Bush official nailed on cultural differences

Remove all ads!

Now this is funny:

Karen Hughes, a former high muckety-muck for the Bush Administration who retired to family life and returned to take over the PR outreach to Arab countries, is taken to the woodshed by a bunch of educated Saudi women.

While I gave a bit of a snort at the statement that the abaya can be fashionable, on the whole I think the Saudis gave her the business. Particularly poignant was the statement

I saw another version of the story in which they criticized the U.S. for assuming that everyone in the world wants to live like Americans do.

But what is particularly interesting to me is that these women said specifically that they do not want the right to vote nor the right to drive a car.

What do you all think of this? Can those feelings be the genuine thoughts of well adjusted women? I for one think it is entirely possible that women could be content without either of those rights (because, for example, they think politics are for men and they prefer the much more important world of traditional homemaking), but I expect that I am in the minority there.

 

Absolutely. Just because they don't want the trappings of Western society and materialism, or see the same goals as Western feminists, it does not mean that they are stupid, ignorant or participants in their own victimisation. You can't impose one set of values on everybody (the recent "Tolerance" thread being a good case in point) and decry everyone who doesn't follow them as oppressive or ignorant. It's not as though these principles have existed since the dawn of time, or that they are without flaw and perfect.

The right to vote is a stickler for me... then again, half of the US doesn't vote anyway, so it's hardly a model of citizen participation. However, that's a choice not to vote, rather than an exclusion from doing so, which is a different matter, IMO. Still, if the husband votes on behalf of the household, then the issue of non-representation becomes increasingly unclear. Without more information, I won't comment further on that issue.

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not... but even if that was their perspective, consider the impact of social change on family structures in the Western world since the mid-20th century. IMO, you can't build a complex political structure without strong support, infrastructure and relative social cohesion. It shouldn't be the only option, though - and I think that's the heart of Western concerns about the social position of Arab women.

I would be more inclined to think that they just don't see those things as being particularly important to them. These women are educated and successful; they have professional jobs and are apparently quite happy with their situation. Oppression is almost always a relative thing to the supposedly oppressed; while it may not be acceptable to a Westerner, if there is no evidence to suggest that such statements of happiness are coerced or falsified, one can hardly call them ignorant victims of structural violence and expect to be taken seriously.

 

Thinking that all arabian women are unhappy would be quite a strange statement. I believe that most of the women actually are living within very happy relationships but then there is the minority who live in absolute hell. The laws in many arab states give the men a lot of rights to abuse their women but I'd like to think that most of them won't use those rights, because I know I would not want to hurt my loved one and I don't believe that love is any different in middle east.

 

The problem is not so much with the women whom are happy not being able to drive, it is with the disenfranchised women whom protest by getting behind the wheel, where upon they are thrown in the local jail and abused by the local tradition enforcers.

It goes beyond just driving and voting you realize...

And just because most (a dubious theoretical most) are happy with not having the freedoms given to men does not mean that it is acceptable to deny the remaining women their equivalency.

 

LNT,

I'm not suggesting that everyone's happy about it, merely arguing that it's a position people could reasonably come to. You and I (and I imagine many others) might find it an abhorrent imbalance, and the potential for its abuse is certainly clear. I wouldn't support such a situation over here, but it bears remembering that women didn't get the vote in Western nations until well after men did and the attitude that "women should be barefoot and pregnant" still persists, though far from being widely accepted.

However, it's entirely possible that they just don't care enough about it to make a fuss. I can see it going far beyond voting and driving, certainly, but to take those points in isolation without a better understanding of the social dynamics and gender expectations in that setting is something I don't want to do. So, in answer to St James' question, just because it wouldn't happen here, doesn't mean that it cannot be a "normal", stable, valid and accepted state of affairs elsewhere.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it "right".

 

The Arab world is making progress, so its none of America's business. Due to culture over there, it will take a long time, but at least something positive is being done.

Now take Walmart in the US for example, most of its employees are women, yet what percentage of women are in management? hmmmmmm

Anyway, contrary to popular belief, the rest of the world is not jealous of the US, afterall, the Republic of Ireland, and Norway are just 2 countries that have a higher standard of living, than the US.

[ September 29, 2005, 11:25: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

I am reminded of the opening scene in the famous novel "The Scarlet Letter." It is the women who are mocking Hester Prynne. Hawthrone's strategy is that both the oppressed and the oppressors often buy into the double standard of inequality. Could there be parallels in two highly theological and patriarchal societies? One Puritanical and the other a reactionary Islamic state? Could be. Conformity has its benefits. Notice that they all even dress the same - "covered in black."

There is a notion here also that it is to the benefit of the oppressed to deny them their basic natural rights. Yes, they do the more important work of "homemaking." Well, yes they get to choose the color of the carpeting and the men get to decide policy, laws and the structure of the justice system - all that less important stuff.

The other parallel is that there is a close relationship bewteen the Saudi regime and the Bush II administation. We all got to see George II give the Saudi King a big smooch when he came to visit a year or so ago. But let's not beat around the Bush here - Karen is there to put foward the "progressive" face of the Bush II administration, which they are trying to sell to the American public. They are really saying: "See we are here to help the Saudis into the 21st centrury; just was we are in Iraq. We are engaged in bringing democracy, and thereby, we are changing the Middle East once and for all." The Saudi Royal family and the Bush family - brothers in arms - for "progress."

 

Yeah, that is one possibility, Chandos the Red. Perhaps they have gotten so used to being oppressed that they welcome it and actually think it is good.

It is one thing not to care about driving or voting, but some of the laws in Arab countries -- well, I have no idea how one can justify them as fair.

If you think, however, that making a home is simply a matter of picking the carpet and washing dishes, then I am going to have to assume you are not married.

 

More light to shed on this story (my favorite part I've emphasized in bold):

From here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2127102/?nav=tap3

 

I think she says it all. And she is completley right. If anyone expects that just by simply giving women the right to vote and the right to drive, he will not face a horde of very upset and angry women telling that person to go to hell...
that person just didn't inform itself well enough about the people concerned and, more importantly, how women react when faced with someone proposing to take away their rights and privileges in such an impertinent way.

The basic error is to think about a working and existing society in too simple terms. This ends up in very unfruitful conclusions, like: Not being able to drive makes those poor oppressed women sad. If I now change the laws and give them the right to vote, they will cheer me and put roses on the street to welcome me, because I am such a good-hearted and wise person.... NOT

And keep religion out. Catholic and Protestant women and men are just the same.

It's obvious, that women can profit from a system that oppresses women? Why souldn't they.
And if they can't drive, then it might be very well be, that their society provides them with something that compensates them more than enough for not having their own car.

In a hierarchical society, there are plenty of roles and functions to be filled, giving women very real career choices. And, and as a result, women will fight for their privileges. Because unwanted equality might be striping them of their privilieges, power-positions and their wealth.

In a oppressing and hierarchichal society, there is plenty of money and power in the hands of women. And a lot of women would come out at the losing end, if suddenly equality would be introduced.

Therefore, don't expect women give away their good life in paradise just for a little driving around town. It could be very well like telling an female officer that the army has been disbanded and she's now free. Free to go and earn her living through cleaning up public toilets.

 

This reminds of the pathetic attempts by the South to produce slaves who testified to those who wanted to end slavery, of how much better off they were as slaves, rather than if they were given their freedom. Then there was the same silly argument that the Southern masters treated them better than those in the more "enlightened" states, where slavery was illegal.

Well, yes madam. Can you just move to the back of the bus now please....

 

No. I think the comparison with slaves in the South is wrong. And there is no need to stage anything.

There many women that are bright and intelligent and accomplished in their professions, that wouldn't want the right to vote and the right to drive... that much. That much they would be willing to pay the price.

But slavery is involved whent it's about the Arabian-peninsula. The Arabic countries on the Arab-peninsula are an international magnet for immagrants and foreign workers. 40%-80% of the population is made up by foreigners. Some of them are high-qualified white-collar, but some of those foreigners are factually slaves. In particular if they are women and hail from countries like Kenya, Senegal or the philippines.

If one reads about abuses in countries from the Arabian Peninsula, it mostly hits foreign women, that is the underclass, the "slaves".

And that's why I think the comparision with the Southern slaves and Arabian women is wrong. It would be more pertinent if one compares the Southern slave-master with the Arabian women. Granted, that's a very simplistic and crude way to put it, but if you are Saudi-Arabian upper class or middle-class woman,doesn't it boil down to this: Give up your slave girls, "housekeepers" and your luxurious way of live to gain the right to ... (drum beat) .... drive a car!!!

Not that you couldn't drive a car enough on your annual trip to Spain and Italy. Or on the yacht at weekends (making some waves outside of the 3-mile-zone).

I think the most important detail that should never slip from the back of one's mind is, that the Arabian countries buy the support of their citizens through bathing them in money and luxury. Tremendous luxury. If one has a lot to lose, one isn't too interested in change...

 

Well, that's a tough sell for anyone who has studied the American Revolution and the Revolutionay generation in a meaningful way. That is what some of those who were NOT Sons and Daughters of Liberty argued back then, that security and wealth were more important than liberty. They just did not see what all the fuss was about. Needless to say, that along with those who valued liberty during the Revolution, I have the same contempt for those who would rather live in the lap of luxury than to live as free individuals. But the love and passion for liberty may be more of an "American principle." Yet, I refuse to believe that. Sorry, I just beleive that all humans value that same principle at some level.

 

Well, I said I would put it crude to get at least a fragment of my point through. And keep me from being misunderstood in a chauvinistic way. But I am convinced that a big part of the Saudi-Women are not only satisfied in a material sense, but also in an ideal way. Probably living and working through there lives and being proud of it. And if someone comes, telling them how to live their lives. Indeed, most of those muslim women seem red and white coloured to me, with their "don't tread on me"-attitude if they feel patronized somehow.

And as most Saudi-Women are highly educated and have spent a few years abroad, they probably know what they are talking about, when they talk about Europe and America. I bet the Dr.Siddiqa Kama from above made her degree somewhere on the east-coast, Using her spare time to absorb the culture and lifstyle of the natives there.

And given the fact that sophisticated people, or people that simply consider themsleves to be intelligent and bright enough and probably are, don't like to see themselves depicted als helpless and dumb victims. In fact, I think they generate some hightend sensitivity to anyone who comes their way and seems to consider them generally as "stupid". Just because their from Saudiland. In this case, they may react with anger. And go for the abdomen, depending on age, literally or virtually.

And I think that is just what happend to Karen Hughes. She acted like she was thinking of her audience as stupid.

Common, that's as patronizing and presumptuous as it gets!... Someday, poor principal, you'll be able to fully participate in society... and not only being restricted to manage and supervise a not too small part of it...

If there's a problem, that's just the wrong way to adress it...