Female Producers in Saudi Arabia: "Did you have to wear the black thing?"(no-reservations-crew-blog.travelchannel.com)
no-reservations-crew-blog.travelchannel.com
Female Producers in Saudi Arabia: "Did you have to wear the black thing?"
http://no-reservations-crew-blog.travelchannel.com/read/under-the-abbaya-female-producers-in-saudi-arabia
5 comments
I've experienced a bit of muslim culture first-hand and it's not even close to the cutesy image you get from this article. The author sees herself as a culturally sensitive critical thinker ("before you think I drank the koolaid...") but she is far from it. Take her cliched argument about the advantages of abbaya. If completely covering one's face and body is so desirable, why are women, and only women, forced into it under the threat of extreme corporal punishment and imprisonment? And how could she miss the fact that not speaking unless spoken to and making sure to always look down (to name just a couple things) is an integral part of wearing the garment?
Gender apartheid is just as cruel and ugly as race apartheid. Extolling the virtues of full body cover for women is quite like saying that working cotton fields is really good for blacks, what with all that fresh air and exercise. Ignorant at best.
Gender apartheid is just as cruel and ugly as race apartheid. Extolling the virtues of full body cover for women is quite like saying that working cotton fields is really good for blacks, what with all that fresh air and exercise. Ignorant at best.
I often feel the same way when I here these sorts of arguments. But I think you're off the mark.
Extolling the virtues of full body cover for women is quite like saying that working cotton fields is really good for blacks, what with all that fresh air and exercise.
You didn't get the majority of blacks to stand up & say that they feel cotton fields are liberating & dignified. That is a major difference. In fact, women in places where hijab is discouraged actively defend it. You can't respond with the cliché brainwash argument either. Culture is always brainwash.
I think it's important to step back & draw the distinction between religious conservatives demanding that the sun orbits the earth and some other completely arbitrary cultural things.
Think about dress codes (especially for women) wherever you happen to be: Dress in at least this much fabric. Cover up at least these areas. You can do this. But it's inappropriate at the office, if you want to be taken seriously. Some rules are relaxed in some places, like the minimum fabric requirement at the beach. Some, like 'cover these areas are enforced by law.
I'm not saying that I agree with Saudi conventions or law. I am saying we need to be careful of what we are criticising. A lot of cultural norms are always arbitrary.
Extolling the virtues of full body cover for women is quite like saying that working cotton fields is really good for blacks, what with all that fresh air and exercise.
You didn't get the majority of blacks to stand up & say that they feel cotton fields are liberating & dignified. That is a major difference. In fact, women in places where hijab is discouraged actively defend it. You can't respond with the cliché brainwash argument either. Culture is always brainwash.
I think it's important to step back & draw the distinction between religious conservatives demanding that the sun orbits the earth and some other completely arbitrary cultural things.
Think about dress codes (especially for women) wherever you happen to be: Dress in at least this much fabric. Cover up at least these areas. You can do this. But it's inappropriate at the office, if you want to be taken seriously. Some rules are relaxed in some places, like the minimum fabric requirement at the beach. Some, like 'cover these areas are enforced by law.
I'm not saying that I agree with Saudi conventions or law. I am saying we need to be careful of what we are criticising. A lot of cultural norms are always arbitrary.
Ugh. Proponents of status quo always invoke tradition and use some attractively pastoral but highly marginal examples to paint a white-washed picture that's quite far from reality.
In reality, it's not about the clothes. Muslim men base forcing women to cover up on "hard" facts of exactly the "sun orbits the earth" variety. If you did not think western, you would know that these men think of women as being both naturally disabled (mentally and physically) and inferior in the eyes of Allah (intellectually and morally). This goes far beyond mere decorum and is not at all comparable to office wear vs. bikinis.
Case in point, a few years back I spent a month at an all-women resort in one of the more liberal muslim countries. Once, I happened to swim in front of a local man. To say that he was stunned would be an understatement. His eyes bugged out, he lost his breath, and when he finally managed to speak, he was stuttering. Turns out he quite literally thought that women are physically unable to swim. It was as though he witnessed pigs fly.
What I am saying is, it's easy to take the cultural relativism position until you consider where it leads. As just one example, this is what happens in Saudi Arabia today during rape hearings. A man's testimony is considered fact unless proven otherwise, similar to Western law. A woman's testimony however is considered a presumption, based on these "facts" as loosely quoted from actual Saudi law: women are emotional and as such incapable of sound judgement, women do not participate in public life and as such incapable of understanding what they merely observe, women are forgetful and as such their words are unreliable, and finally, men are by God's will superior and therefore dominate women by default.
So what do you think happens to rape victims when you frame it in those "cultural" terms? By the way, if you think you know where I am going with this, you are wrong - rape victims get sent to jail for the crime of being in the company of a male non-relative in the first place. When you get down to actual lives of actual people, it's not quite as conveniently multi-culti anymore, is it?
So let's not be careful of what we are criticizing. When a tradition is practiced by a whole people, it's cultural norm. When it's forced on a minority that's unable to defend itself - even if said minority has been slowly beaten or acculturated into docile agreement - it's perfectly ok to say it's asinine and just plain wrong.
In reality, it's not about the clothes. Muslim men base forcing women to cover up on "hard" facts of exactly the "sun orbits the earth" variety. If you did not think western, you would know that these men think of women as being both naturally disabled (mentally and physically) and inferior in the eyes of Allah (intellectually and morally). This goes far beyond mere decorum and is not at all comparable to office wear vs. bikinis.
Case in point, a few years back I spent a month at an all-women resort in one of the more liberal muslim countries. Once, I happened to swim in front of a local man. To say that he was stunned would be an understatement. His eyes bugged out, he lost his breath, and when he finally managed to speak, he was stuttering. Turns out he quite literally thought that women are physically unable to swim. It was as though he witnessed pigs fly.
What I am saying is, it's easy to take the cultural relativism position until you consider where it leads. As just one example, this is what happens in Saudi Arabia today during rape hearings. A man's testimony is considered fact unless proven otherwise, similar to Western law. A woman's testimony however is considered a presumption, based on these "facts" as loosely quoted from actual Saudi law: women are emotional and as such incapable of sound judgement, women do not participate in public life and as such incapable of understanding what they merely observe, women are forgetful and as such their words are unreliable, and finally, men are by God's will superior and therefore dominate women by default.
So what do you think happens to rape victims when you frame it in those "cultural" terms? By the way, if you think you know where I am going with this, you are wrong - rape victims get sent to jail for the crime of being in the company of a male non-relative in the first place. When you get down to actual lives of actual people, it's not quite as conveniently multi-culti anymore, is it?
So let's not be careful of what we are criticizing. When a tradition is practiced by a whole people, it's cultural norm. When it's forced on a minority that's unable to defend itself - even if said minority has been slowly beaten or acculturated into docile agreement - it's perfectly ok to say it's asinine and just plain wrong.
BS. I am not defending culture. But you are inserting narrative. Exactly the way these 'men' are.
The reality is that it is not 'Muslim men forcing women to cover up.' It is society forcing women to cover up. Culture. The reality is that culture is almost always coercive & has many irrational elements. Dress codes particularly so. The fact that they base it on supposed hard facts is irrelevant. People always think they have hard facts backing up their irrational convictions. Covering women is a fact of virtually all societies. Including the US or wherever you're from.
As I said in the original. I do not agree with the conventions of Saudi. I don't like them. There are many cases of women being disadvantaged to the point where they have no hope of a satisfying life. That needs to be opposed. But when opposing there is a danger of considering all opposition equal. Taking anecdotes like yours as seriously indicative of any liberal Muslim country is like getting behind Khomeini because you oppose the Shah State.
The reality is that it is not 'Muslim men forcing women to cover up.' It is society forcing women to cover up. Culture. The reality is that culture is almost always coercive & has many irrational elements. Dress codes particularly so. The fact that they base it on supposed hard facts is irrelevant. People always think they have hard facts backing up their irrational convictions. Covering women is a fact of virtually all societies. Including the US or wherever you're from.
As I said in the original. I do not agree with the conventions of Saudi. I don't like them. There are many cases of women being disadvantaged to the point where they have no hope of a satisfying life. That needs to be opposed. But when opposing there is a danger of considering all opposition equal. Taking anecdotes like yours as seriously indicative of any liberal Muslim country is like getting behind Khomeini because you oppose the Shah State.
Blurry is all BS, but there is another obvious reason : anybody who really travels knows that TV is ubiquitous in the Arab world, and they mainly watch Western programs. Moreover, there are a lot more occidentalized anchor women on Arab TV (like Aljazeera) than you might think, who don't wear anything at all. Tradition is not to be confused with dumb ignorance.
Your right. On the message as a whole. Middles Eastern countries are not generally very culturally isolated.
I call BS too. I've been to the Middle East several times. Uhm, "Women can swim!?" is about like one of those stories Europeans like to tell about Americans not knowing if Europeans have refrigerators. I'm also assuming you're referring to the Middle East from the tone, but let's not forget that the countries with the largest Muslim populations are Indonesia and the countries of the Indian subcontinent.
The views of women within various Islamic cultures varies widely and in some cases are quite disturbing, but the four countries with the largest Muslim populations (Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) have all had female presidents / prime ministers. There are other odd data points like women's suffrage having reached Iran a decade before Switzerland (1963 vs. 1973).
The views of women within various Islamic cultures varies widely and in some cases are quite disturbing, but the four countries with the largest Muslim populations (Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) have all had female presidents / prime ministers. There are other odd data points like women's suffrage having reached Iran a decade before Switzerland (1963 vs. 1973).
Nothing is as dangerous as half truths so let's look at what really happened as far your example of female leadership in Muslim countries.
Yes, at first glance 3 of the 4 countries in your example (Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh) have "elected" a female as president/prime minister. However, without exception these women were the daughters or widows of the previous heads of state. Their appointments represent the feudal tradition of inheriting power by family relation rather than popular vote as you are implying.
The 4th country, India, is an even worse example. Not only muslims are a minority in India (a quick lookup tells me between 15% and 20%), prior to the elections the muslim-indian leadership demanded that the female candidate be disqualified because she made some sort of a statement against veils.
Yes, at first glance 3 of the 4 countries in your example (Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh) have "elected" a female as president/prime minister. However, without exception these women were the daughters or widows of the previous heads of state. Their appointments represent the feudal tradition of inheriting power by family relation rather than popular vote as you are implying.
The 4th country, India, is an even worse example. Not only muslims are a minority in India (a quick lookup tells me between 15% and 20%), prior to the elections the muslim-indian leadership demanded that the female candidate be disqualified because she made some sort of a statement against veils.
Given that the US has frequently, and recently, elected children of previous presidents, and that the only serious contender for a female president was the wife of a former one, I think it hardly fair to discount other countries elected leaders on those grounds alone.
As for feudal traditions, all of those countries had been European colonies for about a century prior to organizing under their current systems. In the case of Indonesia, their first female president began 34 years after her father left office and after three other presidents were in office. She then lost the elections after three years in office. That hardly sounds "feudal".
And yes, Muslims are a minority in India. I assumed anyone reading this thread was aware of that.
My point is this: if these countries are one way or another electing female leadership, then it indicates that the issue of the views on women in those societies is more multidimensional than you're painting it. At the very least it's not consistent across the range from Western Africa to Eastern Asia. The problems are real, but they're best addressed when approached through examining the situations in their complexity, rather than trying to reduce them to a single wacky-sane spectrum.
This thread typifies why I think politics should be kept off of HN. It just degenerates into this sort of stuff where everyone's regurgitating what they already believe and on the whole the net amount of respect for one another goes down.
As for feudal traditions, all of those countries had been European colonies for about a century prior to organizing under their current systems. In the case of Indonesia, their first female president began 34 years after her father left office and after three other presidents were in office. She then lost the elections after three years in office. That hardly sounds "feudal".
And yes, Muslims are a minority in India. I assumed anyone reading this thread was aware of that.
My point is this: if these countries are one way or another electing female leadership, then it indicates that the issue of the views on women in those societies is more multidimensional than you're painting it. At the very least it's not consistent across the range from Western Africa to Eastern Asia. The problems are real, but they're best addressed when approached through examining the situations in their complexity, rather than trying to reduce them to a single wacky-sane spectrum.
This thread typifies why I think politics should be kept off of HN. It just degenerates into this sort of stuff where everyone's regurgitating what they already believe and on the whole the net amount of respect for one another goes down.
"We can't criticize them b/c we do something loosely similar" is a bad argument to make. Really, we should criticize both cultures.
Also, topics that are traditionally hard to discuss online should be discussed more here. It is mostly on HN where I've seen people make an effort to understand both sides.
Also, topics that are traditionally hard to discuss online should be discussed more here. It is mostly on HN where I've seen people make an effort to understand both sides.
[deleted]
I do not think this thread is a good example.
You get all kinds. The united states is a vary technologically advanced mostly christian society. Yet, if you look at the Anabaptist Christian denomination and think that's how most Americans live your kidding yourself. We might call them Amish, but the 227,000 Anabaptist Christian's hold fairly mainstream beliefs for the most part are are a fairly large slice of the American experience.
Talking about Islamic culture while ignoring the huge divide in our own country is missing something. We have our splinter groups and so do they. Once you start talking about 100+ million people you will get poets and serial killers, teachers, and racists. But we can lump them into one group and say they are good, or evil, or whatever because they are far away and we just don't know the true story.
PS: Think about a Gay man living in the deep south in 1950 now how well do you need to know them to have any idea how far the public / private divide runs with them. Now move that into a society where denouncing your faith can get you killed.
Talking about Islamic culture while ignoring the huge divide in our own country is missing something. We have our splinter groups and so do they. Once you start talking about 100+ million people you will get poets and serial killers, teachers, and racists. But we can lump them into one group and say they are good, or evil, or whatever because they are far away and we just don't know the true story.
PS: Think about a Gay man living in the deep south in 1950 now how well do you need to know them to have any idea how far the public / private divide runs with them. Now move that into a society where denouncing your faith can get you killed.
Your missing the main point.
The comment being responded to is BS. 'Even modorate muslims actually believe that womean sink.' That's pure BS. You might encounter it in end cases, isolated, uneducated, poor or ultra-religious sectors but on the whole it's BS.
It is just like Europeans (& others) citing Americans that think the world is flat or don't notice when you swap Russia & N. Korea on a map. "Even American geologists think the world is 5000 years old."
All these upmods haven't been delivered because the level of insight or quality of argument. It's because attacks of this kind are easy wins in 2009. It was a (probably made-up) anecdote: Even moderate muslims thinking that woman can't swim.
Just like I've said multiple times already, culture isn't sacred. Just because it's cultural doesn't mean something should be tolerated. But giving infinite rope to any 'muslim women are oppressed' line is garbage. All up, dress codes are down the list of worries.
The comment being responded to is BS. 'Even modorate muslims actually believe that womean sink.' That's pure BS. You might encounter it in end cases, isolated, uneducated, poor or ultra-religious sectors but on the whole it's BS.
It is just like Europeans (& others) citing Americans that think the world is flat or don't notice when you swap Russia & N. Korea on a map. "Even American geologists think the world is 5000 years old."
All these upmods haven't been delivered because the level of insight or quality of argument. It's because attacks of this kind are easy wins in 2009. It was a (probably made-up) anecdote: Even moderate muslims thinking that woman can't swim.
Just like I've said multiple times already, culture isn't sacred. Just because it's cultural doesn't mean something should be tolerated. But giving infinite rope to any 'muslim women are oppressed' line is garbage. All up, dress codes are down the list of worries.
Now that's just plain rude. What makes you say that I made up my story? If you feel that your position is strong, why do you need to attack me personally? Talk about quality of the argument...
I think your anecdote is made up, embellished or an end case not representative at all of whatever moderate Muslim country you refer to.
Since you presented this 'example,' as an example I mentioned the above. It was not a criticism of you but a criticism of the fact that this example is not being treated as such. To me that is strong indication of an unhealthy bias here.
Since you presented this 'example,' as an example I mentioned the above. It was not a criticism of you but a criticism of the fact that this example is not being treated as such. To me that is strong indication of an unhealthy bias here.
[anecdote]
Just for you: in 1992, in Boise, Idaho, I was asked (by a 16 year old boy, a local) whether I knew what a TV remote control is, and he then proceeded to explain to me as well the miracle of video recording. I was 14 at the time.
I am western European.
[/anecdote]
Just for you: in 1992, in Boise, Idaho, I was asked (by a 16 year old boy, a local) whether I knew what a TV remote control is, and he then proceeded to explain to me as well the miracle of video recording. I was 14 at the time.
I am western European.
[/anecdote]
That's a pretty different case though since (a) you were kids, and (b) those were two things that had hit mass market success only about a decade before.
> "You can't respond with the cliché brainwash argument either. Culture is always brainwash."
Your logic is bad.
I more-or-less agree that "culture is always brainwash." The logical follow-up is not, "Let's therefore accept all cultures that don't immediately, viscerally violate our sense of right and wrong"; it's, "Wow, culture is fundamentally really messed up! But I don't want to live in a society that eliminates it completely. How much messed-up-ness am I willing to endure to get the benefits of culture -- namely, consistency in what I'm expected to deal with every day, social stability, a sense of unity with my neighbors and countrymen, a sense of heritage, and various intangibles?"
> "I am saying we need to be careful of what we are criticising. A lot of cultural norms are always arbitrary."
So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
However, I think that, even on close inspection, many of our culture's norms do more good than harm. I honestly think that most Americans would be (marginally) unhappier if it became culturally acceptable in America to walk naked in public (even if we let a generation pass so that there's no cultural shock) -- whereas I'm quite certain that at least a majority of people living in societies that force women to cover themselves and act subservient would be happier if their communities' cultural norms allowed women to act like women of first-world democracies. That's what distinguishes our cultural norms from theirs. And if any of our norms fail the shit test of "does it make life better?," for God's sake let's throw it out.
Your logic is bad.
I more-or-less agree that "culture is always brainwash." The logical follow-up is not, "Let's therefore accept all cultures that don't immediately, viscerally violate our sense of right and wrong"; it's, "Wow, culture is fundamentally really messed up! But I don't want to live in a society that eliminates it completely. How much messed-up-ness am I willing to endure to get the benefits of culture -- namely, consistency in what I'm expected to deal with every day, social stability, a sense of unity with my neighbors and countrymen, a sense of heritage, and various intangibles?"
> "I am saying we need to be careful of what we are criticising. A lot of cultural norms are always arbitrary."
So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
However, I think that, even on close inspection, many of our culture's norms do more good than harm. I honestly think that most Americans would be (marginally) unhappier if it became culturally acceptable in America to walk naked in public (even if we let a generation pass so that there's no cultural shock) -- whereas I'm quite certain that at least a majority of people living in societies that force women to cover themselves and act subservient would be happier if their communities' cultural norms allowed women to act like women of first-world democracies. That's what distinguishes our cultural norms from theirs. And if any of our norms fail the shit test of "does it make life better?," for God's sake let's throw it out.
> I more-or-less agree that "culture is always brainwash." The logical follow-up is not, "Let's therefore accept all cultures that don't immediately, viscerally violate our sense of right and wrong"; it's, "Wow, culture is fundamentally really messed up!
What I am saying is the following: A common argument that comes up is usually. (a) Woman are forced to wear hijab. It is demeaning & cruel & oppresses women. (b) I choose to wear it. I find it dignified & liberating. (a) You are brainwashed.
All I am saying that (a) does not have a convincing argument. It is not (if you read up the thread) comparable to US rural slavery because they people being oppressed (if they are) by their own culture. Brainwashed is no argument at all in this case because it is applicable to any element of culture & can be used to argue virtually any point (you are brainwashed not to wear hijab, pray, respect your husband, etc). Accepting that argument in principle necessitates accepting an argument giving equal weight to the counter-argument.
> So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
I am certainly not doing that. I am saying watch what you argue. "Islamic/Arabic cultures are oppressive" is a popular argument to make these days.
Many of the aspects of these societies, practices, traditions & laws are indeed oppressive. Many of these countries are military dictatorships or monarchies. A lot of the arguments are indeed correct & needed. But (and this is a big but) we cannot let this degrade (we have, but lets pretend) into an area where anything is admissible. Look at the defence that the argument in this thread got. The argument was almost "Muslims think women can't swim." And if we look at the context, it was in response to an article that said a woman found it interesting & (within her context) useful to wear these garments. "It smells like a defence of veils.""She mentions veils without enough of a groan" "Well i knew a muslim & he beat hist wife with a baloon"
HN is supposed to be a quarter of a step ahead of the pack. But this is a soft version of Bin Laden like clerics telling stories of Americans sodomising each-other in the streets.
Dress codes are sometimes highly symbolic. But if this is your reason for addressing them, don't you think you should let symbolic concepts be pursued within the context of their own cultures? Otherwise they are an element of culture that gets left alone because it does not much harm or good. It is pretty arbitrary, it is not in itself important & it exists everywhere.
What I am saying is the following: A common argument that comes up is usually. (a) Woman are forced to wear hijab. It is demeaning & cruel & oppresses women. (b) I choose to wear it. I find it dignified & liberating. (a) You are brainwashed.
All I am saying that (a) does not have a convincing argument. It is not (if you read up the thread) comparable to US rural slavery because they people being oppressed (if they are) by their own culture. Brainwashed is no argument at all in this case because it is applicable to any element of culture & can be used to argue virtually any point (you are brainwashed not to wear hijab, pray, respect your husband, etc). Accepting that argument in principle necessitates accepting an argument giving equal weight to the counter-argument.
> So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
I am certainly not doing that. I am saying watch what you argue. "Islamic/Arabic cultures are oppressive" is a popular argument to make these days.
Many of the aspects of these societies, practices, traditions & laws are indeed oppressive. Many of these countries are military dictatorships or monarchies. A lot of the arguments are indeed correct & needed. But (and this is a big but) we cannot let this degrade (we have, but lets pretend) into an area where anything is admissible. Look at the defence that the argument in this thread got. The argument was almost "Muslims think women can't swim." And if we look at the context, it was in response to an article that said a woman found it interesting & (within her context) useful to wear these garments. "It smells like a defence of veils.""She mentions veils without enough of a groan" "Well i knew a muslim & he beat hist wife with a baloon"
HN is supposed to be a quarter of a step ahead of the pack. But this is a soft version of Bin Laden like clerics telling stories of Americans sodomising each-other in the streets.
Dress codes are sometimes highly symbolic. But if this is your reason for addressing them, don't you think you should let symbolic concepts be pursued within the context of their own cultures? Otherwise they are an element of culture that gets left alone because it does not much harm or good. It is pretty arbitrary, it is not in itself important & it exists everywhere.
> I more-or-less agree that "culture is always brainwash." The logical follow-up is not, "Let's therefore accept all cultures that don't immediately, viscerally violate our sense of right and wrong"; it's, "Wow, culture is fundamentally really messed up!
What I am saying is the following: A common argument that comes up is usually. (a) Woman are forced to wear hijab. It is demeaning & cruel & oppresses women. (b) I choose to wear it. I find it dignified & liberating. (a) You are brainwashed.
All I am saying that (a) does not have a convincing argument. It is not (if you read up the thread) comparable to US rural slavery because they are being oppressed (if they are) by their own culture in which they are active participants. Brainwashed is no argument at all in this case because it is applicable to any element of culture & can be used to argue virtually any point (you are brainwashed not to wear hijab, pray, respect your husband, etc). Accepting that argument in principle necessitates accepting an argument giving equal weight to the counter-argument.
> So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
I am certainly not doing that. I am saying watch what you argue. "Islamic/Arabic cultures are oppressive" is a popular argument to make these days.
Many of the aspects of these societies, practices, traditions & laws are indeed oppressive. Many of these countries are military dictatorships or monarchies. A lot of the arguments are indeed correct & needed. But (and this is a big but) we cannot let this degrade (we have, but lets pretend) into an area where anything is admissible. Look at the defence that the argument in this thread got. The argument was almost "Muslims think women can't swim." And if we look at the context, it was in response to an article that said a woman found it interesting & (within her context) useful to wear these garments. "It smells like a defence of veils.""She mentions veils without enough of a groan" "Well i knew a muslim & he beat hist wife with a baloon"
HN is supposed to be a quarter of a step ahead of the pack. But this is a soft version of Bin Laden like clerics telling stories of Americans sodomising each-other in the streets.
Dress codes are sometimes highly symbolic. But if this is your reason for addressing them, don't you think you should let symbolic concepts be pursued within the context of their own cultures? Otherwise they are an element of culture that gets left alone because it does not much harm or good. It is pretty arbitrary, it is not in itself important & it exists everywhere. We would not be seriously debating why bikinis are not allowed at work.
What I am saying is the following: A common argument that comes up is usually. (a) Woman are forced to wear hijab. It is demeaning & cruel & oppresses women. (b) I choose to wear it. I find it dignified & liberating. (a) You are brainwashed.
All I am saying that (a) does not have a convincing argument. It is not (if you read up the thread) comparable to US rural slavery because they are being oppressed (if they are) by their own culture in which they are active participants. Brainwashed is no argument at all in this case because it is applicable to any element of culture & can be used to argue virtually any point (you are brainwashed not to wear hijab, pray, respect your husband, etc). Accepting that argument in principle necessitates accepting an argument giving equal weight to the counter-argument.
> So criticize all of them! The problem here is that you're working off the premise that our own cultural norms are somehow above critique, which is simply untrue.
I am certainly not doing that. I am saying watch what you argue. "Islamic/Arabic cultures are oppressive" is a popular argument to make these days.
Many of the aspects of these societies, practices, traditions & laws are indeed oppressive. Many of these countries are military dictatorships or monarchies. A lot of the arguments are indeed correct & needed. But (and this is a big but) we cannot let this degrade (we have, but lets pretend) into an area where anything is admissible. Look at the defence that the argument in this thread got. The argument was almost "Muslims think women can't swim." And if we look at the context, it was in response to an article that said a woman found it interesting & (within her context) useful to wear these garments. "It smells like a defence of veils.""She mentions veils without enough of a groan" "Well i knew a muslim & he beat hist wife with a baloon"
HN is supposed to be a quarter of a step ahead of the pack. But this is a soft version of Bin Laden like clerics telling stories of Americans sodomising each-other in the streets.
Dress codes are sometimes highly symbolic. But if this is your reason for addressing them, don't you think you should let symbolic concepts be pursued within the context of their own cultures? Otherwise they are an element of culture that gets left alone because it does not much harm or good. It is pretty arbitrary, it is not in itself important & it exists everywhere. We would not be seriously debating why bikinis are not allowed at work.
The critical issue is not whether there exist people existing willingly in a state of oppression, but whether there exist people wanting to get out of it.
Abbayas are also good for men to hide in. One of the terrorist leaders during the Algerian insurgency often used an abbaya to sneak around. No one stopped him because they thought he was just a Muslim woman (couldn't see any facial features), who have no leadership roles in the culture.
>Gender apartheid is just as cruel and ugly as race apartheid.
That nicely sums up my thoughts on it - thankyou !
That nicely sums up my thoughts on it - thankyou !
"I don't know about Saudi Arabians, but I knew this Iranian guy..."
Is about the cultural equivalent of saying:
"I don't know about the British, but I knew this French guy..."
Except probably more different. And that's just culturally. Politically Saudi Arabia is an order of magnitude more oppressive than Iran and women's rights are also similarly incomparable.
Is about the cultural equivalent of saying:
"I don't know about the British, but I knew this French guy..."
Except probably more different. And that's just culturally. Politically Saudi Arabia is an order of magnitude more oppressive than Iran and women's rights are also similarly incomparable.
[deleted]
You said "polygamy", don't you mean polygyny?
Something from the article worth quoting:
"It's saving that kind of intimacy for those that are close to you, your friends and family, who have earned the privilege. For the first time, I saw that the abbaya may have a role in protecting women, and not as something simply designed to control them."
Once upon a time, the same sort of idea existed in the West, in the lost art of modesty (buried alongside chivalry nowadays). The idea that not everyone need be exposed to everything. That some things are better saved and not sold.
How many times in the United States do men look at women not as persons but as objects? Seeing not the woman as she is, but merely as she appears -- not respecting her as a person but instead consuming her as a visual image.
Whether in Saudi Arabia or in the United States, the first principle to keep in mind involves respect for the human person as such -- man or woman.
Once upon a time, the same sort of idea existed in the West, in the lost art of modesty (buried alongside chivalry nowadays). The idea that not everyone need be exposed to everything. That some things are better saved and not sold.
How many times in the United States do men look at women not as persons but as objects? Seeing not the woman as she is, but merely as she appears -- not respecting her as a person but instead consuming her as a visual image.
Whether in Saudi Arabia or in the United States, the first principle to keep in mind involves respect for the human person as such -- man or woman.
Great episode of No Reservations, and I was thrilled to see this behind-the-scenes look at the team behind the cameras.
[deleted]
why is this on HN?
The focus of Hacker News is going to be anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes a lot more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I've always found the above troubling.
It seems obvious to me anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity will quickly transform the site into interesting news, but not hacker news.
Perhaps if it was a hacker's instead of one's?
It seems obvious to me anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity will quickly transform the site into interesting news, but not hacker news.
Perhaps if it was a hacker's instead of one's?
I've always found the above troubling.
It's been the definition of on topic for about a year and a half, and the site's still fine, so it seems to work.
It's been the definition of on topic for about a year and a half, and the site's still fine, so it seems to work.
Unusual and interesting perspectives on the world's cultures in my mind definitely satisfy the criteria of intellectual curiousity.
Perhaps, but I think that in general, people who search for things that satisfy their intellectual curiosity are very much overlapped with those who are hackers (even if their hacking is not necessarily applied to technology).
As long as the content is interesting and the discussion is respectful and intellectual (which it currently is), then I think it's fine. If the quality of the site begins to degrade with popularity, then it can always be made more restrictive.
As long as the content is interesting and the discussion is respectful and intellectual (which it currently is), then I think it's fine. If the quality of the site begins to degrade with popularity, then it can always be made more restrictive.
I would agree with this. I wouldn't call myself a hacker in the traditional sense of the word. I dabble in HTML and CSS but other than that I'm not much of a programmer. I am here, however, because the articles that come up are interesting and the discourse that happens in the comments section is always high minded and interesting.
Coming to visit Hacker News exclusively over a place like Reddit has been a breath of fresh air. I hope things like this article keep coming up alongside posts about hacking more specifically.
Coming to visit Hacker News exclusively over a place like Reddit has been a breath of fresh air. I hope things like this article keep coming up alongside posts about hacking more specifically.
"things like this article" are exactly why reddit is no longer the way it once was. You will destroy HN with your wish.
Not true. This article could easily have been on Reddit in the first year.
What ruined Reddit was (a) an influx of 14 year olds, who (b) were allowed to continue to behave as they had on Digg or wherever else they came from.
What ruined Reddit was (a) an influx of 14 year olds, who (b) were allowed to continue to behave as they had on Digg or wherever else they came from.
But wasn't the influx of 14 year olds driven by general interest articles, which very slowly got less interesting and more general?
How could that slow boil be prevented?
How could that slow boil be prevented?
I think the 14 year olds were attracted by a sense of lawlessness, most visible in the long, highly editorialized titles and the trollish comments.
It wasn't so much general interest articles that signalled the decline of Reddit as partisan political ones. I.e. articles that didn't merely involve politics, but were instances of it.
It wasn't so much general interest articles that signalled the decline of Reddit as partisan political ones. I.e. articles that didn't merely involve politics, but were instances of it.
BTW, let me add that by "14 year olds" I mean people who behave like 14 year olds. Actual 14 year olds are welcome here so long as we can't tell.
For the record, I was 15 when I started reading Slashdot.
It's easy to say that the ideas and hackerdom I found there significantly changed the course of my life.
Here's to today's 14- and 15-year olds!
It's easy to say that the ideas and hackerdom I found there significantly changed the course of my life.
Here's to today's 14- and 15-year olds!
Political (not policy) cheer leading is an excellent indicator that someone can't think.
Hopefully, as long as we keep HN free of politics we'll avoid redditization.
Hopefully, as long as we keep HN free of politics we'll avoid redditization.
Actually I think it's the lack of moderation. Reddit was (is) very proud not to be moderated, and look where it got them.
I've seen you moderate submissions here, and I appreciate it.
I've seen you moderate submissions here, and I appreciate it.
So flag it.
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In his defense, I don't think he was suggesting it's either spam or egregiously off topic.
What bothers curmudgeons like me and him is the gentle slope towards Everybody News.
What bothers curmudgeons like me and him is the gentle slope towards Everybody News.
Also, the title of the submission is poorly worded, suggesting that the Arab producers were asking the question.
I was worried about that over 6 months ago, and in that time it hasn't got worse then it was then, so heres hoping it stays that way ! (just a single data point, but its something !).
Do you think it is "sliding" over time? Or are you just (rightly so) being vigilant ?
Do you think it is "sliding" over time? Or are you just (rightly so) being vigilant ?
I do have a subtle feeling it's sliding but that's very likely just my paranoia.
I've heard the opposite..not about Saudi Arabians, though. My mother was the boss of an Iranian immigrant, and he was apparently completely unable to respect instructions given by a woman. And we are not talking about burger-flipping here, but pharmaceutical production.
This is an anecdote answered with an anecdote, but let's not put this whole cultural difference under a chair. Women aren't regarded as the professional equals of men in all parts of the world. I'm not starting a gender debate here; in some ways it is a pretty interesting difference. Especially if you see that those Arabian cultures that are even more "different" (polygamy, for instance) actually have a lot of similarities to promiscuous life in the West..at least from the male's point of view. There are a lot of facts about morale and life in these societies that doesn't come to light in any politically correct discussion.
I wish I had a better skill for languages so I could go over there and see these things first-hand...