How brave is this woman?

[shimmerysilverglitter]

I have already posted this on the In The News Board but I wanted to discuss it here. I knew Saudi women had a hard time of it but I did not realise that in a so-called developed country that women are not even allowed to drive!

saudi women beats up virtue cop.

As I said on the other thread I cannot imagine how desperate this woman must have felt knowing how severe her punishment would be for doing something she has every right to be doing. I can't begin to imagine this kind of life.

It says at the end of the article that there are changes happening in Saudi with regards to attitudes towards women, does anyone know anymore about this subject? because I am woefully ignorant and I don't think I should be.

I'm loving the fact the US and Saudi are bezzie mates

If you ever have any doubts about whether we live in a man's world, just look at the simpering way the US behaves towards Saudi

There's no point Half the Sky tut tutting when most of the Western patriarchal Powers are fully on the side of the saudi state.

Oil V women = oil wins every time

I wonder if the brave woman was really a bloke?
Would account for the effective punching, and the desire not to be found out.

Well samurai half the sky does a lot more than tut. Perhaps the west should revive its imperialist ambitions to pursue social justice rather than money; perhaps we should colonize India again and destroy the caste system, perhaps we should knock off Islamic nations one by one and ensure they observe the sexual equality advised by the Prophet, perhaps we should depose the Thai government and close the ping pong bars. Perhaps you should get over yourself.. half the sky is achieving a lot more than the mn feminist blitherfest.

Sakura, sorry. My phone spellchecked me into samurai.

Appletrees, sorry I haven't read half the sky.
Someone on here said it was "imperialist claptrap" or something on another thread, so I did make assumptions.

I don't understand why you lumped:

a) "Perhaps the west should revive its imperialist ambitions to pursue social justice rather than money;"

under the same banner as:

b) "perhaps we should colonize India again and destroy the caste system, perhaps we should knock off Islamic nations one by one and ensure they observe the sexual equality advised by the Prophet, perhaps we should depose the Thai government and close the ping pong bars. Perhaps you should get over yourself.. half the sky is achieving a lot more than the mn feminist blitherfest."

I think the West should do A

But nothing in B

They are not connected. I am anti-imperialist, I admire Iran for being the only country with the gall to stand up to the US, but option A has nothing to do with the imperialist aims you mentioned in B

And before you tell another MNer to get over herself, perhaps you should research her credentials first, and find out what she might be doing in real life hmm?

Bit much when you commented about something you've never even read.

You can talk about what is happening or you can do something. Half the.sky is doing. Now I am troubled by how much it is "our business". but to dismiss efforts to help oppressed women of other cultures as "imperialist claptrap" is ludicrous.

I am doing something.
And I am allowed to talk on MN about other issues.
DO you go on the politics section and tell them they can't discuss politics unless they're running for election themselves?

I don'T give a fig about Half the Sky TBH- (why do you care so much)

I was making a passing comment about the hypocricies of the West.

I think the Saudi women problem wouldn'T last half a day if the men in power didn't want it to. And I am talking about Western powers here

I mean they could stop trading with Saudi on account of the human and civil rights abuses. That's not being imperialist, that's having morals.

I wouldn't be friends with someone who enjoyed doing something I disagreed with (beat his wife, say)

I'm not being imperialist by telling him I won't be friends with him because I can't be friends with someone who beats his wife

Why should the US be any different?

Yeah sure you can talk about it. Who is stopping you?

I'm not obsessed, just defending it against your very silly dismissiveness.

Good for you for doing something: so ate they. But you wouldn't know that.

What you are talking about is judging our culture better and seeking change in other cultures to effect your.view of what is better.

I agree with you, probably ly, about what is better. But I also see that seeking to evangelise, campaign, missionary style, can also be seen as disguised colonialism .. even if it's to what we both see as "good e.SD". You won't understand though, as you don't see why my questions are "lumped" together.

Because of Oil, oil is fundamental to most (especially western societies) and when a country has an abundance of it everyone wants to be their friend even if they have human rights issues.

Appletrees you are arguing with someone else

YOur points in your last post have nothing to do with my argument

You are arguing with someone who hasn't spent most of her adult life abroad, and who doesn't live in the UK right now, and doesn't support Iran's fight against Macdonaldization.

I don't know who this person is you are arguing with, but it ain't me

yes sammyuni, oil V women = oil wins every time

scrap my hasn't/doesn't post

I have spend the majority of my adult life abroad, I don't live in the　uK, I don't know anything about this HAlf the Sky and I support Iran's fight against Macdonaldization.

However I don'T think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that it's all very well writing books etc, but you have to accept that the governments could change the status quo if they had the inclination.

I knew you wouldn't understand. You just think you're right.

It's good that the women of their country want to fight back. Because a change within a society occurs best when it is the people from there that are the ones advocating the change. When someone from 'outside' (e.g. the west) comes and tries to tell them what to do people get indignant, annoyed and angry the initial problem gets sidelined and the people put up a united front against those they percieve to be assaulting their way of life. (This is probably what led to many Islam countries having a hatred for America and the west)

Appletrees on the one hand you are trying to say that I am in favour of cultural imperialism.

I am not.

Let Saudi keep treating women that way if you don't want to intervene on their behalf. I think it's great that Saudi women are going to revolt. Any revolution has to come from the grass-roots if it's going to have any effect

I agree with Sammyuni's post 100%

But you must allow me to at least be a little irritated with the fact that western governments brush women's situation under the carpet when they're doing their oil deals

Yes i think the best thing for governments would be to impose sanctions, put pressure on those countries governments to improve treatment but not physically get involved. Hit them where it hurts the the pockets, because many of those countries top people are corrupt so money that comes into those countries end up only in their pockets. But of course that won't happen oil comes first, also the general public would obviously be against the actions happening there but as soon as the cost of fuel etc increases they will quickly change their minds as it will effect them.

that's the swiftest way Sammyuni. Iran is under sanction right now. But I think Appletrees is saying that sanctions would be cultural imperialism.

While that may be true, the US doesn't have any problem imposing sanctions on other countries that don't tow the line, countries that are dirt poor and don't have any oil

So why doesn't it impose sanctions on Saudi?

The oil obviously

I personally am against sanctions just because of the cultural imperialist aspect, but again, sanctions would get rid of the Saudi woman problem overnight.

Well i don't think it would be culturally imperialist if you are just asking for people to be treated with basic human rights.

Basically "We don't want to do business with you until you just treat everyone in your society as though they are human. And not to go around beating them because they don't have their uncle/dad/brother with them."

Not asking for them to change religions or to stick MacDonalds everywhere just treat people better. Western society is far from perfect we are not better just different but surely stopping the rescue of school girls because they were not wearing the correct clothes is wrong?

THat's what I think too TBH, that was my "wife-beater" analogy

It's one thing to force a country to behave in a particular way and quite another to say "carry on, but don't expect me to be your friend anymore"

It is not just a book ..it's a campaign. How can you be so dismissing when you don't know anything about it?

So.. living abroad means you are right? Does that mean I am right too?

All icm saying is that the issue of how much one should interfere abroad is deeply interesting and troubling. By abroad I would also mean outside one's own culture, or inter culture. Your sort of self righteous certainnty is very similar to the evangelist with a different point of view. you disagree about the desired outcome but not about whether or not to interfere.

X posted

Appletrees, obviously you're involved in this book/campaign thing.
I have no idea what it is

But I am entitled to my opinion

If you look on a recent thread about prostition you will see that I am capable of changing my mind on something when someone puts accross a good argument

What is your argument? That we shouldn't impose sanctions or that we should?

Excuse me: I would LOVE to interfere in India, Saudi, south east Asia. but there are parallels with the missionaryprocess and I take them seriously.

Appletrees there are times where you should interfere when there are poor treatment of citizens. It's not even as though what is happening is against the law and people just turn a blind eye, it is the law that are the ones doing it. I am against sending troops over there and forcing change because that produces unexpected results, and hatred/anger. But implying some restrictions or letting those countries know that you are against what they do will mean that their Governments will advocate the change themselves and will do it in a way that still suits their society.

Also i thought half the sky worked in China?