I'm not sure why the headline is so upsetting - you need to compare to something, don't you? The reporter might have thought that the use of the legal guardianship system and the resulting lack of rights for women is similar to how children in the west are treated.

From the report summary:

Throughout much of the world, it is taken for granted that the law empowers both men and women upon reaching the age of majority (typically 18) to make decisions for themselves. In Saudi Arabia, however, the government denies more than half of its citizens this fundamental right.

when i went to Mekkah a few years ago i remember we had to have a male guardian (this case being our uncle) to get into mekkah but when we were there we could do what we please without him. but i dont know if that was because we were foreigners and not saudi citizens?funny though-how apparently they base their laws on Islam yet women have to seek permission to study-somthing that islam clearly states every woman is out rightly entitled to. is it not blasphemous then to be ordered to ask for a man permission what God has already ordained?

"'The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being,' the HRW report says, citing a list of complaints based on interviews with about 100 women."

As "children" is synonymous with "minors" (i.e. somebody who hasn't achieved adulthood or majority status), the headline is... well, mostly accurate and pressure shouldn't be diverted from the Saudi government.

after reading the whole thing i can see what vanessa is saing. there is one instance where a comparison is made but thats it. i guess the headline is used to grab people's attention.

sorry to just join the chorus, but i've got to say i think you're off here, as well.

"specifically liberated Western babies. (Whatever that means.)"

Well, it means that women in the West don't have to deal with a lot of the bullshit that women in Saudi Arabia. And thank god for that. I'm sorry, are we just supposed to pretend that women in the West don't have more rights than women in Saudi Arabia so as not to appear culturally condescending?

i mean, in conparison to what they could have said like "saudi-arabian women need permission for everything" which is what the article is all about. ah sorry-triple posting.

It actually is not clear at all; the comparison in the headline is made to individuals under 18, not over 18. So how do Saudi women have less rights than Western infants? Or am I missing something? But thanks, I didn't see this before and will tweak the post slightly as there is a mention of Saudi women having less rights than over 18 peeps in other parts of the world. I also think it's interesting that we're equating "Western" with what the report identifies as "much of the world." It sort of proves the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not saying the problem isn't so much the lack of freedom but is comparisons. I obviously highlighted the report because I think it's much-needed; but in reference to the headline, I think that we need to address the problem head-on and not as a comparison to us "liberated" folk over here, particularly infants! And not only is that inaccurate but yes, I also think it's patronizing. And potentially unproductive when we make ourselves the example to follow when obviously Saudi Arabia has different cultural, religious, and traditional customs and practices to take into account.

I could go on forever, all I'm saying is that the headline is inaccurate, and is indicative of the often condescending and dismissive attitude towards "those oppressed women" in non-western countries. The report is not bad, and the article isn't even bad. But the headline is, as is the first sentence. Which is critical.

"When you thought Western culture couldn't be more patronizing towards women from Muslim nations"

hmm...the title only refers to Saudi Arabian women really...nothing about their religion is mentioned

I think for a topic like this, how can the title not be patronizing? I mean, we can't exactly talk about it like it's a good thing?

I guess I am still not seeing the problem. Would a better title have been "Saudi Arabian women have few rights"? Personally I find that vague - it doesn't mean anything to me because I don't know what "few" is. I think the headline is actually fairly clear. I didn't read it as "Saudi Arabian women are like children," it's "Saudi Arabian women are treated like children." Just like minors here in the United States, they need permission from a guardian in order to do pretty much anything. I don't think that's loaded or suggestive of anything more.

I agree that the first line (the infant one) is a very bad introduction, and actually confuses the issue more then clarifies it. Like, why make a reference to infants? It's just bit too over the top. Minors? Yep , Teenagers? Yep, Infants? Not so much.

when i went to Mekkah a few years ago i remember we had to have a male guardian (this case being our uncle) to get into mekkah but when we were there we could do what we please without him. but i dont know if that was because we were foreigners and not saudi citizens?

A friend of mine is teaching English at a university in the UAE, and he has noticed the same thing. Muslim women there have many of the same restrictions that have been noted in Saudi Arabia, but none of these are imposed upon Western women who visit or work there. He attributes it to trying to cater towards rich (specifically European) people who would otherwise not bring in money through tourism, etc. I've personally never been to the middle east, so I can't say for sure, but it seems plausible.

obviously Saudi Arabia has different cultural, religious, and traditional customs and practices to take into account.

That's some nice cultural relativism you got going on there.

Human rights are human rights, even if they offend the sensibilities of oppressive cultures.

"obviously Saudi Arabia has different cultural, religious, and traditional customs and practices to take into account"

Well, sorry if this sounds like cultural superiority, but it's true. Their different practices result in women being marginalized to the point of one of the most oppressive, anti-female governments and cultures on the planet.

We're not perfect in the West, but since when did one have to be perfect to criticize something as awful as SA's human rights record? If it sounds patronizing, well, that's too bad. Something needs to change there.

I think "Muslim" was brought into it because as Sarah points out, the Saudis have long invoked religion to explain their, er, woman- restrictive society.

My parents are from a non-Western country that is largely Muslim, though we're not. I used to get all hot and bothered about the latent cultural imperialsm in such articles and headlines (per Vanessa's points, which are still well-taken). But I have amazed my undergrad-era radical "Woman of Color" self by becoming a lot more in tune with the issues facing ALL women, yes, yes, even those "priveleged" European-ancestry ones in the West (I also clued into the fact that I carry a whole lotta privelege in other ways, but let's move on).

At this point in my life, I have far less tolerance for the cultural relativity arguments I used to make. I now stand in alignment with any women--Chinese, Dutch-Canadian, Peruvian--who rightly point out that women in Saudi Arabia are being treated like minors--children, if you, will--and that it is necessary to call out the Saudi gov't on this one.

As for the statements from that Saudi commission, I understand--BELIEVE me, I do--the need for human rights work that is contextualized and adapted to fit the particlar culture in its in. I also still understand that wholesale import of Western (or even non-Muslim; communist; etc.)norms doesn't work. But I have worked with quite a few such spokespeople and commissions from various countries, and a lot of times, they are window-dressers who do damage control for the most messed-up paternalistic elements of their societies, even if inadvertently.

The issue is not whether we think that what's going on in Saudi Arabia is messed up.

The issue is that we think what our opinion is matters at all. We don't live there, we have no say in what the people there do. The reason there is an un-responsive government in Saudi Arabia that oppresses so many of it's people probably has something do with US Imperialism, and our thinking that we ought' to have some input on things that do not have anything to do with us.

So, get over what's going on in Saudi Arabia, and take care of the people who are messing things up the world over in your country. If we don't take care of our own house, the women in Saudi Arabia will not be in a position to take back thier freedoms.

I dont see this as anything wrong. Theyre making the dramatization to bring home a point that our most vulnerable STILL have more legal rights than a full-grown Saudi woman, and how wrong that is. Theyre simply using contrast to emphasize the point.

1. It is not the place of Westerners to standardize and compare with the East.

2. This is part of a growing, rabid media trend where the media focus on emphasizing how disempowered and veiled they think Muslim/Middle Eastern women are.

3. This is a huge, stupid overstatment meant to emphasize what brutes Arabic men are. Let's recognize for a minute that the current Saudi government has taken tremendous strides to slowly (as it has to be done this way) change their society, one step of which has been sending thousands of young, single Saudi women to go to college in America. They give them full-rides to get graduate degrees in the West and to expose them to other cultures - and I don't know any American children who are crossing the globe to lead indepenent lives in distant countries whil gaining professional degrees. And it's on the government's bill.

I'm SO sick of the media doing this crap. THE POINT is that, regardless of what is written in some old-ass paper in Arabic, Saudi Arabian women should NOT be compared with our children. They are fully adult, highly-achieved women. Let's remember that the legislature doesn't represent the women, and that it's not our place to make ourselves into goddesses of rights. There are Islamic feminists, many of whom are in Saudi Arabia.

Awesome read: Sultana's Dream This novel was written in 1905 (I think) and is the story of one early Islamic feminists' fantasy of a feminist Islamic utopia. Rad sci-fi, and it predates the also awesome Herland.

@Irishgirl1983: "The reason there is an un-responsive government in Saudi Arabia that oppresses so many of it's people probably has something do with US Imperialism, and our thinking that we ought' to have some input on things that do not have anything to do with us."

Irishgirl, I disagree with this statement, both in relation to Saudi Arabia, about which I know a fair bit/have done reasearch with Saudi women, and in relation to both Muslim-majority and ATR (African Traditional Religion)-filled countries, of which I have both personal and research experience.

Colonialism, imperialism, and Western paternalism indisputably did a lot of damage to these countries. The current political situations therein are particularly salient proof. But oppression of women and indigenous minority groups is not one of them. There are countless cases of specific oppressive cultural norms and practices that have nothing whatsoever to do with Europe in any form--not even the ancient Greek or Roman dynasties.

We in the "East"/global South are perfectly capable of marginalizing and destroying our own ethnic groups and clamping down on the rights of our own women. The majority of these practices long predate--I'm talking centuries and in one or two cases millenia--involvement by entitites groups from outside the region i.e. Europeans or the Euro-American power structure.

So, blame the West for having a large hand in helping along the Israel/Pali situation. Or for post-colonial political conflict in central or north Africa. But NOT for the underlying bases for gendered Saudi social structuring. No matter the support Saudi regimes have received form any Western power figures, if you read the 18th century proto-Wahhabi and other texts used to prop up current social ideals, you will perhaps see that Western support has been incidental to the development of these doctrines.

And, to Tara: as a woman with many female family members living in the East/South who routinely prop up the U.S. for its treatment of women (little do they know, eh? LOL) and who actually wish there could be more dialogue between Western women's rights advocates and their own country's officials, I'd like to point out that not everyone agrees that Westerners do not have a right to comment on human rights injustices in Asia and Africa. It's how Westerners comment that matters, and this article headline does not strike me as being egregiously infantilizing considering that what is infantilizing are the Saudi policies.

@ Okra,

I agree that western powers have not created sexism in other parts of the world. What I'm talking about is that any way a westen person can contribute to this situation is by propping up allready disasterous relationships.

I guess it's a balance, like I think we should know whats going on in the world, and if women in other countries want our help we should give it to them. But I don't beleive western people taking on another groups cause as thier own will contribute to any real change.

The monarchy in Saudi Arabia does not exist in a vacum, I mean I'm not sure of the history of it all, but wasn't thier power "given" to them by the British? And aren't they "allowed" to govern by the US?

So, rather then continuing to turn the wheel of western intervention, why don't we stop playing that game?

I dunno, I don't mean to be dogmatic, but I don't understand why our opinion on what other people are dealing with matters.

Irishgirl,
*I'm going to use the term "our" and "our country" in this post to mean my parents' homeland, even though I am a citizen of both the U.S. and that country.

I understand your points, especially when looked at in the broader political context of U.S. and Western "intevention" (benign term, that) in general. In that sense, yes, you are right that Western GOVERNMENTS (apologies for caps) need to step off.

But many women and indigenous minority groups (I count as both; double-minority misery) abroad are very receptive to polite, reasoned, culturally-attuned human rights support from Western scholars, NGOs, etc. (i.e. not coming in saying "Right, let's round up all of you women who still believe in genital cutting and sit you down in the anti-FGM workshop.")

This is already happening with indigenous groups that are so very put-on by the majority cultures of their countries, that they've started forming international ties with NGOs and activists PRECISELY because they are Westerners who are outside observers and presumably not poisoned by the anti-minority sentiment rampant in many developing countries.

Your (i.e. not Western governments') opinion, when delivered in an appropriately non-paternalistic and non-exotifying manner, is very important to those of us who are so marginalized within our own countries that even homegrown "human rights activists" refuse to have anything to do with our causes.

The thing is, an injustice is an injustice, whether it's done to a subservient person or to someone who is not used to the type of treatment. To say that we should only help women abroad who "want" it is ludicrous. The entire point of paternal social structures is that they dominate society, and establish cultural norms accepted by everyone.

So we can't expect many people who have been the subject of mass indoctrination from their birth onwards to demand a change. In fact it's likely they will not do so, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't help this change occur. There are fundamental rights that everyone (including women) are entitled to, and fostering these rights is important, whether women in Saudi Arabia want our help or not.

Now, it's important that this help be constructive, fair, and that it takes into account the people involved. It also means not being condescending, or being general pricks about it, but it does have to happen. This isn't paternalism as long as it is done correctly.

And Saudi Arabia's government is propped up by its massive oil revenues. Even if the US didn't buy their oil, someone would. Case in point, Iran is being blasted by the US at the moment, but they can still find tacit allies in China and Russia.

If we don't take up the causes for others as our own, then where is the line drawn? Should we only care about people in our country? Our state? people of our religion? Our skin color? Our gender? Our ethnic group? We can and have helped people in the past take care of problems they couldn't have taken care of without us. The concentration camps didn't liberate themselves. Slaves didn't get emancipated without a Civil War. African Americans didn't get true civil rights without the help of white Americans. The list goes on.

Careful, smart intervention isn't just a good idea, it's a moral obligation. When humans are oppressed it diminishes us all, and telling Saudi women to "help themselves" does very little when Saudi women have little to no access to money, education, or even each other, as they can't travel outside the home without a male guardian. Saudi women are under house arrest, so telling them to help themselves or ask for our help is pretty condescending.

Tara K.

I agree that the comparison to the infant was an unreasonable one, but the headline I do not have a problem with.

Why is it wrong to compare a foreign government to this one? It's a way for people to instantly size up another country compared to the one they're living in.

The only problem is when the comparison is NOT ACCURATE.

The article didn't say that Saudi women WERE like children, it just said that they were treated like that. The WOMEN are not the problem. The GOVERNMENT is.

Look at HRW or AI's pages on Saudi Arabia and tell me that's not a huge violation of their rights in the guise of "looking after them" as if they're dependents. Saudi women ARE dependents under the law.

It's great that SA is making progress, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize a GOVERNMENT for their (significant) shortcomings.

This isn't about Arab men, this is about Saudi Arabia's government. The article doesn't conflate them, and neither should you.

"disempowered and veiled they think Muslim/Middle Eastern women are"

tara,
Cuz they R.

"This is a huge, stupid overstatment meant to emphasize what brutes Arabic men are"

Alot of them are. So are American men, and if American men are, they are as well. I read Sultanas Dream, and thats where I got the impression from.

Irish girl,

I dunno, I don't mean to be dogmatic, but I don't understand why our opinion on what other people are dealing with matters.

I don't know if you meant to say it like that, but it sounds supremely asshole-ish. Should we not have cared when the Holocaust happened?

That's not a comparison to this situation, just an example of why your position is dangerously unempathetic and cruel.

Oops! I got Jean P. Sassons book mixed with the book you mentioned! I read "Princess Sultanas Circle," which influenced my understanding.

I also read "Burned Alive" about a woman who is burned in an honor killing and survives. She wrote that before she left (after being burned) that at night you could hear the wails and scream of the women being beaten throughout her village. She says beatings were common torwards her and all the females she knew.

"This is a huge, stupid overstatment meant to emphasize what brutes Arabic men are"

Alot of them are. So are American men, and if American men are, they are as well. I read Sultanas Dream, and thats where I got the impression from.

Hmm. I call that sexism and ill-based prejudice. I teach English to a group of awesome Saudis - male and female - and would advise you to form opinions from people not books. Besides, I don't think Sultana's Dream is meant to function that way. Then again, I don't want to call men brutes, just as I don't want to be called a broad.

holy SHIT, gopher II, you hate men...

Do you hate women too? Are a lot of them bitches, just like a lot of men are brutes?

Or are women perfect?

[end of sarcasm]

The real issue of Middle Eastern women who live in the west is the "Oh My God" factor.

http://antidrown.blogspot.com/2008/04/ohh-myyyy-godd.html

The logic that people need help despite thier not requesting it is super condescending. You do know when misguided folks want to ban pornography they think they're doing the women involved a favor? If you think you can make decisions for someone else, just take a step back and think about what that means.

As to the bringing up of the Holocaust, I mean wasn't Hitler financed by american capital? And if you think the US cared about ending the Jewish massacre during ww2, why did they let it go on until the very end of the war? The US stopping the holocaust was a byproduct of a Big Country Fight, not the cause of it.

People who somehow conveniently want to blame US for the state of affairs in The Kingdom, need to learn a little history. SA was exactly like it is today before any oil was discovered there and US cared about it. It was like this before oil became an important issue globally. The problem with SA is Islam. They interpret it more accurately than anyone else.

"but in reference to the headline, I think that we need to address the problem head-on and not as a comparison to us 'liberated' folk over here, particularly infants!"

Good point. The BBC also has an article covering the report, and it's headline is "Saudi women 'kept in childhood'" (the 's are quotation quotes, not scare quotes) instead of any comparison to Western or non-Western foreigners.

"and who actually wish there could be more dialogue between Western women's rights advocates and their own country's officials"

For that matter, how about more dialogue between certain non-Westerners and their own country's officials? I'm reminded a little bit of this article:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200802070779.html

"Sierra Leone: Islam Not in Favour of FGM - Says Iranian Consul" by Ibrahim Tarawallie, Concord Times (Freetown), 7 February 2008

"Cultural Consul of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran Wednesday said Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is not a fundamental practice in Islam and that women should not be forced to undergo it.

"Speaking at an interactive session organized by Women in the Media Sierra Leone (WIMSAL) on the theme: 'The law, successes and challenges,' Mohamed Ghezel Sofla said it is unacceptable for women to go through such a difficulty.

"'FGM should not be tolerated in any society,' he urged adding, 'I want to see Sierra Leone develop.' He said the media must be the tool behind any country's development.

"WIMSAL's president Mariama Sesay said the essence of the session was to create better understanding on the issue of female genital mutilation which she said is of great concern to women..."

Does Iran have sexist problems of its own? Of course. Does that mean Sofla should have no opinions about sexism outside Iran? No way. Does Sofla being an Iranian official make it harder for pro-FGM people to accuse his anti-FGM message of being Western imperialism? Probably.

Irish, it's actually not illogical at all. People who have been indoctrinated to believe they have no rights for their entire life will not ask for help. Why? Because they don't think they need it. If women in Saudi Arabia believe wholeheartedly that women aren't equal to men, shouldn't we still help them?

It's much more condescending to tell people to fight oppressive power structures with no resources while under house arrest than it is to say that Saudi Arabia is a major human rights abuser. Either you believe in universal human rights or you don't, and if you do then you believe that those rights are being violated in Saudi Arabia. Whether or not the abused "want" help is immaterial.

It is condescending to say we're perfect, because we're not. But to ask women to in Saudi Arabia to:
1. Escape House Arrest
2. Learn to Read
3. Use That Literacy to Educate Themselves on Human Rights
4. Survive When this is Illegal
5. Somehow Then Ask Us for Help

Is MUCH more condescending.

Heaven forfend we rub some people the wrong way in the pursuit of human rights.

"It is condescending to say we're perfect, because we're not. But to ask women to in Saudi Arabia to:
1. Escape House Arrest
2. Learn to Read
3. Use That Literacy to Educate Themselves on Human Rights
4. Survive When this is Illegal"

I heard that while some Saudi Arabian women are kept illiterate, some other Saudi Arabian women legally attend university in Saudi Arabia. Maybe the idea is expecting *these* women, instead of foreigners, to take the first step on behalf of the illiterate ones?

Besides that, it's dishonest for an advocate for any kind of social cause, feminism for instance, to say we shouldn't judge other cultures, when they themselves obviously think that some cultural traits are better than others: otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to change their own.

I dont want to hash this out for ever. (I'm new to blog commenting! lol)

I guess everything needs to be looked at in context. If you live in the US, you are part of a massive global machine of oppression. I mean, whether you try and opt out of it or whatever, you still exist with that around you. So any actions you take are a part of that global machine. And unilaterly defining for people what thier priorities should be is very helpful in maintaing US dominince.

I dunno, I'm all about constructive debates, but not so much about people talking past each other.

If someone agrees that the Peace Corps is a bad idea, then we have common ground to discuss this on. If you think it's a good thing, then this isn't gonna go anywhere.