Are there women in Saudi Arabia who would like more freedom? Undoubtedly. Are they in the majority? I'm skeptical.

I said nothing about a percentage: I think it would be rather difficult to determine their desire for freedom because (sorry to quote myself) "Second of all, I retain a healthy skepticism whenever I encounter someone who defends their own figurative (if not sometimes literal) imprisonment and subjugation."

The answer is and must be that the women participate in the 'oppression' as well.

If they do participate, it's on a cultural level only, I think.  Seeing as Saudi women have zilch political power, that is.  This doesn't leave them much room to maneuver.  Throw a healthy dash of fear on top of that and I can see how woman "participate" in their own oppression...much the way that antebellum slaves participated in their own captivity.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

political power is built on top of cultural power - not the other way around. If you agree that Saudi society is relatively stable, then you should at least be willing to examine the possibility that the women are aiding and abetting in that stability.

If you take (for comparison) the american women's lib movement starting from the earliest right to vote proponents, the loudest voices of opposition came from other women. The whole idea that women would rise up and throw off their burqas if only they were 'free' to do so got exposed for the myth it was in Afghanistan and I see no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true for Saudi Arabia.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

political power is built on top of cultural power - not the other way around.

I don't think it's that simple. One is not stacked on top of the other. They're intertwined. I still say that what you call "aiding and abetting" is difficult to separate from ingrained mores and indoctrination.

Unless there's something inherent in women that makes them prefer suppression to relative freedom, I would suggest that the voices of opposition to which you refer might be those of women who, for a variety of possible reasons, lacked the ability to imagine and to foresee any different status for themselves other than dependency. And what they could imagine and foresee undoubtedly frightened the hell out of them. So how else to react but with a resounding affirmation of the status quo.  

But other than to blame the people who I believe do not have the opportunity to be anything other than complicit, I don't see the reason you followed "Its freakin Saudi Arabia of COURSE they treat women like shit" with "Just remember...its not like the men are holding all the women hostage -- the women support these cultural values just as much as the men."  

Unless there's something inherent in women that makes them prefer suppression to relative freedom

Not just women, but people in general. What we need to remember is two things. First, even in groups with little power, that power is not spread about equally. Women living in Saudi Arabia are in general powerless, but some women have power over others -- and some of that power is expressly granted for buying into the the current structure. Greater freedom for all women means social upheaval, which translates into a possible loss of status for some of the matriarchs -- and the more power was gained through compliance, the greater the possibility.

Second, despite having some little power, those women on top of their tiny hierarchy have also suffered greatly for years. If all that goes away, they will have suffered for nothing -- and less than nothing, if they end up downtrodden again due to their ties to the previous system. We can see this aspect in play in plenty of other social orders we're familiar with, from hospital residencies to indie rock.

The women in Saudi Arabia don't have to like suppression, they just have to like power and fear change more.

Am I incorrect in suggesting that what you describe, particularly in your second paragraph, is essentially cognitive dissonance? Or am I misusing that phrase?

As I understand it, you're both using the term correctly and rightly identifying it as part of what I'm describing, ms_sue. Even if Saudi women haven't ever seen examples for Western cultural norms, they surely must be aware of the difference they see every day in treatment between the sexes.

political power is built on top of cultural power

I realize I'm disingenuously taking this out of context to the extent that in a closed, peaceful social system, cultural values become reflected in political will...but in an absolute sense this the most--possibly only truly--naive thing I've read from you.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

in an absolute sense this the most--possibly only truly--naive thing I've read from you.

Ah thefadd, you only think its naive because you've forgotten the cynical core which is my nature. Its easy to get people to oppress themselves - look at african nations crying out for Sharia law, look at the middle ages with hundreds of years of uninterrupted feudal society.

Which do you prefer to believe - that government throughout history had so much to stamp out all minor pockets of dissent or that pockets of dissent tend to be minor and rarely inspire the populace at large to revolt?

Just as a thought -- the word "revolution" is itself relatively modern in origin. Now THAT's thought control.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

ARTHUR:  I am your king!
  WOMAN:  Well, I didn't vote for you.
  ARTHUR:  You don't vote for kings.
  WOMAN:  Well, 'ow did you become king then?
  ARTHUR:  The Lady of the Lake,
      [angels sing]
      her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
      from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
      Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
      [singing stops]
      That is why I am your king!
  DENNIS:  Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
      is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power
      derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
      aquatic ceremony.
  ARTHUR:  Be quiet!
  DENNIS:  Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
      just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
  ARTHUR:  Shut up!
  DENNIS:  I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
      because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
      put me away!
  ARTHUR:  Shut up!  Will you shut up!
  DENNIS:  Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
  ARTHUR:  Shut up!
  DENNIS:  Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
      HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
  ARTHUR:  Bloody peasant!
  DENNIS:  Oh, what a give away.  Did you here that, did you here that,
      eh?  That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
      you saw it didn't you?

A google of "etymology of revolution" led to this bit of provocative weirdness.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Very odd what you´ll find on the tubes eh? In case your search stopped there, here is a better etymology.

revolution  
1390, originally of celestial bodies, from O.Fr. revolution, from L.L. revolutionem (nom. revolutio) "a revolving," from L. revolutus, pp. of revolvere "turn, roll back" (see revolve). General sense of "instance of great change in affairs" is recorded from c.1450. Political meaning first recorded 1600, derived from French, and was especially applied to the expulsion of the Stuart dynasty under James II in 1688 and transfer of sovereignty to William and Mary. Revolutionary as a noun is first attested 1850, from the adjective. Revolutionize "to change a thing completely and fundamentally" is first recorded 1799.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

His etymologies were probably the least interesting thing on that page. One question, though, if you're getting people to oppress themselves aren't they being oppressed. I agree with your sentiment entirely that plenty of saudi women are complicit in their society's oppression of women. I'd argue, though, that those complicit women aren't being oppressed. The trade offs they make, they make of their own choice and also afford them certain additional social freedoms that don't subject them to the oppression of their female peers. i.e., most well-to-do women who support the system probably have a much lower likelihood of being dragged from a car and gang raped because of the security the system affords them. To that end, you're also blatantly leaving economic factors out of the equation, but then so was ms sue.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

A little righteous indignation at how man treats man, country of origin notwithstanding, seems like a fine sentiment to me.

So I don't think you really need to defend your diary entry. I didn't infer a call to arms from it. I mean, come on, surely there is a middle ground between sending in the troops and wetkarma's brutal "Separate country, separate culture, separate laws -- as long as they are not whipping my friends/relatives my perspective is they can subjugate whomever they want"?

A little righteous indignation at how man treats man, country of origin notwithstanding, seems like a fine sentiment to me.

It seems that you and I are in the minority on this one, Sue.  From the general, "not within my vision - don't care" to Yeller's charming "Think about that next time you start your truck*. If you really gave a fuck you'd leave it to rust.".

I have to wonder..can't I give at least a little bit of a fuck?  Granted, there's not much I can do for women in Saudi other than write my congress folk and see if we can generate a bit more of a national sentiment than "astonishing"...of course, (I can't help but wonder what they found astonishing...Astonishing that it happened, astonishing that she got so few, or astonishing that Cheney got his first erection in years upon hearing the news.)

To tell the truth, I was kind of surprised by the response to this diary entry.  Go figure.

*Silly Rabbit...if only he knew that I don't own a truck.  I have a 7 year old Neon that still gets great gas mileage and doesn't burn oil.  Not to mention all of the cars I didn't buy.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

Yeah you're just playing semantics. This kinda reminds me of junkies griping about the dealer beating his hos. He doesn't care what you think because you'll be down there tomorrow begging him for some more crack.

I bow to your superior knowledge of junkies, ho's and dealers.  I have never met any of them...what are they like?

BTW, what dealer do you go to when your jonesing for some sweet light crude?

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

From the general, "not within my vision - don't care"

Ah, not so general and not a surprise in the least.

to Yeller's charming "Think about that next time you start your truck*. If you really gave a fuck you'd leave it to rust.".

Well, we did advertise for new members.

 

Well, we did advertise for new members.

'Tis true...must take the bitter with the sweet and all that.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

Geez, you wonder why this place is so dead? You post this ridiculous, racist whine like your shit doesn't smell, then get all pissy when I point out how the Arabs get away with it. Fuck you and your holier-than-thou attitude, that goes for you to ms_sue.

Fuck you and your holier-than-thou attitude, that goes for you to ms_sue.

Ah, well, at least I'm in good company.

Say, have we met?

Fuck you and your holier-than-thou attitude, that goes for you to ms_sue.

Ah, well, at least I'm in good company.

Say, have we met?

I bet you have met, but it sure wasn't in grammar class.

You post this ridiculous, racist whine like your shit doesn't smell, then get all pissy when I point out how the Arabs get away with it. Fuck you and your holier-than-thou attitude, that goes for you to ms_sue.

We need to find a way to put the "fun" back in "disfunctional".

I would hardly call this place dead...in fact, it seems to get better and more lively each week.

Btw...Sue is right...you do sound familiar.  How were things on Plastic?

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

How were things on Plastic?

He doesn't know; he can't read very well

I don't know...I thought his "Clinton's cock" comment was kind of funny.  You have to admit...blaming Clinton is a standard Republican fall back position.  I also don't know about his reading ability.  I assume you're alluding to his apparent inability to go back through your Plastic comments to find you supporting the war in Iraq.  I was tempted to do the same, but I'm just lazy...and I can read very well, thank you very much.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

I assume you're alluding to his apparent inability to go back through your Plastic comments to find you supporting the war in Iraq

The inability to find something I've never written is not an indicator of poor reading ability. The inability to understand what I wrote is an indicator of poor reading ability.

I was tempted to do the same, but I'm just lazy

Even if you were industrious it wouldn't do you any good.

One of the things that's always amused me over on Plastic* is how almost any comment deviating from the political orthodoxy (the US is going to hell in a handbasket, the economy is worse now than ever before and getting worse every day * * , conservatives despise the poor and only care about themselves, Republicans are racists but Democrats aren't, the war in Iraq is illegal, etc.) is liable to get its author branded as Bush's lickspittle (and, concomitantly, wrong about the state of the economy, probably racist and heartless, and with an unthinking anti-Clinton bias); it doesn't matter how many times I've said that I voted against Bush.

* I shouldn't say "always," because things were more civil and intelligent there in the beginning, and probably at least through 2002.

 * * I'm also reminded of this by your comment about people you know who believe their home's market value has significantly dropped recently. I can't count the number of discussions on Plastic that I've engaged in that go something like this:

THEM:  The US economy is worse now than any time in the past forty years, and it's all Bush's fault.

ME: Well, actually the economy is doing rather well by historical standards - unemployment is low and the economy is growing at a decent pace. In any case, it's mostly due to the business cycle.

THEM: Statistics are meaningless; I know a lot of people who can't find a decent job because the economy is only generating minimum-wage McJobs. And anyway the Bushies have manipulated the unemployment statistics to make themselves look better. Besides, economics is bunk - no one can predict what the economy is going to do. And even if they could it wouldn't work because the corporations have the Republicans in their pocket and they run the show and are free to break the law without consequences. Like Enron.

I mean, what can you do with liberals who are blissfully, nay, proudly, ignorant of basic facts?

THEM: Statistics are meaningless; I know a lot of people who don't believe in global climate change because a few scientists disagree And anyway the liberals have manipulated the climate statistics to make themselves look better. Besides, environmental science is bunk - no one can predict what the weather is going to do. And even if they could it wouldn't work because the socialists have the scientists in their pocket and they run the show and are free to make up scare stats without consequences. Like Al Gore.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

Rather than global warming deniers, I think a better analogy would be creationists: like liberals I was discussing above, creationists deny what is plainly true and they also think they are being righteous by doing so.

Well, we're both playing strawman...but that's part of the fun of TnT...  I guess is all comes back to what folks see with their own eyes and stats be damned.

For instance, if one is a member of the investment class, the economy might look as good as you say..especially with the DJIA rebounding up 300+ points today.

However, for folks who don't have any real job security, who have to pay more for health insurance, who see greater wealth disparity, the economy might not seem all that rosy.  The people I serve tend to see the economy from a day-to-day bill paying perspective and not from the perspective of a economic theorist.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

we're both playing strawman

What strawman? I'm talking about actual people who have written things like I described above.

However, for folks who don't have any real job security, who have to pay more for health insurance, who see greater wealth disparity, the economy might not seem all that rosy

Yeah, but the point is that those people will never think the economy is good unless they do have an understanding of economics and what some of the basic economic indicators are. What you seem to be saying is that those people should be taken seriously when they hold opinions that are wrong.

What's more dangerous, of course, is when we have elected officials who seem to have a similarly poor understanding of economics. There are liberals, for example, who support Denis Kucinich for president, and as I've pointed out in the past Kucinich seems to be a man who believes things that are not true about the economy. I can only think that the people who support him also believe things that are not true. (In this regard they are like creationists, hence my comparison above.)

Yeah, but the point is that those people will never think the economy is good unless they do have an understanding of economics and what some of the basic economic indicators are.

Calling bullshit now.  My sense is that these people will never think that the economy is good unless they can stop worrying about their jobs going overseas, or not having health insurance, or maybe their house isn't worth what it should be and they can't take out an equity loan to pay for their kid's education. (see, I do at least know something about home values).  

You know, overall, the economy might be in good shape...unless of course there is some further unknown about the sub prime market that hasn't bit us in the ass yet.  I can read indicators...but I also spend a lot of my day listening to  people who are worried about the things I mentioned and I have to wonder -indicators or not- what is really going on.  Of course, in many ways you're right -if I may extrapolate- the more people understand, the less likely it will be that they will be fearful.  But, illogical they may be, fear is real and I don't think the indicators address that.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

My sense is that these people will never think that the economy is good unless they can stop worrying about their jobs going overseas, or not having health insurance, or maybe their house isn't worth what it should be and they can't take out an equity loan to pay for their kid's education

Yes, I completely agree. The sort of people you are speaking about won't ever be happy about the economy because they don't understand it. The state of the economy can only be expressed in aggregate values, and those values have only an indirect influence on the probability that a particular person will lose his job or be unable to afford adequate health insurance or see the value of his house rise far faster than inflation.

overall, the economy might be in good shape...unless of course there is some further unknown about the sub prime market that hasn't bit us in the ass yet

In good shape compared to what? Compared to when?

As far as what's on the horizon, I think there is a decent chance of a recession next year. Liberal politicians will try to blame that on someone, and liberals who do not understand economics will listen to them and think they are right to do so.

illogical they may be, fear is real and I don't think the indicators address that

Sure there are. Consumer confidence is one such measure.  

You mean from the Saudi courts or from people like wetkarma who said that world wide condemnation meant little?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It's too late to apologize for forgetting italics.

You mean from the Saudi courts or from people like wetkarma who said that world wide condemnation meant little?

Hang on a tic. I call foul -- I don't recall saying anything of the kind. wtf? I said -I- personally didn't care and that my opinion of Saudi Arabia's decision hadn't changed. Still hasn't.

Now that you do bring it up however -- world wide condemnation does mean little if the saudi courts believe they are following sharia law. This annoucement reminds me of a story which ran on plastic a year or two ago regarding war criminal  Ratko Mladic -- the USA/western nations were refusing aid to Serbia until it went after war criminals. So sure enough after no action, the USA announced that Serbia was going after war criminals and Mladic would be soon arrested.

Care to guess where Mladic is these days? Its not in jail.

S. Africa endured decades of condemnation re: apartheid..what did it ultimately mean other than distracting those who need a cause to protest?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

What Sue said.

But is it sad that I could see the same happen if any other religion were swapped for Islam in this case?

Sad...but aware.  Religion basically sucks...and radical religion even more so.  Except for maybe Buddhism.  I know it's not squeaky clean, but I really can't  see it being this fucked up.  As far as I know, no one has ever been jailed and deported for naming a teddy bear after Buddha.  Good thing she didn't make a statue of the teddy bear or they would have come after her with howitzers.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

Sad. As I attempted to squeeze in "Lutheran, but technically Agnostic" on a bureaucratic form the other day I realized there are few religions (that I know of) that I could really get behind. Buddhism would be one close match. Hearing the Dali Lama speak once was one of the more memorable experiences of my life. Sadly many people in the crowd were either 1) Too Stoned to appreciate it, 2) Too busy quoting amusing Caddyshack monologues, 3) Too Stoned,  4) Chinese exchange students protesting His Holiness based on misquoted or out of context statements fed to them by the assjacks in power back in the homeland or 5) Waaaay too Stoned.

Perhaps then the question should become: What value is religion? Does its use as a method of Social Control exceed its obvious detrimental problems?

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

What value is religion? Does its use as a method of Social Control exceed its obvious detrimental problems?

Can you just imagine how screwed up this world would be if we had no chance for redemption or everlasting life? :-)

When I was 'Losing my Religion' I pondered that same question myself. There are no good answers. The best I can come up with is this:

Let us assume life is nothing more than a cosmic accident that will be wiped out in the blink of an eye by the Universe. If living organisms exist simply to propagate their genetic information to the next generation and nothing more then that means certain properties we have that separate us from animals simply arose due to chance in the evolutionary process or as a way to enhance reproductive ability. This means consciousness, thought, emotion, etc are all accidental (and meaningless?).

Because Life is a 'Collective Right' and not an individual one* (each person reproduces and contributes so that society as a whole may continue while the people who make it up die over time) we will not continue to exist forever. Since we have limited time we might as well make the best of what we have. Now, that does not mean society should devolve into collective hedonism. What it does mean is that since everybody has only one shot before fading into obscurity we should do our best to Seize the Day (tm) and do what makes us happy. That means caring for yourself, family, friends and others, as well as living the Golden Rule.

Losing the 'spiritual safety net' can be a scary experience. It scared the crap out of me. But then I realized that it may actually be a Good Thing(tm). Once we realize that each of us and only us have the keys to our own joy and prosperity it actually can be quite empowering.

Or, you could just argue that Religion is a natural byproduct of the mind to help maintain order in a species that is naturally prone to some pretty scary shit. Either way.

Anywho, I apologize to anybody who read that. Please feel free to bill me for any antidepressants or the like you may need after this experience. Thank you.

*=This is a horrible analogy and it is obvious I have been reading too many 2nd Amendment and other constitutional law arguments lately.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Well, I was going for irony. Wrong emoticon, I guess.

What it does mean is that since everybody has only one shot before fading into obscurity we should do our best to Seize the Day (tm) and do what makes us happy. That means caring for yourself, family, friends and others, as well as living the Golden Rule.

But here, you define happiness for the rest of us. Many would conclude, though, that with one shot, it's to hell with "others." Hell, didn't someone say something similar to that in this very diary entry? Full circle we've come.

Well, I was going for irony. Wrong emoticon, I guess.

I am sorry about misunderstanding that. That's why you shouldn't try to read/write responses quickly from your desk at work I suppose.

But here, you define happiness for the rest of us. Many would conclude, though, that with one shot, it's to hell with "others."

Sure, until the "others" put somebody in prison for theft or violating societies rules. Sometimes being kind is not always out of altruism. Quite an extreme example, I acknowledge, but still.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Because Life is a 'Collective Right' and not an individual one* (each person reproduces and contributes so that society as a whole may continue while the people who make it up die over time) we will not continue to exist forever.

I don't see why that theory would lend itself to the conclusion that life is a collective right moreso than an individual right.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I was thinking from more of a biological perspective in that life is all about prorogation of genetic material. Therefore, it does not matter so much if you die as long as you have passed along your DNA to your offspring, and quite frankly it is better if you do kick off so the younger and healthier people get the resources.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Or, you could just argue that Religion is a natural byproduct of the mind to help maintain order in a species that is naturally prone to some pretty scary shit.

It's always scary until you realize that your realization doesn't actually change anything about the way things really are.

My link in response to wetkarma's revolution etymology comment actually has some interesting things to say about that. It was putting forth the interpretation that apocalypse cults and the like are an avatar for coping with the end of a collective world view. ie, people have to sacrifice their gods for others that better fit the world around them.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.