Treatment of women in Saudi Arabia

[Warman17]

tl;dr

tententen

 

[Greizer85]

I read the (rotten) meat of it... Although I'm Finnish, I say we bomb. No more, no less; no fuss, no mess. (j/k) Seriously, when it comes to real physical suffering, political correctness is one of the most offensive things there is. If your 'culture' says women = puke, then it is a culture that deserves to be put to sleep like the sick puppy it is. I am reminded of a quote by a historical soulmate of mine, one Charles Napier:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

(How do you do that "Originally posted by x"-thing?)

 

[Bill3000]

I am reminded of a quote by a historical soulmate of mine, one Charles Napier:

The cute thing is that it was exemplified those women as heroic women and moral exemplars by European artists in the eighteenth century. The attitudes changed only once the European powers became imperialist powers within India.

(I am, of course, not disputing the objective immorality of the act.)

 

[aelf]

In what sense? I've seen political correctness being used more as an excuse for moral relativism ("everyone has different values therefore all values are equally valid therefore we should tolerate them") as opposed to objectivity.

The trouble is to decide who is right. In an environment where people might be better served by cooperation than conflict and division, political correctness in striving for objectivity in principle might be warranted. Like I said, that doesn't excuse relativism. We can keep the two apart by looking at the context. Unless you prefer a GWB style of black-and-white.

 

[Greizer85]

The cute thing is that it was exemplified those women as heroic women and moral exemplars by European artists in the eighteenth century. The attitudes changed only once the European powers became imperialist powers within India.

(I am, of course, not disputing the objective immorality of the act.)

I like to think of myself as a romantic in the old sense of the word; it is a romantic, if foolish act (as most romantic things are) if done voluntarily; that includes being free of indoctrination. It is nothing short of evil if forced upon somebody, brainwashed or not, male or female.

Edit: 'heroic' isn't the right word; 'romantic' seems a better fit.

 

[aelf]

Although I'm Finnish, I say we bomb. No more, no less; no fuss, no mess. (j/k) Seriously, when it comes to real physical suffering, political correctness is one of the most offensive things there is. If your 'culture' says women = puke, then it is a culture that deserves to be put to sleep like the sick puppy it is.

Okay, go invade... ahem, liberate then. Maybe you can be GWB's drinking buddy.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I read the (rotten) meat of it... Although I'm Finnish, I say we bomb. No more, no less; no fuss, no mess. (j/k) Seriously, when it comes to real physical suffering, political correctness is one of the most offensive things there is. If your 'culture' says women = puke, then it is a culture that deserves to be put to sleep like the sick puppy it is. I am reminded of a quote by a historical soulmate of mine, one Charles Napier:
(How do you do that "Originally posted by x"-thing?)

It is one thing to consider their culture or some aspects of it as a "sick puppy", it is however a whole different issue to think that it gives you the right to impose your own values onto them. If a conservative majority wins the election in the US, outlaw abortion to the point of considering it as "child killing" as some already considers it, you won't see many European supporting the US invading Europe to stop the "Baby Genocide"

 

[Greizer85]

It is one thing to consider their culture or some aspects of it as a "sick puppy", it is however a whole different issue to think that it gives you the right to impose your own values onto them. If a conservative majority wins the election in the US, outlaw abortion to the point of considering it as "child killing" as some already considers it, you won't see many European supporting the US invading Europe to stop the "Baby Genocide"

Here is an interesting question: how can someone 'impose' freedom on someone else? I never said that invasion is the solution (I only joked about it); it would cause even more suffering, at least in the short term, than keeping of the status quo. It is my view that these people simply don't know what is best for them... At least many of their women, who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that God wants them to be stupid and that freedom is bad for them. I'm sure their men understand the perks of their 'freedoms' quite well...

I never claimed that I have a real solution to abusive cultures... Invasions touch on many more issues than the 'sexual angle'; I never claimed that their whole culture was bad but the culture regarding women. Although the sense of humor of the islamic people could sure use some jazzing-up, what with them getting their panties in a twist over cartoons and all that. In short, people should leave the smiting for their God(s) to administer as they see fit, and let men and women go about their business on this good Earth as if it is nobody elses (and in my view it sure isn't).

Edit: As long as nobody is hurt.

 

[fugazi]

I agree, but perhaps it is because Westerners tend to speak their mind more that I have more experience with them doing so. Besides, it probably also has to do with the liberal tradition and such philosophical background including Christianity.



Political correctness demands that pretty much everyone gets a vote. Before you criticise an international organisation, look into the mirror. Unless you're a real life troll and douche, you're most likely going to subscribe to a lot of political correctness. It's not wrong. It's just necessary, and in this case necessary if there's going to be any possible objectivity through a plurality of values.

Of course that doesn't give an excuse for relativism. But you can't look to an organisation with a role like the UN to be decisive here.

You do not have the moral highground here. Everybody who reads a book or two about the origins of the UN knows why and how it came to be as it is and it surely wasn't meant to be a world platform for democracy. It was an extension of the power of the big three at that time, and it still serves the same purpose for the big countries now. It's a powertool and nothing more than that.

 

[aelf]

You do not have the moral highground here. Everybody who reads a book or two about the origins of the UN knows why and how it came to be as it is and it surely wasn't meant to be a world platform for democracy. It was an extension of the power of the big three at that time, and it still serves the same purpose for the big countries now. It's a powertool and nothing more than that.

I don't care about having the moral high ground here. That seems to be more of your concern.

Since when did I claim that the UN is a world platform for democracy? It does, however, provide some sort of middle ground where all countries can air their views. Can it be perfect? By its own necessary structure, no. But it is a leap from the League of Nations or anything before it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Don't underestimate the Atabian women:

 

[Formaldehyde]

It does, however, provide some sort of middle ground where all countries can air their views. Can it be perfect? By its own necessary structure, no. But it is a leap from the League of Nations or anything before it.

Indeed. I can never understand all the UN bashing, especially from people in the US. After all, it was largely created to bring peace and prosperity to the rest of the world after WWII. Instead of engaging in endless wars, the idea was to be able to resolve conflicts in a peaceful, rational, and adult manner. Who can possibly object to that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/01/unclesamtheundeadbeat

Congress won't pay the UN the money it promised - and wonders why the US loses influence abroad. And the presidential candidates are silent about it.

Between John Bolton and Iraq, it is not difficult to find reasons why America's diplomatic currency is plunging along with the dollar. But another reason has nothing to with the White House - but the congressional circus's latest performance.

At a time when the US is proposing and voting for UN peacekeeping operations on a huge scale, and when its new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is trying to foist more responsibility for Iraq on the organisation, the US is running a tab of almost $1bn in arrears with the UN - and that will increase even more by the end of the year based on the latest amounts budgeted by Congress.

In effect, the Capitol Hill circus has ignored an intricate compromise crafted by the former US Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, under which the other 190 members agreed to accept the unilateral congressional calculations, wink at a substantial amount of arrears, and to reduce the percentage paid by the US in future from 33% to 27%.

Ted Turner agreed to sweeten the deal for the General Assembly by paying off some of the US arrears himself, but the clincher was the now-broken promise from the US to pay off the arrears and to pay promptly in future.

But Congress ratted on the deal, and has maintained a 25% cap on contributions, even though the other members agreed to reduce the US assessment again from last year, to 26%, which is why the US is again running up massive arrears - massive that is to the UN.

In fact, the sum that Congress is sitting on is the equivalent of two days of Pentagon spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one-tenth of the amount of the UN oil-for-food surplus that the US took for reconstruction in Iraq and still cannot account for.

The US general accounting office studied UN peacekeeping and found it was one-eighth of the cost of using US forces - even if one discounts the Pentagon being otherwise engaged at the moment, surging and losing in Iraq. Partly at the urging of the same Congressional geniuses, the US has pushed the UN into a massive expansion of peacekeepers in Lebanon, and wants an even bigger expansion into Darfur, in addition to supporting new and renewed operations ranging from Haiti to East Timor.

For an interesting contrast in how American politicians look at foreign affairs, one only has to contrast the total agreement of almost every presidential question to contribute to the Jerusalem Post on their (favorable) attitude to Israel with their almost equally total silence on the United Nations on which any successful candidate will have to rely for dealing with foreign countries.

So far, Joe Biden is the honourable (in this instance, at least) exception, who has publicly called for the arrears to be paid. It makes diplomatic sense for a nation to honour its pledges, but sadly the other candidates do not think it makes political sense to talk about it. Presumably they assume that it will get them few extra votes, while getting the assorted America-firsters and Likudniks on their case.

Since the candidates now have half a year of trawling around pressing the flesh, perhaps some of the more far-sighted voters can put them on the spot. For more background on the questions they could ask, the Better World Foundation is attempting to stir up some interest. Perhaps voters could thank the UN for refusing to endorse the invasion of Iraq by telling their representatives to pay up.

 

[Greizer85]

Hello, just returned from watching The Watchmen. Excellent movie, and quite fitting for the evening.

Don't underestimate the Arabian women:

Spoiler :

That's a nice cartoon. I am reminded of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkDxF2kn1I

Humor is the first thing that's banned under any sort of fascism; if you let some people laugh at you, how can you expect others to take you seriously? Tyranny that can be laughed at is democracy hatching. I heard that people did laugh at Hitler's gestures and appearance even in the beginning of the 30's, even in Germany, but they were of course quickly silenced. Nowadays, I should hope, no one would take him seriously. Well, not too many people anyway. Perhaps if he saved the economy.


You cannot impose freedoms, nor can you liberate someone through fascism. Freedom from freedom is an oxymoron, just as much as a tyranny of liberties. Freedom is the highest value since it gives you access to all the others (except, of course, the violation of itself with regards to others). That much is clear in my opinion, and everyone with a good brain in their head. The problem is that, I suspect, the treatment of women as inferior is such an integral part of the current Saudi-Arabian culture, that uprooting that part would kill the whole plant, so to speak.

I say good riddance, but the new insurgency might beg to differ (that is another, more serious problem). People will cling to their chains if they're all they've ever had. Perhaps gradual change will do the trick, but I'm not that convinced and would hate to see people suffer for perhaps hundreds of years (luckily I won't). We humans really need to invent some gentler means of warfare...

 

[RomeoTheCat]

curious, anyone actually planning on reading all this?

I read every bit of it.

I was reading it at work and was intrupted several times so it took me a couple days to get through it but I found it well worth my while.

 

[sarwar1992]

An extremely interesting, if depressing account of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. It's authored by an Australian doctor and his wife (also a doctor) who spent five years in the country. It's a chronicle of what they have observed.

Link

I'd request people who want to comment in this thread to first read through the link. It's illuminating.

(NOTE: For stylistic reasons (italicisation), I've removed the attribution within the quote tag. The entire article was posted by a user going by the name of "Durro".)



(Continued after other posts.)

Hi thanks so much forthis vital information !!!!! Thanks