Top Saudi cleric says women who drive may damage ovaries

[Virgil Showlion]

And I would boldly suggest that we concern ourselves with the manifold problems plaguing our own society rather than pointing fingers at foreigners, rooting out their social problems and inventing utter fictions (see Reply #24, #44) to explain them.

In short: clean up your own back yard first.

[swamp]

Sept 30, 2013 15:01:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2013 13:23:16 GMT -5 Opti said:

You are entitled to your opinion. We aren't going to agree because I don't like the separate but different roles thing whether its based on gender, race or caste. Your analysis speaks to the fact you personally are OK with different gender roles even if it is harmful or deadly to various individuals.

What analysis? Gender roles haven't even featured in this thread except for my brief mention of them in #61 in the context of the church ministry.

If you're claiming I believe women shouldn't be able to drive, you're mistaken. What I have said is that your theory on why a Saudi Arabian scholar (or judicial advisor) would oppose women driving has no basis in reality.

Just because a dude has a penis his opinion should automatically given more weight?  

[Opti]

What I have said is that your theory on why a Saudi Arabian scholar (or judicial advisor) would oppose women driving has no basis in reality.

Its not my theory on why he opposes women driving. It is my belief it is likely one of the
reasons he chooses to do so. Often people do things for more than one reason. You believe his actions might be based on the fear of western ways happening in his country.
Since I haven't talked to the guy or even watched an interview, I am merely conjecturing
on possible reasons that contributed to his recent quotes, etc.


There's this word, shaden freude the Germans came up with, because the behavior I've mentioned happens often enough in human behavior. Whether it applies in this case we will likely never know, just as we will never know if it is fear of western ways or women getting more rights that drove him the most.

[Spellbound454]

In short: clean up your own back yard first.

It is our back yard....Citizens of this country are our citizens.... and they have the same rights and freedoms as every member of society.
We will be equal.....someday...but we aren't there yet.

Its funny though that this OP news story isn't being reported on Al Jazeera or any of the Arab broadcasting stations.
Perhaps they just aren't taking him seriously.

[Opti]

And I would boldly suggest that we concern ourselves with the manifold problems plaguing our own society rather than pointing fingers at foreigners, rooting out their social problems and inventing utter fictions (see Reply #24, #44) to explain them.

In short: clean up your own back yard first.

Virgil, unless you *are* that guy you really don't know what is fiction and what isn't.
This story was posted on an American website after the guy posted it on the internet himself. I boldly suggest *I* and anyone else can discuss what we want as long as we stay within the CoC and TOS for PB. Since you are male, you may not understand that to some of us woman, knowing women are oppressed in other countries makes us want to understand and fix it not hide our heads and pretend it doesn't exist.



Does this mean you'll start posting about Canadian politics and ignore the American politics threads?

[The Captain]

Sept 30, 2013 15:10:57 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Its still a mans world...even I feel it in a reasonably liberal and sophisticated country.

I'm descended from suffragettes. Nothing annoys me more than a lack of equality for people being born into the less favoured sex
We weren't put in this world to be subservient to someone else.

I hate the way immigrants come to this country and float about in burkas... under the pretence that its liberating.
It isn't. Its a cage....... and it does a disservice to the thousands of others who have gone before to blaze a trail of equality from which females of this country can benefit.

The call for equality isn't finished yet.

I've one message for those who would keep women in chains.

Get Stuffed.  

While I personally would never want to wear one, if someone does it of their own free will (and can you even acknowledge that as a possibility?) then who are we to judge them?

Not too different from a woman wanting to wear a skirt/dress (as opposed to pants) because she feels better in a skirt/dress. Or having long hair etc.

Should we demand all women wear pants because at one point they were forbidden to do so?

[Virgil Showlion]

Virgil, unless you *are* that guy you really don't know what is fiction and what isn't.

Succinctly my point. Our theories about his motives are a reflection of what we feel is likely and reasonable. You and patstab have taken up the rather unusual position of assuming he's a sadistic misogynist, based on no evidence whatsoever. My own theory, beginning with "If I had to guess," is presented in Reply #51. I call your theory a "fiction" both because it has no basis in fact and because I don't consider it reasonable.

I boldly suggest *I* and anyone else can discuss what we want as long as we stay within the CoC and TOS for PB. Since you are male, you may not understand that to some of us woman, knowing women are oppressed in other countries makes us want to understand and fix it not hide our heads and pretend it doesn't exist.

No one is preventing you from giving your theories. My blunt opinion is that you don't understand, you have no desire to understand, you do desire to regurgitate your existing views on everything from Catholicism to schadenfreude in an attempt to explain something you admittedly know nothing about, and you're most certainly not "fixing" anything.

Does this mean you'll start posting about Canadian politics and ignore the American politics threads?

If I stay with this board, I have limited choice in what I talk about. Nobody besides myself and Sugilite has any interest in Canadian politics. The threads die instantly. That said, I do make an effort to broaden my arguments to "North America", "western society", etc., when possible. If I criticize Americans specifically and Canadians are guilty of the same, by all means point it out. Posters often do and it usually makes for good discussion.

Just because a dude has a penis his opinion should automatically given more weight?

Opinion on what? In what setting?

[Spellbound454]

Not too different from a woman wanting to wear a skirt/dress (as opposed to pants) because she feels better in a skirt/dress. Or having long hair etc.

I would agree to people wearing what they want...(being a liberal sort of person)... I would particularly mind or care.
.....but this is a lot more complicated than that.

The premise that women have to cover their bodies so they don't tempt men is completely absurd in a western country....and wrong to the core.
Women are protected by law...and men have to control themselves or they will be in prison.

To be faceless and invisible either by choice or coerced (and lets not pretend it doesn't happen), is not in any way a liberation
and it doesn't represent a full entitlement to the rights and freedoms that other people have.

Its a holier than though, and more chaste than though stance......which causes problems for those not clad head to foot... who are seen by sections of society as less worthy of respect.

So there is a dichotomy from a liberal standpoint
On the one hand people can wear what they want.....yet on the other hand...maybe not. Not here at least

[Virgil Showlion]

Its a holier than though, and more chaste than though stance......which causes problems for those not clad head to foot... who are seen by sections of society as less worthy of respect.

So there is a dichotomy from a liberal standpoint
On the one hand people can wear what they want.....yet on the other hand...maybe not. Not here at least

"Dichotomy" as a synonym for "double standard". I'll have to add that to my liberal-to-English dictionary.

[Spellbound454]

Ok...well at least someone is reading my post

[Opti]

No one is preventing you from giving your theories. My blunt opinion is that you don't understand, you have no desire to understand, you do desire to regurgitate your existing views on everything from Catholicism to schadenfreude in an attempt to explain something you admittedly know nothing about, and you're most certainly not "fixing" anything.

I can't understand him that much because he isn't here to share his viewpoint and interact
with us. I do desire to understand although my anger and desire to rant a little is here as well.

I, unlike you, have lived through quite a few experiences of people explaining why it was OK for boys or men to do X, but not I. So from my point of view your experience could only come from the opposite side, if you have had experiences telling women and girls 'No you can't do that.' Perhaps you've done that alot or not at all. I don't know. But growing up female and not wanting to toe the gender lines I am somewhat familiar with the various reasons/excuses and the people who give them. You are far more charitable to men who lie about issues affecting women than I am. In fact, you refused to believe the American politician was lying about women being able to prevent conception after rape even though you had me, Mmhmm, and others plainly state it was incorrect. Eventually you may have acknowledged the biology of it, but you were arguing against women who had a vested interest in understanding and remembering how it all works! When someone lies to control women as this Cleric and that politician attempted to do, it almost always has a strong emotional component behind it.

I will be kinder than you. I think you see my comments and Patstab's not realizing they
may come from real experiences. Again they may not be applicable in this current instance, but the truth is neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other. *I* don't think its about westernization, but more about his desire to keep women in the place they are now. There are many many reasons he may want to stop women from progressing in his country. Since he chose lies to accomplish his aims, I chose to hypothesize bad motivations to match. You could try shedding light on this from your point of view, or you can continue to spend it saying I and other posters are wrong - with zero proof to give us.

[Opti]

You and patstab have taken up the rather unusual position of assuming he's a sadistic misogynist, based on no evidence whatsoever.

Given he's against women driving and makes up crap about ovaries and pelvises I think it
is reasonable to conclude he is a misogynist.

[The Captain]

Sept 30, 2013 16:46:07 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Not too different from a woman wanting to wear a skirt/dress (as opposed to pants) because she feels better in a skirt/dress. Or having long hair etc.

I would agree to people wearing what they want...(being a liberal sort of person)... I would particularly mind or care.
.....but this is a lot more complicated than that.

The premise that women have to cover their bodies so they don't tempt men is completely absurd in a western country....and wrong to the core.
Women are protected by law...and men have to control themselves or they will be in prison.

To be faceless and invisible either by choice or coerced (and lets not pretend it doesn't happen), is not in any way a liberation
and it doesn't represent a full entitlement to the rights and freedoms that other people have.

Its a holier than though, and more chaste than though stance......which causes problems for those not clad head to foot... who are seen by sections of society as less worthy of respect.

So there is a dichotomy from a liberal standpoint
On the one hand people can wear what they want.....yet on the other hand...maybe not. Not here at least

I agree with you 100% in theory but have to point out the irony that some men don't do a very good job of controlling themselves even in a western country.  How many times do we (wrongly) hear about a woman's manner of dress "inviting" certain behaviours?  If a women feels more protected covering herself who are we to judge?  Especially knowing how some men do act?

[Deleted]

You and patstab have taken up the rather unusual position of assuming he's a sadistic misogynist, based on no evidence whatsoever.

 Good point. Since his position is an archaic/ "traditional" point of view, we should call him a "Traditionalist" rather than a "sadistic misogynist"!
 OR... we could dispense with the euphemisms and use clear and accurate terms to describe him more precisely, if less generously.

 What he really is... is "a Conservative"... seeking a "return to our cultural roots" ( i.e., archaic, obsolete "values" based upon superstition, lore, and mumbo jumbo).

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2013 17:47:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I agree with you 100% in theory but have to point out the irony that some men don't do a very good job of controlling themselves even in a western country.  How many times do we (wrongly) hear about a woman's manner of dress "inviting" certain behaviours?  If a women feels more protected covering herself who are we to judge?  Especially knowing how some men do act?

DF is in Saudi Arabia right now.  He says the people he's met are nice, but he has seen the 10 year old boys driving their female relatives.  

He also said there's a cultural mystique that women "lure men with their eyes" even if the rest of their faces and bodies are totally obscured.  

A good number of women wear mesh over their eyes too to prevent being accused of that or having misunderstandings.

It seems like at a certain point... a woman could be totally wrapped in burlap, and guys will think "it's a burlap sack!  Hot chick underneath! Sexy!"  More coverings seem to just set the bar for cultural modesty even higher from what we're gathering.

[Tennesseer]

Maybe the women should wear a box to hide their figure like this cat but with a silk burqa underneath:

[mmhmm]

The culture there is different, people.  It's not what you're accustomed to, and it's not what you understand.  The cleric isn't a misogynist, at all.  Most Saudi men value their wives and daughters highly.  They just see things very differently than we do, and it's due to their heritage and societal customs.  Many, male and female, don't want to see that culture change.

I spent a lot of years with these folks, and I've taught their young men English.  I know a little about how they think and more about how they learn.  It's more than possible this cleric actually believes what he's saying.  They're not educated in the same way we're educated.  They learn from the Qur'an.  For some (especially, those who are older), that was the only way they learned.  Because he's a cleric, even a judicial adviser for an association of psychologists, it doesn't mean he's college-educated as we know it.  He may have much less real education than that, by our standards.

[mmhmm]

Sept 30, 2013 18:06:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Maybe the women should wear a box to hide their figure like this cat but with a silk burqa underneath:

I theeenk we're too beeeg for our booox! 

[swamp]

Sept 30, 2013 16:43:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Just because a dude has a penis his opinion should automatically given more weight?

Opinion on what? In what setting?

On anything.  

[Opti]

I agree the culture is different and I do not understand it the way Mmhmm or others living there do. Objectively though I think it is a misogynist culture. Yes many men may value their women and children. But how do they value them?

I read a blurb on the Saudi government web page about women's roles and found the Wiki page much more enlightening and scary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. The World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity.

“It's the culture, not the religion,” is a Saudi saying. Many Saudis do not see Islam as the main impediment to women's rights. Said one female journalist, “If the Quran does not address the subject, then the clerics will err on the side of caution and make it haram (forbidden). The driving ban for women is the best example.”

In 2005, the country's religious authority banned the practice of forced marriage. However, the marriage contract is officially between the husband-to-be and the father of the bride.

There are no laws defining the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia. Most religious authorities have justified the marriage of girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15.[107]
A 2010 news report documented the case of Shareefa, an abandoned child-bride. Shareefa was married to an 80-year-old man when she was 10. The deal was arranged by the girl's father in exchange for money, against the wishes of her mother. Her husband divorced her a few months after the marriage without her knowledge, and abandoned her at the age of 21.

Namus is associated with honor killing. If a man loses namus because of a woman in his family, he may attempt to cleanse his honor by punishing her. In extreme cases, the punishment can be death. The suspicion alone of a woman's wrongdoing can be enough for her to be subject to violence in the name of honor.[34]

In 2007, a young woman was murdered by her father for chatting with a man on Facebook. The case attracted a lot of media attention. Conservatives called for the government to ban Facebook, because it incites lust and causes social strife by encouraging gender mingling.[35][36]

[Virgil Showlion]

Given he's against women driving and makes up crap about ovaries and pelvises I think it is reasonable to conclude he is a misogynist.

I'll add to mmhmm's rebuttal in Reply #81 that i) he's adopted a medical pretense rather than taking the more direct approach of telling Saudi women to shove it, and ii) for a medical pretense to "work", he has no choice but to focus on health concerns that would apply exclusively to women.

In fact, you refused to believe the American politician was lying about women being able to prevent conception after rape even though you had me, Mmhmm, and others plainly state it was incorrect.

If you're referring to Mr. Akin, I accused members of having no clue about what he'd actually said, or why he believed what he did, or whether or not his claim was provably false, or what his past comments and legislative history showed, with sparing exceptions on any of these four points. And I stand by my criticism. Two thirds of the thread participants would've claimed that Akin tore off women's faces and wore them as hats if they thought anyone would believe them.

When someone lies to control women as this Cleric and that politician attempted to do, it almost always has a strong emotional component behind it.

Says you. Based on nothing.

Politicians and policymakers lie and spin every day. Doctoring the truth to sell it to the public is arguably the core competency of their profession. Many are plainly deluded and don't even believe they're lying.

You could try shedding light on this from your point of view, or you can continue to spend it saying I and other posters are wrong - with zero proof to give us.

I've already presented my view.

The most reasonable assumption is that he's a traditionalist. He believes the existing system works, he has respect for it, he has no desire to change it. He plainly rejects western ideals. As he states, he believes the women are being emotional and unreasonable. He invented the lie either to appeal to their sense of reason, or as mmhmm suggests, he legitimately believes what he says.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2013 18:58:24 GMT -5 swamp said:

Sept 30, 2013 16:43:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Opinion on what? In what setting?

On anything.  

Yes and no. It's a meaningless question. Make it specific and I can give you an answer.

[Opti]

Given Saudi men often only expose their face and hands I can see how the burqa might be preferred by Saudi women. Much of the rest though can be attributed in my opinion to the desire to stick with what one knows and avoid change that appears scary.

More from the Wiki URL:
Under Saudi law, all females must have a male guardian, typically a father, brother or husband. The guardian has duties to, and rights over, the woman in many aspects of civic life. A United Nations Special Rapporteur report states that “legal guardianship of women by a male, is practised in varying degrees and encompasses major aspects of women's lives.

Saudis consider male guardianship a right of women. In a 2010 interview with the New York Times, Noura Abdulrahman, a female employee of the Saudi Ministry of Education, defended male guardianship as providing protection and love.[10]

In Saudi culture, women have their integrity and a special life that is separate from men. As a Saudi woman, I demand to have a guardian. My work requires me to go to different regions of Saudi Arabia, and during my business trips I always bring my husband or my brother. They ask nothing in return—they only want to be with me. The image in the West is that we are dominated by men, but they always forget the aspect of love. People who aren’t familiar with Shariah often have the wrong idea. If you want stability and safety in your life, if you want a husband who takes care of you, you won’t find it except in Islam.
In 2008, Rowdha Yousef and other Saudi women launched a petition “My Guardian Knows What's Best for Me," which gathered over 5,000 signatures. The petition defended the status quo and requested punishment for activists demanding "equality between men and women, [and] mingling between men and women in mixed environments".[10]

And the minority view:
Liberal activists reject guardianship, loving or not, as demeaning to women. They object to being treated like "subordinates" and "children."[11][15] They point to women whose careers were ended by the guardians, or who lost their children because of a lack of custody rights. In a 2009 case, a father vetoed several of his daughter's attempts to marry outside their tribe, and sent her to a mental institution as punishment.[30] The courts recognize obedience to the father as law, even in cases involving adult daughters.[31] Saudi activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider agrees that most Saudi men are caring, but "it's the same kind of feeling they have for handicapped people or for animals. The kindness comes from pity, from lack of respect.”[10] She compares male guardianship to slavery:[25]

Nonetheless, she says Westerners do not understand Saudi culture and how potentially traumatic change can be: "People had lived their whole lives doing one thing and believing one thing, and suddenly the king and the major clerics were saying that mixing was O.K. You can't begin to imagine the impact that the ban on mixing has on our lives and what lifting this ban would mean.

The driving controversy might be related to the concerns over men and women mixing in society. Saudi Arabia has very strict rules on the genders mixing.

[Opti]

Finally, its not just some of us westerners that see things there as misogynistic.

Also from Wiki:
As with Saudi Arabia, white-ruled South Africa viewed external criticism as a violation of its sovereignty and interference with its internal affairs. And U.S. corporations in South Africa, as with their Saudi Arabian counterparts, pleaded that they had no choice but to defer to the local "culture."

King wonders why there is nothing like the Sullivan Principles for gender-based discrimination.[148] Journalist Anne Applebaum argues that gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia gets a free pass from American feminists. She questions why American civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson were active in protesting South Africa's racial apartheid, but American feminists rarely venture beyond reproductive rights when discussing international politics: “Until this changes, it will be hard to mount a campaign, in the manner of the anti-apartheid movement, to enforce sanctions or codes of conduct for people doing business there.”[143]

Cultural relativism is the root of activist inaction, according to feminists such as Azar Majedi, Pamela Bone, and Maryam Namazie. They argue that political Islam is misogynist, and the desire of Western liberals to tolerate Islam blinds them to women's rights violations. Majedi and Namazie, both born in Iran, consider cultural relativism racist: “To put it bluntly, according to this concept, because of my birthplace, I should enjoy fewer rights relative to a woman born in Sweden, England, or France.” Pamela Bone argues feminist apathy is supported by “the dreary cultural relativism that pervades the thinking of so many of those once described as on the Left. We are no better than they are. We should not impose our values on them. We can criticise only our own. The problem with this mindset is that, with all its faults, Western culture is clearly, objectively, better.” Bone argues that cultural relativism comes from a fear that criticizing Islam will be considered racist.[141][149][150]

[Opti]

I'll add to mmhmm's rebuttal in Reply #81 that i) he's adopted a medical pretense rather than taking the more direct approach of telling Saudi women to shove it, and ii) for a medical pretense to "work", he has no choice but to focus on health concerns that would apply exclusively to women.

Hmmm. Shove it. Yep sounds totally emotionless.

If you're referring to Mr. Akin, I accused members of having no clue about what he'd actually said, or why he believed what he did, or whether or not his claim was provably false, or what his past comments and legislative history showed, with sparing exceptions on any of these four points. And I stand by my criticism. Two thirds of the thread participants would've claimed that Akin tore off women's faces and wore them as hats if they thought anyone would believe them.

I believe most of us concentrated on point number three as that was what the news
story concerned and we knew to be incorrect. Someone finally located studies to prove it.
And you think I exaggerate unreasonably.
Kettle meet pot, etc.

[swamp]

Sept 30, 2013 19:17:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2013 18:58:24 GMT -5 swamp said:

On anything.  

Yes and no. It's a meaningless question. Make it specific and I can give you an answer.

No it's not. It's silly that a mans opinion should not be given more credence over a woman's solely because he's a man, unless it has to do with peeing standing up. A penis does to automatically mean more intelligence, common sense, or better judgment. 

[mmhmm]

Wikipedia will not tell you about Saudi Arabian customs.  Your experiences and what you like and don't like won't tell you about Saudi Arabian customs.  Their society is different than ours, and it's a much more closed society.  You'll read all about the feminist viewpoint in our (English) press.  You'll read all about the terrible conditions for women in the Kingdom.  What you won't read are the opinions of the actual, living, breathing women in the Kingdom.  Are there feminist sympathizers there?  Yes.  Absolutely.  Male and female (gasp).  However, they are not the majority in either gender.

I've been in their homes, eaten at their tables, joined them in camel and goat "grabs", and gone with them into the desert to fly falcons, or just while away a weekend telling stories and eating.  What you read in the Western press, or on Wikipedia just isn't indicative of the Kingdom as a whole.  If you'd like to believe all that stuff, be my guest.  I found it much more enlightening to sit and talk with the women there at parties, and dinners, and just friendly get-togethers.  Once they know you're open to learn, they're open to share.  It doesn't happen quickly.  It takes time and a real desire to earn their confidence and trust.  Once you have it, you have friends for life and you actually begin to learn how they see life and living it.  It's not the same for them as for us.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm an almost 68 year old female and I am not typical.

Your description of participating in housework and yard work, renovating, gardening, homemaking, accounting, as well as your views on "gender lines" and being "put in place" are typical, as far as I'm aware. And by this I mean I know far more 50+ women who partake in any or all of these activities and share your beliefs than women in this same age group who don't.

Of course some of the younger ones are more free thinking and forward looking but can't do much about it.

"Free-thinking" is an Orwellian term for "people who think exactly like me".

[Opti]

The most reasonable assumption is that he's a traditionalist. He believes the existing system works, he has respect for it, he has no desire to change it. He plainly rejects western ideals. As he states, he believes the women are being emotional and unreasonable.

I must have missed a page in the western ideals handbook. Women driving is a western ideal? Did you see the part in the Wiki page where Saudi Arabia is the only country that prohibits women driving?

I think he's being emotional and unreasonable. I think if he went at it from the popular angle of 'I want to defend our Saudi Arabian Islamic way of life' he might have more supporters. From what I've read today it appears its common enough in Saudi Arabia to confuse Islam with Saudi traditions and beliefs. However, I think the driving issue does go to the heart of the matter of mixing and the strong separation of men and women in that country. Some might prefer it, possibly lots of women as well, but its obvious from various incidents its very dangerous to be a woman who has no man to do stuff for her.

[EVT1]

Sept 30, 2013 19:53:42 GMT -5 swamp said:

Sept 30, 2013 19:17:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Yes and no. It's a meaningless question. Make it specific and I can give you an answer.

No it's not. It's silly that a mans opinion should not be given more credence over a woman's solely because he's a man, unless it has to do with peeing standing up. A penis does to automatically mean more intelligence, common sense, or better judgment. 

Or a priest, rabbi, cleric, imam or zealot follower of.......  Usually when one of the former mixes it up with scientific claims there is bullshit afoot.

Seems a common thread among religions is to keep women subservient.  Wonder why that is.... So did God make man in his image or did man make God in his?