Pious Women Challenge Arrangements Anchored in the Dominancy of the Religious Discourse: Druze Women in Israel as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This project focused on Druze religious women in Israel and examined how they challenge the boundaries in their ultra-religious community in a way that helps them get access to education and employment. While doing so, the author/s argue, they change the existing definitions of what is considered religious, traditional, modern and secular. I do recommend publishing with minor revisions. 

 

Minor comments:

-          At the end of page 5 the author mentions:” The Arab-Druze community in Israel includes around 147,000 people…” and then mentions that “…Most of them (81%) are centered in the Northern District, while the rest (19%) reside in Haifa District”. I’d recommend adding the special status of the Druze in the Golan Heights. Also, please note that the number of Druze in Israel, 147 thousand, does include the Druze of the Golan Heights.

-          I wonder about the potential exposure of the identity of your participants. As the author might already know, the respective communities are small, and there is a large extent of familiarity between people. Giving the reader the age, family status, level of religiosity, and area of study or area of employment could be enough for members of the community to recognize what each of the interviewees has said. I wonder if that could pose any of them at any risk and if the author would better take additional measures to protect the anonymity of the participants.

 

-          Comment 6 on page 10 is not accurate. There are many publications in English, French, German, and other languages who try to interpret the Druze scriptures.

There are a few places that need more attention for English clarity

Author Response

July 16, 2023

To the Assigned Editor

Evelyn Zeng

Religions Journal

 

Attached please find my manuscript entitled: "Pious Women Challenge Arrangements Anchored in the Dominancy of the Religious Discourse: Druze Women in Israel as a Case Study (Manuscript ID religions-2447050.R1), which, as you suggested, I have revised and hereby resubmit for publication. I would like to thank the reviewers for their important comments, which enabled me to improve my MS.

Please find below the original comments of reviewer 1 marked in black, and my point-by-point answers to each marked in blue.

 

Reviewer 1 Comments to Author:

 

Review 1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

This project focused on Druze religious women in Israel and examined how they challenge the boundaries in their ultra-religious community in a way that helps them get access to education and employment. While doing so, the author/s argue, they change the existing definitions of what is considered religious, traditional, modern and secular. I do recommend publishing with minor revisions. 

 

Minor comments:

-          At the end of page 5 the author mentions:” The Arab-Druze community in Israel includes around 147,000 people…” and then mentions that “…Most of them (81%) are centered in the Northern District, while the rest (19%) reside in Haifa District”. I’d recommend adding the special status of the Druze in the Golan Heights. Also, please note that the number of Druze in Israel, 147 thousand, does include the Druze of the Golan Heights.

Following this comment, I added names of the different areas in each district, and in addition, I added a sentence as a footnote (No. 5) describing the situation of the occupied Golan Heights.

-          I wonder about the potential exposure of the identity of your participants. As the author might already know, the respective communities are small, and there is a large extent of familiarity between people. Giving the reader the age, family status, level of religiosity, and area of study or area of employment could be enough for members of the community to recognize what each of the interviewees has said. I wonder if that could pose any of them at any risk and if the author would better take additional measures to protect the anonymity of the participants.

Following this comment, I deleted some of the participants' information: their age, marital status and field of study.

-          Comment 6 on page 10 is not accurate. There are many publications in English, French, German, and other languages who try to interpret the Druze scriptures.

It is true that there are publications in English, French, German, and other languages that try to interpret the Druze scriptures, but these interpretations are insignificant among the Druze society in the Middle East and in the diaspora (See footnote no. 10).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few places that need more attention for English clarity

Following this comment, a linguistic expert linguistically edited the article.

Thank you for allowing me to revise and resubmit the paper to a Religions Journal. I considered and followed all of the reviewers' comments and insights. I hope that you will find my revised version clearer and a better fit for the journal than the first version.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses an important but under researched topic, at least by women researchers belonging to this minority group. The following are some comments that could help clarify some points in the article:

1. The text needs a linguistic proofreading.

2. While the paper focuses on Druze women in Israel, only in the middle of the second page, the author refers to Israel. This should be clarified from page one.

3. I think is easier for the reader if author uses the term “Druze women” after explaining at the very beginning that the term refers to Arab/Palestinian Druze women in Israel.

4. At the bottom of page 2, the author conflates being a practicing religious Druze with being a Druze, these are two different things but the author’s formulation does not capture this difference.

5. When the author discusses religious bans in page 6, she should clarify that a religious ban does not exclude the person from the community as whole, it only excludes them from certain religious rituals, or other forms of worship. The author does that briefly later on, but I think she needs to do it in page 6.

The author needs to clarify more the difference between “traditional” and “religious” and say something on whether a third option is becoming more available.

6. It is not clear what the author means with “non-Arab-Druze” in page 10.

7. In page 11, I am not sure that the feeling of estrangement experienced by Druze women as a result of being forced to go to another Hilwe is comparable to the of estrangement experienced by women who move to another village due to marriage. The former is a completely different form of estrangement given the intimate connection between religious convictions and the individual’s conception of a good life.   

8. There is a missing link in the article. We are told that if religious Druze women want to pursue higher education, they suffer from a religious ban which is temporary, the author needs to clarify what temporary mean, does it cover only the years of study? Or temporary could become permanent if the woman decides to work after graduating? Does this depend on the working environment? If the rationale for excommunicating religious women for studying is the lack of gender segregation in schools, would this change if those women choose women’s educational institutions?

9. The paragraph on Babkom employment practices (p. 13) does not contribute much to the discussed issue, I suggest the author links it better to her study or simply remove it.

10. It would have been interesting to know if some religious women decide not to come back to their religious communities after completing their higher education.

11. The author refers to the intersectionality framework, however, she does not reflect much on the segregation of Druze from the rest of the Palestinian community in Israel, did this policy exacerbate patriarchal structures in the Druze society? Dis it create an identity crisis that negatively impacted the status of Druze women? Did cutting off Druze women from Palestinian women in general diminished their space for resistance or the space of solidarity?  Did it increase their vulnerability?

12. One final comment, it would have been interesting to learn if these educated women use their education as a tool to develop new channels for resistance once they join back their religious communities. 

The text needs a linguistic proofreading.

Author Response

July 16, 2023

To the Assigned Editor

Evelyn Zeng

Religions Journal

 

Attached please find my manuscript entitled: "Pious Women Challenge Arrangements Anchored in the Dominancy of the Religious Discourse: Druze Women in Israel as a Case Study (Manuscript ID religions-2447050.R1), which, as you suggested, I have revised and hereby resubmit for publication. I would like to thank the reviewers for their important comments, which enabled me to improve my MS.

Please find below the original comments of the reviewer 1 marked in black, and my point-by-point answers to each marked in blue.

 

Reviewer 2 Comments to Author:

 

Review 2

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
(x) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses an important but under researched topic, at least by women researchers belonging to this minority group. The following are some comments that could help clarify some points in the article:

1. The text needs a linguistic proofreading.

Following this comment, the article was linguistically proofread.

 

2. While the paper focuses on Druze women in Israel, only in the middle of the second page, the author refers to Israel. This should be clarified from page one.

Following this comment, l clarified that the paper focuses on Druze women in Israel on page one, as well as in the abstract.

3. I think is easier for the reader if author uses the term “Druze women” after explaining at the very beginning that the term refers to Arab/Palestinian Druze women in Israel.

 

Thank you for this comment. Following this comment, I added a footnote (No. 1) explaining that the term "Druze women" refers to Arab/Palestinian Druze women in Israel.

 

4. At the bottom of page 2, the author conflates being a practicing religious Druze with being a Druze, these are two different things but the author’s formulation does not capture this difference.

 

The case I describe at the bottom of page 2 actually describes how religious leaders try to instill religious behavior patterns and laws not only among religious women but also among non-religious women by imposing a religious ban on religious parents. As I mentioned, until the end of the 1990s, the clergy would impose a religious ban on religious parents if their non-religious daughter studied at the academia or driving a car.

5. When the author discusses religious bans in page 6, she should clarify that a religious ban does not exclude the person from the community as whole, it only excludes them from certain religious rituals, or other forms of worship. The author does that briefly later on, but I think she needs to do it in page 6.

The author needs to clarify more the difference between “traditional” and “religious” and say something on whether a third option is becoming more available.

Following this comment, l clarified that the religious bans exclude the person from certain religious rituals or other forms of worship; (see pages 5-6 and footnote no. 7).

Also, I further clarified the difference between “traditional” and “religious” in footnote no. 9.

6. It is not clear what the author means with “non-Arab-Druze” in page 10.

Following this comment, I rephrase the sentence to: " for both Druze and others" (p. 11)

 

7. In page 11, I am not sure that the feeling of estrangement experienced by Druze women as a result of being forced to go to another Hilweis comparable to the of estrangement experienced by women who move to another village due to marriage. The former is a completely different form of estrangement given the intimate connection between religious convictions and the individual’s conception of a good life.

 

Feelings and emotions can be in different scales. While the sense of estrangement of women who moved to their husband's village after their marriage is different in scale from that felt by Druze pious women who were interviewed, I still believe the two types of cases are on the same scale and should be mentioned in the same context. According to culture theoretician, Sara Ahmed (2014), feelings are cultural practices more than they are psychological conditions. Ahmed writes about feelings that, in some sense, exist between people and not within them, while offering some sort of social cohesive material, which ties communities together while leaving others outside. The sense of estrangement between the two groups, both Palestinian women who move to their husband's village and religious women who transfer between Hilwes, is generated by their lack of belonging to the village or Hilwe.    

 

8. There is a missing link in the article. We are told that if religious Druze women want to pursue higher education, they suffer from a religious ban which is temporary, the author needs to clarify what temporary mean, does it cover only the years of study? Or temporary could become permanent if the woman decides to work after graduating? Does this depend on the working environment? If the rationale for excommunicating religious women for studying is the lack of gender segregation in schools, would this change if those women choose women’s educational institutions?

 

Following this comment, l clarified what temporary means, as well as the rationale for excommunicating religious women from studying; (see page 10).

 

9. The paragraph on Babkom employment practices (p. 13) does not contribute much to the discussed issue, I suggest the author links it better to her study or simply remove it.

 

Following this comment, I rewrote the paragraph on Babkom employment practices (p. 13- 14).

 

10. It would have been interesting to know if some religious women decide not to come back to their religious communities after completing their higher education.

 

Following this comment, l added in p. 9:  "After completing their education, all of the women rejoined the religious group and continued to maintain a religious lifestyle."

 

The author refers to the intersectionality framework, however, she does not reflect much on the segregation of Druze from the rest of the Palestinian community in Israel, did this policy exacerbate patriarchal structures in the Druze society? Dis it create an identity crisis that negatively impacted the status of Druze women? Did cutting off Druze women from Palestinian women in general diminished their space for resistance or the space of solidarity?  Did it increase their vulnerability?

 

Thank you for this comment, in p. 4, I explained how the state policy of   "divide and conquer” controls Druze community through its religious leadership, which is composed solely of religious men. I also explained how this policy isolates Druze women from Muslim and Christian Palestinian women and blocks the possibility of cooperation between them in various issues. For example, the confrontation of Palestinian women as a collective with the state that discriminates against them and their confrontation with male patriarchy in culture.

Nevertheless, the questions and doubts you raised in the comment require extensive research.

12. One final comment, it would have been interesting to learn if these educated women use their education as a tool to develop new channels for resistance once they join back their religious communities. 

Thank you for this comment; following it, I am considering doing further research on the subject.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language- The text needs a linguistic proofreading.

  Following this comment, a linguistic expert linguistically edited the article.

 

Thank you for allowing me to revise and resubmit the paper to a Religions Journal. I considered and followed all of the reviewer 2 comments and insights. I hope that you will find my revised version clearer and a better fit for the journal than the first version.

 

I look forward to your response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting article which deals with a rarely studied female minority – Arab-Druze women in Israel. It offers a qualitative study that sheds light on women’s participation in the workplace and the ways in which they reconcile religious rules with the pursuit of higher education. The article is theoretically grounded and its findings are empirically solid.

However, the following comments should be addressed prior to its publication:

Deficiencies in the presentation of the theoretical framework: There should be a tighter connection between the theoretical literature about female agency in general, and that of religious women in particular, and between the analysis of the case study.  Moreover, the article should focus and elaborate more on the theoretical literature that directly relates to the crux of the article – the agency of religious women in the context of the marketplace. This is all the more significant given that “the study of the agency of ultra-religious women in the labor market… is still at an early stage” (page 1).

The roadmap of the article should be clearer and describe what the article does in each of its chapters.

Page 7 – the division between religious and nonreligous community members, and then the internal division within the religious group betwen pious and traditional members is essential in order to define the article’s studied group. This discussion must thus appear already in the introduction and not at this late stage.

A “conclusion” section which ends the article is missing.  The lack of this indispensable part may be accountable for a major flaw of the article: it is unclear how the present article contributes to the wider literature and what its broader implications are beyond its local importance (i.e., furthering our understanding of the intersectional vulnerability of religious Arab-Druze women). The discussion section focuses entirely on the case study and does not attempt to tie together the current literature and the article’s findings. This crucial point must be more meticulously delineated.   

The religious women who were interviewed were either pious (13) or traditional (7). I thus suggest that the article’s title would be changed from “pious” to “religious” to more accurately reflect the article’s subjects of inquiry. Relatedly, one of the women is described as “relatively pious.” Is this a matter of degree? How does one measure piousness? How does the level of piousness affect the article’s findings?

Regarding methodology: a major issue that must be addressed is the measures implemented to preserve the privacy of the informants. It is not even clear whether the names used are real names or pseudonym. Moreover, some of the employers are explicitly mentioned, a detail that may easily expose the identity of the woman involved. All efforts must be made in order to maintain the anonymity of the informants.

Page 14 – the concluding paragraph mentions that women sometimes may give up their ability to work altogether. However this conclusion is not supported by the article’s findings.

It seems that oft-times the article posits a prior knowledge of the Druze community and its internal rules. The author should clarify quite a few issues in order to make the article intelligible to a wider audience. Here are a few examples:

 It is unclear what it means for women to be “often excluded from their religious affiliation” (p.6).

It is unclear what the nature and consequences of “casting a religious ban” and what the meaning of its “acceptance” by the women is.  This is a pivotal finding and it must be made fully comprehensible for the reader.

In the same page, it is stated that in most cases the leaders would cast a religious ban on the mother (and not the father). The reasoning for this gendered practice needs to be provided.

Page 7: the article provides information about Muslim and Druze women’s participation rate in the labor force, but inexplicably fails to refer to Christian women who are also part of the Arab-Palestinian minority.

Page 9:  the reader learns that some women joined the religious group when they were young. Don’t minors automatically belong to their parents’ group? This issue is not self-evident and needs to be explained.

p. 10: “their insistence…. marks borders for both Arab Druze and non-Arab Druze.” This is the first time that non-Arab Druze are mentioned. This begs the question of the differences and similarities between these two categories. It also calls into question the author’s choice to focus on Arab-Druze women and not also on non-Arab Druze women. This choice needs to be justified.

The author refers several times to the mahram problem/issue – it is unclear what this means.

p. 15 – “challenge the perceptions that describe these women as compliant….” – this is the first time that these perceptions are mentioned. What is the source of these perceptions – scholarly perceptions? Conventional wisdom?

One last issue that was unclear to me – do all the women work in their local village or do some of them also work in mixed cities and for Jewish employers? If so, how does their experience, challenges, and coping strategies vary from the experience of women who work for Arab-Druze employers?

Please go over the text to eliminate grammatical and spelling errors

Author Response

July 16, 2023

To the Assigned Editor

Evelyn Zeng

Religions Journal

 

Attached please find my manuscript entitled: "Pious Women Challenge Arrangements Anchored in the Dominancy of the Religious Discourse: Druze Women in Israel as a Case Study (Manuscript ID religions-2447050.R1), which, as you suggested, I have revised and hereby resubmit for publication. I would like to thank the reviewers for their important comments, which enabled me to improve my MS.

Please find below the original comments of reviewer 3 marked in black, and my point-by-point answers to each marked in blue.

 

Reviewer 3

Comments to Author:

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
(x) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting article which deals with a rarely studied female minority – Arab-Druze women in Israel. It offers a qualitative study that sheds light on women’s participation in the workplace and the ways in which they reconcile religious rules with the pursuit of higher education. The article is theoretically grounded and its findings are empirically solid.

However, the following comments should be addressed prior to its publication:

Deficiencies in the presentation of the theoretical framework: There should be a tighter connection between the theoretical literature about female agency in general, and that of religious women in particular, and between the analysis of the case study.  Moreover, the article should focus and elaborate more on the theoretical literature that directly relates to the crux of the article – the agency of religious women in the context of the marketplace. This is all the more significant given that “the study of the agency of ultra-religious women in the labor market… is still at an early stage” (page 1).

 

Following this comment, I rewrote part of the section about "Agency, Gender, Religion and Nationality" (p. 6-7)

The roadmap of the article should be clearer and describe what the article does in each of its chapters.

Following this comment, I added a paragraph that briefly describes the content of the different chapters (p. 3-4).

Page 7 – the division between religious and nonreligous community members, and then the internal division within the religious group betwen pious and traditional members is essential in order to define the article’s studied group. This discussion must thus appear already in the introduction and not at this late stage.

Following this comment, I made a change in the chapters and moved the part about "Druze women in Israel: Gender, religion, and career" to the forefront of the theoretical background, immediately after the "introduction" chapter (P. 4-8)

A “conclusion” section which ends the article is missing.  The lack of this indispensable part may be accountable for a major flaw of the article: it is unclear how the present article contributes to the wider literature and what its broader implications are beyond its local importance (i.e., furthering our understanding of the intersectional vulnerability of religious Arab-Druze women). The discussion section focuses entirely on the case study and does not attempt to tie together the current literature and the article’s findings. This crucial point must be more meticulously delineated.   

Thank you for this comment. Following this comment, I added a paragraph to clarify the contributions of this article to wider literature and its broader implications beyond its local importance:

"The current study contributes to research that examines religious societies in their constant struggle against modernity. Specifically, an intersectional framing of the women's experiences enables the analysis of discrimination and inequality to focus on the experiences of those women and to highlight the fact that discrimination often occurs in multiple dimensions. The research clarifies how these intersections develop capacity for agency among minority women who choose to be religious, educated and financially independent. (p. 16)."

The religious women who were interviewed were either pious (13) or traditional (7). I thus suggest that the article’s title would be changed from “pious” to “religious” to more accurately reflect the article’s subjects of inquiry. Relatedly, one of the women is described as “relatively pious.” Is this a matter of degree? How does one measure piousness? How does the level of piousness affect the article’s findings?

 

Following this comment, I added a footnote to clarify how the degree of religiosity is measured.  (Footnote no. 11).

Regarding methodology: a major issue that must be addressed is the measures implemented to preserve the privacy of the informants. It is not even clear whether the names used are real names or pseudonym. Moreover, some of the employers are explicitly mentioned, a detail that may easily expose the identity of the woman involved. All efforts must be made in order to maintain the anonymity of the informants.

Following this comment, I added a paragraph that refers to the ethical issue. (p. 9)

Regarding the second part of the comment, I made every effort in order to maintain the anonymity of the informants.

Page 14 – the concluding paragraph mentions that women sometimes may give up their ability to work altogether. However this conclusion is not supported by the article’s findings.

It seems that oft-times the article posits a prior knowledge of the Druze community and its internal rules. The author should clarify quite a few issues in order to make the article intelligible to a wider audience. Here are a few examples:

 It is unclear what it means for women to be “often excluded from their religious affiliation” (p.6).

Following this comment, I added a sentence that clarifies the meaning of being "excluded from their religious affiliation" (see pages 5-6 and footnote no. 7).

It is unclear what the nature and consequences of “casting a religious ban” and what the meaning of its “acceptance” by the women is.  This is a pivotal finding and it must be made fully comprehensible for the reader.

Following this comment, I added a footnote. (no. 7)

In the same page, it is stated that in most cases the leaders would cast a religious ban on the mother (and not the father). The reasoning for this gendered practice needs to be provided.

Following this comment, I rewrote the sentence "…. In most cases, only the mothers of those single (non-religious) women were religious (the fathers are not religious), and most of the mothers accepted the ban"

Page 7: the article provides information about Muslim and Druze women’s participation rate in the labor force, but inexplicably fails to refer to Christian women who are also part of the Arab-Palestinian minority.

Following this comment, I added data about Christian women and men's participation rates in the labor force. (p.5)

Page 9:  the reader learns that some women joined the religious group when they were young. Don’t minors automatically belong to their parents’ group? This issue is not self-evident and needs to be explained.

Following this comment, I added a footnote to explain the issue about the choice to join the religious group. (Footnote no. 4).

1. 10: “their insistence…. marks borders for both Arab Druze and non-Arab Druze.” This is the first time that non-Arab Druze are mentioned. This begs the question of the differences and similarities between these two categories. It also calls into question the author’s choice to focus on Arab-Druze women and not also on non-Arab Druze women. This choice needs to be justified.

Following this comment, I reworded the sentence to: "..." for both Druze and others" (p. 11).

The author refers several times to the mahram problem/issue – it is unclear what this means.

Following this comment, I have clarified the meaning of the term Mahram (p.2)

1. 15 – “challenge the perceptions that describe these women as compliant….” – this is the first time that these perceptions are mentioned. What is the source of these perceptions – scholarly perceptions? Conventional wisdom?

Scholars often perceive these women as compliant.

Following this comment, I reworded the sentence. (p. 16)

 

One last issue that was unclear to me – do all the women work in their local village or do some of them also work in mixed cities and for Jewish employers? If so, how does their experience, challenges, and coping strategies vary from the experience of women who work for Arab-Druze employers?

Religious women are obliged to work in a Druze environment (in Druze villages) because of the Mahram problem. I do not know of any religious Druze women who physically work outside the village. Recently, the model of "remote work" has been developing, which may suit religious Druze women. In the next study, I will examine the issue; I will examine the challenges facing religious women in a virtual work environment.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language- Please go over the text to eliminate grammatical and spelling errors

Following this comment, a linguistic expert linguistically edited the article.

 

Thank you for allowing me to revise and resubmit the paper to a Religions Journal. I considered and followed all of the reviewer 3 comments and insights. I hope that you will find my revised version clearer and a better fit for the journal than the first version.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions are satisfactory.