Saudi Arabia Allows Women to Travel Without a Male Guardian's Permission | Hacker News Reader

Saudi Arabia Allows Women to Travel Without a Male Guardian's Permission

time.com

67 pointsAlyan44 comments

It's always funny for me to see articles like this, the last one I remember was about women being able to drive. What does Saudi Arabia have that prevents the world from interfering in its politics? Don't say oil, if it was just that the US would have been in there long ago.

The US military has been in Saudi Arabia for decades.

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

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

Having a military base and orchestrating regime changes are a little bit different.

The military base is there to protect the regime. It’s easier to deal with a small monarchy with no transparency than a democracy. And they make for a good enemy of other local countries keeping just enough zest in the region for the weapons to keep flowing and the figureheads to keep toppling, but still allowing for a steady supply of oil.

History of Modern Middle East by William Cleveland is a good resource:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64594.A_History_of_the_M...

A Peace to End All Peace is good too

When people have democracies, they start asking for crazy things that are in their self-interest, such as mineral rights and ownership over their farmland.

You crazy person. Many many landowners in the USA do not own the mineral rights to their land.

Whatever it is, I may want some for my own country, too.

Well, from which country were the 9/11 terrorists?

Why is that even a good idea at all? First most of these laws are a result of the culture here and if a vote were to happen are likely to remain or at least be controversial. Even the silly driving ban which have no religious basis is/was controversial even amongst women. Enforcing non popular laws from a foreign entity is a good recipe for disaster and may increase resistance to these laws and start wars or other bad stuff. Heck I think most Saudi citizens, even the liberal ones, would not want such actions.

In addition, I think they are also too many countries which doesn’t match US ideals, will US start WW3? For example there are many islamic countries with differing laws but I would guess most don’t match US ideals.

The western world has sad tendency to believe its ideals are the only ideals, so you're unlikely to attract much productive comment. Fanaticism is found everywhere, it's just common for some cultures to give it another name when convenient

Not treating human beings as property is one of those things that doesn't fall on a gray part of the moral spectrum. The history on this is clear and it is universal.

Talk about child beauty pageants is textbook whataboutism.

It's not that simple to equate the two. Modern western ideals are modern western ideals. If living under an authoritarian monarchy were just another way of living, there wouldn't have been a history of revolt against it in the west, because western civilization is no stranger to this kind of society. Western societies have tried autocracy many times. How many times has Saudi Arabia tried liberal democracy?

There's nothing different about your so-called western attitude and Saudis' attitudes towards ideals -- they too think morality isn't a democracy.

Every society has that tendency. "The West" is just the only one in the position of being able to export their ideals.

I agree culture has to shift on its own time - however there will always have to be the brave who are first to peacefully protest, or expose themselves of their beliefs or their nature that they may have had to hid out of fear.

I think most difficult society to counter is that of censorship controls, however even then the population may be quiet and submissive, at the right moment that silence may break in a flash and rebellion occur - and then the control of not knowing who you should fear comes out; the terrifying aspects of this is when you can bring in armed individuals to an area they have no connection to engage in violence - brainwashed to whatever degree, and afraid of repercussions if they don't act as told, that protests or behaviour is seeded by a 3-letter agency by some government painted as an enemy. It's why everyone, especially police and military - those who are at the front lines, need to understand and be taught this manipulation that is possible, especially in heavily controlled societies with system-wide censorship capability; the next Nazi Germany scenario in a modern, high-efficiency scenario, and deployed at scale, isn't necessarily that far off of a possibility. It's why it all needs to come individuals practicing non-violence, and these patterns and mechanics needing to be learned, understood by everyone - or enough of everyone.

Can you fix any dictatorship/weirdo regime in the world? Absolutely not - most of the world is like that. It is the free countries that's the exception. And most of those aren't scary, not threatening others much.

The House of Saud was a group of nomads spreading Wahhabism wishing for an Islamic State who happened to be standing around when American prospectors struck oil. The Americans said “hey brb watch this oil for us thx” and they did and were elevated to the official stewards of the oil and we hooked them up with the nation state.

When non-state Wahhabism is interrupting other American pet projects, we drone them. If it is domestic inside of Saudi Arabia or official actions that dont interrupt American pet projects we ignore them. They cut people’s heads off all day within Saudi Arabia under a semblance of theological due process, it isnt of interest.

There is nothing to interfere with.

The US maintains its relationship for the petrodollar oil derivative and “the world” without US support has no say.

So yes, it is “oil” and is that simple. The US is there and enjoys an extremely fruitful symbiotic relationship for the past 100 years.

Although Saudi Arabia started with private American citizens, the Federal Government tried the same concept in every middle eastern country to get us to how it is today.

To quote a comment from other places, "Welcome to the 19th Century."

Time has one of those data-collection consent forms that are seemingly impossible to opt out of, before being able to read the article. I refuse to fall for that dark pattern.

Here's a better link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/01/saudi-women-ca...

"Women in Saudi Arabia will no longer need the permission of a male guardian to travel.."

"Still in place, however, are rules that require male consent for a woman to leave prison, exit a domestic abuse shelter or marry. Women, unlike men, still cannot pass on citizenship to their children and cannot provide consent for their children to marry."

Fuck yeah.

Here is the original link on the outline nevertheless, just because you still have to do even more clicks on the guardian :

https://outline.com/Ba2kkF

I would like to add, quoting from times:

“Other changes issued in the decrees allow women to register a marriage, divorce or child’s birth and to be issued official family documents”

IANAL but I am a Saudi citizen and it seems male consent to leave prison and abuse shelter may be included in these changes. I have seen Saudi citizens speculate about both possibilities so it is not clear yet.

Only one of the four major Islamic Sunni madhhaps allow females to marry without consent. Saudi Arabia follows a different madhhap. So if I were to speculate I don’t think it will happen soon because it may risk a revolt as I believe most citizens are religious or at least conservative. However, I also did not expect the current changes to happen this soon for the same reasons so I may be wrong.

Thank you, that's really interesting to hear a first-person perspective about the cultural changes.

> [Allowing] females to marry without consent..may risk a revolt..

Wow, I didn't realize how strongly people (I guess in this case mainly men) felt about this issue. I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in a sensitive manner, as it relates to fundamental values of religion, gender roles, and I suppose power dynamics in society.

> I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in a sensitive manner.

These laws are ruthless and insensitive towards women though...

Sounds like one of those "do you want to talk about absolutes, or practical solutions" cases. Sometimes the only options you get are "terrible" or "slightly less terrible". Unless you're up for taking part in a violent revolution, that is.

Violent Revolution, by definition, is going to fall somewhere on the terrible scale.

Change that is successful and actually changes behaviour is preferable. It is surprisingly easy to look at cultural behaviour, find something that should be changed and pick a method of change that has no hope of success. "But they should just <insert whatever you want here>" does not work if they just won't <whatever>. From one perspective things seem clear, but from the perspective of the people involved it may be far from clear.

I've seen well meaning foreign expats set back improvements in their work place by galvanising the opinion of all the locals against them -- even the people who were meant to be helped by the change. You need to tread exceptionally carefully, take your wins where you can take them and wait for another day when you can not win. It's incredibly frustrating when people ignore this truth and destroy huge amounts of work progressing forward.

Edit: missing "not"

They need to be put to shame. By every body.

Yeah, but women need to consider the desires of men who want to keep them oppressed. /s

Replace the word "women" with "black people abducted from Africa" and change the time period to the 15-1800s in the US/Europe. "I'm all for the liberation of enslaved black people, but it needs to be done slowly, in a sensitive manner..." It's amazing how, when you get a religion involved that says oppression is good and right, that you can justify stuff like slavery and oppression.

I get what you mean, especially when compared with historical examples of fighting for civil rights.

The anger from the oppressed, those demanding their rights, is justified. And it does sound absurd to ask anyone to be sensitive to their oppressors' feelings and reaction.

I guess by "sensitive", I meant changing the system together, rather than against each other. But in retrospect, that may be a naive and unrealistic expectation.

If Saudi Arabia continues to improve civil rights for women and there's a "gender riot", angry men on the streets calling for return to "traditional values".. Well, so be it, that might be the price of progress?

Yes, if someone wants to riot because they're no longer allowed to oppress someone else then fuck them.

I agree, but the problem is when 1) those people have large enough numbers to be politically powerful, and even worse 2) when those people have convinced those people they've oppressed that they should be oppressed, so those victims join them in upholding the oppression. When #2 happens in sufficient numbers, I'm not really sure what the answer is, except to lead by example.

"it needs to be done slowly, in a sensitive manner"

I'm not sure "sensitive" is the right word, but I would go for "done in a manner that doesn't lead to mass deaths".

About 600,000 people died in the US civil war. It would have been better if the slaves could have been freed with fewer deaths, even if it took a few years longer.

(Note: I've no idea whether there was any real possibility of that.)

I think it is a conservative/religious issue mostly. Women are harmed from this so it may be easier for them to change their opinions. However many women hold the same view and are not happy with such changes. The marriage without consent could be possible because there is one sunni maddhap which allow this. (For example in Egypt I think)

My views maybe inaccurate and in general I am pessimistic. However many are not happy with what the current government is doing and any change which may seem clearly against Islam could be the straw that break the camel’s back.

I would like to add that the criticism is lower and maybe in kinder tone due to the low freedom speech ceiling so it is actually hard to gauge the general opinion of current changes in this article.

Almost no body I know talked about this, perhaps many are unhappy with it or afraid of society judgement for supporting such changes.

I see, it's a difficult road to progress.. In a way, I think there are parallels with other civil rights movements elsewhere in the world. People react to it so emotionally, and its connection with religion and politics makes the issue problematic to even talk about.

My hope is that there's a tide of history in the right direction, and although it's a struggle, progress will be achieved and humanity will be kinder to each other. I guess it's easier to be an optimist when I'm not personally involved, though..

For others who were wondering like me, I learned that "madhhab" is a religious school of thought, and different ones dominate in different parts of the world. Apparently, they're quite involved in Islamic legal institutions.

As a Somali, i am mostly aligned with the Shafi' madh-hab and yes, a woman can be married without consent from a male guardian. This happens in the case where the male guardian refuses to grant permission without any reason. The kadhi thus takes the responsibility. But, Saudi's money and so called Salafism, most Somalis are now only marginally Shafi'.

It seems that as I suspected requiring consent for leaving prison or abuse shelter was also abolished.

https://twitter.com/dralmuneef/status/1157139494765645826?s=...

Bonesaw has done it again!

Please don't do this here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com