Opposition to Saudi Arabia's male guardianship system

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good enough. But perhaps you do fail to realize that there are cultures that still have not truly adopted the "western way of thinking." We must understand that Saudi Arabia still has this Bedouin culture that still has this residual grip in the society. In addition this society adheres to a strict interpretation of law regarding Wali or guardianship. Perhaps this would help

Wali (Islamic legal guardian) - Wikipedia

I fully realize that, but since it flagrantly contradicts any notion of freedom and rights of some people, I as a Humanist, am forced to dislike it. This is one of the stronger reasons that Humanists and other "liberal" thinkers find religions to be rather more harmful than perhaps you do.

You see, Humanism affirms the dignity of each human being (including females), and supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity for all adult humans (including females), consistent with social and planetary responsibility.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I fully realize that, but since it flagrantly contradicts any notion of freedom and rights of some people, I as a Humanist, am forced to dislike it. This is one of the stronger reasons that Humanists and other "liberal" thinkers find religions to be rather more harmful than perhaps you do.

You see, Humanism affirms the dignity of each human being (including females), and supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity for all adult humans (including females), consistent with social and planetary responsibility.

The problem with your view is that you consider religions to be confined as if they aren't liberal. True, any puritanical form of any religion could have constraints. But Humanism in comparison to the historical religions of the world are relatively new however the elements within Humanism are no different than the elements than the utilitarian elements we find in the world's religions. What is truly harmful whether you call yourself a Humanist or religionist is the belief that one model or one way of thinking is the only way. If humans were truly humanists we wouldn't have racism, sexism, or the like, but humanity is incapable of realizing its full ethical potential at this time due to the residual influences of selfish ideals and biases. Humanism benefits me no more than any religion that I'm coming into contact with. Humanism hasn't gotten rid of societies ills therefore it currently provides no benefit to the world but a theoretical model, but religion has a chance to benefit the world because of its historical endurance.

 

[SomeRandom]

Jesus. My comment on how I grew up was a Segway to point out that how we were raised depends on the respective societies we live in. Therefore, I cannot say how Arabs live is wrong and how I live is right. Maybe if I lived in an Arab style society I wouldn't have an issue with the whole idea of guardianship who knows?
..

And this lady who actually did grow up in the system and still had issues? The other women who call out or even flee this system? Clearly something is wrong with it.
You might not have had an issue with it had you grown up in such a society because you're a man. Which is fair enough. But at least some Arab born people seem to take issue with. Taking a stand and righting your own system is how societies grow. Perhaps we should be listening to what these ladies who actually did grow up in such a society have to say on the matter? I mean should we just do nothing because we're afraid of looking like we think we're above the "savage/backwards foreigners?"
All the while women suffer? Why?
It's okay if you think this is backwards. It's okay if you don't. It's just an opinion.

Maybe the problem is the actual abuse and not the system itself.

The abuse is unfortunately s making the system look bad..

If the system allows such systemic abuse to occur without recourse in the first place, as these ladies are claiming (I mean it is kind of the reason they are literally running for their very lives) then it absolutely is the system itself.
Just because it's tradition or foreign doesn't mean we shouldn't call a spade a spade.
I even do that with my own two "systems." The West has some issues and so does my more traditional Indian side of the family. I grew up in such societies and I will absolutely not just lay down and accept it.
Sometimes you have the option of rocking the boat or standing by while abuse happens.
Just because I criticise however does not mean I am their enemy or think that they should drop every tradition or religious belief or what have you.
But I don't think we should just stand idly by merely because we don't want to say something about a foreign culture is "wrong."
That doesn't mean it's necessarily saying ours is correct. It's just that we might take issue with some aspects.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem with your view is that you consider religions to be confined as if they aren't liberal. True, any puritanical form of any religion could have constraints. But Humanism in comparison to the historical religions of the world are relatively new however the elements within Humanism are no different than the elements than the utilitarian elements we find in the world's religions. What is truly harmful whether you call yourself a Humanist or religionist is the belief that one model or one way of thinking is the only way. If humans were truly humanists we wouldn't have racism, sexism, or the like, but humanity is incapable of realizing its full ethical potential at this time due to the residual influences of selfish ideals and biases. Humanism benefits me no more than any religion that I'm coming into contact with. Humanism hasn't gotten rid of societies ills therefore it currently provides no benefit to the world but a theoretical model, but religion has a chance to benefit the world because of its historical endurance.

Then first, before we go any further, I would like to say that humanism has arisen from the combined thinking of thousands of philosophers, some even from religious background, who have undertaken to frame the question of "what is right for mankind" in terms that define "what is good for the individuals who make up mankind."

Yet, for reasons I've never been able to understand, on questions such as this, most of the world throws out all the thinking over all the centuries, and decides that a bunch of shepherds from long ago knew everything we'd need to know forever, even when faced with global catastrophe, human nightmares like nuclear war, and Artificial Intelligence.

I guess I would ask you my first question: Why?

 

[Cooky]

Humanism (or any thought in general) is almost compatible with Catholicism. So come give us a try today, call 1-800-iwannabeacatholic, and talk to a priest today!

Call NOW!

 

[Shad]

Ahh but this could be good PR for America. If they support women led revolutions they get to play saviour of damsels in distress. What American could resist?
Course not sure if a "reformed government" will give up that sweet sweet oil America is forever drooling over. Maybe it'll be an easier sell for a revolutionised Saudi though.

KSA oil is exported to the EU and China far more than to the US. The US does not need KSA oil at this time. KSA stability helps the general oil market which is a concern.

That said only Canada has shown to have the balls to publicly criticise Saudi Arabia over its treatment of women. Which is funny to me considering how they're known for being exceedingly polite.

Yet Trudaeu still sells weapons to KSA.... You fell for virtue signalling from the drama teacher in chief.

 

[SomeRandom]

KSA oil is exported to the EU and China far more than to the US. The US does not need KSA oil at this time. KSA stability helps the general oil market which is a concern.
Time will tell.
.

America has kind of transparently been shaking it's fists for over 20 years. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of its tip toeing around foreign relations with the Middle East. Even Trump has been polite, at least by his standards.

Yet Trudaeu still sells weapons to KSA.... You fell for virtue signalling from the drama teacher in chief.

He still did something about it. Shocking that America, the saviour of the world, didn't virtue signal on this one themselves honestly.

Everyone is in the market, everyone is probably corrupt. That's fine, just business as they say.
Don't really care to be honest. Y'all can have fun scrapping over politics and who and who is not "virtue signalling." I'm a little tired of that scene.

Either way, the young lady has brought with her potential discussions on women's rights and the differences between two paradigms. Surely that is worthy of discussion?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And this lady who actually did grow up in the system and still had issues? The other women who call out or even flee this system? Clearly something is wrong with it.
You might not have had an issue with it had you grown up in such a society because you're a man. Which is fair enough. But at least some Arab born people seem to take issue with.

That's fine and I don't take issue with anything this young lady did nor any women who feel they live in an unjust society. I just don't believe in judging a society because I live different than them. for every woman that dislikes life in Saudi Arabia there are others who are content with it so am I to assume they are in distress as well?

I mean should we just do nothing because we're afraid of looking like we think we're above the "savage/backwards foreigners?"
All the while women suffer? Why?
It's okay if you think this is backwards. It's okay if you don't. It's just an opinion.

The problem with the west is we are always trying to tell the world how to live. Who are we to tell the world which way is the best way to live? it is because of the west that many cultures were robbed and people have been displaced. The United States will not go against Saudi Arabia because they have what we want and that is oil. Apparently in the west, we value currency than human life. These are ideals attached to western life because freedom is a guise, a tool to usurp any potential rival governments if they choose to go against the "leader of the free world." As much as I'd like to agree, I have to ask what has the west done as of late to be the beacon of hope to others besides tell others that are not like us they're wrong and we're right? We still have homeless people in the United States, Donald Trump cares more about the wall than he do the average American citizen, we have homeless people sitting in the cold rain without hope while we sit here and focus on one girl on social media. The West does enough meddling in the affairs of others. I am ultimately glad she has found refuge but her story bares no relevance to the many people I see day to day as patients struggling with finding a home and kicking drugs, excuse me if I think we need to place our focus elsewhere.

 

[Shad]

America has kind of transparently been shaking it's fists for over 20 years. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of its tip toeing around foreign relations with the Middle East. Even Trump has been polite, at least by his standards.

It's tip-toe tactics are just part of the game. I agree that skepticism is warranted. KSA just has a massive ego due to it's system of government so any criticism becomes personal.

He still did something about it. Shocking that America, the saviour of the world, didn't virtue signal on this one themselves honestly.

Taking a low risk move is nothing special. Trump could have given her asylum just as easily. You are conflating low risk optics with something of substance which furthers my point.

Either way, the young lady has brought with her potential discussions on women's rights and the differences between two paradigms. Surely that is worthy of discussion?

Given the place in question one can not avoid the politics involved. After all it is a state enforced system beyond merely cultural garbage.

What is there to discuss that has not already become a beaten horse? KSA is a horrible country /check. It has backwards ideas /check. Political pressure is rarely applied /check. She is in a far far far far x100 better country now /check

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure, but rightness or wrongness is merely subjective. Would I live like an indigenous person that lives off the land? Would I want to live in a hunter-gatherer society? Perhaps not considering I was raised in a technological age where I've grown accustomed to a certain way of living. I certainly don't think the western way is utopian but perhaps on a scale of livability I would say living in a democratic style is perhaps the most suitable. Point is, we can discuss the merits of society but whether it is true or not is purely subjective and not based on any objective truth. The Arabs have a reason why guardianship was in place and those reasons are related to however they believe what was an issue in the earlier formation of their society.

All things are subjective to my world view anyway.
So, sure, my opinion is subjective. But I can defend it and debate it. Just because things are gray doesn't make them all the same shade.

Societies which devalue women are immediately devaluing 50% of their population. I personally don't care whether there is an 'objective truth' there, I think they are clearly devaluing their society.
Could it make society work effectively? Sure. So could slaves. But there are things that a liberal (socially, at least) needs to stand for, or they basically stand for nothing.
Just my opinion, but not all opinions are created equal.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's fine and I don't take issue with anything this young lady did nor any women who feel they live in an unjust society. I just don't believe in judging a society because I live different than them. for every woman that dislikes life in Saudi Arabia there are others who are content with it so am I to assume they are in distress as well?



The problem with the west is we are always trying to tell the world how to live. Who are we to tell the world which way is the best way to live? it is because of the west that many cultures were robbed and people have been displaced. The United States will not go against Saudi Arabia because they have what we want and that is oil. Apparently in the west, we value currency than human life. These are ideals attached to western life because freedom is a guise, a tool to usurp any potential rival governments if they choose to go against the "leader of the free world." As much as I'd like to agree, I have to ask what has the west done as of late to be the beacon of hope to others besides tell others that are not like us they're wrong and we're right? We still have homeless people in the United States, Donald Trump cares more about the wall than he do the average American citizen, we have homeless people sitting in the cold rain without hope while we sit here and focus on one girl on social media. The West does enough meddling in the affairs of others. I am ultimately glad she has found refuge but her story bares no relevance to the many people I see day to day as patients struggling with finding a home and kicking drugs, excuse me if I think we need to place our focus elsewhere.

I'm not sure why you're conflating the US with 'the West'.

 

[danieldemol]

And here's one other Saudi woman fled from her family.
Khawla Al Khuraya - Wikipedia

A dynamic woman, and the more dynamic women that flee for the west the more we prosper and Saudis suffer in their self imposed darkness.

 

[FearGod]

A dynamic woman, and the more dynamic women that flee for the west the more we prosper and Saudis suffer in their self imposed darkness.

But this dynamic woman Khawla Al Khuraya is living with her family, she's well educated
and has all the respect in Saudi Arabia.

 

[danieldemol]

But this dynamic woman Khawla Al Khuraya is living with her family, she's well educated
and has all the respect in Saudi Arabia.

So you were being sarcastic when you said, “one other Saudi woman fled from her family” then why didn’t you just use an [/sarcasm] tag, or do you prefer to proliferate confusion?

 

[danieldemol]

But this dynamic woman Khawla Al Khuraya is living with her family, she's well educated
and has all the respect in Saudi Arabia.

And just think, if some male in her family had of due to some arbitrary whim decided she wasn’t allowed to become educated or have a job then we may be none the wiser about the FOSM1 gene because legally in Saudi Arabia she wouldn’t be allowed those things without the approval of her male guardians, what a shame that such talent could be buried at a mere whim.

 

[FearGod]

And just think, if some male in her family had of due to some arbitrary whim decided she wasn’t allowed to become educated or have a job then we may be none the wiser about the FOSM1 gene because legally in Saudi Arabia she wouldn’t be allowed those things without the approval of her male guardians, what a shame that such talent could be buried at a mere whim.

I'm not with the superiority of man over woman and I think not all Saudis are all the same,
Muslim women were fighting side by side with men during the prophet era, such as
Khawlah bint al-Azwar and Aisha was the commander in the battle of Camel.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

All things are subjective to my world view anyway.
So, sure, my opinion is subjective. But I can defend it and debate it. Just because things are gray doesn't make them all the same shade.

Societies which devalue women are immediately devaluing 50% of their population. I personally don't care whether there is an 'objective truth' there, I think they are clearly devaluing their society.
Could it make society work effectively? Sure. So could slaves. But there are things that a liberal (socially, at least) needs to stand for, or they basically stand for nothing.
Just my opinion, but not all opinions are created equal.

Your opinion is duly noted. But we in the western world devalue women everyday. We devalue the poor, the sick, the mentally distressed. We devalue people of color. We're no better than the countries who has an Islamic system who we self-righteously proclaim how their society is backwards. Sure, we are progressing, but me in the 36 years I have existed on this earth and in the United States I have yet to feel like a complete human being in these lands. That says a lot about my value here.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not sure why you're conflating the US with 'the West'.

Because the two are synonymous.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A dynamic woman, and the more dynamic women that flee for the west the more we prosper and Saudis suffer in their self imposed darkness.

So what is your intent in all of this? To show how this society is bad? To show Islam is bad? From what I see from some of the Baha'i and it's only a few of you here, you seem to be at odds with Islam as well as the dogmatic societies that purport the Islamic faith. I mean coming from a faith that is the step-child of Islam I'm merely confused. I like how some of you cherry pick the atrocities that go on in one land but not others. We still have issues with race, greed, homophobia but none of you Baha'is talk about that. You tend to focus on Muslim societies a lot. What if I met a Pakistan man who had a beautiful daughter but he wouldn't allow me to because I'm black should I blame his society for fostering the idea? Should I blame his religion?

Point is we shouldn't throw stones at glass houses because I'm sure the Baha'i community is no better. This is why in another thread I participated in I said I choose to not critique orthodox communities like the Sunni, or Wahabbi, because it is merely beating a dead horse. You guys further create gaps. Like we know women are not valued equally in those lands, so what? You all are preaching to the choir. Why do we keep talking about this as if people don't know?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem with your view is that you consider religions to be confined as if they aren't liberal. True, any puritanical form of any religion could have constraints. But Humanism in comparison to the historical religions of the world are relatively new however the elements within Humanism are no different than the elements than the utilitarian elements we find in the world's religions. What is truly harmful whether you call yourself a Humanist or religionist is the belief that one model or one way of thinking is the only way. If humans were truly humanists we wouldn't have racism, sexism, or the like, but humanity is incapable of realizing its full ethical potential at this time due to the residual influences of selfish ideals and biases. Humanism benefits me no more than any religion that I'm coming into contact with. Humanism hasn't gotten rid of societies ills therefore it currently provides no benefit to the world but a theoretical model, but religion has a chance to benefit the world because of its historical endurance.

And yet, the sad truth remains: the "liberal democracies" of the world and the product primarily of humanist thinkers, and only exist after fighting off religious objection tooth and nail. Churches have always, throughout human history, tried to stand in the way of human social development towards more personal liberty.