Top Saudi cleric says women who drive may damage ovaries

[Virgil Showlion]

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. 

If you're referring to scripture, the issue is about roles and family government, not arbitrary standards of competency.

Your boss is your boss because it's the structure of your organization, not because (s)he's necessarily more intelligent, more sensible, or has better judgment than you.

Likewise, you respected your parents' authority over you while you were living with them, even if you ultimately grew to become more intelligent or more sensible than they were during that time.

Someone finally located studies to prove it.

It was testimony by medical experts, not studies. And thank heavens somebody did find it because 90% of the posters who claimed they "knew" couldn't support their claims to save their lives.

Women driving is a western ideal?

It is in Saudi Arabia.

[Opti]

Mmhmm, I get that. I'm not going to understand it the way you do. It sounds like you got to experience and learn from women in decent economic experiences with probably enough men in the family to make it average or better to navigate society. Did you get to gain the confidence of poor women and women without male protectors as well?

I'm sure it has its plusses, but some of the negatives are awfully severe. Being married so young you could die from internal injuries on your wedding night or in childbirth. Being thought a prostitute if you dare to speak to a male that's not family without a male family member by your side. Being whipped a 100 times because you dared to accept a delivery from a male deliveryperson that isn't family.

[swamp]

Sept 30, 2013 20:36:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

If you're referring to scripture, the issue is about roles and family government, not arbitrary standards of competency.

Your boss is your boss because it's the structure of your organization, not because (s)he's necessarily more intelligent, more sensible, or has better judgment than you.

I'm not deferring to my husband because he has a penis. I defer to him when he is better able to make the decision because of his strengths. He defers to me when I'm better able to ,are the decision. I make the vast majority of financial decisions.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2013 20:43:13 GMT -5 swamp said:

Sept 30, 2013 20:36:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you're referring to scripture, the issue is about roles and family government, not arbitrary standards of competency.

Your boss is your boss because it's the structure of your organization, not because (s)he's necessarily more intelligent, more sensible, or has better judgment than you.

I'm not deferring to my husband because he has a penis. I defer to him when he is better able to make the decision because of his strengths. He defers to me when I'm better able to ,are the decision. I make the vast majority of financial decisions.  

...and you end up with a lot of trucks, tractors, and Disney trips you don't want unless you retain "100% financial control" in your marriage, if I recall your words correctly.

Do what works for you. I'm not presenting you with an alternative; I'm simply answering your question.

[Deleted]

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.

 Here in the USA, there are "Archie Bunker"-types who still can't forgive the "liberals" for "granting" women "suffrage"... not to mention for liberating the slaves (in 1865).
 After all, if slavery was good enough for the Bible, who the hell do liberals think they are... opposing and eliminating biblical practices! The nerve!
 

[mmhmm]

Sept 30, 2013 20:38:13 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mmhmm, I get that. I'm not going to understand it the way you do. It sounds like you got to experience and learn from women in decent economic experiences with probably enough men in the family to make it average or better to navigate society. Did you get to gain the confidence of poor women and women without male protectors as well?

I'm sure it has its plusses, but some of the negatives are awfully severe. Being married so young you could die from internal injuries on your wedding night or in childbirth. Being thought a prostitute if you dare to speak to a male that's not family without a male family member by your side. Being whipped a 100 times because you dared to accept a delivery from a male deliveryperson that isn't family.

Yes, Optimist, I befriended people from all walks of life, and they me.  Some of my friends were wealthy while others had much less.  One friend was, in essence, a slave.  She wanted to learn to crochet and I knew how.  That was a real opportunity for me.  In Saudi there are no women without male protectors.  Some male in the family will take on that responsibility should it be necessary.  A woman must have a male guardian in the Kingdom.  This is considered a woman's right.

While those things of which you speak may seem very negative and severe to you, you are not a Saudi woman.  You're a Western woman.  You see things differently than they do.  It's illegal in the Kingdom to have intercourse with a female who has not yet reached puberty.  The business about speaking to a male who is not family is found only in the most rural and primitive of communities there.  Even then, it's seen less and less as sentences for such things are being regularly overturned by King Abdullah.  Changes are happening.  Yes, they're slow, just as change is slow in almost any conservative community anywhere in the world.

[Deleted]

 Yes, they're slow, just as change is slow in almost any conservative community anywhere in the world.

  Those who seek the benefits of those changes can get them much more easily by emigrating to other countries... (which is why the demographics of Europe are changing so rapidly).
 When all the Progressives move away, there isn't much opportunity for Progress in the Old Country.

[EVT1]

Sept 30, 2013 22:10:25 GMT -5 @patstab said:

I don't follow the biblical principles as I'm not subservient to any man.

I also make most of the financial decisions in our household but then hubby is gone so much I make most of the decisions about everything anyway.  Works pretty well for us.  When he retires we will share those more.

Not just biblical- it's about all religion's principles.  I can't think of any religion that doesn't think women should submit to the men.  Men wrote the Bible, the Koran, the what the fuck ever- and they made sure God was a man, the prophets were men, and what the men say goes since the churches only tend to let men into management.  Our religious zealots over here just screw with women with the laws-  in other places they kill them for acting out.  Lesson here is our religious nuts are only less dangerous versions than theirs.  Other than that they are the same kind of people.  Those that wish to force their views on others.

[swamp]

Sept 30, 2013 20:51:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2013 20:43:13 GMT -5 swamp said:

I'm not deferring to my husband because he has a penis. I defer to him when he is better able to make the decision because of his strengths. He defers to me when I'm better able to ,are the decision. I make the vast majority of financial decisions.  

...and you end up with a lot of trucks, tractors, and Disney trips you don't want unless you retain "100% financial control" in your marriage, if I recall your words correctly.

Do what works for you. I'm not presenting you with an alternative; I'm simply answering your question.

We can afford it. I'd pitch a fit and say no if we couldn't. Just bcause I'd prefer not to buy something doesn't mean he can't have it.  If I say no, absolutely not, we can't afford it, he wouldn't buy it. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2013 6:12:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

Sept 30, 2013 20:51:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...and you end up with a lot of trucks, tractors, and Disney trips you don't want unless you retain "100% financial control" in your marriage, if I recall your words correctly.

Do what works for you. I'm not presenting you with an alternative; I'm simply answering your question.

We can afford it. I'd pitch a fit and say no if we couldn't. Just bcause I'd prefer not to buy something doesn't mean he can't have it.  If I say no, absolutely not, we can't afford it, he wouldn't buy it. 

Ergo you have a family government in which final authority rests with you--possibly--the discriminant being whether or not your husband proceeds with a purchase despite your pitching a fit at some point in the future.

You've put me into a position where I can't argue further without attacking your family and bombarding you with hypotheticals, neither of which I have the slightest desire to do, hence the line of inquiry goes nowhere. As always.

[mmhmm]

It seems to me Swamp is saying her family operates on the principle of "He/she who does <insert task> best shall be in charge of that <insert task>."  If that's what she's saying, then "final authority" doesn't rest with anyone.  In matters in which Swamp's capabilities are stronger than her husband's, Swamp would carry the authority.  In matters in which Swamp's husband's capabilities outstripped Swamp's, Swamp's husband would carry the authority.  That's the way my late husband and I operated.  We each had our strengths and weaknesses.  We evaluated those and developed a relationship that took advantage of strengths and mitigated weaknesses.

If I'm not mistaken, the "biblical approach" considers the possession of a penis to be the ultimate strength.  He who has the penis rules.  (If I'm wrong in that estimation, please correct me.) That might work fine for some couples, if both members of the relationship buy into it wholly.  It wouldn't have worked for late DH and I.  We were both very aware of our weaknesses and knew we could only benefit by recognizing the strengths of the other and allowing those strengths to hold sway when decisions needed to be made.

[Opti]

While those things of which you speak may seem very negative and severe to you, you are not a Saudi woman. You're a Western woman. You see things differently than they do. It's illegal in the Kingdom to have intercourse with a female who has not yet reached puberty.

That last sentence doesn't make me feel as good as perhaps it does you. I am not Saudi, Indian or Chinese. That doesn't negate my opinion that marrying children and having intercourse with them is wrong. I am for protecting cultures within reason. And defending practices that harm children is not something I am willing to condone even if several Saudi women later express how much they loved being wedded and bedded at age 10.

Puberty is a process. When I google "onset of puberty in girls" one first page hit states

Girls begin puberty between the ages of 8 and 13 years. Learn about the different stages of puberty for girls and what is considered normal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty
On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10–11; boys at ages 11–12.[1][2][3] Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17,[3][4][5] while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–17.[3][4][6] The major landmark of puberty for females is menarche, the onset of menstruation, which occurs on average between ages 12–13;[7][8][9][10] for males, it is the first ejaculation, which occurs on average at age 13.[11] In the 21st century, the average age at which children, especially girls, reach puberty is lower compared to the 19th century, when it was 15 for girls and 16 for boys.[12]

Technically, these children married at the onset of puberty aren't women either.
From the URL: Girls attain reproductive maturity about 4 years after the first physical changes of puberty appear.[5]

What should concern any compassionate human IMO is several facts. One, the hips and pelvis do not widen at the onset of puberty but later. Two, since menarche occurs roughly two years after the onset of puberty it is highly likely that children that age do not have the vaginal lubrication older teens have thus risking pain and tears among other things if intercourse happens.

Finally, I know that in India for example historically its been a severe lifestyle downgrade when one's husband dies. Its changing, but the good option used to be living as a widow in your husband's or relative's household until your death,or living out your days in a compound for widows away from society, and hopefully no longer practiced:  burning the bride alive on her husband's funeral pyre. I probably don't understand the plus of that either because I'm not Indian.

[mmhmm]

That last sentence doesn't make me feel as good as perhaps it does you. I am not Saudi, Indian or Chinese. That doesn't negate my opinion that marrying children and having intercourse with them is wrong.

Most Saudis of either gender will agree with you, Optimist.  The practice of marrying children isn't all that common.  When it does occur, it's in the more primitive, rural areas.  It's frowned upon by most; however, it took a long time to get the current law in place.  Again, they're fighting long-standing cultural practices.  Look what it's took for this country to get laws in place that flew in the face of custom.  A little study of history will show you this is always an uphill battle, but it's usually won with persistence.  You're applying Western views to a middle-Eastern culture.  It's your prerogative to do so; however, it's not particularly productive.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2013 7:19:15 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It seems to me Swamp is saying her family operates on the principle of "He/she who does <insert task> best shall be in charge of that <insert task>."  If that's what she's saying, then "final authority" doesn't rest with anyone.  In matters in which Swamp's capabilities are stronger than her husband's, Swamp would carry the authority.  In matters in which Swamp's husband's capabilities outstripped Swamp's, Swamp's husband would carry the authority.  That's the way my late husband and I operated.  We each had our strengths and weaknesses.  We evaluated those and developed a relationship that took advantage of strengths and mitigated weaknesses.

If I'm not mistaken, the "biblical approach" considers the possession of a penis to be the ultimate strength.  He who has the penis rules.  (If I'm wrong in that estimation, please correct me.) That might work fine for some couples, if both members of the relationship buy into it wholly.  It wouldn't have worked for late DH and I.  We were both very aware of our weaknesses and knew we could only benefit by recognizing the strengths of the other and allowing those strengths to hold sway when decisions needed to be made.

The principle has nothing to do with the hypotheticals introduced in this thread, including yours. It doesn't discourage a husband deferring to his wife, nor does it discourage assigning responsibilities based on strengths and weaknesses, nor does it discourage joint decisions, nor does it give a man license to ignore or otherwise dishonour his wife. It holds that in the event of an irreconcilable difference of opinion, the man's will is paramount.

It does not preclude "He/she who does <insert task> best shall be in charge of that <insert task>." It is a final authority clause in the event of an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Such situations are typically rare. And indeed, as the women in my church are subject to the law of God, they accept the clause, abide by it, and are blessed with long, prosperous marriages as a result.

I've clearly explained this twice before, and your summary clearly shows that you either can't remember or aren't listening. I neither know nor care how your marriage worked; I neither know nor care how Swamp's marriage works. Neither of you cares about how the "biblical approach" enough to remember it for three months. These arguments are a waste of all our time.

And the thread is about Saudi Arabian women damaging their ovaries, to boot.

[mmhmm]

Whatever, Virgil.  I simply stated my take on what Swamp had said and my recall of what I'd read about the biblical approach.  I added the caveat that I might be wrong and asked for correction if I was.  It appears, from what you say, I'm basically right.  The last word lies with the owner of the penis.  Again, as I said, that's great if it works for both partners.  For many, an impasse means it's back to the drawing board until a compromise can be reached.

For the record, I don't care how your marriage works, either, and I doubt if Swamp does.  That's why I didn't pinpoint you and point the finger.  That's your bailiwick and I'll leave you to it.  I know I had a long, prosperous marriage and I expect Swamp will, as well ... with, or without your blessing.

[sesfw]

'When he retires we will share those more.'



Sorry Pat but to me this is funny. 

If he is like most hard working people that have been lifelong busy, after retirement he will become a micro-manager of YOU.  And you will give him a choice, either get a hobby that isn't you or get a part time job/volunteer.

Someone with nothing to do will drive you nuts very quickly.

Just had a thought ........ bad thing to do.  If women driving damages their ovaries then men driving actually sit on their testicles so that would damage them.

Good for goose, good for gander. 

[Spellbound454]

The problem I have with the biblical approach.... is the opinion that you are either a mother worthy of respect.... or a fallen woman.
There doesn't seem to be anything in between.
No business women, no matriarchs, no leaders, no strong sensible role models at all.
Why not?

God created Adam.....but Eve wasn't even worthy of being created.....she was made from a part of Adam.

Its been the mantra for so long that we tend to think its ok........but the bible was written in a different time
where women certainly didn't have any kind of equality....and no-one thought to say any different.

Oddly enough there were strong women in the ancient Muslim world....who would not have accepted any kind of subjugation.
Many of the differences we see now are to do with culture.....not religion.

The last word lies with the owner of the penis.

Why...We all have brains.
Surely a discussed approach would be better for a family.

[Deleted]

Adam didn't want an equal companion (see Lillith) so that is why they gave him a replacement!

[Spellbound454]

..and Lilith is portrayed as a demon.
cant have women wanting a say, now can we.

They must be aligned with Satan if they get too gobby.

[Opti]

You're applying Western views to a middle-Eastern culture. It's your prerogative to do so; however, it's not particularly productive.

I don't think it is that productive to be OK with this. I realize it happens in rural areas because families marry off their girls for economic considerations. Not unlike child prostitution in many cases. I do not want to add my voice to those who say its OK or not that bad because of culture reasons whether it happens outside of America or in it.

gulfnews.com/news/gulf/yemen/bride-8-dies-of-injuries-on-wedding-night-in-yemen-1.1228706

Not sure if this snippet of comment is true but worrisome to me if it is.
"Look at the report where in 2009 a Yemeni Law set the minimum age of a bride at 17 yrs. but was repealed as law makers deemed it un-Islamic."

www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/09/warren-jeffs-jailed-life-sentence

[mmhmm]

I don't know much about Yemen, so I'm not going to get into what happens there, Optimist.  There are great differences between the various middle-Eastern countries, and between the various Islamic countries.  You can't thrown them all in together because they don't operate in the same way.  I have some understanding of Saudi Arabia, so feel I can speak reasonably if the issue is there.  Otherwise, I'm clueless and don't mind admitting it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2013 11:15:07 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

The problem I have with the biblical approach.... is the opinion that you are either a mother worthy of respect.... or a fallen woman.
There doesn't seem to be anything in between.
No business women, no matriarchs, no leaders, no strong sensible role models at all.
Why not?

God created Adam.....but Eve wasn't even worthy of being created.....she was made from a part of Adam.

Its been the mantra for so long that we tend to think its ok........but the bible was written in a different time
where women certainly didn't have any kind of equality....and no-one thought to say any different.

Oddly enough there were strong women in the ancient Muslim world....who would not have accepted any kind of subjugation.
Many of the differences we see now are to do with culture.....not religion.

The last word lies with the owner of the penis.

Why...We all have brains.
Surely a discussed approach would be better for a family.

God created Adam.....but Eve wasn't even worthy of being created.....she was made from a part of Adam.

Where do you get these garbage analyses from? Adam was made from dirt. Eve "wasn't even worthy of being created" but then God creates her anyway and calls her good? Genesis clearly defines her status as "comparable to" (i.e. a counterpart of similar faculty) to Adam, and her role as a helper to him.

And the Bible provides numerous female role models. Queen Esther, Ruth the Moabite, Rahab of Jericho, the princesses with Jeremiah during the fall to Assyria, many of the women whose lives intersected Christ's during his ministry, not the least of which his mother (who certainly wasn't divine, but devout and bold when she needed to be). It includes examples of scheming powerful women too, Jezebel being the most obvious example.

[Spellbound454]

Queen Esther, Ruth the Moabite, Rahab of Jericho, the princesses with Jeremiah during the fall to Assyria

Not exactly well known are they.

Whereas we have:- male prophets, male disciples, kings, followers, men of importance, tribal leaders, popes.

Lets not pretend there is a balanced ratio... or any kind of equality in our ancient history and religious texts.

People have the right to freedom of religion or conscience....and rightly so
but ancient texts were of their time...

Women endured suffrage and for good reason.
Those who have not experienced prejudice may not feel it.......but some of us do..

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2013 14:36:34 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Queen Esther, Ruth the Moabite, Rahab of Jericho, the princesses with Jeremiah during the fall to Assyria

Not exactly well known are they.

Whereas we have:- male prophets, male disciples, kings, followers, men of importance, tribal leaders, popes.

Lets not pretend there is a balanced ratio... or any kind of equality in our ancient history and religious texts.

People have the right to freedom of religion or conscience....and rightly so
but ancient texts were of their time...

Women endured suffrage and for good reason.
Those who have not experienced prejudice may not feel it.......but some of us do..

Biblical government is patriarchal. There are numerous reasons why, none of which are relevant to this thread.

As for "equality", it refers to a great many things. In the strictest sense of the term, which implies the complete homogeneity of male and female and the absence of all gender-specific roles, laws, and behaviours, you are correct in asserting that males and females are not "equal" per scripture. Beyond that, "equal" has at least a dozen meanings and implications, each of which must be studied separately. You will neither find a general statement such as "men are better than women" nor a statement such as "men are indistinguishable from women and equally qualified for all tasks and offices" anywhere in scripture.

Since you aren't even bothering to distinguish between individual religions in your argument, that's as specific as I can get.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 1, 2013 7:19:15 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It seems to me Swamp is saying her family operates on the principle of "He/she who does <insert task> best shall be in charge of that <insert task>."  If that's what she's saying, then "final authority" doesn't rest with anyone.  In matters in which Swamp's capabilities are stronger than her husband's, Swamp would carry the authority.  In matters in which Swamp's husband's capabilities outstripped Swamp's, Swamp's husband would carry the authority.  That's the way my late husband and I operated.  We each had our strengths and weaknesses.  We evaluated those and developed a relationship that took advantage of strengths and mitigated weaknesses.

If I'm not mistaken, the "biblical approach" considers the possession of a penis to be the ultimate strength.  He who has the penis rules.  (If I'm wrong in that estimation, please correct me.) That might work fine for some couples, if both members of the relationship buy into it wholly.  It wouldn't have worked for late DH and I.  We were both very aware of our weaknesses and knew we could only benefit by recognizing the strengths of the other and allowing those strengths to hold sway when decisions needed to be made.

An old expression goes '"Balls" said the queen.  "If I had two, I would be king"'

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2013 16:15:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

An old expression goes '"Balls" said the queen.  "If I had two, I would be king"'

That's... real insightful.

Personally I'm holding out hope that mmhmm et al. are fixating on penises for rhetorical effect, and not because sex organs are the only meaningful distinction they can make between men and women.

[workpublic]

An old expression goes '"Balls" said the queen. "If I had two, I would be king"'

followed by, "shit" said the king and all the knaves did squat

[Spellbound454]

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king............with a penis

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Oct 1, 2013 16:43:45 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king............with a penis

Hilarious Spell, reminds me of the part in 300 when the Persian messenger says they will enslave King Leonidas women, and his response was "clearly you don't know our woman"... lol 

 It's great watching these Islamic countries, with their bible first attitude, bend because of western(Judeo-Christian) liberal values and the "evil" western media.  Really it's not hard to see where these Islamic countries get their outlook from. There want law based on the Qur'an, and this is what one of the most Islamic sources, the Al-Tabari, says about that...

Satan whispered to Eve about the tree and succeeded in taking her to it; then he made it seem good to Adam. He continued. When Adam felt a need for her and called her, she said: No! unless you go there. When he went, she said again: No! unless you eat from this tree. He continued. They both ate from it, and their secret parts became apparent to them. He continued. Adam then went about in Paradise in flight. His Lord called out to him: Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You.

When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, my Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy and birth with difficulty, although I made it easy for her to be pregnant and give birth. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world would not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily.

According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yazid b. 'Abdallah b. Qusayt -Sa'id b. al-Musayyab: I heard him swear by God unequivocally: As long as Adam was in his right mind, he did not eat from the tree. Eve, however, gave him wine to drink, and when he was drunk, she led him to the tree, and he ate from it.

[Deleted]

Eve, however, gave him wine to drink, and when he was drunk, she led him to the tree, and he ate from it.

 How odd... they were in a place where fruit was abundant, and had not yet "eaten of the Tree of Knowledge"... but Eve had wine?

 The fermented juice of fruit (wine) needs to be extracted from the fruit and placed in a container to ferment and then to age. Lacking "Knowledge", how did they acquire the skills to make wine?
Where did they get a container to hold the wine? Pottery Barn?
 It couldn't have been a fired clay vessel, could it have been?
 A&E were firing ceramics and pottery before acquiring "Knowledge"?

 No, it just doesn't add up, there are too many inconsistencies and continuity flaws, etc.; the story just doesn't jive.

 I think it's another case of fantastic story made up to justify a prejudice... and legitimize injustice.
 (Like the topic/header of a PBP thread...)