Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-drive.html

by fmihaila • 9 years ago

352 191 9 years ago

nytimes.com

justboxing2• 9 years ago

One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries.

Wait. What?

delecti• 9 years ago

There have been all sorts of totally bonkers beliefs held by uninformed and/or misogynistic people in the past. Little surprises me in that regard anymore.

chiph• 9 years ago

Given men's anatomy, you would think the opposite.

dmurray• 9 years ago

It would be surprising if someone hadn't made such a ridiculous claim. But in an article on gay marriage in the US, would the NY Times really have felt the need to observe that "one preacher even claimed - with no evidence - that homosexuality caused earthquakes"?

drspacemonkey2• 9 years ago

It depends on how much political influence that specific preacher wielded. In Saudi, clerics wield a LOT of political influence. They're not just religious advisers, they get to set and interpret law based on their understanding of the Quran and the Hadiths.

wahern• 9 years ago

Of course. It may be ridiculous, but it's nonetheless the kind of myth that spreads quickly among certain conservative communities. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of conservative Saudi Arabians believed such a myth. Just like plenty of American conservatives believed Todd Akin's infamous claim regarding "legitimate rape": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin#Controversial_commen...

If enough people are credulous, it's absolutely newsworthy, as it reflects how deeply wedded some people are to a particular perspective. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

dleslie• 9 years ago

I'm fairly certain I've read numerous articles to that effect; for instance, here's an oped discussing Lesbians being blamed for Irma.[0] It was a trivial to find.

0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/did-lesbians-cause-h...

smsm423• 9 years ago

in an article on gay marriage in the US, would the NY Times really have felt the need to observe that "one preacher even claimed - with no evidence - that homosexuality caused earthquakes"?

From what I know about NYT - definitely yes. Probably not in every article on the topic, but at least in some. It is a sensational claim which generates outrage - bread and butter of modern journalism.

Alex3917• 9 years ago

But in an article on gay marriage in the US, would the NY Times really have felt the need to observe that "one preacher even claimed - with no evidence - that homosexuality caused earthquakes"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+god+punis...

Aloha• 9 years ago

They have - often this is used to portray the other side as kooks, and delegitimize them (not that they were very legitimate to start out with).

pjc502• 9 years ago

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121322&page=1 ; "Falwell Suggests Gays to Blame for Attacks" [on WTC]

Pat Robertson was doing this 20 years ago, and I don't think he's really stopped: https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/tv-preacher-pat-robe...

xkcd-sucks• 9 years ago

So it should be okay after menopause anyway

natch• 9 years ago

Why the surprise? Clerics are not known as rational thinkers.

Osmium2• 9 years ago

One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries.

Cycling can cause sexual impotence in men, yet we don't see anyone claiming men should be banned from cycling.

Arguments like this are toxic; even if true (which they obviously aren't), they expose an ugly underlying sexism with the implicit assumption that somehow it's okay for men to make these decisions for women as long as it's for a 'good reason.'

fmihaila• 9 years ago

There are many such opinions, apparently, but there is push-back.

[Saad al-Hijri, head of fatwas (legal opinions) in Saudi Arabia’s Assir governorate], who said women should not drive because their brains shrink to a quarter the size of a man’s when they go shopping has been banned from preaching. [...] In a video this week, Hijri asked what the traffic department would do it if it discovered a man with only half a brain. “Would it give him a licence or not? It would not. So how can it give it to a woman when she has only half?” he said.

“If she goes to the market she loses another half. What is left? A quarter ... We demand the traffic department check because she is not suitable to drive and she has only a quarter.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/saudi-cleric-s...

Waterluvian2• 9 years ago

I listen to Sawbones podcast and this reminds me of how primitive North American and European cultures were too. "Hysteria" being my favourite example of "I can't believe we thought that..."

pbhjpbhj• 9 years ago

You can't believe that we thought some women had mood swings that relate to their having wombs ... I might have news for you! Sure they got the level wrong, but it was basically an early endocrine based explanation for human behavioural changes?

My favourite "I can't believe" is probably homuncular theory, that ejaculate contained a tiny little man [men?], fully formed, who grew to be a baby. Presumably it was homuncula all the way down?? [Not sure of the historical verity of that theory.]

return0• 9 years ago

You seem surprised

aaron-lebo• 9 years ago

What people say crazy stuff?

Unrelated but ran across the following story: woman gets rare and slow developing cancer at 22, decides against surgery, gets on "Gerson therapy", runs lifestyle blog for years, credible (and credulous) media eat up claim she cured cancer. Mother gets breast cancer, uses Gerson therapy, dies in 2013 (horrible now removed blog posts where they discuss "flare ups" as symptoms of the therapy working, was actually symptoms of growing cancer). Down to her last days was hiding growing cancer and deceiving rabid fanbase, criticizing "bullies" who were pointing out her cancer was back. Of course after she died, her fans and Gerson therapy advocates now leave crazy comments about how she didn't do it right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ainscough

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/17/sharyn-ainscoug...

Gerson therapy vids are all over YouTube even today with the implication it is effective. I mean people are basically committing suicide because YouTube is making money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvWlZ4-7Lo

If that's possible in open and connected societies, what's unscientific bullshit but the norm? We all believe delusional stuff, the question is, what seemingly accepted and reasonable views in our own societies are are actually delusional and harmful?

csomar• 9 years ago

Oh you missing lots of entertainment buddy. They even ruled that Mickey Mouse is "haram". These Clerics are fun to watch (except for the populace affected by its arbitrary decisions)

edgecrafter• 9 years ago

I've always thought the risk of too hot "balls" in the car was greater in that area of the world ...

dang2• 9 years ago

I know it's oh so tempting, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN about stupid shit—especially not on inflammatory topics. There's no surer way to degrade an internet discussion, and we're trying for better than that here (trying and failing, no doubt, but we can always fail better).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

justboxing2• 9 years ago

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. My apologies.

pjc502• 9 years ago

This sort of thing is not unusual in misogyny. Similar arguments were used not just against women's sports but all sorts of things in the West over the past century.

harisamin• 9 years ago

This is a REALLY big deal. I was born and raised there. Glad to see some progress.

agumonkey3• 9 years ago

is it the first time or, like lebannon or iran, there was a time when women could drive before ?

ma1313• 9 years ago

First time in Saudi. Women were never banned from driving in Lebanon, not sure about Iran, but I don't think so

bhnmmhmd• 9 years ago

Women have been driving in Iran for decades.

totalZero• 9 years ago

Women can drive in Iran.

irln• 9 years ago

Simultaneously they are banning all non-autonomous cars.

__Julia• 9 years ago

In 2017 ...

ovulator• 9 years ago

Actually, 2018. June of next year.

pmoriarty• 9 years ago

But do they have to be accompanied on that drive by a male relative?

kogepathic2• 9 years ago

It's not mentioned anywhere in the article that a male relative is required to be in the car. Also, it sounds like their police will need some training to interact with female drivers, as by my understanding Saudi women don't normally interact with people who aren't family members.

The police will need to be trained to interact with women in a way that they rarely do in a society where men and women who are not related rarely interact.

tyingq• 9 years ago

I suppose that women driving alone would also extend new interactions with gas stations, shops, etc. Perhaps that won't open up all at once, but this does seem to open more than one door.

simonh• 9 years ago

Time to start recruiting female police officers!

drcode2• 9 years ago

It's pretty messed up how this mirrors similar questions that come up when discussing autonomous vehicles- While we in the West try to come to grips with the agency of computer systems, other places are still trying to come to grips with agency for adult humans.

ghostbrainalpha• 9 years ago

It's crazy to think that women will only have been driving in Saudi Arabia for at most 20 years before the autonomous vehicles are required and no one drives anymore.

wavefunction• 9 years ago

We in the West are still struggling to come to grips with agency for adult humans.

bogomipz2• 9 years ago

That detail seems conspicuously absent. I would be curious to know if they will be allowed to buy and own their own car as well.

andygates• 9 years ago

Doesn't look like it. "I am my own guardian" gives the context. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41411799

idoh• 9 years ago

"Low oil prices have limited the government jobs that many Saudis have long relied on, and the kingdom is trying to push more citizens, including women, into gainful employment. But some working Saudi women say hiring private drivers to get them to and from work eats up much of their pay, diminishing the incentive to work."

I'm guessing that this is the biggest driver - Saudi Arabia just cannot afford to not allow this anymore.

ihsw2• 9 years ago

The dual income household had an unbelievable impact on Western and Asian economies, buoying incredible growth.

How the KSA handles the coming social liberalization will be interesting, Chinese women still grapple with social conservative attitudes regarding working women (ie: leftover women). It is inevitable that the people of the KSA will encounter similar difficulties.

qiqing• 9 years ago

Actually, the "leftover women" phrase refers to the relationship / marital status of some women, not their job status. Many of these women (including people I know personally) have reclaimed the term as a compliment -- there's a pun where they substitute a word that roughly means god-like or badass.

My mom and both of my grandmothers lived in a world where the dual income household is the norm, and has been the norm since the 50's, but since the 80's and 90's, there has been a retrograde shift because for a while, being a stay-at-home-mom became a status symbol. However, all of my cousins, male or female, are part of dual-income households. (They all live in Shanghai.) But that's a much longer rant and off-topic to the current discussion.

But +1 to your initial point, re: effect of dual income households on the economy.

haihaibye• 9 years ago

> buoying incredible growth

Then why not much deviation from historical trend lines:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/

alexasmyths• 9 years ago

" buoying incredible growth."

That only depends on how you measure value.

A parent leaves their kids with their grandparents during the day = $0 GDP.

A parent drops of them off at daycare = +$X GDP.

Just because people were not working in the economic system does not mean there was not real value creation.

My mother sometimes worked, sometimes did not. The difference in the quality of our lives was quite noticeably more negative when she worked. That 'negative value' is not measured in the GDP - only the 'positive value' of her income.

I'm not saying that she shouldn't have, and certainly not that there should not have been mass reforms - but it's important to remember that much of 'real consumer surplus' is simply not measured in the GDP.

Policies that focus on the GDP tend to overweight measurable economic activity - while other elements are externalized and suffer.

The environment, community, social cohesion - they all have value to us but because we don't put numbers behind them, they don't fit into the equations very well.

em3rgent0rdr• 9 years ago

denial of liberty is expensive.

mtgx• 9 years ago

And renewables/EVs are just getting started. It will be interesting to see what other freedoms Saudis will allow once EVs and renewables are a significant portion of the global market.

Florin_Andrei• 9 years ago

If a country thinks it's okay to throw half of its brain power down the sinkhole, sure, why not, go ahead and do it. Just don't start crying afterwards that other countries are zooming past you on the highway to progress.

rwmj• 9 years ago

It's a strange statement because low oil prices are caused by Saudi Arabia's own policies.

jamiek88• 9 years ago

That is overly simplistic indeed.

Macro forces leave them a certain percentage wiggle room in production to affect price but US oil and the world wide reduction in demand rule even over OPEC at its strongest and OPEC is practically dead really.

While US producers price their projects in the $25-35 cost per boe produced and the Fed keeps rates low the US can keep on trucking and Saudi can do very little about it. There are billions of barrels of oil sitting offshore in ships waiting for better prices.

There are hundreds of fracked fields that can be turned on and off like a faucet.

Sure offshore deep water is slow due to cost and cannot respond to swings readily but the fundamentals changed years ago.

Feniks3• 9 years ago

In my country the ability to build a family on a single average income closed decades ago.

quattrofan• 9 years ago

I had to just check, yep it is the 21st century.

jandrese• 9 years ago

Not in Saudi Arabia.

randyrand2• 9 years ago

The 21st century is not as homogeneous as you think. Not every country will have the same cultural timeline as the USA, and it's odd to me that comments like yours are so prevalent. The world is bigger than america. Comments like this just seem incredibly self-centered, and a bit culturally supremacist.

bogomipz2• 9 years ago

Why is the OP automatically deemed an American for expressing cynicism? Its amazing that you yourself see no hypocrisy in making such discriminatory remarks based on what you perceive another's nationality to be.

The 21st century might not be homogenous but please name me one other place on the planet where women can't drive, where women can't open a banking account[1], or where women can't enter a Starbucks[2] or where there are public beheadings on Fridays[3]

Actually name one other place that even comes close to that level of chauvinism and barbarism. That cynicism is not without merit.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-thi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deera_Square

[3] https://www.eater.com/2016/2/1/10885722/saudi-arabia-starbuc...

crispinb• 9 years ago

Saudi's polity is as modern (as '21st century' if you like) as that of the US. Wahhabism and the 'Western Enlightenment' were each 18C movements, distinctly 'modern'.

The notion that history is a linear, unidirectional & inevitable march of progress is highly contestable (to say the least).

ericfrenkiel• 9 years ago

::slow clap::

It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality in the 21st century.

The faster we can transition to clean, renewable energy, the better for everyone in the world.

rconti• 9 years ago

My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others arguing that bartenders would rip off patrons with 'short pours'.

All without a single thought to stop and consider the example of the other 49 states, not to mention other countries...

Forbo• 9 years ago

You should take a look at Utah's liquor laws some time. Perfect example of what happens when people who don't drink decide to legislate alcohol.

knz• 9 years ago

Laws related to firearms are often similar.

The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors.

The sad part about using fear to support or oppose change is that you rarely end up with solutions that actually solve the underlying societal problem via a sensible compromise.

dsfyu404ed• 9 years ago

...and The Children (TM) would all die...

All the people from CA who chucked when they read this should consider the pot and kettle relationship.

lucaspiller• 9 years ago

Just wait until the 22nd century. People will wonder how crazy we were to allow humans full control of a two tonne chunk of steel, where a lapse of concentration for a few seconds could easily kill themselves and others. And let’s not even begin to think about it being propelled by controlled ignition of highly flammable fluids...

scott_karana• 9 years ago

We don't look back harshly at steam trains. They did the best they could with what they had. (If anything, there's strong nostalgia!)

Why do you think petrol will be different? Electric is only marginally viable now, more than a century after internal combustion's invention.

colechristensen• 9 years ago

There are still groups of humans living relatively or completely unconnected from the world that wouldn't seem out of place 10,000 years ago. It's not exactly appalling that societies that don't respect basic freedoms exist, it's appalling that they're allowed to participate at all in the global economy and society.

<< insert picture of Saudi prince and president shaking hands >>

kobeya6• 9 years ago

There are fewer and fewer

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/gold-miners-murder-...

reaperducer• 9 years ago

The use of "Agrees" in the headline reveals societal bias. "Decides" would have been better.

novia• 9 years ago

Well, I believe that they were the last country in the world to prohibit it, so even if you look at it from a societal bias perspective, Saudi Arabia's policy is now in agreement with everyone else.

KZeillmann• 9 years ago

Is there something wrong with societal bias? Especially towards ideals like personal liberty?

nebabyte• 9 years ago

The word "bias" probably should have tipped you off

kobeya6• 9 years ago

In journalism, yes.

dragonwriter• 9 years ago

No, the use of the word “agrees” conveys the fact that there was a party other than the one making the decision requesting the outcome, while “decides" is less specific. There is no “bias” revealed except one toward communicating facts.

Now, if there was editorializing about the desirability of the decision, e.g., “finally agrees”, you'd have a point about bias (though the would be bias of those involved in the headline, not necessarily societal bias.)

Of course, there is a widespread (though not universal) societal bias toward treating women at least as human beings with the basic right to participate indepebdently in society, and I don't have any problem with that. But nothing in the headline points to that bias.

oh_sigh• 9 years ago

I wonder to what extent private families/society at large will accept women driving?

potlee• 9 years ago

How is this helpful if they cannot be outside alone without a male relative?

friedbeef• 9 years ago

It is helpful because women can be outside alone without male relatives. You realize that most women go around with personal drivers rather than male relatives.

awakeasleep• 9 years ago

Isn't the male relative's guardianship considered to pass to the 'servant' that accompanies them?

jayess• 9 years ago

When do they stop executing gays?

irrational2• 9 years ago

When climate change makes the Middle East too hot to be habitable by humans (http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/news/climate-change-middle-e...).

amelius• 9 years ago

Serious question: how safe is it to drive with a burqa?

probably_wrong• 9 years ago

Germany has recently banned burqas while driving[1], but not because they were considered unsafe. Instead, the ban forbids having anything that makes you impossible to identify in camera.

So my guess is that they are not really unsafe, or they would have been banned earlier for that specific reason.

[1] http://www.dw.com/en/german-bundesrat-approves-burqa-ban-for...

Mediterraneo10• 9 years ago

Burqas are not terribly popular in Saudi Arabia. It is generally a niqab or chador country.

jimmy2020• 9 years ago

Anyway that doesn't mean they can actually drive in real life, i am sure there will be more strict regulations about this issue beside the masculine religious community opposition.

lucb1e2• 9 years ago

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agreed.

What the hell. Don't let women vote because they tend to vote "left" and "emotionally" (allegedly). What if the women of this planet decide that male votes are shit, what then? Are we just going to have to fight it out? (I didn't really get a response to that.)

I just don't have words for this, it's so alien. Am I weird for rejecting the notion out of hand?

Edit: two downvotes, please explain? I am honestly interested in opinions; I just found it very weird to hear someone say this.

Tasboo• 9 years ago

Down votes may be because your post is a bit tangential.

That said, I think you were right to call them out on that. It's an idea that shouldn't even be entertained as an option.

xupybd4• 9 years ago

Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that.

I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only those interested enough to know what's going on voted.

woodman2• 9 years ago

Lol, this is so incredible. You've essentially suggested the reintroduction of a voter literacy test... now consider the context of that suggestion.

averagewall3• 9 years ago

There's already a self-selecting mechanism to eliminate most voters. It's called partisanship. Those people who vote for their favorite party no matter what cancel out each other's vote so they don't count. That leaves only the people who're making a decision each election that matter.

noobermin3• 9 years ago

We already had these, known as poll literacy tests. They were intended to weed out undesirable votes known to vote emotionally and irrationally.

I hope the dark sarcasm isn't lost on readers of my comments.

EGreg• 9 years ago

Why necessarily trolling? Here's Peter Thiel publicly saying the same thing:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5

Remember in ancient Greece only rich landowners could vote.

qsymmachus• 9 years ago

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians.

"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron."

– the inimitable Peter Thiel

liquidise• 9 years ago

Anecdata, but i have never heard a self-described libertarian suggest that women should have their voting rights rescinded. At the risk of proclaiming No True Scottsman, the entire premise is so antithetical to a libertarian philosophy that i struggle to grasp how someone could embody such competing ideals.

That being said, giving women the [due] right to vote effectively doubled the eligible voting pool in america. To think this wouldn't functionally alter the results is nonsense. Whether or not someone approves of those results should not, and indeed does not, get to change the underlying rights of those women.

ue_2• 9 years ago

I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more effect on our lives.

paulddraper3• 9 years ago

...but Mr. Thiel has never said women shouldn't have the right to vote.

That comment was in the context of his doubts that libertarianism would ever become mainstream.

matz1• 9 years ago

Weird that someone has different opinion?

factsaresacred• 9 years ago

"seeing the effects of allowing women to vote"

What effects are these, did he say? I hope you engaged with your classmates instead of just rejecting it out of hand. They may be wrong but it's always good exercise to explain why they are wrong. All ideas should be up for discussion, even if only as a thought experiment.

There's an unhealthy trend of 'just because' replacing 'why' in our culture. Ideas, no matter how taboo or 'self-evident', occasionally need to be taken off the shelf and tested for integrity.

baby• 9 years ago

I downvoted you because your post is anecdotic and doesn’t really bring anything to the conversation

lucb1e2• 9 years ago

Thank you for clarifying. I see your point, it was just something related that never happened before (I've never heard someone seriously suggesting something like this), but it's indeed not really relevant for the discussion.

stirlo• 9 years ago

The opinions of 1 powerless individual in a liberal democracy cannot be equated to the systematic oppression by the government and majority of the population in countries such as SA. Comments like yours seek to further a false equivalence.

jeffdavis3• 9 years ago

A lot of philisophical points like this took a long time to develop (universal suffrage). Even if it seems "obvious" today, most people are just parroting what they've been taught and don't give it much consideration.

Why don't you use the opportunity to address the points intellectually rather than silently thinking they are wrong?

First of all, the statements are very different. One of your acquaintences advocated prohibition, while the other merely opined that the overall results were negative without supporting prohibition.

What are the dangers in each position? How do the arguments apply to other questions, like voting age? How do the arguments apply to other groups, like citizens/noncitizens or felons/nonfelons?

I'm not an expert here, but I know there are some tough questions here that you might find difficult to answer. And then you might better understand how someone might hold a misguided position.

Really, most peoples' thinking is muddled on these issues because they haven't studied them. The only thing that keeps most people from saying such things is politocal correctness.

BartSaM• 9 years ago

"most people are just parroting what they've been taught and don't give it much consideration"

Careful here. This can be said about the other side as well to parrot news stations, media outlets and propaganda. This is surely no way to address such a situation - it is one-sided and judgmental. You need to open-minded if you want to hold such a difficult conversation.

openfuture2• 9 years ago

I think the key to what we call political correctness is having the common assumption or axiom that all humans are just as human and not fundamentally different in any significant way.

As an individual you may not hold this belief in your heart, you may feel that some types of people are more or less qualified for certain tasks but when you start having a political discussion it is pragmatic for all parties to accept the previously mentioned axiom.

Some individuals are so firm in their beliefs that they refuse to accept the 'politically correct' viewpoint and so they devolve the discussion with arguments based on assumptions that make discrimination a foregone conclusion. Thankfully most people differ in the way they are politically incorrect so they feel that other peoples discriminatory assumptions are faulty, however, echo chambers...

johndevor• 9 years ago

Am I weird for rejecting the notion out of hand?

Every idea needs to be inspected, no matter how bad it is. If you can't understand someone's POV then you can't defend against it.

lambdaphagy• 9 years ago

What if the women of this planet decide that male votes are shit, what then? Are we just going to have to fight it out?

Democracy is a technology for simulating civil wars without going through the formality of fighting them. So it's desirable that the side that wins the election be the side that would have won the civil war. If this is chronically untrue, then the side that would have won the civil war has little incentive to accept the election as legitimate.

wils12452• 9 years ago

Desirable for whom?

Mz• 9 years ago

I just don't have words for this, it's so alien.

I think a lot of historical precedent for keeping women out of certain things is rooted in the reality that women are the weakest link: If you go to war and lose too many women, you cannot recover. It takes nine months to gestate a baby, no matter how many men she sleeps with. But, one man can potentially impregnate multiple women and your people are not doomed to extinction.

Those biological limitations drive a lot of social norms. But, many people don't really understand that. Instead, they kind of have certain instincts or habits or thought patterns, but they are divorced from the reasons the human race developed certain social norms.

We forget that women are the weakest biological link and conclude they are the weaker sex. And it goes bad places.

Sort of like a programming bug. You inject instructions without context into an environment they were not intended for and things go sideways.

That is probably not true in all cases. But, it is a framing that I find useful.

Feniks3• 9 years ago

Ha actually these arguments had already been disproven in the 1920 elections, the first time women were allowed to vote.

Women pretty much vote the same as men. Which actually disappointed the Suffragettes to some degree.

vonnik• 9 years ago

I'm totally in support of this. Strangely, the second thought after "wow" that I had was: I wonder what the backlash will be. I think my big, pessimistic lesson from the Obama years was that moves that I see as progress will probably be met with an equal and opposite antithesis.

vermontdevil• 9 years ago

Would they still need permission of the male in their household to drive?

anon-123• 9 years ago

Posting as anon because I don't want to be condemned, honestly, you can't marginalize half of your population and be successful and you don't need a degree in econ to understand that. It's simple math.

kobeya6• 9 years ago

But a degree in history would show you that yes, indeed you can marginalize half your population and be quite successful for a very long time.

astrodust• 9 years ago

When money bubbles out of the ground or grows on trees, yes, yes you can.

vadym909• 9 years ago

Don't know whether to be happy this happened or sad that it took so long!

bluesnowmonkey• 9 years ago

Welcome to the twentieth century, Saudi Arabia.

huffmsa• 9 years ago

Yeah, someone needs to buy their oil.

Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

Related Stories