a better standard of living. Several factors related to the cultural and social aspects were found to lead to polygyny among Egyptian farmers. The first is having females, i.e. daughters and not sons. For all socioeconomic classes of farmers, sons are indispensable. A great value is accorded to sons since they are the supporters of their father particularly in his old age and they are the ones who continue the father's lineage. The son has a particularly great value among upper-class farmers since there is a strong idea that as the son is the one who carries his father's family name then he is the one who should receive his father's inheritance. Daughters should not inherit their fathers (except for limited property) because they will be married to strangers. If 33

they were to inherit from their fathers, then property would go to their children who carry the family names of the daughters' husbands. The second cultural factor is that it is not socially acceptable by the village community that a man divorces a wife who has children from him. This is seen as an irresponsible and "unmanly" act. Thus, when the husband finds that his wife cannot meet his needs--such as satisfying his sexual needs or getting him a son--and if he cannot divorce her for social constraints, polygyny becomes his only option. The third cultural factor that leads to polygyny is the strong influence of the mother on her married son. If conflicts take place between the mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law beyond a certain level, the mother pushes her son to take a second wife. If she considered that her daughter-in-law is challenging her, she will try to bring her a co-wife so that daughter-in-law's power is weakened. The fourth cultural factor that leads to polygyny is when the wife disobeys her husband. Disobedience of the husband is a significant negative act on the wife's side in the village community since it challenges religious and social norms. In conflicts between the husband and his in-laws, when the wife takes her brother's or father's side against her husband then she is disobeying her husband. An even worse type of disobedience is when the wife leaves the husband's house and goes to her brother's or father's. An expected reaction of the husband to his wife's disobedience will be to take another wife as a way of punishment. If the wife has no children from her husband, his reaction will be divorcing her. Another factor that leads to polygyny is when the wife has a difficulty in having a sexual relationship with her husband and her husband's sexual needs are not satisfied. Reasons behind being unable to have sex with the husband includes: having an infection in the genital organ or a disease in the reproductive system causing severe inflammations, for instance, which lead to pain during the sexual relationship; poor health of the wife; and pregnancy of the wife which makes her unable to have a sexual intercourse with her husband. Growing incompatibility between the husband and wife due to changes occurring in the husband's lifestyle may lead to polygyny. Economic, social, and psychological factors, however, play an important role in that respect. The change in the husband's lifestyle takes place because of his work in the urban centers with the aim of improving his standard of living, 34

which is an economic factor in the first place. This change makes him dissatisfied with his wife who represents a psychological and social imbalance that he tries to remove by taking a second wife who can adapt to his developed lifestyle. If reasons for polygyny are classified according to different socioeconomic classes of farmers, we will find that, for the upper-class farmers, reasons for polygyny include barrenness of wife, problems between the husband and his in-laws, forming alliances, and birth of females. For lower-class farmers, reasons for polygyny include death of children who had been supporting their father in farming, birth of females, problems between the wife and her in-laws with whom she resides in the same house, and incompatibility between the husband and his wife. For middle-class farmers, reasons for polygyny include unavailability of sons who help in farming and contribute to agricultural productivity, sexual dissatisfaction, problems between the husband and his in-laws, forming alliances, and incompatibility between the husband and his wife.

35

CHAPTER FOUR FINANCIAL DYNAMICS AND RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF POLYGYNOUS HOUSEHOLDS

The aim of this chapter is to identify the determinants of the financial responsibility of polygynous husbands in the different social classes towards their wives. This is meant to discover the extent to which the polygynous husband can maintain equal financial treatment among his different wives and the factors which affect his ability to maintain financial equality. The determinants of husband's financial responsibility will be traced by linking the financial responsibility of the husband to the household's residential pattern and the income generated by the wives and children. In dealing with the residence patterns of polygynous households among the different classes, the focus will be on the factors shaping these patterns. There are two residence patterns: in the first, the husband resides with all his wives in the same house, whereas in the second the husband resides with only one wife in the house while the other wife or wives live in other house(s). I give special attention to the reasons behind residential separation and the reasons for not separating wives in different houses. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate to what extent the financial responsibility of the husband towards each of his wives varies according to whether he resides with her in the same house or not. The other purpose of this analysis is to investigate whether the contribution of the wife to the household income through wage labor or doing any income generating activity increases the financial responsibility of the husband towards his wife or decreases it and whether it strengthens or weakens the possibility of separating the wives in different residences. The financial responsibility of the husband toward his wives includes the provision of: food which in part means the crops harvested from the land that is owned or rent in by the husband, money for buying basic needs from the market, and clothes to the wife and her children, in addition to financing the children's education, and maintaining adequate housing conditions for the different wives. Housing conditions include: the safety of the building (safety from collapsing, for example) in which the wife or wives are living,

36

especially when it is a separate residence from that of the husband; the space available for the residence of different wives and their children, particularly the space for sleeping; and the availability of potable water. Finally, the financial responsibility of the husband also entails the distribution of harvest from the land among the different wives in different houses, and the distribution of land among children from different wives during the husband's lifetime. Overview The financial dynamics of polygynous farmers varied from one socioeconomic class to another. These dynamics depend on: first, the type of residence and whether the wife resides in the same house with the husband or not; and second, whether the wife generates an income and/or contributes to subsistence or not. Among upper-class farmers, separation in residence occurs when the husband aims at distributing the financial burdens of his extended family between himself and his sons. Generally, separation accompanies the ability of the son to generate an income from a source other than land which can maintain his subsistence needs. When separation in residence between wives takes place, husbands do not maintain an equal financial responsibility towards their wives. Separation among upper-class farmers takes place in a common form. After the marriage of the eldest son of the first wife, the husband separates his wives and their children. He keeps his first wife with her married son(s) and unmarried son(s) and daughters in the same house while he and his second wife move out to a new house. This, however, may take place in a different way, particularly if there were strong economic and social bonds between half-siblings which prevent separation. Separation also may not take place at all due to certain factors that are related to the economic and social status of their sons. As the husband finds that separation from his first wife is not in his best economic interest he will not choose to separate. Among middle-class farmers, members of polygynous families live as one group. There is no separation in residence. In some exceptions only, there is a partial separation but not separation in the full sense of the word. Full separation is dividing wives into two different houses in different 37

places. Partial separation includes separation only during sleeping time or separation of wives among two different apartments but in the same house. Wives of middle-class polygynous farmers share domestic activities and farm the land with their husbands. Any income that the wives generate is given to the husband to decide on how to spend it. The husband uses that income along with income earned from any additional source and decides how to spend it on the needs of the different members of the extended family. Furthermore, wives among middle-class farmers do not work as wage laborers. Most of their income-generating activities are limited to selling domestically-produced goods in the market. Goods to be sold in the market include dairy products, eggs, poultry, and grains, which remain in excess after covering subsistence needs. Among lower-class farmers, separation in residence between wives occurs since the husbands cannot maintain the subsistence level for their large families--their wives and children. Among lower-class polygynous families, husbands moving between their wives' residences is a common practice. Changing residence is a way to overcome the difficulty of carrying out the financial needs of the different family members simultaneously. When the husband resides in a separate residence from that of his wife or wives and resides with another wife in her own residence, he is away from the day-to-day events of the former wife and her children. This exempts him from the daily financial expenses towards her such as buying food from the market. In addition, this movement in residence helps in accumulating the savings necessary for the children's marriage. When the husband does not pay for the daily expenses of his wife or wives and his children residing in a separate residence, he has a bigger opportunity to save money. Among lower-class farmers, husbands are careful to meet their financial responsibility towards the marriage of their children, even if they do not reside with him in the same house. It is socially disgraceful for the father in the village community to ignore his responsibilities towards the marriage of his children. Lower-class women living in separate residence from their husbands and whose husbands do not finance any of their needs or their children's needs have to generate an income large enough for meeting their subsistence needs. They seek both agricultural and non-agricultural activities to earn the largest possible income. Agricultural activities include 38

agricultural wage-laboring and non-agricultural activities include selling domestically-produced goods such as dairy products, vegetables, and crops, and wage-labor. Concerning the husband's financial responsibility towards his wives, sharing a residence does not guarantee his being financially responsible for his wives. As husbands are incapable of meeting the needs of their wives and their children, they withdraw from their financial responsibility towards the wives. This is particularly applicable to those wives who earn an income which is sufficient for meeting most of their needs and their children's needs and who refuse to share it with their husband. As for wives who earn an income and share it with their husband and help him in farming the land, they receive a different treatment from the husband as far as financial matters are concerned. In this case, the husband is responsible for all the wives' financial needs as well as those of their children's. In the coming sections, the husband's financial responsibility towards his different wives will be discussed for the different socioeconomic classes. Upper-Class Farmers a) Upper-Class farmers with wives in separate residences. i) Factors causing separation between the husband and his Wives in residence. Interviews with polygynous men and women revealed that separation of wives in different houses is a trait of the upper-class polygynous families. Finding cases where the wives of an upper-class farmer reside in the same house with him throughout his lifetime is rare. Thus, one of the main areas of research is finding out the factors behind the separation in residence between the husband and his wife or wives among this class in order to know the determinants of the husband's financial responsibility towards his wives. Factors causing the separation between the husband and his wives in residence include conflict between the husband and the members of his extended family, and the increase of the financial burdens on the husband when his wives reside with him in the same house. With regard to the first factor, a member who has more than one wife imposes a financial burden on the household which the other members, particularly monogamously married brothers, do not accept. Given that crops represent an essential

39

resource for subsistence, the household depends on selling crops in the market for income generation. Therefore, monogamously married brothers think that with the presence of a polygynous member in the household, available resources will have to be divided among a larger number of people in the household. This will decrease their share as well as their wives' and children's shares in household's resources. Tension resulting from this situation can be a motive for the polygynous brother to separate his wives into different houses which entails that the needs of his wives will not necessarily be met within the budget of his extended family. Hamida, the widow of Faris, and his first wife, said that separation from her co-wife happened for several reasons. This took place when her husband married his second wife and let her stay with Hamida in the same house of his parents. She said that conflict occurred between her co-wife and her mother-in law though her co-wife was the niece of her mother-in-law. In addition, quarrels took place between Hamida and her co-wife. The tension in the house expanded to reach Faris and his brother. His brother accused him of using the resources of the household to meet the needs of his two wives and thought that Faris's second marriage was a luxury. He thought so because Faris worked as a telephone operator in the Land Reform Organization and did not farm the land, while he did. The brother thus believed that it was unfair for him to work the land—the source of household's subsistence and income--alone, since Paris not only did not help him in farming but also wasted the household's resources on a new marriage. Although Faris contributed part of his salary to the household budget, his brother thought that what Faris contributed was much less than what he consumed from household resources. He accused Faris of buying clothes for his new wife behind their back and wasting the household income on trivial things. As a result of this tension, Faris suggested to his second wife building a separate room adjacent to the family household in which she could live with her children. She refused and asked him to build her a completely new house. Faris accepted her request and implemented it. He also decided to allocate his salary from the government to his second wife so as to avoid using family resources to meet the needs of his second wife, thus avoiding problems with his brother.

40

Concerning the second factor behind the separation in residence between the husband and his wives which is the increasing financial burdens on the husband, this happens when sons particularly from the first wife get married. When sons are married they reside in the same house of their parents, which constitutes a heavy financial burden on the father. This is because he becomes responsible for his wives, their children, including their married sons, their wives, and their children. For a polygynous husband, the most convenient way to get rid of part of his burden is to separate his wives and their children into different houses. His first wife and her children including her married sons remain in the same house in which they have always lived, while he moves with his second wife and their children to another house. This pattern of separating wives is common among upper-class farmers in al-Kafrawy, but it takes place only when the married son of the first wife becomes financially independent and earns an income from a source other than the land (which he has not yet inherited) such as a public sector job. As the son becomes financially independent and separation takes place, he becomes responsible for his mother, and his unmarried brothers and sisters. As the father moves to another house, his responsibilities significantly decrease toward the household where his first wife and her children reside. He is mainly responsible for his second wife and their children. An example of this situation is Hamad's family. His eldest son from the first wife was married and resided with him in the same house. As his son worked in the government sector and received a monthly salary, his father realized that it would be difficult for him to maintain his growing family in the same house. Hamad said, If my sons were to remain unmarried, the burden would be lighter, but if they get married in this house and bring children, then this house will be a real chaos. He added that if one of his sons worked in a government job and gave his salary to his father as a contribution to household income, problems would arise. If the father as the head of the household failed to meet the needs of his son's nuclear family, then his son could say that his father took his salary and wasted it on the other members in the house. Hamad said that 41

the only way to get out of these problems was to build a new house to separate the wives and their children. Hamad believed that his married sons had to share with him the burdens of the family. Having two wives was not an easy matter and it was the duty of sons who had a salary to be responsible for their nuclear families and their mothers. ii) The husband's financial responsibility towards his different wives. The research revealed that among upper-class polygynous families, husbands do not maintain an equal financial responsibility towards their different wives who live in different houses. The wives and children of a polygynous husband who reside in a separate house from his do not live in the same standard of living of the wife and children who reside in the same house with the husband. This is particularly true when separation between the husband and one of his wives takes place when their children are still young. Differences in the standard of living between wives show itself in access to land resources and the resources allocated to the education of children. Quantities of crops allocated to meet subsistence needs may vary from one wife to another. The husband allocates a relatively small area of land to the wife in a separate residence, while he and his other wife benefit from the returns of the larger area of land. Thus, the wife in a separate residence may not find it feasible to hire labor to farm the land, rather, her children will farm the land. Therefore, chances of her children going to school are very limited compared to their half-siblings who do not have to farm the land. For instance, the second wife of Faris lived in a separate house with her children after a few years of marriage. Although Faris was a well-to-do farmer and lived up to the expected standard of living of the upper-class, his second wife Wafaa and her children lived in a much lower standard. Wafaa said, As soon as separation took place, Faris offered meand my children three feddans from his own land to cultivateand live on. Before the feasts, he used to give me some money to buy clothes for myself and my children.

42

Wafaa mentioned, however that her children had never been to school because she needed them to farm the land. Faris's sons from his first wife Hamida went to university. One of them was a lawyer pursuing a master degree in law and the other one was a teacher in a secondary school. None of them farmed the land. Wafaa gave an explanation to this gap in the education of her son and that of her co-wife's sons by saying that her husband had a very large area of land and as he was very rich, he hired labor to farm the land. Thus, his sons from his other wife were never asked by their father to farm the land and instead they were sent to school. She added that after her husband's death, she discovered that she had no rights to his land. He had written all the land except the three feddans that she farmed with her children in the name of his sons and daughters from his first wife, Hamida. The age of children is a major determinant of the financial responsibility of the polygynous husband towards his wife/wives and children living in separate residences from his own whether the children are young or they are grown ups, particularly if they were married sons who are economically independent from their father. When children are young and reside in a separate house with their mother, the father is expected to meet all their material and basic needs, though in reality he may not. But, when sons are married and receive monthly salaries, their fathers expect them to be financially responsible for themselves and for their mother. As separation takes place and the wife of a polygynous husband becomes the responsibility of her sons, it is rare to find the wife asking her husband to provide her with anything that she needs. It is also uncommon to find the husband interested in responding to her needs. This condition is clear in the case of Hamad's family. Zakia, the first wife of Hamad, lived with her two married sons and her unmarried daughter in a house separate from that of her husband. Her sons were fully responsible for her needs. When they sometimes failed to respond to any of her demands due to the lack of money, she would ask her brother to buy it instead of her husband. When separation of wives takes place, the only resource that continues to be shared between the two houses is land. The father provides his sons in separate residence with crops that cover their consumption throughout the year. Production of crops allocated for meeting the subsistence needs of the whole family—the husband, his wives and children—is divided among two or 43

more houses (according to the number of wives). The surplus is sold by the father. Its income is directed primarily only to members of his family who reside with him in the same house. b) Upper-Class farmers with wives in the same residence. Among upper-class polygynous families, sometimes separation between wives does not take place. Several factors, however, play a role in preventing the occurrence of separation or altering its common form. One of these factors is the variance in the source or size of income available for sons. This gap is based on the difference in chances of education that they were provided. Some brothers are educated while others are not. It is common to find halfsiblings who work as farmers and are uneducated while their brothers are educated and work in the non-farm jobs. This creates tensions between brothers as sources of income available for the educated are more than those available for the uneducated. It may create jealousy and tension between brothers, as well as cooperation between half-siblings who share a similar educational level and consequently have similar interests in life. As jealousy may be a good reason for separation, the common pattern of separating wives among different houses when sons of the first wife are married and are financially independent may not happen (as will be illustrated in the example of al-Nimr below). Another factor that prevents the separation of wives is when the son contributes to improving the standard of living of his father's household. Separation would mean the loss of the returns obtained through this son. Thus, sons' socioeconomic conditions may affect the occurrence of separation of wives into different residences. Among the rich polygynous families with wives residing in the same house are the families of al-Nimr and Saleh. Certain conditions have shaped the current residence pattern of these two families and acted as factors which prevented separation of the residence of the wives. Al-Nimr married two women and each one of them had two sons. Two sons from different wives were educated, held jobs in the government sector, and did not farm the land. The two other sons farmed the land and were uneducated. Al-Nimr said that the educational and occupational gap between brothers created conflict in the house. The two farmers started to feel jealous of their educated brothers as they recognized that their brothers 44

benefited from land as much as they did without exerting any effort in farming. In addition, they gave their father only a part of their salaries to contribute to the household expenditures and kept the other part for themselves. Al-Nimr believed that his sons who farmed the land were much closer to one another than each of them to his full brother. Al-Nimr's daughter-in-law Safaa worked as a teacher in a preparatory school and was married to Nasr the youngest son from al-Nimr's first wife. Safaa reinforced al-Nimr's point of view. She said that after she married Nasr, the whole family including her father-in-law, his two wives, their sons, and their wives "lived one life". By that, she meant that they all lived together and that her father-in-law controlled household resources and their allocation. Food was cooked for the whole extended family and her fatherin-law was the one to decide the expenditure of every piaster in the household according to his priorities. Problems, however, occurred between the educated sisters-in-law (wives of educated sons), on one side, and the uneducated ones (wives of uneducated sons) on the other. The latter thought that it was unfair for them to stay in the house all day and cook, clean the floor, and wash the clothes of the entire extended family while their sistersin-law came from work to find everything ready for them. Safaa added that conflict reached its peak when the wives of uneducated sons refused to do anything for her and her sister-in-law and asked them to share the household responsibilities. Safaa and her sister-inlaw rejected that suggestion on the grounds that their husbands contributed to household income through their own salaries and that this was an adequate compensation for the services offered to them by their sisters-inlaw. The uneducated sisters-in-law, however, were not convinced by this argument and insisted that they should share household responsibilities. This was inconvenient for the educated sisters-in-law. The conflict came to an end when the educated sons agreed with their father to build them a new floor on the house and divide it into two apartments, one for each of them. This was made on the condition that the father would not provide them with any financial or material resources except crops, and that each one of them kept his salary for the needs of his nuclear family. Safaa's mother-in-law continued to live in the same house with her husband and her co-wife, where the husband continued to finance all her needs. The sons who worked in farming continued to depend on their 45

father to meet all their needs. As Safaa and her husband had separate budgets from that of her father-in-law, they never went downstairs to eat with him. The same system applied to her educated brother-in law who resided in the other apartment. In the above case, the usual pattern of separating the wives each with her own children in a separate house particularly when the sons get married -did not take place because of the common interests of the educated halfsiblings that were different from those of the uneducated half-siblings. Farming of land acted as a common interest that linked half-siblings together. This common interest was much stronger than the fact that they are from different wives of the same husband. The bond between halfsiblings was strengthened as both of them had similar complaints against their educated brothers. Thus, the separation of brothers into separate apartments was an alternative to the separation of wives and their sons. If the educated sons were full brothers and the uneducated ones were also full brothers, there would be a greater probability of separating each wife with her children into a different house. Saleh represents another case where certain factors prevented the separation of wives. His eldest son Aref received a bachelor degree in science from al-Azhar University. He lived in Austria and worked as a manager of a restaurant. He sent his father LE2000 every 2-3 months. Zeinab, Aref s mother, was very proud of him. She said, Finally came the day when my son dignified meinfront of my husband and my co-wife. Now they benefit from the money my son sends to us. Therefore, my co-wife's children take private lessons and she can buy them nice clothes and can also go to see a doctor whenever she is sick. Zeinab has two sons, Aref who lived in Austria, and Som'a who worked as a teacher, was married, and lived in his parents' house. If Saleh were to follow the custom of upper-class farmers in separating his wives, it would have been expected that he leaves his first wife Zeinab with her son Som'a in the house and moves with his second wife Houria and their children to reside in a separate house. In that way, Saleh could divide the financial responsibilities of his family between himself and his son. This, however, did not take place. The explanation for this is that Saleh and his

46

second wife did not prefer to separate their residence from that of Zeinab because separation was not in their best financial interest. If separation were to take place, Aref would have been responsible only for his mother Zeinab. He would not send money to his father and his step-mother, but only to his mother, his brothers and unmarried sisters who reside in a separate house from that of his father. Therefore, Saleh found that the financial benefits he obtained through Aref outweighed the financial burdens which he incurred as he remained responsible for Zeinab and her children since they resided with him in the same house. Saleh's case shows that separation between wives may not occur when the economic status of the son contributes to improving the standard of living of his father's household. Separation would mean the loss of the returns obtained through this son. This indicates the extent to which the socioeconomic conditions of sons can affect the occurrence of separation of wives into different residences. In addition, if Houria's son was the one sending money, most probably separation would have taken place. Middle-Class Farmers a) Factors shaping residence patterns among middle-class farmers. A general characteristic of the residence pattern of middle-class farmers is that all wives reside in the same house with the husband for all their lives. Among middle-class farmers, the separation of wives into different houses, which is widespread among upper-class farmers, is rare. It is possible, however, to find a partial separation between wives. The families of Wahdan and Gawad give examples of partial separation among middle-class farmers. For Gawad's family, separation between wives took place only during sleeping time at night. Gawad and his two wives and children resided in the same house. The two wives would go every day with Gawad to the field to farm the land. They took turns in cooking, so that if Ikram cooked today, Mariam would cook the next day. After returning from the field, they stayed to eat their meals together with their children. When sleeping time came, Gawad and his second wife Mariam slept the night in a small house next door and in the early morning they returned to the other house where all the main activities took place. 47

For Wahdan's family, his two wives resided in the same building but each one of them had a separate floor with her children. Though wives and their children did not eat meals together, yet decisions on allocating resources for household purchases were shared by the two wives. Further, the children of the first wife helped their younger half-siblings in studying. Thus, the type of separation between wives among middle-class peasants is different from the one prevalent among upper and lower-class families. Whereas separation among upper and lower-class families is entire separation, whereby the two wives are separated into two different houses (buildings), separation among middle-class families is partial, whereby wives are separated into different apartments in the same building or are separated in sleeping time only. b) The husband's financial responsibility towards his different wives. Most wives of middle-class polygynous husbands farm the land with their husbands. It is unusual to find one of them working as a wage-laborer, though most of them generate income from selling different products in the market, particularly dairy products such as milk and cheese that they get from the livestock raised in the household. Middle-class men maintain a high degree of financial equality among their wives compared to upper and lower-class farmers. All the income generated by the different members of the household is accumulated in the hands of the husband. The wives give their husbands the income they earn to decide on how to spend it on the needs of the different members of the household. A middle-class polygynous household live as one family. The existence of two wives has not resulted in the division of the household budget. On the contrary, one budget is allocated for purchasing all the needs of the household members. Ghazi said that he bought all the clothes of his family once every year, before the Bairam feast. He allocated the money from the profit of selling the last crop cultivated in his field before the feast. He took his two wives with him to the market and each one of them bought her needs as well as those of her children. Children's education is given special attention among middle-class farmers and it is not common to find gaps in the educational level attained by children from different wives. In addition to that, children of middle-

48

class farmers do not work as wage laborers and do not contribute to household income during their school years. They also are not expected to help their parents in farming the land. Compared to upper and lower-class farmers, tension between co-wives and between the husband among the middle-class peasants and his wives is the lowest. As husbands maintain a high degree of equality between wives and between children from different wives, wives feel more secure as far as the future of their marriages is concerned. Houses of middle-class farmers are less spacious than those of lower and upper-class farmers. This is because there is less variation in the residence patterns and the extent of financial equality between wives among polygynous families belonging to the middle-class, as compared to the other classes. Among, the middle class, the incidence of separating wife is rare and when it occurs it is partial separation rather than a complete one as discussed above. In addition, middle-class husbands maintain a high degree of financial equality between their wives. Since there is a great deal of uniformity in the income-generating activities between the husband and his wives, it does not allow for a variation in the level of income obtained by different members of the same family. As the main source of income is generated by the husband and his wives together, this income is spent on the different members of the family without bias and according to priorities. Thus, there is a great deal of uniformity between members of the middleclass family. Lower-Class Farmers a) Lower-class farmers with wives in separate residence i) Factors causing separation between the husband and his wives in residence. The conditions of lower-class farmers in general and polygynous lower-class farmers in particular are tough. A lower-class farmer does not own more than 18 qirats of land. A polygynous lower-class farmer finds it nearly impossible to feed all the members of his extended family from his land. His wives have to work as agricultural wage-laborers and sometimes his children except if they go to school. Lower-class polygynous peasants try to separate their wives into different residences in order to insure a better allocation of available

49

financial resources among the different members of their large family and to encourage their wives and children to rely financially on themselves rather than on their husbands. This reveals that the economic constraints and the limited financial resources available for lower-class polygynous households affect the type of residence. Al-Sayed's case is a good example of the reasons which lead to using separate residences for husbands and wives among poor farmers. He married four women but three years ago he decided to live with Fardous. The other wives lived in separate residences. He returned to his first wife Fardous after 17 years of divorce and lived with her in the house she inherited from her parents. During the 17 years before al-Sayed's return to Fardous, he was married to three women during which time he lived with them in the same residence. Al-Sayed explained his return to Fardous by saying that he found that his residence with her was a rational decision that benefited all his children and his wives even those who did not reside with him in the same house. He explained by saying that his three other wives Zebeida, Hosnia and Ikbal, who resided together with their children in a separate house from that of alSayed's were lazy. They encouraged their children to stay unemployed and to depend only on the money and food that he provided. He found that as long as he provided his wives and children with all their needs they would not want to generate an income for themselves. He also found that if he continued to live with them in the same house, he would not be able to finance the marriages of his children as he could not save any money. Thus, he left his three wives to get rid of their continuous financial demands. He saw that it would be a good opportunity for them and their children to depend on themselves for earning an income. Al-Sayed's plan succeeded. He gave his three wives little money in comparison to the amount he used to give them when he lived with them. Thus, his wives and children worked more and became financially independent from al-Sayed. There are some non-financial aspects that affect the residence pattern of polygynous poor husbands, which will consequently affect the financial aspects of the polygynous household. These are moral aspects and issues related to the expected role of the father in maintaining the "morals" of his children.

50

Certain values concerning the role of the father in protecting the morals and the reputation of his children contribute to shaping the residence pattern of lower-class polygynous farmers. Al-Sayed said that he changed his residence to live with Fardous since he recognized his moral responsibility towards his children from her. They were at the age of marriage but were not yet married because of economic and financial constraints. When al-Sayed went to live with Fardous, he rent out his land for two years and took the rent in advance. He used that money to finance the marriages of his children from Fardous who got married within only one and a half years after his return to her house. In addition, he gave his eldest son from Hosnia the necessary money for buying a gold engagement gift for his bride. He also added that his presence in Fardous's house was essential for the marriage of their daughter. He clarified his view when he said: Fardous's sons have a lot of friends who called upon them in Fardous's house. My daughter was beautiful and not yet married. Any one of my sons' friends could have seduced her. However, as I went to live with Fardous, I prevented my sons' friends from visiting (hem. People in the village knew that Fardous's children came under my control which made my children much more respected than before. Many suitors proposed to our daughter and she got married during the same year I returned to the house. On the other hand, according to some wives' point of view, the husband's move from one wife to another is a way through which he can escape his responsibilities towards his wives and children. He does this when he becomes financially unable to carry all the financial duties towards all the members of his family simultaneously. This showed in the justification that Hosnia made for her husband's return to his first wife. Hosnia said that Fardous and her children had different sources of income which made them live with a better standard of living than the one in which she and her co-wives and their children lived. She said that Fardous's sons earned a lot of money from their work in Kafr al-Shaykh city. One of them worked as a drummer in a night club and the other son worked in a juice shop. They were married recently and lived in the same house with their mother and father. Al-Sayed's mother-in-law was an elderly woman who received a Sadat retirement pension that amounted to LE73 per month. In

51

addition, Fardous and her daughters-in-law worked as agricultural wagelaborers. Fardous owned a buffalo whose milk she sold in the market every day. All the income that was generated by Fardous, her sons, her daughtersin-law as well as the pension received by Fardous's mother and the income from selling the milk and dairy products in the market was given to alSayed. He was the one who decided how to allocate it to the different needs of the different household members. Hosnia saw that al-Sayed did not find that residing with her and her co-wives an attractive option from the financial perspective. The income they generated was little compared to that earned by Fardous and her family. ii) Husband's financial responsibility towards his different wives. The research revealed that among lower-class farmers when residence is not shared by the wife and the husband involved in polygynous marriage, the husband is less likely to make fixed financial contribution to his wife and children. Thus, wives in a separate residence from that of their husband are more likely to depend entirely on themselves and on their children to maintain their own subsistence. Very little or no contribution is made by the husband as far as meeting the basic food needs and the provision of clothes for his family. Women who have children are less likely to ask for a divorce to seek a new marriage. Thus, husbands expect their wives to remain passive and do their best by depending on their labor and their children's labor to maintain their subsistence. Nehmedou was Mohammed's second wife. He married her 22 years ago. She lived in a nearby village. When he married her, she was a widow and had four children living in the house of her previous husband. Mohammed resided with Nehmedou in her house for five years after which he took another wife and resided in al-Kafrawy on permanent basis. Since he left her, Nehmedou became responsible for her five children from Mohammed in addition to her four previous children. Nehmedou's boys from Mohammed dropped out from school during the primary level of education and worked as wage-laborers. Mohammed contributed to household expenses occasionally when he had money. Nehmedou said that she could not depend on him to meet the needs of the household. Without his money she and her children managed to meet most of their needs but with great difficulty. Nehmedou never thought of asking Mohammed to

52

divorce her despite the fact that he did not reside with her and hardly made any financial contribution to supporting his children. She thought she would gain nothing by the divorce. She said: "If I were divorced, who will marry me—a woman with nine children." Wives of polygynous and absent husbands prefer to engage in nonagricultural activities rather than agricultural wage-labor activities for two main reasons. First, women earn less through working as agricultural wage laborers than if they earned their income through non-agricultural activities such as selling dairy products in the market. Second, women cannot do agricultural laboring on daily basis because agriculture wage laboring is seasonal and the physical effort that it involves is extremely hard for a female to bear on a daily basis. Non-agricultural activities also include the marketing of food items that are produced within the domestic sphere such as milk, cheese, butter, eggs, poultry, and crops which remain after covering subsistence needs. However, if the wife does not have access to land, or does not own any (or only some) animals or poultry, she will not be able to generate an income from selling crops, dairy products or poultry in the market. Thus, this decreases her opportunity to involve in non-agricultural activities and to meet her basic subsistence needs. Education of children of lower-class polygynous fathers is greatly affected by the father's residence. Within this class, when the father lives away from his children's residence, he usually makes limited contribution to the household's income which does not cover their basic subsistence needs. This makes it difficult to have any extra financial resources to send children to school. Wives who are keen to educate their children engage in tiring agricultural and non-agricultural activities to earn as much income as possible. Hosnia did not have excessive crops above her consumption needs to sell in the market. Instead, she would wake up at 4 a.m. to pass by relatives and neighbors to buy crops from them and resell in the market at a higher price. The difference in prices constituted her profit. She said that the profit she gained per one kilogram of rice or maize was very little since she had to buy these crops at market price or the sellers would choose to sell their crops by themselves in the market. At the same time, she could not sell crops in the market too high above the market price or no one would buy 53

from her. Her profit per one kilogram reached 5 piasters. She said that everyday she carried big amounts of crops in sacks on her shoulders to the market which reached around 20 kilograms. The larger the amounts she sold in the market, the larger the profit she gained. In addition, Hosnia earned an income through shaking grains of clover for other people in the village. Shaking clover should be done before the cultivation of its grains. As very large amounts of clover were to be shaken, Hosnia could stay long hours after midnight doing this task. She said that she suffered rheumatism in her arms because of the tremendous effort she exerts. She said that she carried out those tiring tasks in order to provide for the school fees of her sons. If her sons were not in schools she would not do those tasks on daily basis. Lower-class polygynous fathers who do not reside with their children in the same residence not only do not contribute to the children's education but also may object to sending them to school, particularly the sons. They see that their sons should take their fathers' role in earning an income for the household to make up for their own absence. Thus they want them to work as agricultural wage-laborers and to help them in cultivating their own land. Thus children are seen as an economic asset that has to be invested to generate an income. Amin did not want his children from Azima to go to school. He wanted them to work as agricultural laborers and to help him in the field. He also did not want to be burdened by payment of school fees. He resisted the education of his children. When Azima was registering them in school, he hid their birth certificates required by the school to enroll them. She obtained them from Amin with great difficulty only when her brothers interfered and convinced him to give her the certificates. Azima promised him that she would not burden him with any school fees. Only on that condition did he agree to give the certificates to Azima. Azima insisted to educate her sons to the extent that she said: '' I am ready to carry stones on my head for them to have a degree." She meant that she was willing to work the most exhausting tasks to be able to pay for the education of her children. Since Amin did not contribute financially to the education of his children, Azima resisted letting the children particularly the sons help him in the field. Amin usually wanted this but Azima refused. Wives of polygynous husbands not residing with them in the same house cannot rely on the agricultural wage-laboring of their daughters to 54

contribute to household income. Parents of even the very poor girls do not approve of sending them to work as agricultural wage-laborers. Agricultural wage-laboring involves going to farm the land of strangers where girls are exposed to mixing with males during their work in the field. According to the village community, this can expose them to sexual harassment or may cause them to deviate from the expected morals of the virgin girl. Thus, the income that the daughters can generate is minimal which makes wives and sons the only possible earners. One of the main areas which illustrate that lower-class polygynous husbands do not equate between their wives in terms of standard of living is the housing conditions for the wives who live in separate dwellings from those of their husbands'. As the husband may leave two or three of his wives and their children to reside in the same house together, the available space for sleeping can be very limited due to the limited number of bedrooms and the small area of bedrooms compared to the number of wives and their children. In addition, the husband may leave his wives in an old house that may collapse, or which does not have a water connection. The wives of Amin, Tawhida and Azima, resided together in the same house while their husband lived in a separate house with his third wife. They complained about the little space available for them and their children for sleeping. The house had only two bedrooms, each wife with her children in a room. Tawhida complained from the bad living conditions. She explained how she slept with her four children in the available spaces. Her room had one bed that can take two persons, in addition to a sofa that takes one person. Tawhida said that when her children were young they could all sleep on the same bed. They took vertical and horizontal positions so that the bed could take them all. But as her children became adolescents, she left the bed for her two sons, one of her daughters slept on the sofa, and Tawhida slept with her other daughter on the floor. Likewise, Zebeida, Hosnia and Ikbal, wives of al-Sayed, complained about the little space available for sleeping. They said that the house they lived in was very old and that it was the house of al-Sayed's parents. It was built from mud bricks and had three bedrooms. Each wife resided in a bedroom with her children. As each room had only one bed, each wife and her children had to manage to sleep on the available space. They also 55

complained about other aspects that reflected the bad, unhealthy, and sometimes dangerous conditions in which they lived. Zebeida said that she and her co-wives residing together in the same house did not have tap water. They could have made a water pump connection but they could not afford it. Their husband left them before he made a water connection. Everyday, each one of them filled buckets of water from neighbors. On the other hand, the wives had asked a contractor about the condition of the building and he told them that the ceiling was on the verge of collapsing so Hosnia's sons placed wooden bars under the ceiling to hold it and to keep it from falling down. She expressed great hopes for rebuilding the house when she stated, "I am dreaming of the day in which my sons can save some money to rebuild this house using red bricks, but will this day ever come?" Zebeida, Hosnia, and Ikbal asserted that when al-Sayed went to live with his wife Fardous, he renewed her house and built it with red bricks and made a water connection to it to have tap water in. b) Lower-class husbands with wives in the same residence. The husband's financial responsibility towards his wives residing with him in the same house was investigated among lower-class polygynous families. The research revealed that the wife's residence in the same house with her polygynous husband and her co-wives does not ensure that he will be financially responsible for her or her children. When the wife generates an income which she keeps to herself and her children, the husband tends to leave her the major financial responsibilities of her kids. Nevertheless, some wives see that taking the financial responsibility of themselves and their children gives them more decision-making power regarding their children's career. Many wives said that they could not rely on their husbands as far as financial aspects were concerned. An example to illustrate this was the case of Aziza, the first wife of Atwa. Aziza stated that Atwa had hardly spent anything on her since the beginning of their marriage when she lived with him in his parents' house. At that time, she did not earn an income but farmed the land with Atwa. At the beginning of her marriage, she had tuberculosis. When she became very sick, Atwa asked her to go to her parents' house and stay there until she recovered. She believed that her husband did not want to pay for her medication. When she went to her

56

parents, they were very upset with Atwa's reaction towards her illness and advised her to ask for divorce. She did not take their advice because she thought that if she left her daughter (at that time she had only one daughter) with him, he would take another wife. She did not want her daughter to have a step-mother who might treat her badly. Lower-class polygynous women who earn an income claimed that this income had a negative impact on the degree of the husband's financial responsibility towards them and their children. The fact that the wife earned an income large enough to make her independent of the husband had a negative impact on the husband's financial responsibility towards his children. Aziza said that when Atwa found that she had managed gradually to earn an income which was enough to meet most of her children's needs, he gradually withdrew from being financially responsible for his children. Aziza remembered when Nagwa her eldest daughter was young and Aziza contributed very little to household income, her husband kept aside some money from the profit he earned from selling the crop. With that amount, he bought Nagwa everything she needed and paid the fees of her primary school. However, most of those women indicated that their financial independence had a positive impact on their decision-making power in the household. Women who earned an income and were financially independent from their husbands were more powerful in making decisions as compared to women who did not generate an income. Aziza said that Atwa was convinced that he had the right to take his daughters to the field to help him at any time. He asked Aziza, "Are they my daughters only in the birth certificates while in reality I cannot ask for their help ? " Aziza insisted that none of her daughters would go to the field. Instead she went with Atwa to help him, along with his other wives. She defended her position regarding daughters' help in the field by saying that her husband did not provide her daughters with any of their needs. She commented on the whole subject by saying, If I were to say the truth, they are his daughters and I do not have the right to prevent him from taking them to the field. The reason why I prevent him is that working in the field will waste their study time and they will become sick since they are not used to this work.

51

If they became sick, no one will take the financial responsibility of their medication except me. Aziza strongly believed that if she were not completely independent from her husband in financial matters, she would have never been able to argue with him and to resist taking her daughters to the field. Research indicated that the husband's financial responsibility was confined to the wife who helped him in the field and accepted sharing the income she generateed with him. Wives who refused going with their husbands to the field and who kept the income they earned from agricultural wage-labor for themselves and their children could not expect their husbands to be financially responsible for them. Samaha was the first wife of Fikri. She generated an income of her own and did not give anything to her husband as he did not contribute to any of her expenses or her children's. She believed that her husband did not treat her well as he treated his second wife Farida. From her point of view, her husband was financially responsible for Farida. He sold a small cow in order to pay for an operation to remove Farida's thyroid gland. Before deciding to sell the cow, he had asked Samaha to borrow LE2000 from her brother but she refused knowing that her brother had financial problems and that his house was on mortgage. She knew that the reason behind her husband's attitude of responsibility towards Farida was that Farida accepted to work with him in the field. Wives of polygynous husbands who reside with them in the same house and who are also financially independent from them may find their husbands asking them to give them money. Aziza earned her living by selling crops in the market. She said that her husband not only did not buy her anything she needed, but he also wanted to borrow money from her. She learned to be very cautious with her husband in terms of money because he asked her frequently to lend him money and never paid it back. Several years ago he asked her to give him her gold accessories that he had presented to her at the time of their marriage. He took them and sold them and bought a horse cart which he used for selling vegetables in the market. He promised to buy her other gold accessories but never did. The only financial responsibility that the lower-class polygynous menboth residing with their wives and children in the same house and those who reside with one particular wife while the other wives reside in a separate

58

residence—cannot withdraw from is their financial responsibility towards the marriage of their sons and daughters. It is the norm in the village that the groom provides a room in his parents' house and buys a bedroom and furniture for the guests room, and pays a bride-price for the girl's parents (mahr). As for the bride, she buys the kitchen including utensils and electric equipment mainly the oven and the washing machine. Fathers (not excluding polygynous fathers) are expected to provide their sons with what the groom is expected to offer in his marriage and to provide their daughters with what the bride should contribute to her marriage. The father of the girl in particular is expected to buy the items required for the marriage of his daughters when the girl reaches the age of 13 even before suitors propose to her. When these things are bought, the parents of the girl tell their neighbors and relatives in the village that they have purchased them. This is an indicator that the girl in the house has reached an adequate age for marriage. In this way, parents expect many suitors to propose to their girl. For example, Aziza said that though Atwa did not spend any money on his daughters, when his eldest daughter Nagwa reached the age of 17 he realized that no suitors had proposed to her. He also realized that because most people in the village knew that Atwa had left all the financial responsibility of his daughters to their mother, they thought that Aziza was quite burdened and that she would never be able to buy her daughter the things needed for the marriage. Atwa, thus, decided to allocate the income from selling the rice crop to buying the marriage requirements for Nagwa. He said: The marriage of the girl preserves the family's honor. When the girl is not married, people start questioning her being single which brings shame to her father. When a polygynous husband is in need of additional financial resources more than what he generates or his wives earn from agricultural wage laboring, he rents out his land for one or two years to obtain the necessary money for his children's marriage from selling the crop in the market. Usually he takes the money in advance. At the same time, he may cultivate another farmer's land on the basis of sharing the crop. This means that he cultivates a land owned by another farmer so that the production is distributed among him and the one who owns the land. Distribution of the 59

crop is usually as follows: two-thirds for the cultivator and one-third for the owner. Through "sharing the crop," the polygynous farmer provides for the subsistence needs of his extended family. At the same time, through renting out his land, he obtains the necessary money for the marriage of his children. Conclusion Factors behind the separation of wives differ between upper and lower-class farmers. For the upper-class farmers, the husband is unable to provide the same standard of living for his family when his sons get married and more members join the family. This is particularly true if the husband has several sons. Furthermore, there is not enough space for the residence of the new members. Thus, when the eldest son of the first wife is married, has a source of income other than land, and can be financially independent, the father takes the decision to separate his wives. The married son remains in house with his mother, married and unmarried brothers, and unmarried sisters, while his father, his other wife, and their children move to another house. Thus, the eldest son becomes responsible for his mother and his unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. Therefore, the division of wives and their children among separate houses helps in the division of financial burdens between the husband and his married sons. For lower-class polygynous farmers, the husband is not able to carry out all his financial responsibilities towards all his wives and their children simultaneously particularly if he is married to more than two wives. If this is the case, it is the husband who moves between his wives' residences, and it is not always the case that the husband is the owner of the wives' residences but some of them are owned by their wives. Through movement between the different residences of wives, the husband puts pressure on his wives residing in a separate residence from his own to financially rely on themselves. This allows him, among other things, to save the necessary money for his children's marriage, a social obligation from which he cannot escape. Factors behind not separating wives into different houses differ from one class to another. Among upper-class farmers, socioeconomic factors related to sons from the different wives prevent the occurrence of separation between wives. One factor is when the sons of the different wives have

60

different levels of education, and, thus, different sources of income than their brothers. The sons with additional sources of income will refuse to share the agricultural activities with their brothers and will want to work in non-farm jobs. Tensions resulting from the existing gap in education and income result in the movement of sons with higher incomes out of their father's household to live in other residences. As they want to keep their incomes for their nuclear families, their mothers will remain in the same residence with their father who will be financially responsible for them. Thus, separation of sons from different wives become an alternative for the separation between the wives and their children. Another factor is when son's income raises the standard of living of his father's house. If he is the son of the wife who is to reside in a separate house with her children from that of the husband, separation is not in the best financial interest of the father and his other wife. Therefore, separation does not take place. Among middle-class farmers, the major factor which prevents the occurrence of separation is the high level of integration and cooperation between the husband and his two wives in the generation of household income and maintaining subsistence level. In addition, husbands cannot afford to build separate houses for their sons as soon as they get married. They need several years after the marriage of the eldest son to be able to save enough money to build a new house. The land of middle-class polygynous farmers is large to an extent that requires as much family labor as possible. It is not large enough, however, to the extent that it allows for hiring wage-labor. Thus, the labor of the husband and his wives together is indispensable for cultivating the land and for avoiding the need to hire costly labor. Thus, wives are less likely to generate an income from activities other than farming their husband's land except to a very limited extent. This results in the integration of the husband and his wives throughout their lives which weakens the possibility of separating the residence of wives. When the sons of the first wife obtain income from sources other than land and are married, they reside in the house of their parents for several years after their marriage. Afterwards as several sons get married and the sons and their father make a good amount of savings, they build a new house in the empty land surrounding the house, whereby each son resides in a separate apartment in that house.

61

Among lower-class farmers, husbands cannot afford to provide separate houses for their wives. They, however, move between their wives' residences. As mentioned before, usually the husband owns one of them but the others are owned by his wives. Financial responsibility of polygynous husbands towards their wives residing in separate residence differ from upper to lower-class polygynous farmers. Upper-class farmers do not maintain financial equality between their wives in separate residences. The wife who resides in a separate house with her children does not ask her husband for anything she needs. If her sons cannot meet her needs, she asks her brothers to provide them. The husband, however, provides his wife and children in separate residence with crops enough to meet their subsistence. But they do not receive any of the income generated from selling crops. The husband directs this income only to the wife and children with whom he lives. As for lower-class farmers, husbands find it difficult to carry out the basic financial responsibilities towards the large number of their children from different wives. This is particularly true if the wives have strong ambitions for educating their children, which represents an additional pressure on the financial capacities of the husband. Thus, many wives find that the only feasible solution is to exert a huge effort to generate an income which meets their needs and their children's. But, they do not share that income with their husbands. Thus, their husbands withdraw from being financially responsible for these wives and their children. Husbands provide them only with crops that hardly meet their needs. Financial responsibility of polygynous husbands towards their wives residing in the same residence with them differ from one class to another. For upper-class farmers, there is no evidence that husbands do not equate financially between wives residing with them. The same is true for middleclass farmers. The husband and his wives make equal contributions to subsistence and the income generated is shared by all. Thus, the husband distributes this income equally among his wives and his children from each wife. In addition, it is rare to find a gap between education of children from the different wives. The gap that is found is one that is gender biased. If available resources are not enough to provide education for all children, then only the sons are sent to school. Also, some farmers think that education for daughters is not as important as education for boys. Regarding

62

lower-class farmers, the research showed that the residence of the wife in the same house with the husband does not ensure the financial responsibility of the husband towards his wife. If the wife does not generate any income but contributes to subsistence, the husband is found to be responsible for children but neglects the needs of his wife. If the wife generates an income which she does not share with her husband, the husband will not be financially responsible for her and her children, but he will provide them with crops. The husband's financial responsibilities are only confined to the wife who farms the land with him and who shares with him the income that she generates.

63

CHAPTER FIVE

POWER RELATIONS IN POLYGYNOUS HOUSEHOLDS

In the first two chapters, we have discussed the factors which lead to polygyny and the financial and residential patterns of polgynous households as determined by the division of labor and financial responsibilities between the husband and his wives. This chapter will focus on interpersonal relationships in polygynous families, which includes relationships between the husband and his wife, between co-wives, and between the wife and her in-laws. Investigating these relationships will help reveal the dimensions of the wife's power in the polygynous household. Two main areas will be discussed to show the dimensions of the wife's power in the polygynous households. The first will focus on the determinants of the wife's power especially with regard to the means through which she can gain power. This will be done by shedding light on the ways through which wives seek to establish both strong ties with cowives and in-laws as well as a strong decision-making power in household matters in general and the allocation of resources in particular. Special emphasis will be made on how the wife gains power in her marriage through her brother. It will discuss how this relationship as well as economic factors determine the woman's decision to preserve her marriage or to dissolve it. This section also includes a comparison between polygynous women in different socioeconomic classes having stable and unstable marital relationships. The second area focuses on the access to husbands' resources as a means for gaining power which will include exploring the areas of competition between co-wives in the different socioeconomic classes. Overview In a polygynous marriage, a secure co-existence with the husband, co-wives and in-laws living in the same house is a source of power for the wife. At the beginning of her marriage, the wife resides in her husband's extended

64

family's house; with parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and their wives and children, and co-wife (or co-wives) and their children. Seeking a secure existence in her husband's house, she attempts to win her husband's love by trying to be his favorite partner (much favored than the other wife or wives), and being able to live peacefully with co-wives and in-laws. The research revealed that establishing a secure existence through a stable relationship with the husband, in-laws, and co-wives can provide the wife with, or at least facilitate, an access to material resources. It also affects her decisionmaking power in the various household matters. Another important factor determining a wife's status and decision-making power is her economic weight in her husband's household through her contribution to household income and subsistence. Wives in a polygynous marriage seek their brother's moral, material, and financial support when they suffer marital instabilities. When they have problems in their marriages they use their brothers as intermediaries for solving these problems and protecting their rights, ensuring their protection through giving them a great deal of own their. Nevertheless, wives usually make sure that the moral and financial support they receive from their brothers provide a fair compensation for giving up their rights in this land. Thus, there is a strong co-relation between husband-wife relationship and brother-sister relationship. How marital stability or marital instability affects and is affected by the brother-sister relationship will be discussed on the basis of the decisions made by the wife herself. These decisions serve to ensure her social power and economic self-sufficiency or economic independence, both of which represent her social and economic security in life. The woman who is married to a polygynous husband seeks power through manipulating her husband's resources. She competes with her cowives to secure the greatest share of these resources for her children and herself. The means for achieving such a goal differ from one class to another. Whereas lower-class women compete over basic needs like food, upper-class women compete over the property their children will inherit after the death of the father. Among upper-class wives, financial power obtained through inheritance is based on the number of sons each wife has. Sons inherit more than daughters because according to the Egyptian

65

inheritance law in based on Islamic shari'a, the son inherits twice as much as the daughter. As far as inheritance of land is concerned, the research showed that the daughter does not receive her share of her father's land, rather her brothers keep their sister's share of the land under their control. They cultivate it for her and provide her with part of its returns. They do not give their sister all the returns from her land since they take the burden of cultivating the land on her behalf. Thus, among polygynous families, particularly upper-class ones, having a large number of sons entails having a greater access to husbands resources with regard to inheritance. Among the different socioeconomic classes, women compete for allocating more resources for the education of their children. The size of resources allocated to education as a percent of the total income is the highest among lower-class farmers which represents a stress on resources allocated for subsistence needs. This shows the extent to which lower-class families are concerned with their children's education. In addition, the more the resources available for the wife, the higher the level of education she can guarantee for her children. The less the available resources, the more likely the wife will give priority to the education of sons over that of daughters. Means of Gaining Power by the Wife in a Polygynous Marriage From the interviews carried out among lower, middle, and upper-class farmers, it is found that certain factors undermine the position of the wife in a polygynous household and put her in a vulnerable position compared to the other co-wives and sisters-in-law residing in the same house. The first factor is the tense relationship between her and her mother-inlaw. A bad relationship between the two can negatively affect the husbandwife relationship even after the death of the mother-in-law and throughout the couple's marital life. Another factor that can undermine the status of the wife in a polygynous household is the extent to which her husband is sexually interested in her. Interviews revealed that the wife in whom the husband has little or no sexual interest has a comparatively low status. When the husband is sexually interested in a particular wife, he accords her a special position in the household. This position is felt by the other members of the household, who in return accord her the same position.

66

The third factor that can threaten her position has to do with her contribution to the household income or subsistence. It is found that the wife's contribution to subsistence is significant particularly in lower-class households when compared to middle and upper-class households. a) Establishing a secure existence among co-wives and in-laws. i) Strong relationship with the mother-in-law. Co-wives residing with the husband's extended family exert varying amounts of effort to establish a good and strong relationship with their mother-in-law. Wives who have a significant decision-making power among co-wives and sistersin-law maintain a peaceful and a strong relationship with their mothers-inlaw. Zakia said that she tried to do everything that her mother in-law asked her to do and she did it with efficiency and speed. She remembered one time when her son was very sick and she had to go to the doctor but her mother in-law asked her to stay in the house to serve drinks for guests who were coming to visit them. Zakia postponed her visit to the doctor and accepted to do what her mother-in-law asked. She said that she was careful to show her mother-in-law that she was responding to her request with pleasure in order to demonstrate her obedience. The strong relationship between the wife and the mother-in-law is directly and positively related to the decision-making power of the wife in the household. Wives with a significant decision-making power in their households mentioned that they were careful to give their mother-in-law the due respect, the one she expected. They would show her respect in front of relatives and strangers and take her opinion in the decisions undertaken by them and their husbands. Gamila said that she pretended to take the opinion of her mother-in-law as if the decision was not yet taken by her and her husband. In this way, her mother-in-law approved of what she and her husband had already decided to do. Gamila said that if she had not done so, her mother-in-law would not approve of her and her husband's future plans even if she thought that they had made a wise decision simply because would feel that she had been excluded from the life of her son. By doing so, Gamila thought that she was close to her mother-in-law. This strong relationship further protected Gamila against the conspiracies of her cowife.

67

Wives who are not on good terms with their mothers-in-law have common characteristics. They are loaded with more housework than that carried out by women in the same household. Hamida recalled when her mother-in-law was alive, she used to accuse her of not cleaning the ' 'place for livestock" and did not believe Hamida when she told her that she had cleaned it. Thus Hamida had to clean it again for the sake of proving to her husband that she did what his mother asked her to do. Aziza also recalled that her mother-in-law abused her particularly when her son, Aziza's husband, took his second wife. She used to give Aziza more clothes to wash by hand than what she gave to her co-wife. Thus, mothers-in-law in can mistreat their daughters-in-law if they dislike them by overloading them with housework as well as giving them a tough time by controlling their visits to their own relatives, parents and brothers. Fardous said that as her mother-in-law did not like her, she would not allow her to visit her relatives after finishing a long series of household tasks throughout the day. She rejected Fardous's request by saying that there were more tasks to be done and that there was no leisure time to make visits to relatives. Thus, Fardous felt that there was a lot of restriction on her movement. ii) Stable relationship with co-wives and sisters-in-law. Wives with a noticeable amount of stability in their marriages are also careful to try to maintain a peaceful and stable relationship with their co-wives and sistersin-law. Narguis mentioned that she did favors for all of them. She said if her co-wife was sick or had to leave the house to make an urgent visit, Narguis would offer to carry out her responsibilities and to look after her children in her absence. Farida said that she helped her co-wife in her delivery. She added that when her co-wife's brother died she went with her to his house and stayed there for three days to serve food and drinks for guests coming to pay their condolences. Madam mentioned that she helped in the wedding preparations of her co-wife's daughter as if she was her own daughter. Marzouka and Madiha said that whenever their own families sent them crops every season, they distributed some of them among their sisters-inlaw and co-wives so that each one of them could cook them for her own children. Farida adopted another way to win the love of her in-laws. Whenever her husband went to the town to buy things for the house like clothes, slippers, or soap, she took the things her husband bought for his

68

brothers and their wives and presented them as gifts to her sisters-in-law. Farida said that her sisters-in-law felt that it was Farida who had bought them gifts and they counted it for her as a favor. Those wives who succeeded in maintaining good relationships with their co-wives and sisters-in-law explained why they wanted to maintain good relations with them. They said that they wanted to avoid the consequences of their co-wives having feelings of jealousy towards them. They wanted to avoid speaking badly of them behind their backs and creating problems with their husbands and mothers-in-law or causing them to clash together. Houria told me that a smart woman was the one able to "break up" the poison of her co-wives and in-laws, and to avoid their evil intentions towards her. This could be done only through constantly showing them good intentions. Houria recalled that when she was newly married to her husband, she was much younger than her co-wife and much more beautiful than all the women in the household. Further, she believed that no female in the house was as active and lively in carrying out her duties towards her husband and children. In the beginning of her marriage, she did not realize that her co-wife and sisters-in-law envied her and she used to act spontaneously and with extreme self-confidence. She did not pay much attention to them or care to build a strong relationship with them. She remembered, for instance, when the veterinary came to examine the livestock and her husband was not in the house, she helped the veterinary by holding the cow for him and by preparing the injections to be taken by livestock. Her co-wife and her sisters-in-law mocked her for helping the doctor. They told her that she became his official assistant and his "nurse". She knew that they said that because they were jealous, since they did not have enough courage or will to help a strange man to make up for the absence of their husbands, but did not care much about their comments. Houria, however, did not expect what their jealousy could cause her. They went and told their husbands that Houria had been standing with a strange man alone. For her brothers-in-law, this was an unacceptable behavior, particularly that their wives hinted that there might be a growing affair between her and the doctor. As her husband was informed by the brothers of his wife's story, he suddenly became very furious and suspected her manners. He beat her infront of everybody in the house. She said that her mother-in-law interfered to explain to her husband that those stories were

69

just fantasies made by his other wife and his sisters-in-law and described them as women with "small minds". Had not her mother-in-law interfered, Houria thought that her husband would have divorced her. For her, that was a lesson on the importance of establishing good relations with her in-laws and co-wife. Since then she believed that telling lies was more effective than sorcery in turning a man against his wife. iii) Contribution to household income and subsistence. Wives who are keen to establish their own importance in the household exert an effort to show their husbands and their husbands' families that they are benefiting the family materially and financially. Thus they establish an economic significance for themselves among their co-wives and their in-laws. Mounira said that it was impossible for the wife who was a financial asset in her husband's family to be without power. A wife could make herself valuable in the family through helping her husband in the field, particularly in the time of harvesting, and through generating an income from domestically-produced goods. A woman could sell many goods in the market such as cheese, cream, eggs, milk, rice and corn. Mounira said that the more the wife contributed to the production of any of the subsistence needs, the more she had a strong right in making decisions with regard to that product. For instance, she said that her co-wife did not go with their husband to the field. As a result, her husband did not consider any suggestion she said about the cultivation of land. Once her co-wife criticized her husband for not buying enough fertilizers for the cotton crop. She frightened him by saying that pests will attack the crop as had happened in the previous year. Nevertheless, he did not care about her co-wife's opinion. He believed that she was ignorant in matters of cultivation and that her opinions were not correct. The reason he believed so was that she did not share with him the workload of farming the land. A wife not contributing to household income or subsistence has limited power in making decisions related to the allocation of the husband's financial resources, mainly the money used to buy things for herself and her children. Kamilia, the wife of Ahmed, represented an example of such a wife. Kamilia said that she did not have a role in the financial decisions of the household. Her husband and co-wife were responsible for going together to the town to buy clothes for all members of the household, even for 70

Kamilia. Thus, her co-wife and husband decided about the budget allocated to buy clothes and how much to pay on every item that was bought. Kamilia knew that her co-wife bought the expensive clothes for her children and herself and the cheaper clothes for Kamilia and her children. Kamilia, however, accepted this situation as she thought that it was fair that the wife who contributed to household subsistence and income to have a greater power in the financial decisions of the household. iv) Displaying a strong character among co-wives and in-laws. Some wives said that they had to have a strong personality in dealing with their co-wife or co-wives and their sisters-in-law so that their kindness and good manners would not be perceived as weakness. For them displaying a strong personality was made through rejecting attempts of the co-wife and sisters-in-law to exploit them by throwing their own housework responsibilities for the wives to carry out or by criticizing them in public for their behavior. Gamila mentioned that when she was newly married to her husband Hamad, her co-wife used to shout at her in front of her in-laws and criticize everything she had done. Gamila decided that whenever her cowife did that, she would treat her in the same manner. Afterwards, when her co-wife criticized her in front of anybody, Gamila shouted back at her and reminded her of her weak points. She did so in order to insist that her sisterin-law respect her. Mahzia said that when her co-wife teased her in an intolerant manner, she made a fuss at her by leaving the house immediately and going to her parents' house. When her husband came back from the field and found out what had happened, he shouted at his first wife, went to Mahzia at her parents' household, and apologized to her for his other wife's behavior and took her back to the house. Mahzia believed that a woman had to show her co-wives and in-laws care and help in times of their need, yet she had to be tough with them if her help was not appreciated. For her, they had to know that "her flesh was bitter," i.e. that taking advantage of her was not easy. v) Sex. Some women with co-wives explained that they could use sex to achieve their goals. Ikbal and Fathia said that it was important for a married man to realize that sometimes having sex with his wife was conditional by meeting certain demands. Those demands could be to buy 71

her a galabiya or a piece of gold, or to defend her rights vis-a-vis those of her co-wives and in-laws. Fathia said that she could abstain from having sex with her husband in the case where matters could be settled in a day or two like, for instance, deciding to buy a galabiya from the market the following day. She might want two galabiyas while the husband thought that one was enough. She could make having sex with him conditional on agreeing to buy two her the galabiyas. Wives, however, said that abstaining from having sex with the husband was a dangerous means to achieve such goals. Thus, it should be used with caution or the husband would get used to it and would direct his sexual demands towards his other wife or would take a new wife. Fathia said that she resorted to this means only under very serious conditions such as when her husband beat her whereby she would abstain from having sex with him until he apologized to her. A few wives have significant power and authority over their husbands through sex. They use it as a means for manipulating their husbands to achieve their goals. Those wives have great self-confidence that their husbands will never find substitutes for them. These wives abstain from having sex with their husbands whenever their husbands do something that they do not like. Sayeda said that she did not think that there was a woman who could please her husband in bed like she did. According to her, she was very obedient to him and she never told him "no". She added that because she knew how precious she was for him, she never told him sorry if she upset him in any of their conversations. On the contrary, he apologized to her though she was the one who should be apologizing. He did this just to convince her to have sex with him. There were several examples which show the extent to which a weak sexual relationship between the husband and wife can affect the decision making power of the wife. The wife to whom the husband has little or no sexual attachment is found to have a low status in the house particularly in decisions related to household resources. Karima is one of these wives. Her husband neglected her sexually and gave all his attention to his second wife Afifa who was 12 years younger than Karima. Karima had no role in deciding about how the household resources would be allocated including crops and money. She said that her husband gave the daily allowance for household purchases to his second wife though she was youngerand less experienced. Karima was hurt that she had to ask her co-wife for money if 72

she needed to buy anything. She thought that if her husband was sexually interested in her, he would have entrusted her with the financial matters of the household. vi) The trade-off between social power and economic power in the life of women in polygynous marriages: brother-sister relationship. In the previous part, I dealt with means which women use to gain power vis-avis their co-wives and their in-laws. The focus was on the husband-wife relationship and the relationship between the wife and co-wives and in-laws. In this section, I focus on the trade-off between the different types of power in the life of women in polygynous marriages. Power includes social power and economic power. Emphasis will be made on the brother-sister relationships. The trade-off between women's social power and economic power plays a major role in determining this relationship. Social power is power that the woman acquires for fulfilling the role expected from her which is the role of a wife and a mother. Among the community of farmers, a woman without a husband has no power in life. In addition, she is a woman without a real source of protection. No man can give the woman the protection she needs except her husband. If she is not married, any man can desire her. Furthermore, as she does not fulfil the expected role from her as a female, which is forming a family, she is accorded less prestige than the married woman who has a husband and children to look after. Thus, for the woman in a polygynous marriage, maintaining her marriage means maintaining her social power. Giving up her marriage means a loss of this power. The brother is expected to provide the necessary support to his sister to maintain her marriage through preserving her rights against any attempts by her husband or his family members to exploit her. Thus, the brother reinforces his sister's social power. In addition, his house is opened to her when she decides to leave her husband's house for any reason. On the other hand, economic power is power which the wife acquires from material and financial sources other than those of her husband. These sources include her land, sources from her brothers, and the money she earns from her work. As mentioned before, in most cases the woman cannot have both her land and her brothers' moral and financial support simultaneously. Her brother provides her with material and financial 73

resources on the condition that she does not take her land from him. If she decides to take it, she should not expect her brother's support. We shall now see how lower, middle, and upper-class women in stable and in unstable marital relationships make a trade-off between maintaining their social power and their economic power. Lower-class farmers. This research revealed that most lower-class wives who are involved in polygynous marriages prefer to consider their brothers the last resort defending them against their husband's exploitation. They also need the houses of their brothers open for them if they want to leave their husbands' houses. Wives who feel insecure in their marriage are the ones who have frequent conflict with their husbands and/or their cowives. They receive little attention from their husbands as compared to their co-wives, and have no decision-making power in the household. Wives who are extremely insecure are the ones beaten by their husbands and kicked out of the house after fights. These wives are usually under great pressures to leave the husband's house for short or long periods of time or get divorced from their husbands as a result of severe conflict. Thus, wives in polygynous marriages give priority to maintaining a good relationship with the male members of their paternal families like their brothers, fathers, and paternal uncles. Wives with unstable relationships with their husbands rely greatly on the material, financial, and moral support of their brothers. Negma, Dessouki's wife, explained to me how she appreciated the strong relationship between her and her brother. She said: You cannot imagine the extent of the support that my brother provides me when he comes in the morning of the feast to visit me. Also, my brother provides me with anything that I need whenever my husband refuses to bring it to me. Fathia, the second wife of Kadri, said that her brother bought her medication when she was sick because her husband refused to take her to a doctor or to buy her medicine. Her brothers also bought her meat, a new galabiya, and gave her money at the feasts. Most wives who had unstable relationships with their husbands expressed their strong rejection for taking their own land from their 74

brothers. They were afraid that this would weaken their relationships with their brothers. Madiha, the first wife of Shafik, said: / cannot ask my brother for my land since that will ruin my relationship with him. And for what? For only five qirats. My brother is much more important. When he visits me, he shows my husband that I have a back to lean on other than him. Lower-class wives think that the land they would take would be too small and dids not deserve ruining their relationship with their brothers. Even when wives enjoy a relatively stable relationship with their partners and are on good terms with their co-wives, they still feel that their brothers' support to them is indispensable. Samaha, the first wife of Fikri, said, How would I dare to tell my brothers such a thing? What can 1 tell them? If I bought a piece of the sky to my husband, he will never be as loving to me as my brothers are. On the other hand, wives with marital instabilities may still prefer to maintain their marriage and believe that the security they obtain from having a family, i.e. a husband and children, is more important than the security that they can obtain from their brothers. This is particularly the case if they are separated from their husbands and residing with their brothers. For them, family life is very precious and cannot be given up even if their brothers are willing to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Ikbal indicated that she could bear any problems between her and her husband, but she could not bear being a divorced woman and being separated from her children. For her, having a husband and children was a social prestige which was more important than meeting her material needs by her brother. Most lower-class wives are aware that if they left their homes and went to their brothers' houses, their brothers could host them but only for few days. After some time their brothers and their wives would consider them a burden on the limited finances of their own households. Though they know that their brothers would never ask them to leave the house and find another place to stay in, they assume that they would be perceived as an undesirable burden by their sisters-in-law, a position which they would hate to find 75

themselves in. Aziza and Karima represent two examples that reflect how polygynous women are sensitive towards their stay in their married brothers' houses. Aziza said, / would prefer to die rather than hear an insulting word from my brother's wife if one day I left my children for my husband and went to stay at the house of my brother. As for Karima, she admitted that her brother's wife made faces to her when she stayed for a long time in her brother's house, and therefore, she went instead to her paternal uncle's house. Thus, the lower-class woman's situation is as follows. If she takes her rights from her brother she may lose him and will be deprived from her only strong support that she can lean on or at least pretend to have in front of her husband. Though her brother is her refuge, she cannot depend on him as a permanent resort but only as a temporary one, and only for a few days. Therefore, her main objective is to preserve her marriage while using her brother's protection and support against her husband. In return for giving up her land to her brother, she is satisfied with whatever compensation he offers her. Middle-class farmers. Middle-class wives in polygynous marriages with unstable relations with their husbands are found to be similar to lowerclass women in terms of their keenness to preserve strong relationships with their brothers. Yet, middle-class women secure in their marriages are not as keen in preserving strong relationships with their brothers. They expect a compensation for leaving their land that is much greater in value than the one lower-class women expect. In al-Kafrawy, the average size of land that a middle-class woman can acquire from her brother(s) is twelve to fourteen qirats compared to four or five qirats for lower-class women. Thus, middleclass wives expect a greater compensation from their brothers than that expected lower-class wives. Middle-class wives prefer to take large amounts of money from their brothers in the big incidents and occasions. Most middle-class women with stable marital relationships will react strongly towards their brothers if they refuse to provide them with their needs and still want to have their land. Only wives who spend many years in their

76

marriage will take this step, for only then they can be sure that their marriage is stable. Te'ma was 45 years old and she been married for 25 years. She was leaving her land (12 qirats) for her brother to benefit from its returns. In addition, she never sought the interference of her brother in her marriage life because her relationship with her husband and co-wife was stable. Te'ma said that she wanted to make an operation and went to her brother to give her LE I00, but he refused. She asked him to return the land to her, which he refused as well. She filed a case against him in the court, and the court ruled that he should return the land to her and pay her a compensation for the returns from her land during the last 15 years. Middle-class wives involved in polygynous marriages and who maintain stable relationships with their husbands are not submissive to their brothers' indifference to their needs as lower-class women are. For lowerclass women, the returns that they can receive from land are too small due to the small size of land. Thus the protection that their brothers provide them with is much more worthy than what they can obtain from their land. But for middle-class women, they expect compensation for not taking the land in terms of money and other material resources in times of need, or else they take what is technically and rightfully theirs. Upper-class farmers. Unlike lower and middle-class women, upperclass women with unstable marital relations are more ready to sacrifice their marriages if conflict culminated between them and their husbands. When conflicts reach their peak, they can stay in their brothers' houses for longer periods than those spent by lower and middle-class women. Their brothers have high incomes and are ready to host them for a long time. Brothers of upper-class women offer them great support to obtain their rights from their polygynous husbands. Fawzia, the first wife of Nagah, said that she and her husband come from wealthy families. Her husband took a second wife as Fawzia had a serious disease in the lungs, probably tuberculosis. As conflicts aroused between her and her co-wife, she could not live in the same house with her co-wife. She asked her husband to build a separate house for her and her children to live in but he refused. When she insisted, he offered her an old house that he owned but had not been inhabited by anybody for many years. This was a way to pressure Fawzia to return to his 77

house. But she refused to return. With her brothers' support, she threatened her husband to file a case against him in court. She wanted to prove that he was rich and could afford to buy her a luxurious house like the one her cowife lived in. Nagah was afraid that this case would affect his public image in the village, particularly that he was planning to run for elections. An essential factor for his success in the elections was to have a good reputation. Therefore, he agreed to build a new house for his first wife that was as luxurious as his own house. Though Fawzia was aware that threatening her husband this way could have led to her divorce, she was determined to take her rights from him. What encouraged her was that her brothers gave her a large amount of the financial returns of her land every agricultural season. They were accustomed to this since the death of their parents. At the same time, they protected her from her husband's exploitation. Thus, Fawzia did not need to leave her land to her brothers to guarantee their protection. In addition, her brothers were ready to welcome her and her children for the rest of her life as their financial conditions allowed them to receive more members in their households. Thus, when conflicts culminated between her and her husband she was ready to give up her marriage--one of the major sources of social power. Her access to resources, i.e. economic power substituted her for the loss of her social power. A conclusion can be made by comparing upper-class women with lower-class ones. The greater the economic power available for the woman from sources other than her husband, the more she will be ready to sacrifice her marriage if she finds that she cannot continue in it. As the financial resources available for lower-class women are limited in case of divorce, they are less willing to sacrifice their marriage; their social power is their only power in life. b) Access to husband's material and financial resources i) Lower and middle-class farmers: meeting basic needs and education for children. Wives in lower and middle-class polygynous families compete on the basic needs such as food and clothing. Each woman tries to keep the largest possible share of food available in the house for her own children. Nabawiya quarreled with her husband Wahdan for dividing crops between her and her co-wife equally. She thought that this was not

78

fair since Nabawiya and her children were five while her co-wife and children were only four. Nabawiya quarreled with her husband to give her more crops but when her co-wife knew about it, she prevented him from doing so. Lower and middle-class women also competed for the husband's financial resources in indirect ways. Negma, Dessouki's first wife, said that her husband refused to give her money when she wanted to buy something for herself, though he gave money to his second wife whenever she wanted to buy anything. Negma told me that when Dessouki gave her money to buy things from the market for the house and the money exceeded the price of these things, she would take the difference for herself and hide it. She would not mention to him that there was excess money. Negma said that over time, she accumulated a good amount of money which she used in buying things that she wanted without having to ask her husband to pay for them. Lower and middle-class farmers' wives also competed over resources for the education of their children. Whereas lower-class wives compete over resources for their sons' education, while not giving their daughters the same priority due to limited resources, middle-class women competed for resources for the education of both their sons and daughters. For the lowerclass, education for children represents a significant stress on the budget of the household at the expense of the budget allocated for food and clothing. The main items of food consumed by lower-class farmers in lunch were small amounts of salted cheese, salted vegetables, fried potatoes, and bread baked in the house. Lower-class families do not eat meat, fish, or chicken except once every 3 or 4 weeks and it is usually chicken or fish and most probably the latter as it is cheaper. Eating meat is very rare and they eat it twice or thrice a year in special occasions. Lower-class farmers, however, give significant importance to the education of their children in order to be able to work in the public sector and earn regular income when they grow up. As resources available for education are very limited, they give priority to the sons to continue higher education; so while girls stay at home after they receive their primary school certificates, sons are more likely to receive their preparatory certificates or to enter intermediate agricultural, commercial, or industrial schools. Because they have access to larger resources, middle-class families allocate a greater portion of their wealth to the education of their children

79

than lower-class families. Middle-class wives residing together in the same house with their husbands compete for those resources to ensure higher educational levels for their children. Most of them could not easily afford to send their children to a university. Most of them, however, can afford to send their children to intermediate secondary schools after receiving their preparatory certificate. Most of the sons of middle-class farmers above the age of 15 are either studying in intermediary schools or they have graduated from them and are working in the public sector. Some may even have their small private business, such as grocery shop. Competition over the education of children is high among middle-class families because parents realize that through some effort and sacrifice they can offer their children the level of education which prepares them for taking a better job. For them, non-farming jobs provide a regular income as opposed to the diminishing returns from land since, as sons get married and make new families, more members share the same size of land. Some wives are found to compete over husbands' resources so that their children can take private lessons. They do not want their children to pass the exams only but to compete for high grades as well. Sayeda said that she wanted to let her son take private lessons because he was weak in a specific subject. When her husband rejected the idea due to the lack of money for private lessons, she became so upset that she lost consciousness. Finally, her husband agreed to his son taking a private lesson. Of course, this shows how wives in the same house manipulated their husbands to achieve certain goals most of which were for the benefit of their own children. ii) Upper-class farmers. With respect to co-wives from the upper class, areas of competition seem to differ from those of lower and middleclass women. For upper-class wives, basic needs like food and clothing are not the resources around which conflict takes place because money is abundant, but they compete over other things. Having a large number of sons. One of the major areas of competition between wives is to ensure large shares of inheritance to their children, particularly to their sons, after the death of their husbands. Wives of the same husband compete to have the largest number of sons to receive the greatest share in their father's property. Zeinab was very excited as she said 80

that God gave her a third son at the age of 47. She was sure that God did not want to let her down by giving her co-wife three sons while Zeinab had two only. She added that it would not have been fair that her co-wife's children inherit a larger share of her husband's property than her children just because the co-wife had more sons. She said that her children deserved more since she was her husband's first wife and the one who supported him through the difficult times at the beginning of their marriage. Acquiring property for sons during husband's lifetime. Some upperclass women compete to make their husbands give their property to their sons during the husband's lifetime. This property can be land, stores, houses, or any other premises. Hikmat told me that she convinced her husband al-Nimr to give her son Nasr a store that al-Nimr owned. She wanted her son to open a grocery. She said that if she had not done this and her husband died, all his property would be divided equally among her sons and the sons of her co-wife. If property, however, was already allocated to her sons before the death of their father, it would not have to be divided between the sons by both wives at the time the husband died. She further clarified that the death of her co-wife Hanem gave her the chance to do that. If Hanem were alive, she would have complained that her husband was distributing his property unfairly among his sons. Hamida, the widow of Faris, said that she asked her husband to buy a flat in the town for her eldest son, who was an undergraduate student in the law school, so that the son could use it as a law firm in the future. She added that her husband wrote the office in her son's name. When he bought it and wrote it in the son's name, he did not tell his other wife. Hamida said that it was more rational to use the husband's financial resources to build her sons' career during his lifetime instead of waiting until he died. She said, When the husband dies, you can never be sure how his property will be distributed and who will take what, so it is better to take what you want when he is still alive.

University education for children. Education for children is another major area of competition between co-wives. Each of the wives of the same husband compete to direct part of household resources to the education of 81

her children, and in particular to university-level education. Most of the sons of the upper-class families finish their secondary high schools and enter four-year university programs to receive a bachelor degree. University education is costly even for upper-class families because their sons have to travel to the city where the university is located and reside in the university hostel for the years of their study. Thus, costs of transportation, accommodation, books, and their children's pocket money represent a strain on household budget, especially if there are many sons in the family. That is why many upper-class parents prefer to send their children to ai-Azhar University where costs of education and university accommodation are lower than those of Cairo or Ain-Shams universities. Others send their children to shari'a colleges (a college which teaches Islamic laws) in the nearest town to which their children can commute everyday. Another objective for women's interest in university education for their sons is that it makes the children qualified for occupying prestigious political positions in the village through serving in different village councils. Wives believe that if their sons occupy political positions in the village then they would bring their parents a special prestige in the village and would increase the power of their fathers' families. Upper-class parents switch between two extremes as far as the education of their daughters is concerned. One is allowing the girl to go into intermediate levels of education after the preparatory or secondary school, while the other is not sending her to school at all. Some upper-class farmers believe that their girls should not go to school because it is not acceptable for their daughters to leave the house everyday to receive an educational degree, especially as she will get married someday and stay in her husband's house. For them, if the girl goes to school this means that she is going to work when she graduates, but their daughters do not need jobs because they do not need money. Their fathers and later their husbands are capable of looking after their needs. Other upper-class fathers, however, do not think this way. If their daughters want to go to school and proceed successfully in their education, they encourage them and finance their education until they decide to stop at a certain level. Accumulation of gold for girls. Co-wives compete to use their husbands' financial resources to accumulate gold for themselves and their 82

daughters. For them, the accumulation of gold is an investment, a source of security, and a sign of social prestige and wealth. Hamida said that girls had to be compensated for not taking a lot of property after the death of their father as their brothers do. Buying the girl gold accessories during the life of her father could be of great help to her after his death particularly when she got married and had children. It was a form of "frozen money" that could solve any financial crisis. The second reason for buying gold for girls has to do with marriage. Upper-class parents like their daughter's suitor to see his "wife to be" wearing a lot of gold to know that she is accustomed to a high standard of living. In this way, he will know that he has to provide her with the same standard of living and to bring her the things she used to have in her parents' house. In addition, he will buy her an expensive and "honorable" golden marriage gift. Thus, wives compete so that their husband buys as much gold for each of them and their daughters as possible. Hamad said that whenever he bought a piece of gold for his daughter by his wife Gamila, he had to buy the exact piece to his daughter by his wife Zakia. He said if there was a little bit difference in the design or weight of the gold accessories, each one would think that her father bought her the cheaper one and problems would arise between him and the mothers of the girls. Residing separately from co-wife. Another major area of competition between co-wives in upper-class families is living separately from the cowife and her children. On one hand, it is usually the goal of the first wife to let her sons marry as soon as they pass their teenage years to ensure that they get the advantage of taking a big space in the house compared to that occupied by her co-wife and her children. If one of her co-wife's sons marries before her own son (this happens when their ages are close to each other), then her co-wife's sons will share the house with her sons for the rest of their lives; something which she does not like to happen. On the other hand, it is the goal of the second wife to have a separate house from the one she lives in with her co-wife/wives as soon as her sons reach their early teens. The reasons behind this was clarified by Gamila, Hamad's second wife. According to her, her co-wife's sons reached the age of marriage before her sons as they were much older than her sons. Her co-wife's sons got the privilege of taking all the unoccupied bedrooms in the house when 83

they got married. As each of her co-wife's sons got married, he was offered a room for him and his bride and their coming children. Gamila added that she realized that her eldest son was close to the age of marriage, and that he would not find an empty room to reside in with his wife. Therefore, she pushed her husband to build a new house for her and her children so that when her sons got married, they would find an adequate place for their new families. She also said that she was worried that her husband would die before he built a house for her and her children. For Gamila, had this happened, it would have left her and her sons in a bad situation because they would have to find another place to live in if they wanted to get married. Gamila was afraid that building a new house would require lot of money which might not be available for her sons after the death of their father. That is why it was safer for her to have a separate house during the lifetime of her husband. Power of Wife and Order of Marriage As previously mentioned, the powerful wife is the one who has a decisionmaking power regarding the allocation of household resources. She also proves to be the one who makes major contributions to household income and subsistence and who has a strong influence on her husband through their sexual relationship. This research revealed that the second wife (or the last wife) is the one who makes the largest contribution to household income and the one who has the stronger influence on her husband through sex as compared to the first wife. This can be explained by the fact that the second wife (or the last wife) is the younger or youngest wife. She is more likely to be in a better health condition than her co-wife or co-wives. Thus, she is able to contribute to household resources and to meet the sexual needs of her husband. In addition, if the reason behind marrying a second wife is the inability of the first wife either to make adequate contribution to household income or to satisfy her husband's sexual needs, then it is expected that the second wife is covering the deficiencies of her co-wife; something which gives the second wife more power. Thus, the first wife is less likely to share her husband's decisions. Rather, she is a follower of her husband and her co-wife.

84

The concentration of power in the hands of one wife may not be the case if one wife is not in a position to compete with her co-wife. This creates a great deal of understanding as well as a will to cooperate between wives. This applied to the cases whereby the husband is married to two wives only. One wife may not be in a position to compete with her co-wife due to a big age difference between them or due to the fact that she does not have any children while the other one has. When this is the case, feelings of jealousy and competition between wives are limited; thus wives tend to cooperate rather than to compete. They distribute domestic responsibilities as well as responsibilities related to household income and subsistence among them according to their age and health conditions. For instance, Dawlat and Te'ma the wives of Ghazi divided the various responsibilities among themselves. Dawlat was 75 years old, and all her children were dead while Te'ma was 45 years old and had five children. Ghazi said that he married his second wife 25 years ago when she was 20 years while Dawlat was 50. When he married for the second time, he had already lost all his children from his first wife. Te'ma went with him to the fields to farm the land while Dawlat stayed at home due to her age. As Ghazi said, when he and Te'ma went to the farm, Dawlat was the guard of the house. He meant that she looked after Te'ma's children and carried out all household responsibilities like cooking the food, cleaning the house, and washing the clothes. Concerning the decision-making power in household matters, Ghazi consulted both his wives in every decision he made. Another example to show how the absence of competition between wives leads to them having an equal decision-making power is represented by the case of Mahran. He married his first wife when she was 16 years old. When she proved to be barren, he decided to take his second wife after 10 years of his first marriage. When he married his second wife, she was 14 years old while his first wife was 26 years. Mahran said that his wives did not compete against each other. His first wife loved his second wife's children and considered them her own children. As Mahran cared not to let his first wife feel bad about her barrenness, he gave her a lot of authority in decisions related to the allocation of household resources. She decided on the money spent on household purchases. Her husband described her as ''the household's financial manager." As the two wives had a strong will to cooperate for ensuring the happiness of their family, they divided household

85

tasks between them. Whenever Mahran wanted to make any decision that would affect the future of his family, he took the opinion of his two wives and all of them exchange opinions until a final decision was taken. Conclusion There are four types of relationships involved in the access of women in polygynous marriages to power. These relationships are: husband-wife relationship, wife-in-laws relationship, sister-brother relationship, and wife-co-wife relationship. In the husband-wife relationship, the objective of the wife is to have a strong access to her husband's material and financial resources and a strong decision-making power in household matters, especially in the allocation of resources. There are two means to achieve this: the wife's significant contribution to household income and subsistence, and the strong sexual relationship between her and her husband. "Strong" sexual relationship means a regular sexual relationship between them. In fact, the first means to achieve power reinforces the sexual commitment of the husband to his wife. Both the wife's limited contribution to subsistence and the weak sexual relationship between her and her husband undermine her decision-making power in allocating household resources, and thus, in her access to power vis-a-vis her co-wife or co-wives and in-laws. In addition, the weak, relationship between the husband and the wife puts the wife in an extremely vulnerable position as far as her control over her own reproductivity. Non-regular relationships often result in unwanted pregnancies by the wife, and, thus, more financial burdens for her to carry. This shows that there is an indirect relationship between wives' contribution to household income and subsistence and their control over their reproductive potentials. Concerning the relationship between her wife and her in-laws, the wife aims at maintaining a peaceful existence with the husband's extended family. This makes her avoid a great deal of troubles which her in-laws can cause her. The means through which the wife achieves astable co-existence with in-laws is maintaining a strong relationship with her mother-in-law, co-wife or co-wives, and sisters-in-law. Establishing good relationships with in-laws ensures the wife a better

86

access to husband's material and financial resources. An unstable relationship between the wife and her co-wives and in-laws may result in weakening the husband-wife relationship. As for the brother-sister relationship, the research revealed that this relationship has an effect on the wife's marriage through reinforcing it. The brother protects his sister's rights against any exploitation of her husband, co-wives, and in-laws to her. The sister agrees to give up her land to her brother to benefit from its returns on the condition that he protects her rights in marriage and provides her with limited financial and material support as a sort of compensation for the returns from her land. However, both the brother's support to his sister and the sister's access to resources from a source other than her husband may have a negative effect on the sister's continuity of marriage. She may choose to sacrifice her marriage (her social power) if it was unstable and to rely on the economic power she obtains through her access to resources ( most important of which is her land) and the moral support of her brother. On the other side, the stability in the sister's marriage affects her relationship with her brother. When she is stable in her marriage and does not need the moral support of her brother, she may prefer to receive her land from him even if she has to sacrifice her relationship with him. If she obtained her land, she will use its returns for the benefit of her own family. The relationship between the wife and her co-wife or co-wives is based on competition over the husband's resources. Areas of competition, however, vary from one socioeconomic category of farmers to another, since resources available for each category differ in kind and in size. Whereas lower and middle-class wives compete for obtaining basic subsistence needs like food and clothing as well as for making their children receive an intermediate level of education, upperclass wives compete for high level of education for their children as well as a large access to private property for their sons during the lifetime of their husbands and after their death. From the above, it is clear that the wife involved in a polygynous marriage gains status vis-a-vis her co-wife or co-wives and in-laws

87

residing with her in the same dwelling through contribution to household income and subsistence and by being the favorite sexual partner of her husband. By being her husband's favorite sexual partner, she acquires a high emotional value for her husband, whereas through contributing to subsistence, she acquires a financial and material value for her husband and his family. These are the main sources of the wife's power and status. They enable her to have more access to household resources as well as a strong decision-making power over their distribution. As for maintaining stable relations with co-wives and inlaws, they facilitate the wife's access to resources. Tensions between the wife and her in-laws can negatively affect the relationship between her and her husband and make the husband reluctant to entrust his wife with the distribution of his resources. For the wife in a polygynous marriage, her brother's protection to her represents an external means of gaining status and power in her husband's household. It reflects how much protection the wife can obtain in her marriage through her male kin. Among lower-class farmers protection of the brother to his sister involved in a polygynous union through his interference to solve problems between her and her husband leads to the reinforcement of his sister's marriage. His role as a protector of his sister's rights in marriage can be negatively affected by his sister taking from him her land. Thus, his sister is never encouraged to take her land from him because his protection to her marriage is much more important for her than taking her land from him, particularl that the size of the land is usually very small. Among upper-class farmers, the protection which the brother provides his sister with is not affected by her acquirement of part of her land from him. The reason is that the brother gives his sister a part of the returns of her land without his sister asking for these returns. The economic security she obtains from the returns from her land can make the resolution of her marriage an option when conflicts peak between her and her husband. As for the middle-class, the wife involved in a polygynous marriage regards her brother as a source of protection to her own rights in her marriage and a resort for resolving her financial crisis, on the condition that she does take her land from her brother. As the area of land she leaves to her brother is relatively large, she expects large financial compensations 88

from her brother when she has a financial need. Thus, if her brother does not respond to her needs, she may take her land from her brother even if this ended up by sacrificing her relationship with him. This takes place only when her relationship with her husband is stable and her life with him is secure. Concerning the areas of competition between co-wives, they differ from one socioeconomic class to another. Whereas the lower- and middle-class co-wives compete for providing food needs and education at least up to the primary level, upper-class wives compete for higher levels of education for their children, particularly university education for their sons. In addition they compete for their husbands' property and saved money by having the maximum number of sons as possible. They also compete for making their sons reach distinguishable political posts in the village for the social prestige this can bring for their husbands' families and thus, for, themselves as the mothers of these sons.

89

CHAPTER SIX SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES IN POLYGYNOUS MARRIAGES

In the last chapter, we saw how the wife in a polygynous marriage gains status vis-a-vis her co-wives and in-laws in terms of access to her husband's resources and the decision-making power over their distribution. Sex was one of the areas through which the wife gained decision-making power over household resources compared to that of her co-wives. This chapter will discuss how sex can be one of the areas through which the wife in a polygynous marriage may lose power in terms of not having control over her reproductive potentials. This will be made through exploring the economic factors which shape the attitudes of husbands and wives in polygynous unions towards the sexual relationships with their spouses. Husbands' Attitudes Lower-class husbands. The research revealed that lower-class polygynous husbands did not choose the wife with whom they have a permanent residence on the basis of which wife they enjoy having sex with. The husband's decision of which wife he would share a room with was rather based on husband's attitude of "sexual commitment." Sexual commitment was directed towards the wife to whom the husband owes a permanent company. This wife was the one who generated an income and gave it to her husband who decided on how it would be allocated. In addition, she was the one who farmed the land with him and accompanied him in most of his life activities. Therefore, this particular wife was the one with whom the husband shared the room and the one with whom he had a regular sexual relationship. On the other hand, the husband did not share the room with the wife who was economically independent from him. The economically independent wife is the one who earns an income, and her husband did not contribute to her or her children's material and financial needs. Reciprocally, his wife neither gives him the money she earns nor helps

90

him in farming. This applies to both women with the husband in the same residence and women in separate residence from that of the husband. Research revealed that the wife with whom the husband gets his utmost sexual pleasure may not be the one he owes a sexual commitment. Though the husband maintains a sexual relationship with the one he enjoys having sex with, he may not maintain the relationship on a regular basis like his relationship with the wife with whom he shares the room. Al-Sayed's case provided an example which shows that economic factors are the main factors which determine the strength or weakness of sexual relationships among lower-class couples in polygynous marriages. AlSayed did not have a regular sexual relationship with Ikbal though he enjoyed having sex with her more than any other wife. The reason behind this was the fact that Ikbal resided in another house from that of al-Sayed, and that Ikbal was economically independent from him. She helped him in farming the land only occasionally. He resided in Fardous's house who was his partner in farming the land and so he was sexually committed to her. Fardous said that she and her other co-wives knew that al-Sayed sees Ikbal as his favorite sexual partner. She explained al-Sayed's sexual attachment to Ikbal by saying that Ikbal bewitched him to remain attracted to her. Atwa is another example that illustrates the significance of economic factors in determining the sexual relationships between the husband and his wives in the same residence. It shows that residence of wives in the same house with the husband does not guarantee the strength of sexual relationships between the husband and his different wives in polygynous marriages. Atwa explained to me why he resided with Marzouka in the same room while his wives resided in other rooms. He said, Marzouka is my partner in everything. We do everything together. If she earns anything, she gives it to me and we decide together on how to spend it. It is normal that I stay with her in the same room. My other wives have their separate lives. They use their income to get what they need and what their children need. Each one makes the best she sees for her children. Marzouka was not Atwa's best sexual partner, but Narguis was. Marzouka and Aziza mentioned that Narguis was Atwa's sweetheart.

91

Atwa and Narguis were in love before marriage and he enjoyed having sex with her more than any one of them. Middle-class husbands. Middle-class wives were economically less independent from their husbands than lower-class women. For the middle-class farmers, income from land and livestock was enough to meet the household needs. Thus, wives of the same husband were more likely to contribute to the household's subsistence through farming the land with him. They did not work as wage laborers. The income they generated through activities outside farming is limited; it was not large enough to make them economically independent from their husbands. In addition, wives contributed equally to household income. Thus, their husbands were more likely to maintain equality between wives in the way they distributed love and care among them. Most middle-class men mentioned that equality between the wives was the duty of the righteous man since this was what God ordered a Muslim man to do when married to more than one wife. Middle-class men stayed in the same room with each wife for one week, in a rotational pattern. Though the husband might not have any sexual intercourse with a particular wife for any reason like bad health conditions, he made it a point to stay with her in the same room in the week dedicated to her. Upper-class husbands. Among upper-class husbands, sexual relationship are not controlled by husbands' sexual commitment to their wives since their wives are not expected to contribute to subsistence nor to generate any sort of income. Therefore, a husband may be strongly biased to one wife whereas he would neglect the other. Saleh said that within the last 15 years he did not have a sexual intercourse with his first wife except a few times. He said that he had intercourse with her when his eldest son came to him and complained on behalf of his mother. Saleh said that he responded very quickly to his son's request. He said: / should respond to my son. He is a man now. If he asks me for anything to do for his mother, I do it immediately, just for his sake.

92

Saleh indicated the importance of satisfying his wife's sexual demands. He said that if he did not respond to his wife's sexual needs, she might be seduced by a strange man, since his wife would be having unsatisfied sexual needs. I will mention later in the part related to women's attitudes, the values which prevented women from confronting their husbands when they were sexually neglected. Wives' Attitudes As indicated above, wives not sharing the responsibility of generating household income and subsistence may not expect their husband's sexual commitment towards them, and, thus, a regular sexual relationship with their husbands. They fear the consequences of the irregular sexual relationships and unexpected sexual intercourse. Most of them are worried that if their the unexpected sexual intercourse with their husbands would result in unwanted pregnancies. For them a new child is a new financial burden. Some women indicated that they are relieved when their husbands ignore them sexually. Aziza said, When my husband neglects me sexually. I am happy for this because if I were pregnant again then this child will be my responsibility. His father will not be responsible for him. She said that she gave birth to her last two daughters against her wish and that had she expected to be having sexual intercourse with her husband, she would have taken the necessary precautions so as not to have more children. She said that her husband could stay for few months without having an intercourse with her, but one day he might ask her unexpectedly to have an intercourse with him and she usually responded. Despite these fears, wives were found to be very careful not to reject the sexual relationship with their husbands. Some of them were afraid that by upsetting their husbands, their husbands would punish them by completely neglecting them and their children or by divorcing them. Negma, Dessouki's wife, said that once she refused to have intercourse with her husband, so he beat her and kicked her outside the house infront of her neighbors. She decided not to put herself ever in this position again and she put contraceptive pills under her pillow so that if he came

93

suddenly and wanted to have a sexual relationship she could take the pills after their intercourse. Taking contraceptive pills after the intercourse did not ensure the prevention of pregnancy, but this was what some women believed. Some wives, however, felt frustrated because their husbands neglected having a sexual relationship with them, which left their sexual needs unmet. The research revealed that some of the wives who do not expect the sexual commitment of their husbands towards them believe that a woman should not reveal her sexual desires to her husband. For them, if the woman does that, she is destroying her own pride as a female. Hosnia said, My husband leaves me without a sexual relationship for very long periods of time. Despite what I suffer during these periods, I cannot complain or ask him to have intercourse with me. How can I ask him for such a thing? Having or not having sexual intercourse is up to the man's will and not the woman. If she asks for it, this would be disgraceful to her. These women, however, were convinced that they should meet the sexual needs of their husbands whenever their husbands want to have a sexual relationship with them. They think that that is the duty of the righteous wife towards her husband. Tawhida, Amin's wife said, / have to provide my husband with all his rights as a man. If I have a thousand jobs to do and he asked me to have intercourse with him, I immediately leave everything and respond to his needs. If I did not respond to him, then this will bring God's anger on me since I would not be complying what God has ordered a Muslim woman to do. These women were powerless in the sense that they cannot control their reproductive capacities. Their sexual relationships with their husbands were not regular or expected. As sex is unpredictable, they do not take precautions by using contraceptives and, thus, pregnancies occurred. The end result was that they carried the financial responsibility of the new child.

94

Wives with relatively few economic responsibilities are less sensitive towards unexpected sexual relationships. Wives of lower-class farmers who accept their children to work as wage laborers and do not have any educational ambitions for them were found to be sexually submissive to their husbands and less concerned if a new child is born. They depend on the fact that their children will earn an income through any job. On the other hand, wives who share with their husbands the responsibilities of generating household income and subsistence expect their husbands' sexual commitment towards them, and, thus, regular sexual relationships with their husbands. Thus, they take necessary precautions against unwanted pregnancies. They take contraceptives and consult gynecologists of family planning centers and hospitals in the village on regular basis. Thus, among wives having regular sexual relationships, unwanted pregnancies are much less than those found among wives having irregular relationships. This indicates that wives having regular sexual relationships with their husbands have more control on their reproductivity than those who have irregular relationships. Nevertheless, the attitude of women who share with their husbands the burdens of life is different from that of the women who do not. They are much more aware of their sexual rights. Most wives who contribute to household income and share the responsibility of meeting their children's needs think that the woman who helps her husband in the field and shares with him his burdens expects him to respect her rights. He has to show her love, tenderness and accord her the sexual rights which he owes her. Most of the women who believe in this are middle-class farmers. They claim that the husband has to maintain equality between his wives if they contribute equally to carrying out the different tasks of farming as well as their responsibilities towards him and his children. Some of them described the man who favored one wife more than the other as a man without without principles. An example to illustrate the extent to which husbands are expected to maintain sexual equality between wives who contribute equally to household income and subsistence is the family of Gawad. His two wives, Ikram and Mariam farmed the land with him, and, thus, they contributed equally to household income. Gawad resided with each one of them in her room for one week in a rotational pattern. He did not stop to have a sexual

95

intercourse with his first wife Ikram, except when she revealed to him that her health conditions did not allow her to have a sexual relationship with him. Only then did Gawad decide to confine his sexual relationship to his second wife Mariam. This difference in the wives' attitudes shows that the more the wife shares the burdens of living with her husband, the more she will be concerned about her rights in general, and her sexual rights in particular. And the more the wife is independent from her husband as far as the economic aspect is concerned, the less she will expect him to provide her with her sexual rights.

96

CHAPTER SEVEN SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Economic, social, and cultural factors are intertwined in the lives of husbands and wives involved in polygynous marriages. Such factors include: the husband's decision to take more than one wife; the residential patterns of polygynous households; the degree of husband's financial responsibility towards his wives and whether he maintains financial equality between them or not; the means through which wives have access to resources and channels through which they are directed; and sexual relationships between husbands and wives in polygynous unions. Factors leading to polygyny among Egyptian rural farmers include the need for more labor to farm land, the wife's barrenness or her giving birth to females only, conflicts between the wife and her in-laws, conflicts between the husband and his in-laws, sexual reasons, forming alliances, and the incompatibility between the husband and his wife. One of the important factors leading to polygyny in the Egyptian village is the importance of having wives and children, particularly sons to farm the land. As middle and lower-class farmers cannot afford to hire labor to farm the land, they depend on the labor of their wives and children, especially sons. The inability of the wife to farm the land for any reason or the limited number of sons or their death can be a major reason for the Egyptian farmer to take another wife. Another reason for polygyny is when the wife gives birth to only females. For all socioeconomic classes of farmers, sons are indispensable. Farmers place a great value on sons since they continue their father's lineage and they support their parents in their old age. Sons have a particularly great value among upper-class farmers because they are the ones who should inherit their father's property. For lower-class farmers, the son is of a particularly great value for his father as the latter can rely on the son in farming the land more than on the daughter. Polygyny as a result of giving birth only to females is possible in particular when it is not socially acceptable by the village community for a man to divorce a wife who bears his children, even if children do not include sons. Thus, if divorce is not an

97

option for the man to replace his previous wife, polygyny becomes the only available option for him. Among all socioeconomic classes, polygyny rather than divorce is more likely to take place if the wife gives birth only to females. The barrenness of the wife or her inability to have sexual relations with her husband are also reasons for polygyny among upper-class Egyptian farmers. Upper-class farmers do not divorce their wives for barrenness in order not to jeopardize the economic and political relationships between their kin and the kin of their wives. Thus, they take other wives to have children. Among lower and middle-class farmers, however, divorce rather than polygyny is more likely to take place in the case of the first wife's barrenness. The reason is that they cannot afford the expenses of a wife who does not produce more family members which is crucially needed for farming the land. Conflicts between the wife and her in-laws residing with her in the same house proved to be an important reason for polygyny, particularly among lower-class farmers. Scarcity of resources leads lower-class husbands to reside with their parents and married brothers (i.e., the extended family) for many years until their parents die and then they can take separate residences. On one hand, conflicts between the wife and her mother-in-law as a result of co-residence may result in polygyny. On the other hand, the research revealed that conflicts between the husband and his wife's family, especially her brother or her father, may lead to polygyny. Polygyny resulting from conflicts between the husband and his in-laws appear to increase among the middle and upper classes since most of these conflicts revolve around financial matters. This may include the husband urging his wife to take her land from her brother which may end by conflicts between the husband and his brother-in-law. In addition, the commercial transactions that take place between the wife's brother or father and her husband can result in conflicts. When the wife takes the side of her brother in the disputes between him and her husband, her husband may take another wife to give a hard lesson to his first wife. The desire of the husband to upgrade his economic and social living or to strengthen his economic and political power in the village can be a reason for taking a second wife. The means to achieve this is through seeking wives from higher socioeconomic level than his own or from powerful

98

families (economically and politically) in the village that may not have a direct blood relationship with his own. Thus through relationships between the husband and the kin of his new wife, he engages in the political activities of the village which helps him to achieve a better socioeconomic level or to expand his economic and political power in the village. The research also revealed that the impact of the political, economic, and social developments in the Egyptian society as a whole, and the village in particular, have had an influence on the rural family. One major impact is the immigration of farmers to the urban centers to improve their income and provide a better standard of living for their families. The husband's lifestyle may change because of his work in the urban centers. This change makes him dissatisfied with his wife and he takes another wife who can adapt to his new lifestyle. His new wife could be educated and may be having a degree which makes her capable of managing her husband's nonagricultural business if he has one. The research showed that economic conditions shape the residential patterns--whether the husband resides with his wives in the same residence or in a separate residence--of polygynous farmers in different socioeconomic classes. The research showed that reasons for not separating wives in different residences differ from one socioeconomic class to another. Among upper-class farmers, separating wives in different residences does not take place because of combined social and economic reasons especially those related to the sons. One of these conditions is when sons from different wives have varying access to financial resources. Another reason is when the son's income raises the standard of living of his father's household. Among middle-class farmers, a major factor which prevents separation is the high level of integration and cooperation between the husband and his wives in the generation of household income and maintaining subsistence level. In addition, husbands cannot afford to build separate houses for their sons as soon as they get married. They need several years after the marriage of their eldest son to build a separate house for him. Part of the money required for building a house for the son comes from his earnings that he makes from working in non-agricultural jobs. This of course takes him several years to be able to accumulate a good amount of money to build a house for himself. In addition, the land of middle-class farmers requires as

99

much family labor as possible. Thus, the combined labor of the husband and his wives is indispensable for cultivating the land and for avoiding hiring costly labor. This has two consequences: first, husbands are less likely to let their wives live with their sons in houses separate from their own. If this happened, it means that the husband will lose the labor of his wives who will reside with their sons and will not have to farm the land of the husband. The second consequence is that wives of middle-class farmers are less likely to generate an income from activities other than farming their husband's land except to a limited extent. This results in the permanent cooperation of the husband and his wives in farming the land throughout their lives which weakens the possibility of separating the residence of wives. Lower-class polygynous farmers whose wives live altogether with them in the same house after marriage are less likely to separate their wives in independent residences. The reason is that the husband cannot afford to build separate houses for his different wives. Reasons for separating wives in different houses differ from one class to another. Upper-class polygynous farmers are barely able to provide an adequate standard of living for their families, especially when their sons are married and more members are joining the family. This is particularly true if the husband has several sons. Each married son needs at least one room to reside in with his wife and children. Thus, the father takes the decision to separate his wives when the eldest son of the first wife gets married, when he has a source of income other than land, and when he becomes financially independent. The married son remains in the house with his mother, along with his married and unmarried brothers, and unmarried sisters, whereas, his father, his other wife and their children move to another house. The eldest son becomes financially responsible for his mother and his unmarried sisters. Thus, the separation of wives and their children among separate residences helps the upper-class husband to divide the financial burdens of his family between himself and his married sons. In addition, the separation of housing at that time or soon after the marriage of the eldest son in the polygynous family puts an end to the conflicts between the different wives and their children which results from co-residence. Some of the wives of lower-class polygynous farmers live in the premarriage place, a residence which she inherited from her parents or her deceased ex-husband. She does not move into the husband's residence

100

because he cannot afford to provide a house that has enough space for ail his wives and their children to live in. Instead, the husband moves between his wives' residences including his own residence and the residences owned by his wives. Having his wives except the one with whom he resides in separate residences from his own, the husband is exempted from his financial responsibilities towards them and their children. The wives and their children generate an income through agricultural and/or nonagricultural labor. As for maintaining equality between the wives as far as supporting them financially, the main determinant for upper-class polygynous farmers is the residence of wives, i.e. if they share the same residence with their husbands or not. When all wives and children reside in the same house with the husband, he is responsible for meeting their financial needs equally. But when the wife lives in a separate residence from that of the husband, he is less likely to provide her with a standard of living similar to that which he offers to the wife or wives who reside with him in the same house. If separation takes place, the husband stops financing her needs and those of her children. If separation takes place when the children of the wife are still young, this wife and her children are accorded much less resources and thus have a much lower standard of living than the wife and the children who live with the husband in the same residence. When the main reason for separation in residence is the clashes that occur constantly between the husband and that particular wife, the bad feelings that the husband has towards this wife influence the extent to which he is willing to support her and her children. He might even assign his wife and children who are residing separately much smaller land than the land he keeps for himself and his wife and children who reside with him in the same residence. The end result is that the income generated from the small piece of land assigned to the wife in a separate residence does not allow her to send her children to school, whereas the income generated from the much larger piece of land of the husband allows him to send his other children who are residing with him to school to obtain high educational degrees. Middle-class farmers maintain equal financial responsibility towards their wives since their wives provide equal contributions to household income and subsistence. In addition, wives make limited contributions to income from sources other than land as most of their daily effort is directed 101

towards farming the land of their husband. This limits the variation between wives in terms of the degree of their contribution to household income from a source other than their husband's land. In addition, since husbands maintain an equal financial responsibility towards their wives and meet the needs of every wife and her children, this minimizes the variation between the interests of the husbands and the interests of the wives. The determinants of lower-class husbands' level of financial responsibility towards their wives--whether those residing with their husbands in the same house or in a separate residence from their husband-are not the same as for upper-class farmers. The wife's contributions to household income determines the husband's financial responsibility towards his wife, particularly since the wife usually gives her husband the income that she earns and he decides on how to spend it. The research revealed two scenarios about the husband's financial responsibility towards wives residing with him in the same dwelling. The first is one in which the wife generates an income from a source other than her husband's land which she uses to meet her and her children's needs. She does not give her husband that income to spend it as he sees right. In addition, neither she nor her children contribute to farming her husband's land. The second is one in which the wife assists her husband in farming the land and generates an additional income that she gives to her husband to decide on its expenditure. The husband's financial responsibility towards these two wives differs. In the first case, he will not spend from the income he generates on the uncooperative wife and her children, while in the second he will finance the needs of the wife and her children in terms of providing them with clothes and paying school fees. Likewise, lower-class husbands' responsibility towards their wives in different residences is determined to a great extent by the willingness of the wife to contribute to household income and share the income she generates with her husband. If the wife and children live in a separate residence and earn income larger than the wife or the wives with whom the husband resides, he may decide to move his residence to live with the wife who is living separately with her children. In this case, he will spend the income he earns on this wife and will get rid of his financial responsibilities towards the wife or wives with whom he used to reside. One would wonder why women would accept to continue in

102

polygynous marriages. The research revealed that this is due to the lack of possible alternatives available to women for a better life other than the one they would have within a polygynous union. The wife has two options if her husband takes another wife. One of them is to continue in the marriage and adapt to the new situation and the other is to ask for a divorce. Having a divorce is not a preferable option for most wives. Their preference to remain in a polygynous marriage are for two main reasons. The first one is that the husband cannot be blamed for taking more than one wife since it is religiously allowed and therefore socially acceptable. Thus, it is not accepted by the rural society that the wife discontinues her marriage because her husband took another wife. If she does so, she would be the one to blame. The second reason is that the wife retains more economic, moral, and social security by continuing in her marriage. Her husband is at least partially responsible for her and her children financially. In addition, he continues his moral responsibility for her and children even if he took another wife which would not be the same if the wife discontinued her marriage by seeking divorce. Furthermore, she would attain much less social prestige as a divorcee, a position that any woman tries to avoid. This applies to wives involved in polygynous unions regardless of their economic status. Thus, even when the husband is polygynous and does not take economic responsibility for his wife and her children, this wife chooses to continue in her marriage. This is for no reason except that she wants to maintain the moral support of her husband towards her children and herself, something that they may lose if she discontinues her marriage. As the research revealed, the wife is keen to preserve her and her children's social prestige in the rural community by not being a divorcee or lessen her husband's moral control over their children. The father's moral control over his children particularly girls is very important for the wife to preserve especially at the time of her children's marriage so that her children can marry respectable partners. In addition, the husband does contribute to the expenses of her children's marriage even if he has not been financially responsible for them before their marriage. With regard to interpersonal relations between members in a polygynous household, some of these relations are tense, particularly those involving co-wives who have competitive material goals mainly in accessing their husband's resources. Co-wives compete for providing for

103

their children's food and education, as well as their husband's property and savings by having as many sons as possible. Upper-class wives also compete for pushing their sons into obtaining university degrees to reach distinguishable political posts in the village for the social prestige that this brings for the family as a whole. They also compete for separate housing from their co-wives when their sons reach the age of marriage and establish families of their own. This provides the different wives and their married sons with more privacy and enough space for the coming generation. Wives involved in polygynous marriages seek a secure existence in their husbands' households, particularly if their husbands reside with their extended families in the same house. A secure existence is the means for having a strong decision-making power in the husband's extended family household which subsequently allows the wives strong access to household resources. In her husband's household, particularly in the first years of her marriage, the wife competes for decision-making power over resources with both her co-wives and in-laws. The most effective means for the wife to establish a secure existence is maintaining a strong relationship with her husband through enhancing her economic and emotional "value" in her husband's eyes. Another supplementary but important means that the wife uses for establishing a secure existence in the husband's household is by maintaining a strong relationship with her mother-in-law and a stable relationship with her sisters-in-law. This relationship ensures the wife better access to her husband's resources in general, and financial resources in particular. An unstable relationship between the wife and her in-laws can cause tension in the husband-wife relationship which can become an obstacle for the wife in the process of gaining a decision-making power in the household, and thus, in having a strong access over resources. A tense relationship between the wife and her mother-in-law can have an extremely negative impact on the husband-wife relationship because of the great influence the mother has on her married son. Finally, the wife may establish a secure existence in her husband's household by maintaining a strong relationship with her brother. This brother-sister relationship has an effect on reinforcing the husband-wife relationship, and, thus, reinforcing the marriage. The brother-sister relationship protects the sister's rights against any exploitation by her 104

husband, co-wives, or in-laws. The sister agrees to keep her land with her brother on the condition that he protects her rights in marriage and provides her with limited financial and material support as a compensation for the returns that he gains from her land. Not in all cases, however, does the sister's relationship with her brother lead to stabilizing her marriage. In some cases, it results in the opposite. As shown before, the brother can urge his sister to leave her husband's house during times of conflict and to stay in his house. In other cases, the strong brother-sister relationship may result in getting the brother and the husband to do business together. When the relationship between the husband and his brother-in-law becomes tense for reasons related to that business, and the wife takes her brother's side, the husband may strongly react against his wife's attitude by, for instance, leaving her in her brother's house for a long period of time without seeking reconciliation or may also go as far as taking another wife or divorcing her. In addition, the sister married to a polygynous husband may choose to sacrifice her marriage if it is unstable. The wife in this case relies on the moral support of her brother and the economic power she obtains through her own resources. Thus, her brother's moral and material support encourages her to dissolve her marriage. Sex has proven to be one of the most important means which women in polygynous unions use to gain control over resources and, thus, gain economic power in the husband's household. She can abstain from having sex with her husband as a way to pressure him to approve of her material and financial demands. Sex as a means of achieving economic power, however, is only one face of sexuality in the lives of women in polygynous marriages. The other face of sexuality is the wife's use of economic means to establish a regular, and thus, a strong sexual relationship with her husband. The wife's significant contribution to household income ensures that her husband will be sexually committed to her, which leads to a regular sexual relationship between her and her husband. Wife's limited contributions to household income and level of subsistence makes the husband much less sexually committed to her which often results in irregular sexual relationship between him and his wife. A regular sexual relationship between the husband and the wife allows the wife to avoid having unwanted pregnancies by taking the necessary

105

precautions such as using contraceptives. An irregular sexual relationship between the husband and the wife puts the wife in an extremely vulnerable position as far as her control over her own reproductivity. Unwanted pregnancies could have economic implications which can lead the wife to assume more financial burdens, particularly if her husband does not contribute to her children's needs. Gender Relations in Polygynous Marriages Different actors involved in polygynous marriages do not take the prevailing economic, political, social, and cultural factors as a given. Rather, they seek to get the best out of them in serving their interests. Gender relations among some upper-class farmers are based on the political and economic relations between the polygynous husband and his wife's family. The husband's relationship with his wife's kin is a major determinant of gender relationships among upper-class families. This is especially true if the husband married this wife to improve his socioeconomic level or expands his political and economic power in the village through her family. Thus, this husband maintains a strong relationship with this wife in order not to jeopardize the relation with her family which is essential for achieving his own interests. The upper-class wife whose husband does not maintain strong bonds with her kin is aware that she is the wife to be separated from her husband when her eldest son gets married. Thus, during the period of her residence with her husband, she tries to invest as much as possible in her children's education, particularly her sons, by drawing upon her husband's resources. She is concerned with making her son receive the highest educational degrees in order to make him eligible for holding a job that will allow him and his family, including his mother, to live comfortably. This shows that these wives are not passive towards their conditions, particularly those related to separation from the husband's residence, and the inability to rely on the husband economically when the eldest son gets married and becomes economically independent from his father. One of the main factors that affect gender relations among middle-class families is land which is one of the main sources for income generation. In this case, the size of land is large enough to generate a level of income that

106

enables a middle-class polygynous family to meet the needs of all its members. This makes the wife spend most of her time in helping the husband in farming it. She allocates a limited time to generating an income from selling goods in the market, particularly crops and dairy products that are produced from the land and the livestock owned by the husband. Though this income is not trivial, still the income generated from selling land crops is much larger and is enough to cover the basic needs of the whole family of the polygynous husband. Here the wife is less keen to generate an income from sources other than those owned by her husband and to keep this income for herself and her children. Thus, among middleclass polygynous farmers, gender relations are based on the cooperation between the husband and the wives to generate the household's income and on the wife's acceptance to share her additional income with her husband. Gender relations among lower-class polygynous farmers differ from that of middle-class farmers, although in both classes, they are based on the generation of income. Whereas gender relations among middle-class polygynous farmers is mainly based on the land owned by the husband, gender relations among lower-class farmers is based on several sources of income other than that generated from the husband's land. The land of lower-class polygynous farmers is small in size and cannot meet the needs of all the members in the polygynous household. Thus, the wife is motivated to generate an income from a source other than her husband's land to be able to meet her needs and her children's basic subsistence needs. This is especially true if the wife has particular plans for her children's education, and thus, needs a larger income to be able to pay the school fees. If she manages to earn an income large enough to meet her and her children's needs, she will not give it to her husband because he will distribute it according to the priorities of all the household members. She can never be sure of the share she will get in return for giving her income to her husband. Thus, she chooses to keep her income for herself and her children rather than ask her husband to finance any of their needs. The research indicates that the wife who is economically independent from her husband has a great decision making power as far as the career of her children is concerned. She can insist to send them to school. In addition, she can argue with her husband against the children having to help him in the field. Thus, this wife has a strong decision-making power over her own

107

nuclear family, particularly her children, even though her husband resides in the same house and is expected to be the head of the household and the one to take the most important decisions. This decision-making power as far as the children are concerned is not available for the wife who is economically dependent on her husband and who agrees to give him the income that she earns to decide on how to spend it. This economic independence of the wife from her husband affects their relationship in different aspects. His financial responsibility towards her and her children decreases significantly and his sexual commitment to this wife in terms of maintaining a regular sexual relationship with her also decreases. In addition, he may decide not to continue to reside with the economically independent wife in the same house and to move to the residence of another wife who accepts to share her income with him and to assist him in farming his land. Handling Polygyny within a Broader Context: A New Perspective for Personal Status Law Reformists This research showed that the occurrence of polygyny in the Egyptian rural society is a function of the interaction between the rural family and the political, economic, and cultural conditions in the rural society. Though the research revealed that polygyny, as mentioned above may benefit farmers in different aspects, it also revealed that it has negative consequences on the different members of the polygynous household particularly the wives and children. The first negative consequence is the inability of some lower-class polygynous farmers to provide for the basic needs of all family members. Thus, the wives have to work in order to generate an income from sources other than land such as agricultural wage-labor and non-farm jobs such as petty-trading. The reason for which husbands cannot meet the basic needs of their family members is the small size of the land they own and the limited returns that it produces. If the wife generates an income and gives it to her husband, but he does not provide for her needs and her children's needs, she may decide to keep the income that she generates for herself and her children. In response, the husband may stop spending on that wife and her children from the income the land generates. Thus, the wife becomes totally

108

economically responsible for herself and her children. Since some of these economically-independent wives have more financial burdens than those who rely on their husbands, they may accept to carry out physically tiring jobs for long hours in order to earn more money to cover the needs of their children. In addition, some husbands, being unable to carry out their financial responsibilities towards their wives and children may decide to reside with one of the wives in order to get rid of the financial responsibilities towards the other wives, who usually reside together in one house. In addition, lower-class polygynous farmers are usually unable to send their children to school. This is particularly the case when wives and children are economically dependent on the husband and when the husband has the decision-making power to allocate the household income as he sees. Another negative impact is that economically independent wives who are residing with their husbands in the same residence may not have a regular sexual relationship with their husbands. Thus, when unexpected sexual relationships with their husbands occur, associated with the lack of precautions, many wives become pregnant against their wish. Children resulting from unexpected sexual relationships are found to be a major source of worry for wives who are economically independent from their husbands since they will carry the financial responsibilities of the new child. A third consequence is that upper-class polygynous husbands do not give equal economic support to their wives and children. Wives and children in a separate residence receive much less financial support from the husbands compared to that received by the wives and children residing in the same house with the husbands. This is particularly obvious when separation between wives takes place when the children are still young. As the husband provides limited material and financial resources to his wife that resides in a separate house, it may not be economically feasible for her to send her children to school which leads to a high rate of child illiteracy. In contrast, husbands provide greater resources for their children residing with them in the same house which gives a greater opportunity for the children to go to school and even earn a university degree. This shows that polygynous farmers may not provide an equal economic support for their children from the different wives. In addition, the wife may not seek her economic rights and those of her children from the husband and accept whatever economic support he provides even when she realizes that her

109

husband provides more support to his other wives and children. Such inequality is the norm rather than the exception, even though it is against the ethics of religious rules. In addition, sons from different wives do not receive equal inheritance rights. Sons of the wife who resides with her husband in the same house inherit more property from their father than that received by sons of the wife in a separate residence. The husband bequeaths property in the name of his sons from the wife who resides with him. So when the husband dies, these sons inherit much more property than the sons from the wives in separate residence. Thus, sons from different wives do not inherit equal shares of their father's property which is against the inheritance laws in Egypt which stipulate that sons are to inherit equal shares of their father's property. The negative consequences of polygyny on the household members can be of benefit to the advocates of reforming the Egyptian Personal Status Law by providing them with a broader scope of polygyny in rural Egypt. Reformists have been looking at polygyny within a narrower framework than the one revealed by this research. They adopt one of two approaches in dealing with the issue of polygyny. The first focuses on abolishing it, while the second aims at gaining rights for the woman whose husband takes a second wife. These rights include being informed about her husband's second marriage, asking for a divorce, and taking the custody of children. If polygyny is to be legally restricted as reformists want, this will have its negative drawbacks on farmers. In addition, by considering polygyny a social disease, reformists are completely unaware of the improvements that they can carry out to empower women and children in polygynous households. The negative impacts of polygyny on wives and children can rather provide new areas which deserve much of the reformists' attention and efforts to try to improve the status and life conditions of wives and children in polygynous households. These areas may include the following aspects: first, improving the standard of living of the wives and children whose husbands/fathers do not meet their basic needs; second, ensuring better opportunities for educating children so that they would not be deprived from education due to the limited resources available to polygynous households; third, developing legal sanctions which ensure that husbands do not escape their financial responsibilities towards their wives and children and which

110

also ensure that husbands provide equal economic support to them; and finally, raising wives' awareness about their husbands' financial responsibilities towards them. This would act as a constraint for polygyny if husbands cannot carry out the financial responsibilities of having more than one wife. Fourth, developing the legal sanctions to ensure that wives and children from the different wives have equal shares of their husband's/father's property after his death. Fifth, increasing the reproductive awareness of wives in polygynous marriages, particularly those with irregular sexual relationships with their husbands. Suggesting to women the most adequate means to avoid pregnancies would be of a great help to women since it allows them to have control over their reproductive capacities, especially if women do not want to have more children either for financial reasons or for health reasons.

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdel-Fadil, Mahmoud. .1975. Development, Income Distribution and Social Change in Egypt (1952-1970). London: Cambridge University Press. Al-Nowaihi. Mohamed .1979. " Changing the Law on Personal Status in Egypt within a Liberal Interpretation of the Shari'a," Middle East Review 11(4):40-9. Ata, A. W. 1987. "The Impact of Westernizing and Other Factors in the Changing Status of Muslim Women (II)," Islamic Quarterly 31(1):3856. Boserup, Ester. 1970. Women's Role in Economic Development. York: St. Martin's Press.

New

Collier, J.F. 1974. "Women in politics" in Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, eds., Woman, Culture, and Society. California: Stanford University Press. Collier, J. F. and Yanagisako S.J. 1987. " Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship" in Jane Fishburne Collier and Sylvia Junko Yanagisako, eds., Gender and Kinship: Essays toward a Unified Analysis. California: Stanford University Press. Friedl, Erika. 1991. Women of Deh Koh: Lives in An Iranian Village. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc. Goode, William J. 1963. World Revolution and Family Patterns. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd. Grossbard, Amyra. 1976. "An Economic Analysis of Polygyny: The Case of Maiduguri," Current Anthropology 17(4):701-7.

112

Hartung, John. 1982. "Polygyny and Inheritance of Wealth," Current Anthropology 23(1): 1-12. Hatem, Mervat. 1988. "Egypt's Middle East in Crisis : The Sexual Division of Labor," Middle East Journal 42:407-22. Jacoby, Hanan G. 1995. "The Economics of Polygyny in Sub-saharan Africa: Female Productivity and the Demand for Wives in Cote d' Ivoire," Journal of Political Economy \ 03(5):939-971. Kamal Eldin, Amany, Enid Hill, and Sarah Graham. 1985. "After Gihan's law: a new battle over women's rights," The Middle East, no. 121, 17-20 (June). Klomegah,' Rogers. 1997. "Socio-economic Characteristics of Ghanian Women in Polygynous Marriages," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (28) 1:73-88. Lee, Gary R. 1979. "Marital Structure and Economic Systems," Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:701-13. Lee, Gary R. and Les B. Whitebeck. 1990. "Economic Systems and Rates of Polygyny," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (21) 1:13-24. Mair, Lucy. 1971. Marriage. London: The Scholar Press. Meekers, Dominique and Nadra Franklin. 1995. "Women's Perceptions of Polygyny among the Kaguru of Tanzania," Ethnology 34(4): 135- 39. Moore, Henrietta L. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nelson, Cynthia. 1996. Doria Shafik, Egyptian Feminist: A Woman Apart. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.

113

Pastner, Carroll McC. 1980. "Access to Property and the Status of Women in Islam" in Jane I. Smith, ed., Women in Contemporary Muslim Societies. London: Bucknell University Press. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 950. African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. London: Oxford University Press. Richards, A. 1991. "Agricultural Employment, Wages and Government Policy during and after the Oil Boom" in Heba Handoussa and Gillian Potter, eds., Employment and Structural Adjustment: Egypt in the 1990s. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Saleh, Saneya. 1972. "Women in Islam: Their Status in Religious and Traditional culture," International Journal of Sociology of the Family (2)::1-8. Sanday, P. Reeves. 1981. Female Power and MaleDdominance: on the Origins of Sexual Inequality. London: Cambridge University Press. Schlegel, Alice. 1977. Sexual Stratification: A Cross Cultural View. New York: Columbia University Press. Toth, James. 1991. "Pride, Purdah, or Paychecks: What Maintains the Gender Division of Labor in Rural Egypt?" International Journal For Middle East Studies 23:213-236. White, Douglas R. and Michael L. Burton. 1988. "Causes of Polygyny: Ecology, economy, Kinship and Warfare," American Anthropologist 90:871-887.

114

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laila S. Shahd is anthropological researcher at the Social Research Center, The American University in Cairo. This research is based on her MA Thesis at the Sociology/Anthropology Department, the American University in Cairo.

115

This page intentionally left blank

CAIRO PAPERS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE 1 2 3 4 5

VOLUME ONE 1977-1978 *WOMEN, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Cynthia Nelson, ed. *DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT, Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, ed. MASS COMMUNICATIONS AND THE OCTOBER WAR, Olfat Hassan Agha *RURAL RESETTLEMENT IN EGYPT, Helmy Tadros *SAUDI ARABIAN BEDOUIN, Saad E. Ibrahim and Donald P. Cole

VOLUME TWO 1978-1979 1 *COPING WITH POVERTY IN A CAIRO COMMUNITY, Andrea B. Rugh 2 *MODERNIZATION OF LABOR IN THE ARAB GULF, Enid Hill 3 STUDIES IN EGYPTIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Herbert M. Thompson 4 *LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY EGYPT, Cynthia Nelson and Klaus Friedrich Koch, eds. 5 THE BRAIN DRAIN IN EGYPT, Saneya Saleh VOLUME THREE 1979-1980 1 *PARTY AND PEASANT IN SYRIA, Raymond Hinnebusch 2 *CHILD DEVELOPMENT IN EGYPT, Nicholas V. Ciaccio 3 "LIVING WITHOUT WATER, Asaad Nadim et. al. 4 EXPORT OF EGYPTIAN SCHOOL TEACHERS, Suzanne A. Messiha 5 *POPULATION AND URBANIZATION IN MOROCCO, Saad E.Ibrahim VOLUME FOUR 1980-1981 1 *CAIRO'S NUBIAN FAMILIES, Peter Geiser 2&3 *SYMPOSIUM ON SOCIAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT: PROCEEDINGS, Social Research Center 4 *WOMEN AND WORK IN THE ARAB WORLD, Earl L. Sullivan and Karima Korayem VOLUME FIVE 1982 GHAGAR OF SETT GUIRANHA: A STUDY OF A GYPSY COMMUNITY IN EGYPT, Nabil Sobhi Hanna 2 *DISTRIBUTION OF DISPOSAL INCOME AND THE IMPACT OF ELIMINATING FOOD SUBSIDIES IN EGYPT, Karima Korayem 3 *INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND BASIC NEEDS IN URBAN EGYPT, Amr Mohie El-Din 1

1 2 3 4

VOLUME SIX 1983 *THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF REVOLUTIONARY IRAN, Mihssen Kadhim *URBAN RESEARCH STRATEGIES IN EGYPT, Richard A. Lobban, ed. *NON-ALIGNMENT IN A CHANGING WORLD, Mohammed El-Sayed Selim, ed. *THE NATIONALIZATION OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC EDUCATION IN EGYPT: DAR AL-ALUM AND AL-AZHAR, Lois A. Arioan

1 2 3 4 *

VOLUME SEVEN 1984 *SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE FAMILY IN EGYPT, Helmi Tadros *BASIC NEEDS, INFLATION AND THE POOR OF EGYPT, Myrette El-Sokkary *THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ON EGYPT, Earl L. Sullivan, ed. IRRIGATION AND SOCIETY IN RURAL EGYPT, Sohair Mehanna, Richard Huntington and Rachad Antonius

VOLUME EIGHT 1985 1&2 ANALYTIC INDEX OF SURVEY RESEARCH IN EGYPT, Madiha El-Safty, Monte Palmer and Mark Kennedy 1 2

VOLUME NINE 1986 *PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS AND VIRTUOUS RULE, Charles E. Butterworth THE 'JIHAD': AN ISLAMIC ALTERNATIVE IN EGYPT, Nemat Guenena

3 4

*THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PALESTINIAN IDENTITY IN EGYPT, Maha A. Dajani *SOCIAL IDENTITY AND CLASS IN A CAIRO NEIGHBORHOOD, Nadia A. Taher

VOLUME TEN 1987 1 * AL-SANHURI AND ISLAMIC LAW, Enid Hill 2 *GONE FOR GOOD, Ralph Sell 3 THE CHANGING IMAGE OF WOMEN IN RURAL EGYPT, Mona Abaza 4 *INFORMAL COMMUNITIES IN CAIRO: THE BASIS OF A TYPOLOGY, Linda Oldham, Haguer El Hadidi, Hussein Tamaa 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

VOLUME ELEVEN 1988 *PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY IN EGYPTIAN NEW LANDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH TAHRIR, Nicholas Hopkins et. al. PALESTINIAN UNIVERSITIES UNDER OCCUPATION, Antony T. Sullivan LEGISLATING INFITAH : INVESTMENT, FOREIGN TRADE AND CURRENCY LAWS, Khaled M. Fahmy SOCIAL HISTORY OF AN AGRARIAN REFORM COMMUNITY IN EGYPT, Reem Saad VOLUME TWELVE 1989 *CAIRO'S LEAP FORWARD: PEOPLE, HOUSEHOLDS AND DWELLING SPACE, Fredric Shorter *WOMEN, WATER AND SANITATION: HOUSEHOLD WATER USE IN TWO EGYPTIAN VILLAGES, Samiha El-Katsha et. al PALESTINIAN LABOR IN A DEPENDENT ECONOMY: WOMEN WORKERS IN THE WEST BANK CLOTHING INDUSTRY, Randa Siniora THE OIL QUESTION IN EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS, 1967-1979: A STUDY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RESOURCE POLITICS, Karim Wissa VOLUME THIRTEEN 1990 *SQUATTER MARKETS IN CAIRO, Helmi R. Tadros, Mohamed Feteeha, Allen Hibbard THE SUB-CULTURE OF HASHISH USERS IN EGYPT: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTIC STUDY, Nashaat Hassan Hussein *SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND BUREAUCRATIC BEHAVIOR IN EGYPT, Earl L. Sullivan, El Sayed Yassin, Ali Leila, Monte Palmer *PRIVATIZATION: THE EGYPTIAN DEBATE, Mostafa Kamel El-Sayyid

VOLUME FOURTEEN 1991 1 *PERSPECTIVES ON THE GULF CRISIS, Dan Tschirgi and Bassam Tibi 2 *EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION: LIFE AMONG BEDOUIN WOMEN IN SOUTH SINAI, Deborah Wickering 3 IMPACT OF TEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ON RURAL EGYPT, Atef Hanna Nada 4 ""INFORMAL SECTOR IN EGYPT, Nicholas S. Hopkins ed. 1 2 3 4

1 2 3

VOLUME FIFTEEN, 1992 *SCENES OF SCHOOLING: INSIDE A GIRLS' SCHOOL IN CAIRO, Linda Herrera URBAN REFUGEES: ETHIOPIANS AND ERITREANS IN CAIRO, Dereck Cooper INVSTORS AND WORKERS IN THE WESTERN DESERT OF EGYPT: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY, Naeim Sherbiny, Donald Cole, Nadia Makary *ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES IN EGYPT AND THE WORLD, Nicholas S. Hopkins, ed. VOLUME SIXTEEN, 1993 *THE SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY: A CASE STUDY OF A CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN OPPOSITION PARTY, Hanaa Fikry Singer THE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN: WATER AND SANITATION INIATIVES IN RURAL EGYPT, Samiha el Katsha, Susan Watts THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN EGYPT: THIRD ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM

4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

*EXPERIMENTS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN A ZABBALEEN SETTLEMENT, Marie Assaad and Nadra Garas VOLUME SEVENTEEN, 1994 DEMOCRATIZATION IN RURAL EGYPT: A STUDY OF THE VILLAGE LOCAL POPULAR COUNCIL, Hanan Hamdy Radwan FARMERS AND MERCHANTS: BACKGROUND FOR STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN EGYPT, Sohair Mehanna, Nicholas S. Hopkins and Bahgat Abdelmaksoud HUMAN RIGHTS: EGYPT AND THE ARAB WORLD, FOURTH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS IN EGYPT: PERCEPTIONS AND ACTIONS, Salwa S. Gomaa, ed. VOLUME EIGHTEEN, 1995 SOCIAL POLICY IN THE ARAB WORLD, Jacqueline Ismael & Tareq Y. Ismael WORKERS, TRADE UNION AND THE STATE IN EGYPT: 1984-1989, Omar ElShafie THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN EGYPT: ECONOMICS, HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY; FIFTH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT, STABILIZATION POLICIES AND THE POOR IN EGYPT, Karima Korayem VOLUME NINETEEN, 1996 NILOPOLITICS: A HYDROLOGICAL REGIME, 1870-1990, Mohamed Hatem elAtawy *IMAGES OF THE OTHER: EUROPE AND THE MUSLIM WORLD BEFORE 1700, David R. Blanks et al. *GRASS ROOTS PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EGYPT, Saad Eddin Ibrahim et al THE ZABBALIN COMMUNITY OF MUQATTAM, Elena Volpi and Doaa Abdel Motaal VOLUME TWENTY, 1997 CLASS, FAMILY AND POWER IN AN EGYPTIAN VILLAGE, Samer elKaranshawy THE MIDDLE EAST AND DEVELOPMENT IN A CHANGING WORLD, Donald Heisel, ed. ARAB REGIONAL WOMEN'S STUDIES WORKSHOP, Cynthia Nelson and Soraya Altorki, eds. "JUST A GAZE": FEMALE CLIENTELE OF DIET CLINICS IN CAIRO:AN ETHNOMEDICAL STUDY, Iman Farid Bassyouny VOLUME TWENTY-ONE, 1998 TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE GULF WAR OF 1990-1991, Mostafa Aydin STAE AND INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM IN EGYPT, Samer Soliman TWENTY YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT IN EGYPT (1977-1997): PART I, Mark C. Kennedy TWENTY YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT IN EGYPT (1977-1997): PART II, Mark C. Kennedy VOLUME TWENTY-TWO, 1999 POVERTY AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRATEGIES IN EGYPT, Ragui Assaad and Malak Rouchdy BETWEEN FIELD AND TEXT: EMERGING VOICES IN EGYPTIAN SOCIAL SCIENE, Seteney Shami and Linda Hererra, eds. MASTERS OF THE TRADE: CRAFTS AND CRAFTSPEOPLE IN CAIRO, 1750-1850, Pascale Ghazaleh DISCOURCES IN CONTEMPORARY EGYPT: POLITICS AND SOCIAL ISSUES, Enid Hill, ed.

1 2 3 4

VOLUME TWENTY-THREE, 2000 FISCAL POLICY MEASURES IN EGYPT: PUBLIC DEBT AND FOOD SUBSIDY, Gouda Abdel-Khalek and Karima Korayem NEW FRONTIERS IN THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST, Enid Hill, ed. EGYPTIAN ENCOUNTERS, Jason Thompson, ed. WOMEN'S PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN EGYPT, Eman El Ramly VOLUME TWENTY-FOUR, 2001

1&2 THE NEW ARAB FAMILY, Nicholas S. Hopkins, ed.

currently out of print

. (The Chicago Manual of Style)