No Women Drivers in Saudi Arabia?

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Why is having a maid over there (in Saudi) so different from having a maid here? The person offers their services, and they get paid. No, women and girls are not beaten for public policy…(and no, people in the USA don’t go around shooting Arabs. That’s what I had to always tell the Saudi women to assure them that it was OK to send their sons to USA university).</p>

<p>No, young girls are not beaten for what they wear. I was in Saudi at the time of the burning building, and yes, the mutawa’in did beat the girls back into the building, where the girls met their death. There was an outcry and it was the fathers/ men that led the charge for changes. From that point forward, we had firedrills, and we were assured that we could leave our abayas behind, in the event of a fire.</p>

<p>It’s actually the women who enforce the wearing of the abaya. I was sitting on a stool at the shopping mall, and a bit of my dress was exposed. The women next to me informed me that my abaya needed to be ‘adjusted’ to better cover myself. On the way home, it was windy…and I was struggling to keep my abaya from blowing open. Along the sidewalk, the men were straining to catch a glimpse of all the (women’s) ankles…and anything else they might be able to see. Believe me, it is not the men who are keeping the women covered up.</p>

<p>As for brutality of women…there was none. Everything I had read (while in the USA) suggested that women are beaten and disregarded. Not true. I even asked my students…they were surprised that people have that perception of them/ their country/ their men. In fact, their families are tighter-knit than <em>anything</em> I’ve ever seen in the USA.</p>

<p>Women are well taken-care of in Saudi Arabia. Saudi women walk with dignity, and they chose to wear the veil even when they are in London/ Paris. They know they are unique in their dress, and they wear it proudly…even when they don’t have to.</p>

<p>I was not the only woman driven around…all Saudi women are driven around…taxis are no more than 2 seconds away, and the cost is about $1.00. Who wants to drive if they don’t have to???</p>

42

<p>The women keep the other women covered up… out of altruism? Or cattiness?</p>

<p>In response to your last question… I LOVE driving. Yes, it is a privilege - but my responsibility to obtain that privilege is to show documentation to obtain a license, pass a test, and maintain a good driving record. My lack of balls does not, in any way, impede this ability. I despise being dependent upon others; I hate taking taxis; and I really dislike having to pay others to do things that I’m more than happy to do myself. </p>

<p>You miss the point. Whether or not women WANT these things, a civilized society gives them those choices. Women can be taken care of - but a civilzed society recognizes that they can take care of themselves. A prison, no matter how well-appointed, is no substitute for freedom.</p>

43

<p>From the Amnesty International Report on human rights abuses against women in Saudi Arabia:</p>

<p>"…Laws regulating the system of government, namely the Basic Law, Law on the Consultative Council, and Local Government Law, all issued in 1992, are silent on the question of women. They do not contain any reference to women or gender discrimination or indeed to such basic human rights as freedom from torture, the right to freedom of assembly or association, freedom from slavery, or the right to free speech. Certain rights are protected, such as the right to work and social security.9 The protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty is rendered almost meaningless by being subject to the ‘‘rules of the system’’ (see Arbitrary arrest and detention, Chapter 2).</p>

<p>The Consultative Council Law, providing for a council of 60 unelected members (later increased to 90) to advise the King, contains no reference to women as members of the Council and none of its committees has a remit to deal with gender issues.10</p>

<p>Discrimination in law against women is not limited to laws regulating the system of government and decision-making. For example, the Labour Code11 and the Policy of Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia12 contain direct and indirect discriminatory clauses against women. Some of the direct discriminatory clauses are based on explicit exclusion of women from certain jobs, but the main thrust of discrimination in employment and education derives fundamentally from the widely and strictly enforced segregation of the sexes. Clauses which deny women the right to choose are contained in the Labour Code. Article 48 of the Labour Code stipulates that ‘’…all Saudi workers have equal right to work in all parts of the Kingdom, without discrimination.‘’ However, this general stipulation is undermined by other provisions which discriminate against women. Article 160 prohibits the employment of women and juveniles in ‘‘hazardous’’ operations which are said to include working with power-related machinery, mines, quarries and the like. It is a basic philosophy of the government’s education policy to restrict women’s employment opportunities from childhood, as stipulated in Article 153 of the Policy of Education, which states that one of the primary aims of girls’ education is ‘’…to prepare her for work compatible with her disposition as a woman, such as teaching, nursing and the medical profession.''13</p>

<p>The discrimination derived from the segregation of the sexes is contained in Article 160 of the Labour Code which also prohibits the co-mingling of men and women in the workplace and its facilities. Similarly, Article 155 of the Policy of Education prohibits the mixing between boys and girls throughout the different stages of their education, except at creche and kindergarten levels.</p>

<p>The policy of segregation of the sexes is cemented further with fatawa (religious rulings) that prevent women from mingling with unrelated men in public and is blatantly discriminatory against women with its consequences reflected in their low rate of participation in the workforce.</p>

<p>There are many provisions in the Labour Code that are positive for women. Articles 164 to 171 provide for some paid maternity leave; periods of rest to feed the newborn child; the employer’s obligations to meet the cost of the woman’s delivery and treatment; protection from dismissal during pregnancy and maternity leave; and protection from dismissal on the basis of certificated pregnancy-related illness. Yet domestic workers, the overwhelming majority of whom are women, are explicitly excluded from the protection offered by the Labour Code under its Article 3.</p>

<p>Furthermore, domestic workers are unable to benefit (because of their exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code) from Article 78, which provides that:
The employer may not transfer the workman from his original place of work to another place necessitating a change in his place of residence, if such a transfer is apt to cause serious prejudice to the workman and is not justified by a valid reason dictated by the nature of the work.
Amnesty International was repeatedly told by domestic workers that they were passed around different households ‘‘like parcels’’. The Indonesian non-governmental organization, Solidaritas Perempuan, said it dealt with one client who had been transferred 18 times in two years. The exclusion of domestic workers from the protection contained in the Labour Code is inconsistent with Saudi Arabia’s own legislation, particularly Article 28 of the Basic Law, which stipulates: ‘‘The state… shall enact laws to protect both the employee and the employer.’’</p>

<p>Discrimination against women, whether direct or indirect, is a serious breach of Saudi Arabia’s international obligations, particularly ILO Convention No. 111. The Committee of Experts of the ILO said the following in relation to Article 160, in the context of Saudi Arabia’s obligations pursuant to its ratification of ILO Convention No. 111:
'‘The Committee notes once again that Section 160 of the Labour Code has the effect of prejudicing equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women and is therefore incompatible with the Convention. The prohibition on men and women being together at the workplace results in occupational segregation according to sex since it restricts women to jobs where they will only be in contact with other women and which are deemed to be suitable to their nature and not contrary to current traditions.’'14</p>

<p>The same Committee subsequently said:
'‘The Committee points out that it is not necessary for measures to have a discriminatory intent for them to be in contradiction of the Convention. The Committee observes that the impact of this section of the Labour Code on the working conditions of women does fall within the definition of discrimination on the basis of sex contained in the Convention…’'15
In family law, women’s rights are at their most unequal when compared with men’s rights. Under the family law as applied in Saudi Arabia, not only may a male, under certain circumstances, marry up to four wives, a man can divorce a woman instantaneously, whereas a woman must satisfy the court that one of the defined ‘‘causes’’ is met. The causes are: failure to maintain, absence of conjugal rights, extreme cruelty, infidelity, impotence, disability and abandonment (for three years). The problem is exacerbated further by the fact that social pressures will often discourage a woman from seeking divorce. </p>

<p>According to Dr 'Abdullah bin Sultan al-Sabi’i, a Saudi Arabian professor of psychology: '‘Women fear divorce and to be without a husband and to be accused of destroying her home… She is also forced by her family into accepting the situation [of domestic violence] because marriage in our country is a tie between two families… in addition, our tribal society know each other and women fear scandals.’'16</p>

<p>On divorce, women may retain custody of any children only until they reach the age of seven (for boys) and nine (for girls). The divorced wife can expect maintenance from her husband for three months only, after which she must rely on her family or charity. Husbands pay dowries to their wives on marriage, which is for the wife to keep and not for use in the support of the family. That money is kept by the wife upon divorce and may provide some financial security in the absence of maintenance for herself."</p>

<p>Lots more at the link:</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE230572000[/url]”>http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE230572000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

44

<p>There will be consequences to Saudia Arabia by discriminating against women. In countries where women work at levels approaching those of men, they add to the goods and services and wealth of that country. Saudia Arabia’s oil revenues will decline at some point. When that happens, it will be a country with a lot of people but limited wealth other than former investment wealth. The effect will be to return Saudia Arabia to the Third World Country it would be without oil. This may take fifty years, but the longterm outlook for countries that discriminate against women is not good.</p>

<p>I am glad to see that some countries in the middle east are starting to recognize the value of women. In Kuwait, women can vote and drive. It was difficult for women to obtain the right to vote, but they did it.</p>

45

<p>“No, young girls are not beaten for what they wear.”</p>

<p>You must know this is a lie. The fact that the police felt justified in using physical violence to drive children back into a burning building indicates that a great familiarity with violence against young girls. It strains credulity to state that the police would just suddenly START beating girls for what they wear when a building just HAPPENS to be on fire. Obviously there was a history, even a habit, there.</p>

<p>“It’s actually the women who enforce the wearing of the abaya.” </p>

<p>This is totally unsurprising. Oppressed and/or captive populations pretty typically react this way. It’s frightening when one of your number challenges authority–it could bring down sanctions on everyone! Not to mention the hegemony involved, that is, oppressed people taking on the values of their oppressors.</p>

46

<p>Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Visits Jeddah on “Listening Tour”</p>

<p>2005 tour of the Middle East</p>

<p>Starting with a September 26, 2005 stop in Egypt, Hughes went on a tour of the Middle East to speak with leaders and people from the region.
On her September 27 stop in Jidda, Saudi Arabia during a talk with female students, she expressed her wish that women could “fully participate in society” as they do in the United States. In response one of the women said "The general image of the Arab woman is that she isn’t happy […] Well, we’re all pretty happy."2. Her talk underlined the differences between the view the U.S. has for Arab women and the views of women in traditional societies about their position.</p>

<p>.Hughes also participated in a dialogue hosted by Dar Al-Hekma, a private women’s college. She heard from students, faculty, administrators, as well as leading academics, businesswomen, professional women and journalists. “I have to say I was impressed by the Saudi women I met, and by their outspokenness and their intelligence. They clearly feel very much a part of the debate in their society, even though I think for Americans that’s hard for us to understand given that they are not allowed to vote in their society. But they clearly feel that they have a voice, and they are able to speak out, and they are able to influence their society,” Hughes stated.</p>

<p>Why is it so important for Americans think that Saudi women (somehow) <em>must</em> be miserable?</p>

47

<p>Really, I don’t pay much attention when a carefully selected group of people trotted out for a specific occasion say they are happy or unhappy with this, that or the other. When he visited East Germany, President Reagan was told that East Germans really liked the Berlin Wall and wanted it to stay up; all sorts of people were trotted out in support of this. Only when his aides were able to talk in private with the citizens, did they get the real story, leading to the famous quote: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” </p>

<p>All other issues aside, I doubt that a Saudi woman could criticize the government or the religious police without fear of retribution. It would be too easy to accuse her of “witchcraft” or “apostasy from Islam”, crimes punishable by death, per this link: <a href=“http://www.photius.com/countries/saudi_arabia/national_security/saudi_arabia_national_security_crime_and_punishment.html[/url]”>http://www.photius.com/countries/saudi_arabia/national_security/saudi_arabia_national_security_crime_and_punishment.html&lt;/a&gt; , which goes on to state that “Executions could be carried out by beheading, firing squad, or stoning of the convicted person in a drugged state.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html[/url]”>http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"…intense fear and secrecy surrounding the imposition of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Those facing execution are rarely told in advance the date of execution. Sometimes prisoners are not even aware that they have been sentenced to death. </p>

<p>The death penalty is frequently imposed following summary and secret trials. None of those executed has had access to a lawyer. Some have been convicted solely on the basis of “confessions” extracted by torture."</p>

<p>I think it’s very telling, Saudi, that in your post about the school fire, you talked only about the “fathers” getting changes made. The women were invisible in your post, and I suspect, in the public debate as well.</p>

48

<p>Here’s an interesting link: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/asia_pacific/saudi_arabia.html[/url]”>http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/asia_pacific/saudi_arabia.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Excerpts:</p>

<p>How did it become illegal for women to drive:</p>

<p>“In November 1990, a group of forty-seven women staged a demonstration to press their claim for the right to drive. The mutawwiin demanded that the women be punished. The government confiscated the women’s passports, and those employed as teachers were fired. The previously unofficial ban on women’s driving quickly became official.”</p>

<p>Site has numerous examples where people who spoke out against Saudi government were arrested, lost their jobs, etc. </p>

<p>Also, from the same source, “Informants (known as “mukhbir”) and ward bosses (known as “umdas”) report “seditious ideas” or antigovernment activity in their neighborhoods to the Ministry of the Interior.”</p>

<p>“The Mutawwa’in generally are free to intimidate and bring to police stations persons whom they accuse of committing “crimes of vice” based on their own religious interpretations. There are few procedures to safeguard against abuse”</p>

<p>“Some professors believe that informers monitor comments made in university classrooms and make reports to government authorities.”</p>

<p>So much for happy-happy-joy-joy public interviews.</p>

<p>This site, as well as others I seen, confirms that foreign women, such as US nationals, are regularly harassed by the police for dress code violations, despite Saudi’s assertions to the contrary.</p>

<p>“Women of many nationalities were detained for actions such as riding in a taxi with a man who was not their relative, appearing with their heads uncovered in shopping malls, and eating in restaurants with males who were not their relatives. Many such prisoners were held for days, sometimes weeks, without officials notifying their families or, in the case of foreigners, their embassies.”</p>

<p>But if anyone had any doubt left about the position of women in Saudi society, here’s the kicker:</p>

<p>“A woman’s testimony does not carry the same weight as that of a man. In a Shari’a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women.”</p>

<p>“Women are not admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative.” (This must be particularly frightening for victims of spousal abuse).</p>

<p>“A Saudi man may prevent his wife and any child or unmarried adult daughter from obtaining an exit visa to depart the country.”</p>

<p>“Female parties to court proceedings such as divorce and family law cases generally must deputize male relatives to speak on their behalf.”</p>

<p>Oh and some interesting stuff on those maids and cooks:</p>

<p>“Foreign embassies continued to receive many reports that employers abuse foreign women working as domestic servants. Some embassies of countries with large domestic servant populations maintain safehouses to which their citizens may flee to escape work situations that include forced confinement, withholding of food, beating and other physical abuse, and rape.”</p>

<p>Saudi, I really have to thank you. Before this, I thought of Saudi Arabia as a moderate society with some odd quirks. It wasn’t until your paper-thin arguments encouraged me to do the research that I realized just how oppressive SA is toward women.</p>

49

<p>The House of Saud would do well to follow the example of the way we do things.<br>
Women can’t drive, but can!</p>

<p>(i so love this kind’a stuff)</p>

50

<p>For all your evidence, I can mention (even more) oppressive activities than even what you’ve got in your post. For instance, we had to ‘talk in code’ when speaking on the telephone, as the phones were allegedly ‘tapped’. Additionally, we had to show our ‘papers’ at certain points while going about our day. Interestingly enough, doesn’t this describe the USA?</p>

<p>For instance, we now know that our USA government has been spying on its citizens, listening in on telephone conversations. Additionally, in 2008, we will have our own ‘papers’ to show….in order to get a job, do banking, etc….as a result of the Real ID Act legislation passed in May 2006. Already, can you go anywhere/ do anything without showing your driver’s license/ social security number?</p>

<p>How about high-ranking officials (or anybody, for that matter) that have spoken out against Bush, or have engaged in anti-governmental activities? Do they still have their jobs? No. We have our own informants, as well…they’re called ‘leaks to the media’…with all the ensuing consequences.</p>

<p>As for the Mutaww’in being free to intimidate and bring to police stations, persons whom they accuse of committing crimes based on their own (criteria). Need I mention Gitmo? Even the Los Angeles Police Dept has fit this profile from time to time.</p>

<p>As for your comment re: ‘happy-happy-joy-joy public interviews….granted, there is NO photo-op (yes, again, even in the USA) that is not in some way ‘staged’. We hear it all the time how election debates are construed to present only the best impression about each candidate. Yet, somehow because it’s here in the USA, it’s OK. The main purpose in including Karen Hughes’ experience(s), was that it mirrored my own experiences…and, unlike Karen Hughes, I was in the college everyday, for an entire year.</p>

<p>Re: foreign women, such as US nationals, are regularly harassed by police for dress code violation. Yes, this is true, because it IS their dress code. The USA has its own dress code. If a woman from Yap Island, who (at least in the past) is traditionally topless and wearing only a grass skirt, shows up at the San Francisco Airport….would she be ‘harassed’ by the police. Would her rights be violated? Or, is it just that we expect people to be fully-clothed? We have our customary dress, Saudi Arabia has its customary dress, and the Yap Islanders (had) their customary dress…until the USA went in and spoiled their customary ways….hooray to the Saudis, if they can resist what Americans <em>think</em> they ought to wear!</p>

<p>Re: Women are not admitted to hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative? Not sure where you got this from….I was admitted to two different hospitals, on two different occasions, without any issue, whatsoever, just like in the USA. Too, the total bill for four surgeons, one month in hospital, and all ancillary care services came to a total of $5,000….give me a Saudi hospital anytime.</p>

<p>The USA has its own safehouses….they’re called ‘shelters for victims of domestic violence’. In other words, the Saudis do not have the market on domestic abuse.</p>

<p>Just about everything you mentioned is true, i.e. men can divorce easily…women must go before a court (which is a good thing right? This is how we get divorces in the USA, so sounds like Saudi Arabia is halfway there). However, you mention only the ‘bad’ things to make your point. You found <em>no</em> good things? I’ve never had a more fulfilling time than when I was in Saudi Arabia. Oh, and did I mention?…I’m a woman.</p>

<p>And, while you’re saying all these ‘bad’ things about Saudi Arabia, the Saudi women are saying all kinds of disparaging things about the USA. In this post, I’ve attempted to offer a balanced view…and, while in Saudi Arabia, I did my part to ensure that I gave them a balanced view, as well, i.e. “yes, a woman can still have dignity even though she must clean her own house”.</p>

<p>My intention was not to offer up paper-thin arguments….only to offer a balanced view. We prefer our way of life, they prefer theirs. You know the saying, “America, love it or leave it”? They have a similiar saying.</p>

<p>By reading my post, you were encouraged to do research and found out how oppressive Saudi Arabia is toward women. Before reading your post, I thought of America as the ‘land of the free’. Now I realize just how oppressive (no freedom allowed) the USA is toward <em>everyone</em>: 1) it’s own citizens [wire-tapping, the Real ID Act], 2) toward the Saudis (chest-thumping: “it is OUR world-view that must prevail”), and 3) the rest of the world…i.e. the ‘secret’ East European prisons, etc. Who’s the oppressive one? C’mon.</p>

51

<p>RE:" …intense fear and secrecy the imposition of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Those facing execution are rarely told in advance the date of execution. Sometimes prisoners are not even aware that they have been sentenced to death.</p>

<p>Actually, the upcoming beheadings were/are listed in a section of each Friday’s newspaper. Those that wanted, could go to ‘Chop-chop Square’ to witness the beheadings…like watching the hangings in the ol’ cowboy days. I thought to go…then, decided against it…thought it might give me nightmares.</p>

<p>The custom of listing the upcoming beheadings in each Friday’s newspaper was somewhat curtailed (every other Friday?) when the USA went into Afghanistan.</p>

52

<p>Wow. I was perusing this thread and did not “get” until almost all the way through that it was one that had been resurrected from last year. That took some doing!</p>

<p>A couple of things have stood out to me:</p>

<p>One of the first posters who was defending the Saudi way of life (but who said she was not from there) said:</p>

<p>“And they’ve seen what has happened when women are free, i.e. United States, and many of them leave their religion and the whole religion is weakened as a whole.”</p>

<p>(Sorry, I still have not managed the quote-box thingies…). Note she said “When women are FREE…” Implies to me that the men of that realm must know that it is in their best interest to keep women as “happy and content” as possible. That way they don’t know they are not free. How sad!</p>

<p>Also, re “Saudi’s” last post. Sorry, but “upcoming beheadings” listed in a section of each Friday’s newspaper??? That sounds absolutely horrific to me. </p>

<p>And I would ask Ms. Saudi, again, who cleans the house of the person who cleaned your house?? I mean, you indicated that everyone there had someone to clean and cook for them, right? </p>

<p>AND, I love to drive! Sometimes I do it just for fun…and if these Saudi women were allowed to experience that, they might (gasp!) decide for themselves to do things differently. You go on and on about how much they love being “taken care of” and how wonderful their way of life is, etc. But how much credence can you give that when these people have abosolutely NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER???</p>

<p>It just galls me that they do not have that opportunity. And I thank God I have the freedom to express that.</p>

<p>Good grief.</p>

53

<p>Maybe your chauffeur could drive you to the beheadings, Saudi.</p>

54

<p>Though I am repulsed by the Saudi regime, I have to hand it to you Ms Saudi; you seem to have memorized pretty much all the Democrat’s talking points (left out Iraq…was that intentional? or would it be bad form?). </p>

<p>Your happy regime, the “House of Saud” and it’s creepy minions, have persecuted those who practice my religion for generations (recently shamed into backing off a bit) even on to brutal executions and beheadings (“chop-chop square”…well, too bad you had other things to do than attend the festivities that day Ms Saudi, otherwise you might have been witness to the Wahhabi fondness for medieval-style executions; seeing my co-religionists [Sufis] innocent bodies molested and heads severed for the crime of worshiping God in their hearts–but between being chauffeured around to Western-style malls and stepping over your maids to make the next all-female hen-peck I can see where, for the hot-to trot Saudi-babe, it would just seem that there is never enough time in the day, even where a good ole-fashioned bloody-beheading is concerned–happy days, indeed). </p>

<p>If you were not at the same time an apologist for the brutal, backward and horrific regime in Saudi Arabia, I could have easily mistaken you for not a few of our regular posters in your disdain for America and inability to distinguish between brutal repression and American democracy, even in a time of crisis and even when enjoying its freedoms. </p>

<p>For Instance, the following little stink-bombs (disingenuous B. S., but you know that) are all tried and true canards–though rather played-out–right here on cc:

…check.

…check

…check

…no, don’t waste your breath, it’s mentioned here all the time…check

…check

…check</p>

<p>Somebody call Howard Dean… </p>

<p>…looks like we have a winner!</p>

<p>[btw…you’re not from San Francisco or Boston, are you? Just curious.]</p>

55

<p>I am a Democrat and am heartbroken over my country’s actions in the Middle East. I was an aid worker in Yemen years ago and learned, while experiencing incredibly warm hospitality there, that Arabs are not all alike. I am sad that most Americans are prejudiced against Arabs, but I understand that we hear little that is positive from that part of the world. I do, however, find the many of the Saudi regime’s actions disturbing. The following is a link to a New Yorker article on the Kingdom that you might find interesting: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/tkiofsinewyo.html[/url]”>Books, Articles and Lectures by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islamic Scholar, Jurist and Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law;

56

<p>

This kind of equivalence–actually, not equivalence, I’d say the brutal Saudi regime gets the better of SuNa’s comparison between, one-the-one-hand, the democracy and on the other, a medieval totalitarian state–is what troubles many about the rhetoric of the loyal opposition in this country.</p>

57

<p>Not sure what your post means. I’ve lived in two foreign countries, Yemen and Costa Rica, and appreciate the perspective I’ve been granted. I love my country and feel responsible for what it does in the world. I hate to see our prestige diminished, our good name blackened. I hate it that we are, at least in part, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. I certainly do not favor the Saudi regime. I think it is, in many ways, sick. Is it my place to criticize another culture? Well, yes, as long as I’m frank about the shortfallings of my own. All societies have flaws, what I call “cultural viruses.” One of ours is a self-defeating addiction to foreign oil.</p>

58

<p>I can simultaneously see the cultural flaws in Saudi Arabia and the US, without resorting to conservative talking points that suggest that seeing said US flaws is akin to treason.</p>

59

<p>"A few days later, I was handed the draft of an article by Mamdouh al-Harthy, the new reporter. He was from a prominent Bedouin tribe, but instead of a thobe he usually dressed in upscale casual Western clothes—jeans, oversized T-shirt, and sunglasses—with the name of the designer prominently displayed on every item. ‘Chicks notice such things,’ he advised me. When we went to the mall together, he stopped in his tracks like a bird dog and watched a pair of girls, entirely swathed in black, descending an escalator. ‘Check ’em out!’ he said, without irony.</p>

<p>Mamdouh was a child of the souk. His father owned an elegant shop downtown that sold dates and candies. He had a merchant’s facility with languages, speaking Urdu and Turkish, and his English was so colloquial that I never thought to worry about his writing ability. He had been working on a story about the hajj travel industry. His first draft began, ‘Hundreds of airplanes flaying hajjis to Saudi Arabia to performed hajj .most of those planes go back with no single passenger such as the Turkish airlines .other airlines claimed they r full occupied.’ I read through the brief piece, wondering what he could possibly mean by ‘the income is very pen fetal.’ "</p>

<p>A quote from ‘‘a New Yorker article on the Kingdom that you might find interesting’’.</p>

60

<p>Its a good thing that our government LOVES Saudi Arabia…yep indeedy…and works for democracy and human rights there all the time…yep indeedy…</p>

<p>FS- do you think this administration is correct in its regard of Saudi Arabia?</p>

<p>Seems like Bush is also an apologist for the brutal regime there as well…and Cheney…but hey, guess that is okay with some here, because if you critisize this government for its relationship with the Saudis, you hate america according to some…</p>

<p>So I don’t understand the post that hate the Saudi regime, yet also put down those that think our governments relationship with them is also wrong…</p>

<p>What can I say, makes absoultely no sense</p>