NYT: Saudi women are happy! Last week, the New York Times' Steven R. Weisman published an article on
Saudi Women's message for Karen Hughes. I shared the article with some friends in the Arab world. Here are the reactions:
Nadz has a blistering condemnation of "femicide and apologies". Turning to the article on Hughes after the horrifying murder of a woman in Denmark, she writes:
it turns out that there are no problems for women in Saudi Arabia. 500 women want Karen Hughes to know that they're happy with the way things are. First of all, good for them - I'm glad they're happy and they have the right to their own opinion. But I'd also like to point out several things:
- It's true that some women in the Middle East are content with the status quo. I wasn't, and I know many who also weren't. I know some Saudi women who were severely depressed because their lives, where they could go and what they could do, were so restricted. 50% of Arab women are illiterate, some of the attitudes towards us are downright Medeival, we don't have the same rights in any aspect of public life. Saying that you don't need to drive and that your abaya is stylish isn't going to change that.
- When Americans and other westerners talk about mistreatment of women, many Arab women tend to go on the defensive. I know this because I did it myself. Women see it as a personal attack on their culture and feel that they need to offer an alternative viewpoint. They think that most Americans are ignorant about the region - and they tend to be correct. As a result, it's hard for women to admit that there are still problems. Especially in a forum being sponsered and watched by the unfeminist Saudi government.
- These women are from the more well-to-do side of Saudi society - they are mostly wealthy, educated and upper-class. They have been able to travel to Europe and the States, and like the security and simplicity of life in the kingdom. I know women who are like this. But plenty of less fortunate women in Saudi Arabia don't have the same oppurtunities, and they might have a different answer.
Different women have different experiences - not all women live a hellish existence while others are miserable. I think these women, however, are becoming part of the problem by refusing to acknowledge problems.
The Religious Policeman thinks the women's denials of sexism in Saudi society have all the credibility of a high-class john denying he knows anything about a call girl. Here's his reaction to Weisman's article on Hughes:
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 27 - The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.
But the response on Tuesday was not what she and her aides expected. When Ms. Hughes expressed the hope here that Saudi women would be able to drive and "fully participate in society" much as they do in her country, many challenged her.
So who were the audience? A random sample of Saudi womanhood, from all regions and classes, Sunni and Shia, working or unemployed? Well, not exactly.
The group of women, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country. And while they were certainly friendly toward Ms. Hughes, half a dozen who spoke up took issue with what she said.
Two points here. One, no group of Saudis, whatever their situation, would ever admit that something was wrong with Saudi Arabia, to a member of the widely-detested Bush regime. They could be up to their waists in boiling oil, and they'd just say that they were, on average, quite warm. Two, in a country where the female employment rate is less that 1%, anyone with a job is a member of a privileged minority, and any female student hopes to become part of that 1%, just like people elsewhere hope to win the lottery.
"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."
I asked Mrs A about that. She snorted. Even in the universities, there is a physical wall between men's and women's campuses. Men lecture to women via closed circuit TV. But, as Mrs A said, she's privileged to have the job she does. And there's always the example of this poor female academic to keep everyone else in line. So, she concluded, "She would say that, wouldn't she?"
Several women said later that Americans failed to understand that their traditional society was embraced by men and women alike.
....as demonstrated by our numerous opinion polls, elections, letters in the free press, investigative programs on our free TV...
Go to the link for the rest of RP's reaction to the Steven Weisman piece on Karen Hughes.
Sandmonkey weighs in:
The Audience?
The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.
An ideal place? Really? Ok!
Who picked them and what segment of society do they represent?
The group of women on Tuesday, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country.
The Priviliged elite. Clearly the most oppressed of all saudi women, no?
It even shows in their grievences:
She seemed clearly taken aback as the women told her that just because they were not allowed to vote or drive that did not mean they were treated unfairly or imprisoned in their own homes.
"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."
Not an absolute one, but a wall nonetheless! LOL
And then there is the Michael Moore effect
A woman in the audience then charged that under President Bush the United States had become "a right wing country" and that criticism by the press was "not allowed."
LOL
As for male chauvinism and that pesky question of women's rights?
"There is more male chauvinism in my profession in Europe and America than in my country," said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital.
Yes, there is Chauvinism in the west, which makes the one we have at home Ok.
"I don't want to drive a car," she said. "I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver's license?"
"Women have more than equal rights," added her daughter, Dr. Fouzia Pasha, also an obstetrician and gynecologist, asserting that men have obligations accompanying their rights, and that women can go to court to hold them accountable.
Oh my God, this is too funny! I am laughing my ass off. Hehehehehehehee!
Gotta say, Saudi men really know to how to "break-in" their women. For those of you who may disagree, I am sure those women could've spoken up against male domination and managed not to get beat up by their men at home. No?
Well, enough of Saudi, on to Turkey, where things kept getting interesting for Karen, If interesting meant continuing to hear idiotic arguments:
"You are very angry with Turkey, I know," said Hidayet Tuskal, a director of the Capital City Women's Platform, referring to what she characterized as United States reaction to opposition in Turkey to the Iraq war, which she said was a feminist issue because women and children were dying daily. "I'm feeling myself wounded," Ms. Tuskal added. "I'm feeling myself insulted here."
Ok, does anyone get her point? She opposed the Iraq war because of women and children dying in it, and wasn't concerned with the women and children dying under Saddam? And it's a femenist issue? She feels wounded and insulted? What?
Ohh, and please, american readers, let's take a survey: Every person who is "very angry" at Turkey for not supporting the US in the war raise your hands. Every person who couldn't give 2 shits about Turkey's support anyway-like the rest of the world- please refrain from laughing at her idiotic statement.
And it just keeps getting better:
Fatma Nevin Vargun, identifying herself as a Kurdish rights advocate, said she was "ashamed" of the war and added that the United States bore responsibility. Referring to the arrest of a war protester at the White House on Monday, she added, "This was a pity for us as well."
She is a kurdish rights activist and opposed to the war that gave the Kurds their rights. Is anybody else getting this?
Ahh, me loves the New York Times. It always gives me a good laugh!
UPDATE
Finally, here's my own two cents' worth:
Personally, I would say I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of how much the views expressed in the article represent Saudi women.
First of all, consider the source. We all know the Times is going to do whatever it can to discredit the Bush Administration's radical premise that most people do not enjoy being oppressed.
Notice how much of the article is not reporting but editorializing. "The administration's efforts to publicize American ideals in the Muslim world have often run into such resistance. For that reason, Ms. Hughes, who is considered one of the administration's most scripted and careful members, ..." blah blah blah. "Many in this region resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans." Yada yada yada.
So we already know - as if there was any doubt - what the article wants to tell us: Silly Americans, those Arab women are HAPPY living like that.
But those are just my opinions. What do we learn from the article itself?
That Saudi women, speaking in public, on the record, by name, to an American official, in front of 500 people, will say nice things about their country.
Our NYT writer wants us to be amused by the irony (at the Bush government's expense, of course) of the tables being turned on Hughes. Ho, ho, ho, those Saudi women weren't saying what the Bush minion wanted to hear! And, get this, they're the "privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country" ... well! If even they resent those meddlesome Americans, then - "mi'kal va'chomer" - what may we infer about the rest of the country?
But we don't really have to make even that mighty leap of logic, because Mr. Weisman explains it for us: "Many in this region say they resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans."
Now what does that mean? I mean, let's just look at that one sentence. "Many"? Who the hell are "many"? And HOW many? Did the journalist conduct a formal poll (or even an informal one)? Are these "many" a majority, or a large minority, or just ... many? And what is "this region"? That's a highfaluten, scholarly-sounding, and extremely vague word, "region". Does "this region" include Iran? We all know how much Iranian women love living under Islamic fundamentalist law ... just ask
Farnaz Ghazizadeh at Rooz. And what is this "American assumption"? What does "living like Americans" mean - does even Weisman himself know what he means? No one who graduated from Neocon school expects other cultures to abandon their own traditions - you know that and I know that, it's just a smokescreen that fascist symps like Weisman throw up to make freedom sound scary and unattractive. You know as well as I do that if Saudi Arabia became a free country tomorrow, every one of those 500 women would still be free to wear their beloved abayas if they chose. IF they chose.
But that's the trouble, and that's why Weisman's sentence cannot be credibly uttered without the all-important qualifying clause, "given the chance". That, however much the NYT would like to dance around it, is precisely the problem: they have not been given the chance.
UPDATE:
Mahmood posts on
another happy, contented Saudi woman.
UPDATE:
Welcome, readers of
The Muslim Woman!
