Skip to content


One such is the recent story of the marriage registrar, or more accurately the woman who wished to be a marriage registrar.

She was refused the job because at times — during menstruation say — she would not be able to enter the mosque and therefore would not be able to work.

My own answer to this would be to appoint her along with the instruction that she should give warning, in advance, of her period.

Those who would use that mosque, or those mosques, for their marriages, would then have to wait and much good it will do them to face their prejudices.

But then I am not noted for the delicacy with which I approach religious questions.

10 thoughts on “Elsewhere”

  1. “My own answer to this would be to appoint her along with the instruction that she should give warning, in advance, of her period”.
    No, nothing to do with anyone other than herself, so tell the ropers that if they do not accept her( or indeed, any other person who may identify as a woman & may or may not menstruate) the mosque will be closed down.
    Once you begin to entertain ANYTHING they request, they have you and you are fucked.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    I think it is unacceptable to demand a woman inform the world of her period, or lack thereof, in order to do her job. But on the other hand I think that people ought to make reasonable allowances for other people’s beliefs. As long as those are not delusional.

    My preferred solution would be for women to stay home and not work in these sorts of jobs. For which they are unsuited.

    After all, Islam is right about women. On the whole.

  3. I suppose that a female registrar who is Muslim might think it wrong to enter a mosque at that time of month. But a female registrar who is not Muslim? Given the source of the story (the Dhaka Tribune) I’m guessing that women were not involved in making the decision.

  4. The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919:

    “A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise), …”

  5. @Dearieme That one holds for the secular world ( and even then there’s ways around it..). The priests have always ensured they and their little foibles are an exemption…

  6. Dearieme,

    Yet it was common practice until at least the 1960s for female members of a (then overwhelmingly) female-dominated profession regulated by a chartered body, in the employment of government local or national, to need matron’s permission to marry, and to return to work thereafter.

  7. This was interesting. Apparently there’s an indian legal principal of compensating the family for the value of an accident victim’s lost wages. And if that victim was engaged in unpaid work, e.g. a housewife, this would be according to the opportunity cost i.e if they had gone out to work. Seems a reasonable extension given money is really the only tool in the legal compensation box, so a device to monetise a non monetary loss is not unusual and hey look opportunity cost was mentioned in a BBC article!. However of course that’s now been hijacked to say why only pay housewives when they’re dead! 🙁

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *