Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

How brave is this woman?

194 replies

shimmerysilverglitter · 21/08/2010 14:25

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.

OP posts:
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 25/08/2010 01:11

still catching up with the thread but wanted to say that you are not the only two people interested! I didn't want to intrude on the rather confusing argument that was being had earlier where everyone was at cross purposes...

Sakura · 25/08/2010 01:36

Appletrees I don't think your posts make sense, really, truly.
My posts about Bush's crusades and the Death of David Kelly was to show you that when it suits them the west is more than happy to intervene. They will probably do it again sometime　soon. Iraq was a totally unecessary war based on lies. Sanctions are being put on the weakest countries around the world, but none of this power is being used by and for women.
WOmen are just an aside, a footnote in all these men's games.　At best, women are pawns and collaborators, like Condoleeza Rice.

The US set up the Taliban, gave them weapons and supported them: they actively supported a group that oppressed women. Pointing this out to you is not one up-manship. I am trying to get the message accross that the west does (and will again) intervene whenever it suits them. It got rid of Saddam and installed a US power base in the country. IT has appointed Karzai in Afghanistan. The Afghan people don't recognize Karzai as their leader, that's why they're still fighting to get the US out of Afghanistan. So the west is already rolling out cultural and religious imperialism all over the world and it bombs, or kills, anyone who gets in its way ( except Saudi who are too powerful)
But it will never bother doing it for the deaths and oppression of women. WOmen are a different breed.

So what to do? Well the best thing to do is to lobby your government or for women to start running for elections en masse.

I think campaigning deflects women's energy away from the things they could be doing to get some real power. Campaigning is sort of like begging the patriarchy.

Sakura · 25/08/2010 01:39

sorry, when I said your posts don't make sense I meant when you said my posts were all about one up-manship against you.
HOnestly they're not about one upmanship. I believe the POV I'm putting accross, and it is a deeply considered POV

Sakura · 25/08/2010 01:48

And I was so angry at the propaganda before the invasion of Afghanistan because CNN and the BBC were all" ooh, look how badly these thugs treat their women, we must invade at once"
And I kept thinking, but you've known this for X amount of years. In fact the west supported the Taliban to make a power base against the Soviets.

AND if women are so important to you why don't you invade Saudi, who are just as bad as the Afghans when it comes to women.

BUt you see, it's never ever about women

Sakura · 25/08/2010 02:06

sorry, I'm not quite sure whether the US set up the Taliban or whether they were there already, but the US supported them massively, sold them weapons etc

TanteRose · 25/08/2010 02:36

Sakura, the US armed and supported the Mujahideen, who were rising up against the socialist government which came to power in the 1970s (supported by the USSR).The Soviets intervened (i.e. sent in troops to support the government)

There were loads of different factions of Mujahideen, and the Taliban eventually came out on top, with huge support from the US (arms, money etc.)

The US just saw the situation as part of the Cold War, and a chance to undermine the Soviet Union, which did eventually withdraw from Afghanistan.

The ironic thing was that the socialist government in the 1970s were VERY pro-women. I just looked up the quote from a minister at the time.

"Ratebzad wrote the famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial, which declared: "Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country ... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."

Sakura · 25/08/2010 02:41

THanks tanterose,
yes it just angers me that the west rides roughshod over other countries when it suits them but if a tiny group of feminists point out the human rights abuses of women they bring out the old "we don't want to be seen as imperialists" canard

Sakura · 25/08/2010 02:42

And Shock that they armed the MUjahideen against the pro-women socialists

Aargh, the hypocrisy

TanteRose · 25/08/2010 02:44

I know.

Sigh.

TanteRose · 25/08/2010 02:45

btw, hope you are keeping cool - this summer has been a killer....

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 02:49

Why don't I invade Saudi?

And that is supposed to be a considered point of view?

I absolutely stand by my assessment.

I am not a child, Sakura; I am convinced at this point that I am considerably older than you and I really don't need a lecture on your specialist subject. I may not be Henry Kissinger but I have done my time in student politics and it all sounds wearily familiar. I think your energy and idealism are smashing but you have not yet realised that you don't actually know everything.

If you look at the more recent exchanges, instead of just shuffling your notes in preparation for further tub thumping, you will see quite how women of the developing world can be lose out because of western guilt about moral imperialism.

Claig and riven, it WAS interesting, if depressing. Hi elephants. There's not much concern about this really is there? I feel all self righteous and holier than thou for saying so. But it's just bloody true.

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 02:53

What? Re: your post of 2:41. It was YOU who first used the term "imperialist claptrap" AGAINST people who want to intervene.

Sakura · 25/08/2010 06:57

It is not my specialist subject, although I feel quite pleased that you think it might be!! I am a linguist.
I simply keep my eyes and ears open, don't listen to propaganda.

Okay, before you go, please answer these questions:

Do you think the US did the right thing when they supported the Taliban and stopped the pro-woman party coming to power in Afghanistan?

Do you understand why David Kelly was murdered?

DO you realise that the west is rolling its imperialist model out over the world and the only countries left who don't obey the west are: NOrth Korea, Iran and Palesteine (they've already picked off IRaq and Afghanistan will be gone soon?)

Do you realise that the West is intervening RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK to impose its cultural imperialism as much as possible around the world.

So my last question is: what are you talking about when you say the west shouldn't intervene? The west IS intervening. It always has, always will.

I am not asking for war. The men are already fighting wars for fun right now.
Women don't even have the power to STOP the men at the top from playing their little power games.

If you want power to stop the men from fighting their silly little wars you are going to have to run for election

Sakura · 25/08/2010 06:59

yes, I think my last post explained what I meant by imperialist claptrap.
The problems you are talking about have been caused by western domination.
If you want your government to stop bombing everyone who disagrees with them you are going to have to get some power in parliament. It's the only way

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:06

Appletrees, "WHy don'T you invade Saudi" wasn't directed at YOU.
It was directed at the TV screen when I saw that the media propaganda was out in full force and pretending that the US was going to Afghanistan for the sake of women. It made me angry.
If they cared about women they wouldn't have installed the Taliban in the first place, would they?

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:10

And sorry, yes, tanterose, it's sweltering.

PosieParker · 25/08/2010 07:16

If Saudi Women were another race and not gender then I'm sure the international community would have more to say, perhaps with brute force if that race owned the oil land.

I'm glad the WEst is spreading, I happen to think the West is further socially eveloved, may not be perfect but it is more just.

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:27

Oh definitely, if men were being treated the way Saudi women are there would have been an invasion a long time ago.

I'M not sure I agree that the west is fairer Posie. They made up a load of lies to convince the public to invade Iraq and when a scientist had the moral conscience to expose the lies he was found dead. Then they tortured random people they found in the country they'd just invaded.

In fact, I can't see it being any unfairer than that

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 07:39

No, you did not explain your take on imperialism but you have now given a slightly clearer view. Though I cannot quite believe it.

Basically the problems women have around the world are all because of us. Is that it?

Is that really it? You actually believe that?

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 07:41

You also believe that if Saudi men were treated the same way as Saudi women, then the US would have invaded long ago?

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:50

Perhaps they wouldn't have invaded, but the international community would be more...how shall I put it...interested .

I don't think all the problems have arrived because of the West, however you can't deny that the west is now on a mission to obliterate any signs of dissent over the world. It wants to culturally annihilate anyone who doesn't tow the line. There are only a few countries left on the list. It invaded Iraq just because it could. THe UN is the US we now know, because it was completely useless when it came to the illegal war on Iraq

So my point is that if women want to stop this war mongering around the world we are going to have to dilute the male patriarchy somehow, not join in with the cultural obliteration a la Half the Sky

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 07:52

Aha, somehow in catching up I missed that first post of yours with all the questions. I'm afraid I just can't take you seriously any more.

And I did and do oppose the war in Iraq, I do know what happened after 1980, I really am not in need of your lecture.

It is great that there are people around like you but you ate difficult to take seriously.

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:52

In fact, scrap that, I think if a group of men being oppressed like Saudi women then I think there would be sanctions by now, definitely

Sakura · 25/08/2010 07:54

Appletrees, you have insulted me continuously throughout the thread but I don't mind. Smile

Appletrees · 25/08/2010 08:18

I haven't really: I really do find you difficult to take seriously. I can't have a serious conversation with someone who believes that the US would have imposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia if men were treated as badly as women are.

Do you mind telling me.. you don't have to, I didn't really answer your questions...do you really believe that most of the problems women have around the world ate because of "us".