First! (chomp!)

I let Mrs. Mako drive anytime she wants! She does have a mean bite!

LOL. Thank you, Mako, for (almost) always making me laugh.

fyi - there are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford a car. Whether they can drive is immaterial if they can't afford it. I once gave a ride to a mother standing on the corner in the rain waiting for a bus with an infant in a cast from hip to toe - not as bad as Saudi Arabia, but still a pretty difficult life.

Well, comedy is my middle name! Wait, I don't even have a first name. In fact, I have only one name as well as my wife and children!

I try really hard to understand different religions and cultures. I feel it is part of being human to take the time to listen and try to understand. But I still really have a hard time understanding the oppression of women in the Islamic culture. This is one day where I would like to sit back and read or "listen" to what others think about this. I hope some Islamic women weigh in as well. Have a good day everyone.

I'm with foamgnome. I cannot understand why the oppression of women in Islamic cultures is tolerated. The driving ban is unbelievable. I mean, is it in the Koran? What's the rationale?

I, too, am planning to sit back and (hopefully) be educated today.

Although I think the driving ban in Saudi Arabia is wrong, and certainly not in keeping with Koranic law, I take issue with the idea that women are oppressed in "Islamic cultures." As in any culture, women are sometimes oppressed. But most women in most Islamic countries (with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Iran) would argue that they don't WANT men outside of their family to be staring at them - they see it as a sign of respect that their family protects them. Many of them are apalled that families in the States make their daughters leave home at 18 to live with strangers. Just another point of view...

I'm all for CHOOSING modesty. I'm appalled when it's forced. I'm also appalled when Muslim woman are forced to give up their modesty, like France's ban on head scarves.

Irishgirl- Did you see the news on Madeleine this morning?

One practical issue at play here -- Islamic women in Saudi Arabia fully veil when in public (you can only see their eyes) to comply with modesty requirements. When we lived in Riyadh in the mid-80s my mother found other motorists to be frightening and was glad she couldn't drive.

With regard to the interpretation of the Koran and a woman's role, the very conservative view in Saudi Arabia is at odds with the view that Prophet Mohammed's wife Khadijah was very active in the founding of Islam.

Leslie,

"How could you be a good mother without the ability to care for, protect and transport your children?"

By your logic, I am a BAD mother. I don't drive.

"I once gave a ride
to a mother standing on the corner in the rain waiting for a bus with an infant.."

Moxiemom, were you acting as a responsible citizen when you did this, or did you break the car seat law?

I have been without a car and it is extremely inconvenient, but, at least here in America, you can usually call an ambulance for a medical emergency. Was that not an option for this Saudi woman (and, Leslie, was that not an option for you with your two medical emergencies)?

This is the definition of bad parents.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/14179778/detail.html

Crystal Adams, 31, and James Chandler, 33, are accused of reckless endangerment, because police say the two grabbed their pet dogs and fled the fire at Center Manor Court but left Chandler's young son behind on Friday night.

The 4-year-old boy was treated for smoke inhalation after a firefighter ran inside and pulled him out, township Fire Chief Bill Brucker said

rmiriam, first, if someone is uncomfortable with people staring at them, they can choose to wear a scarves, robes, etc, no matter what culture they live in. In the US, there's no law that says that people can dress in whatever manner makes them most comfotable, but people do it all the time. There doesn't need to be a law to tell them that.

Second, you get comfortable with whatever is the norm in your culture. The women in Saudi Arabia are only uncomfortable with men staring at them because that's how they are told to feel. In the US, we have different standards of modesty.

Having said that, I try not to judge other cultures because I don't know enough about them. I think it's a stupid law. I also feel that way about any law that curtails what I consider to be freedom. But I know that other people have different ideas of freedom, so that rationale doesn't apply.

What outrages me are the laws that curtail human rights. Driving is not a right (it's a priviledge, as we all heard from our parents). But the laws infringing on women's right to life are completely and utterly wrong. There's no grey area with those laws.

ChittyBangBang -- Please don't misunderstand. I wasn't trying to cast aspersion on you or anyone else who can't or doesn't drive (MoxieMom's good point too about not everyone having a car).

What I specifically said was "transport and protect your children." And even then, there are exceptions -- for instance, a mother who is paralyzed can still be a very, very wonderful mother and advocate for her children.

What I meant was for us to sit back and imagine life for all of us women (men should try this too) if our government and society said we weren't allowed to to take public transportation or a taxi or drive a car.

And TNTKate, tell us more. How then did you and your mother get around Riyadh?

Re: ambulances. There are some places where you can rely on ambulances, and some where you cannot. Many countries do not have ambulance -- although most of us take them for granted, they are in many ways a luxury of highly developed, wealthy, democratic countries. And even in our beloved DC, there have been times when ambulance service has been a joke. Maybe someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia recently can tell us how widespread ambulances are there.

Has anyone here ever veiled themselves in public? If you haven't, it is an enlightening, fascinating (and to me, horrifying) experience. I'm not talking a burka -- just take a large head scarf, wrap it around your head to cover your hair, neck and shoulders, and spend a few hours going about your business in public. (Also you should wear long sleeves and a long skirt.) I had to do this recently for a Muslim funeral, as a sign of respect for an acquaintance who had died. I felt invisible and as if the ultimate message was that I needed to be ashamed of my physical appearance. While I was happy to do it in this instance to honor my friend, it showed me how difficult and self-abnegating it is to cover one's self solely because you are female. I do not understand why this is considered an act of respect to some.

Since when are 18 year old girls forced to leave home in the US? As with boys, in most families those girls who want to leave go away to college, those who don't, stay home and go to a local school. Obviously that's a generalization, but that's the normal expectation.

Rather than any one point that could be endlessly argued, it's really the difference in freedom between the genders that is so terrible, treating women like they aren't fully human. And the excruciating lockdown of many Muslim women is designed to keep them dependent on men, no matter what. The same could be said about many other traditional religions, but nowhere else is the legal, social, as well as religious culture so punitive towards women.

Why are independent women so scary to male-dominated cultures?

Yes, I agree. If men were required to veil themselves and banned from driving, I would think "wow, wacky religion, but whatever." It's the gender divide that is impossible to comprehend as a fair, devout practice.

It sure is terrible that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. The question (as Lenin would ask it) is, ¿shto delat'? (what is to be done)
about it?

In her notorious column, "This is War," published in National Review Online two days after Arab terrorists massacred 3,000 Americans in NY, DC and Pennsylvania, Ann Coulter wrote:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Seeing as how 15 of the 19 terrorist hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, we don't have to look far to figure out what country Miss Coulter had in mind. The leaders of the country where women cannot drive come to Texas and play golf with our leader. Meanwhile, in Christian countries in North and South America and Europe, women can drive. In fact, women can drive in most Mohammedan countries, too, because there is nothing in the Koran that forbids a woman from operating an internal combustion engine. This is not a Mohammedan thing, it is a Saudi thing, and if we follow Miss Coulter's advice, not only will we free Saudi women to drive, we'll be able to bust up the OPEC monopoly and return to 60-cent-a-gallon gasoline.

Of course, if we were to follow Ann Coulter's advice, I'd love to see what the ladies of "Code Pink" would scrawl on their protest signs: "No Blood for Feminism"?

I don't agree with the idea that a woman who isn't allowed to drive is oppressed. I didn't get my first car until this year, and I didn't get my license until I was 22. I survived college without having a car. I walked and took the bus. Occasionally, I took a taxi or got a ride from a friend.

What's more oppressing is having someone who doesn't understand one's culture come in and "you're oppressed because you're not allowed to do the same things I can do."

Well, Leslie, in the religious Jewish community, people are expected to be modest as well.

The way it is taught is that you should be proud of who you are and shouldn't just let anyone see your body (that's why they wear long sleeves, long skirts, cover hair if married). You should only let your husband see many parts of you because you are not so unhappy with who you are that you'll just let anyone ogle you.

One other interpretation (much less 'feminist') is that men are pigs and they can't take their eyes off it when it's out there, so women need to cover up so that men aren't distracted.

And capsfan, I think you can answer that question (was it rhetorical?). Men don't want to lose their power. In fact, anyone *in* power, rarely wants to lose it.

OTHO, I would prefer to be born and raised in Saudi Arabia than in Egypt where 96%/97% of women are circumsized.

I'm a little puzzled that Leslie says taxis are considered unsafe, but this woman thought that going out on the street at 2 a.m. and begging a ride was a good idea.

From the Department of State we have the following:

"Traffic accidents are a significant hazard in Saudi Arabia. Driving habits are generally poor, and accidents involving vehicles driven by minors are not uncommon. In the event of a traffic accident resulting in personal injury, all persons involved (if not in the hospital) may be taken to the local police station. Drivers are likely to be held for several days until responsibility is determined and any reparations paid. In many cases, all drivers are held in custody regardless of fault."

Assuming for purposes of discussion that this information is accurate, I'm not sure I'd WANT to put my children in a car and risk ending up in jail. What would happen to my children if I was arrested?

Perhaps driving is not the number one freedom a mother wants in Saudi Arabia. Women are the property of their husbands - I suspect that's a bigger issue of freedom, if not of day to day parenting. For the sake of argument, consider whether, just because many of our lives are constructed in a way that relies on the ability of both parents to drive, driving really is such an essential right that life isn't worth living without it. For the most part, we are simply used to living life our way - with great roads, city services, and the freedom to travel as we wish, when we wish regardless of gender.

Matt, don't kid yourself. We will never be back to 60 cent gasoline. People in the world have decided they are willing to put up with $3 gas, it might go down at some point (highly unlikely) but it will never go there.

MN: I think the idea was that taxis were unsafe because a woman would be in a confined space with a man - and all taxi drivers are men.

Strawberry23 -- I agree totally -- the ability to drive, per se, does not equal freedom, and your decision not to drive doesn't equal oppression. Especially when there is available, affordable, safe public transportation as a substitute.

There is a big difference between your experience and Saudi women because on some level, this sounds like your choice. It's not a choice in Saudi Arabia when you risk being jailed or killed if you are a woman and drive.

Simple solution: spandex shorts and bicycles for all the women of Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. This isn't a realistic suggestion, but I'm having a lot of fun thinking about a mass protest in Saudi Arabia of this sort--all the women getting together and saying "you think driving is immodest? Try this!" and then hopping on their Schwinns in bike shorts, carrying their groceries in panniers and their kids in bike trailers. Maybe driving wouldn't be seen as quite so immodest then.

Giving women some economic/social power translates to better outcomes for children. I am so grateful I can get about in the world physically and financially -- especially since ex-DH got very sick and was unable to contribute for a long time. I understand there is a family-driven safety net in Muslim culture but I also know it can fail. I won't impose my decision on others but I'll pick financial independence any day and I'd like my Muslim sisters to have the same choice.

What is this business of saying that we shouldn't compare, contrast and evaluate different cultures? Saudis won't let women drive, but we're supposed to parrot the line that, "well, they're as good as we are"? Egyptians cut little girls, and we're supposed to agree that their ancient civilization is on a par with ours?

Shortly after the Arab terrorist massacres of September 11, 2001, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said:

"L'Occidente deve avere la consapevolezza della superiorità della sua civiltà ... una civiltà che ha garantito benessere largo ai popoli e garantito il rispetto dei diritti umani, di quelli religiosi, che non c'è nei paesi islamici, il rispetto dei diritti politici".

("The West must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being to the people, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights . . .")

Of course, the Politically Correct tiers-mondistes crucified Signor Berlusconi and forced him to recant, sort of like defendants were forced to recant during the Soviet purge trials of the 1930's. But he had it right the first time. The West is by no means perfect, but it's the best that Earthly mortals can do, until the True Redeemer comes.(may it be speedily, in our days, amen!)

While I feel that the driving ban in Saudi Arabia was ridiculous and horrifyingly insane, every time I read about this problem, I think of my late grandfather.

My grandfather was...erm...not a very nice guy. Let's just say he liked to be in - and exerted - as much control of his wife and children as possible.

So my grandmother - who married my grandfather when she was very young and worked as a waitress to help support the family - was never allowed to get her driver's license. Ditto for my mother and aunts, since women didn't "need" to drive in my grandfather's mind.

Luckily, my mom grew up in NYC so there was public transportation, and nearby family and friends to help the women of the family get around. But as soon as they could move out of the house, my Mom and aunts learned how to drive. And when my grandfather died, I think one of the first things my 60-something grandmother did after his affairs were settled was to get her driver's license.

While times have changed in the past 50 years in the US, I'm sure there are still women in our own country who still live in situations that are pretty oppressive.

yes, chasmosaur, BUT, once your grandfather was out of the picture, your grandmother was able to just go and get her license. No rallies, no lobbying, nothing, she could get up and drive.

You are right, unfortunately, there are many people who live in those situations, but our society has determined that that is a bad thing, which is why there are shelters, and services for women (and men) in those situations.

MN: I think the idea was that taxis were unsafe because a woman would be in a confined space with a man - and all taxi drivers are men.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | September 26, 2007 09:24 AM

I understand, atlmom. I don't see how you have a better outcome at 2 a.m. on the street though. Since women can't drive, you'll still be in a confined space with a man. Right?

Matt - you are taking an extreme view of sopmthing no one has said. Sometimes the response to a hysterical blog entry is more practical than political: maybe driving isn't so essential in a country where the roads are abominable. Maybe we should be concerned about the lack of education or free speech, or the fact that women are not permitted to leave the country without the permission of the fathers or husbands. Saudis don't let women drive OR ride bicycles, but no one is suggesting that the bicycle prohibition is going to bring down the universe. Why? Because we don't ride bicycles, so we don't care about THAT right. If we are going to evaluate whether another culture is repressive to women, perhaps we should look at their culture from a viewpoint that doesn't start with life in Potomac, Maryland as the gold standard.

Oh, and re: Egypt?? There ARE more repressive and worse places for women to live than Saudi Arabia. Acknowledging those realities doesn't make SA great. It does, however, keeps us honest in discussing gender issues worldwide.

Chasmosaur -- absolutely. i love your grandmother's story. there is no shortage of of oppression in our own backyard.

Anne.Saunders -- Thank you. Such a voice of reason.

Just so you know, in some places in the US an ambulance can take a while to reach you. I would never want to have to depend on someone else to take care of my child. What an awful feeling to have to live with day in and day out. I try not to judge other cultures, but the culture of Saudi Arabia does seem oppressive towards women.

ATB that kid looks like Madeline. I don't know much about Morocco, what is that country like? Can the McCanns just go there and look for her? I just don't know why anyone would take her to cart her around Morocco on their back.

"Matt - you are taking an extreme view of something no one has said."

Posted by: MN | September 26, 2007 09:58 AM

I'm taking an extreme view of something that Meesh has said:

"I try not to judge other cultures because I don't know enough about them. I think it's a stupid law. I also feel that way about any law that curtails what I consider to be freedom. But I know that other people have different ideas of freedom, so that rationale doesn't apply."

Posted by: Meesh | September 26, 2007 08:51 AM

Yeah, well, the Confederates also had "different ideas of freedom" that included slavery. African-Americans were slaves to the rednecks on Dixie, and Abe Lincoln fought a great Civil War to conquer the South with infantry, cavalry and artillery. And if Abe Lincoln had not sent the Union Army with infantry, cavalry and artillery to free the slaves, behold: they, and their children, and their children's children would still be slaves to the rednecks in Dixie. And therefore, no matter how wise we are, no matter how smart we are, no matter how learned we are, it is incumbent upon us to study the history of the War Between the States, and whoever studies the history of the War Between the States is greatly to be praised.

Leslie- to answer your question my dad drove us everywhere. It evolved into a routine where we went to the grocery store once a week (whether you needed to or not) for two reasons - 1- dad was available and 2- you never knew what might have come in stock. My mother was able to get a job at my school so she and the other mothers who were teachers and admin. staff at the school rode our school bus with us. (My mother is a hard ass bus monitor by the way!) Home are built behind walls - we were fortunate to live in a community behind walls so I rode my bike to the pool and walked to the library -- a bit of a throw back to small town America. I had friends whose home environment was a house and a pool behind walls -- I found it very stifling when I spent the night there once.

"I don't agree with the idea that a woman who isn't allowed to drive is oppressed. I didn't get my first car until this year, and I didn't get my license until I was 22. I survived college without having a car. I walked and took the bus. Occasionally, I took a taxi or got a ride from a friend.

What's more oppressing is having someone who doesn't understand one's culture come in and 'you're oppressed because you're not allowed to do the same things I can do.'"

No. What's oppressive is having the government say "you're not allowed to do the same things I can do because you're a woman." I didn't have a car either when I was in college. BFD. Do do you seriously not see the difference between that and having the government decide for you? Between not being able to afford it and having the government prohibit it? Just because of your gender?

And Meesh, I'm going to disagree somewhat with your issue of rights vs. privileges. I agree that the larger issue is some governments' denial of basic human rights. But restricting these kinds of privileges is a critical tool that those governments use. Yes, driving is a privilege, but it's an important one -- it's the freedom to travel, to move around at will, that opens up the world, exposes you to different people with different ideas. Which is precisely why one of the very first things oppressive regimes do (after controlling the press) is take away that right.

Want to keep women subservient? Ok. Prohibit them from driving, and make sure they don't have other reliable, safe public transport. Because if they don't go out into the world much, they won't be exposed to "dangerous" ideas about women's rights. And they won't meet other people who have those kinds of uppity notions about their "place." And they sure can't start protesting about women's rights if the men in their lives refuse to take them there. And hey, we don't have to worry about them getting jobs and becoming financially independent if they can't get there, right?

Get up get get get down
911's a joke in your town

Ambulance service doesn't always "serve" even in the US. The point is not that this woman couldn't drive or that she couldn't take a taxi or that there wasn't an ambulance but that she couldn't drive AND she couldn't take a taxi AND there wasn't an ambulance. All her options were cut off except begging for charity in the street. And wouldn't that involve a certain level of immodesty?

Welcome to the realities of fundamental Islam ladies...............

Strawberry23 said: I don't agree with the idea that a woman who isn't allowed to drive is oppressed. I didn't get my first car until this year, and I didn't get my license until I was 22. I survived college without having a car. I walked and took the bus. Occasionally, I took a taxi or got a ride from a friend.

What's more oppressing is having someone who doesn't understand one's culture come in and "you're oppressed because you're not allowed to do the same things I can do."

You said it, Laura. I didn't get my license until I was 19, but I was _able_ to get a license. It was _my_ _choice_ to not bother getting a license until then. And Strawberry, you were still able to make that choice to get a car, to get a license, to take a taxi or grab a ride with a friend. None of these options were open to the Saudi woman in question. Get a car/license? Nope. Bus? No. Taxi? Hell, no. Grab a ride with a friend? Not unless she had a male relative present. Now, tell me again, Strawberry, why this isn't oppressive??

"I had to do this recently for a Muslim funeral, as a sign of respect for an acquaintance who had died. I felt invisible and as if the ultimate message was that I needed to be ashamed of my physical appearance. While I was happy to do it in this instance to honor my friend, it showed me how difficult and self-abnegating it is to cover one's self solely because you are female. I do not understand why this is considered an act of respect to some. "

You are SUPPOSED to feel that way, you don't count and you are seen as less than a man. It is a culture and religion mired in medevalism.

I believe that taxis would be considered "unsafe" for women in Saudi Arabia if for no other reason that the perspective of a male stranger driving a woman to whom he's unrelated.

My father was several hours away fighting a forest fire when I was due to be born, so their plan was for my mother to take a cab to the hospital if she went into labor while he was away. Since I was late (or, more likely, the doctor had miscalculated my due date), my father had returned home in time to drive my mother to the hospital once the contractions were close enough together to indicate it was time.

Well said, MN. However, sometimes the idea that everyone is okay and all cultures are fine and equal isn't the best idea.

We don't all believe that our own cultures are the best - but most of us do. Or else we'd go find another culture to live in. Of course, if you're familiar with what you do, then you think that's the best way.

Look, I think driving in cars is horrible, for so many reasons (increasing crime (hey, there's a reason Atlanta is tops in crime stats - and I think that's one of them), increase in obesity, increase in not knowing your neighbors, waste of time, waste of space and turning grass into blacktop, parents forcing their kids to drive when they aren't really ready, just so they don't have to do it - and said teens get into accidents that should have been avoided), but the 'culture' here is SO against it (thinking of spending *$26 BILLION* on new roads, but not a penny on new rails). I think that culture is WRONG. I am judgemental about it (ask my DH).

Yes, I do have judgements about what i think is right and wrong, on some ideas about the way we live. We all have these ideas - or we'd go live somewhere else. I think that the prohibition on women driving is wrong - it's not just custom, it's their LAW.

Plenty of respectable people in large urban areas either can't afford to own a car, or they choose not to shoulder the major expense of owning one (including exorbitant parking charges), not to mention coping with horrendous traffic jams. If such regions offer decent mass transit, that can be the most sensible transportation solution the majority of the time; parents/guardians standardly take their children on the subway, bus or train on errands, e.g., when going to, say, the doctor/dentist/etc. When a vehicle is absolutely necessary, such people rent a car (usually no more than a few times a year) and combine a number of car-based errands, or enlist a friend's help, or take a cab. City people also tend to shop for groceries more frequently and close to where they live so they can carry their purchases home.

Posted by: laura | September 26, 2007 10:14 AM

Hooray for Laura! Deniers of freedom always do those things and then they couch it in terms of "safety" or "tradition", it is a cynical ploy to keep people down.

I WALKED to the hospital to deliver my first child.

Yeah, right, barefoot uphill for five miles in the snow. Then immediately upon delivery, barefoot uphill another five miles in the snow going home.

Another sad thing is that MEN buy into this nonsense and use it against their own blood, which I find disgusting. Some spare is going to make the rules for MY daughter based on her sex and his medeval sense of religion and then turn it into law? No way! Now when you talk about keeping women down in Saudi Arabia, I turn into a left wing feminist, because it is a fundamental denial of freedom and human rights.

BTW, I seem to recall that NPR's Scott Simon has repeatedly mentioned that he does not drive, at least as of a few years ago. Nor has Barbara Walters. Although both could afford a car, they were, of course, city-raised. Nor did the fictitious character of Jessica Fletcher on "Murder She Wrote," as that fact figured pivotally in the plot-line of an episode where she was supposedly seen driving. These folks (real and otherwise) are not considered oppressed or incompetent just because they don't drive. That's more of a suburban prejudice.

pATRICK I can't imagine living that way, but do you think that most of those women are so used to it that they don't see anything wrong with it?

I can't walk ten miles to the hospital while in labor. I guess I am a wuss.

Speaking of which I am dilated one centimeter and the doctor said they don't stop labor past 33 weeks, so I guess the baby could come anytime now.

Matt: Actually, if you talk to people IN the south, they say that slavery wasn't the biggest issue - economics was. The idea of the plantation was changing - as it was becoming too expensive, our economy was moving into the industrial (manufacturing) age, and they were still pretty much farmers.

Irishgirl: wow, it could be soon! My water broke around 34 weeks (with the first), but I didn't go into labor, and they didn't induce me. They said if I went into labor, they would let it go, though.

So much fun laying in the hospital for 10 days, unable to get around, etc. After a couple of days we found a VCR, so that wasn't so horrible!

Well, good luck - are you feeling well?

"pATRICK I can't imagine living that way, but do you think that most of those women are so used to it that they don't see anything wrong with it?"

No, they know they are being oppressed. My guess is that they feel powerless to do anything about it. I hate this stuff because it is a small step from oppressing women to oppressing men.

Leslie asks: "How could you be a good mother without the ability to care for, protect and transport your children?"

Leslie, would you consider all visually- or hearing-impaired women, or women with epilepsy or other physical conditions which preclude their being eligible for a driver's license, to be bad mothers? Likewise are fathers with these conditions bad parents? That's the prejudice you're conveying here. Is driving a bona fide occupational qualification for being a good parent? I'd say not. Leslie, you need to THINK more carefully about what you write before hitting the "Send" button.

Irishgirl, best of luck to you, whenever the baby comes. We'll all be waiting for your news!!!

Driving a car really is an empowering thing. My mother grew up in a tiny town in the midwest where girls just didn't do certain things, and learning to drive was one of them. When she found herself living in the suburbs with five little kids years later and no way to do the grocery shopping, take kids to the doctor (I remember clearly being a preschooler in need of a trip to the hospital while she frantically searched for a neighbor at home to take us), or go on any outings beyond walking distance she was miserable. It wasn't just her inability to drive that was causing her depression, but when she started seeing a psychiatrist for major depression, part of her therapy was to get her driver's licence. Having her license opened up a world of new opportunities for her--she joined volunteer organizations, she got her kids involved in sports and music lessons, she no longer had to rely on my father for simple things like picking up a gallon of milk.

I guess you could argue that not having a driver's license was her choice for all those years (she was 36 when she finally got one), but it was a choice imposed on her by her father and the culture of her small town upbringing. Once she realized that this wasn't something she had to put up with, she was a much happier and freer person.

Hey, I grew up in the suburbs, and I think if Barbara Walters & Scott Simon don't want to drive, that's fine. People can and ought to be able to choose whether or not to drive! Nobody's saying you're oppressed if _you_ choose not to drive! It's when the government steps in & says you can't, that's it's oppressive!! The only people who should be oppressed like this are the 15-and-under crowd, because we all know they're not real people yet.

I love reading this post, but today, I'm a little dismayed by some of the comments. I'm an American Muslim woman. I cover. I work. I drive. I am raising my children. I wish for women in Saudi to have the same freedoms. I choose to wear hijab-scarf and an outer cover called jilbab. My religion isn't stopping me from doing any of these things. Something I would really like to make clear, Islam isn't the reason the women in Saudi aren't allowed to drive. It's not in the Quran or Islamic teachings, it's a cultural issue. All other "Muslim" countries allow women to drive. The culture in these lands unfortunately has superceded what the religion allows.

Also, to the poster that commented on being "hidden" or not there due to covering, i'm sorry you felt that way. Wearing the hijab on a daily basis is not something to take on lightly. It takes a woman with a strong sense of self to do so, especially in our society here. I don't feel relegated to nothingness. I stand tall, i walk tall, and I know my worth. Please don't misunderstand the reason for a Muslim woman's covering. Also, Muslim women aren't the only ones asked to cover. As was mentioned, Jewish women do so also, and Catholics still cover their heads when they go to church. Why is a nun's habit seen as something positive she's doing for her love of God, but a Muslim woman's attire is viewed as being forced or demeaning?

Matt - unfortunately Lincoln didn't (initially) fight the war to free the slaves. The south siezed a fort/armaments first, which was what really spawned the war, or at least the violent parts of the war. The south later on was using their slaves to do work that was helping them in the war, so Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to seceded states, not union states that were slaveholding) to try to encourage slaves to run away to the north so that they wouldn't be helping the south.

I think it's interesting to note that in many wars the reasons we fight are different from the outset, but we make up nice little huminitarian reasons towards the end or after it's over to justify it. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have or couldn't have fought the civil war, but the reasons/justifications changed only in the end.

Thank you for posting Isra. I think we all appreciate your insight on this.

Mehitabel -- see my earlier post. I made the exact same point as you are making. of course you can be a great parent without driving. any chance you could lay off me today? i think you got plenty of good digs in yesterday! enough for one week.

I actually think that NOT having a car is a great freedom too -- as long as you live in an urban area, within easy walking distance to stores, schools, work, and safe public transportation. And assuming you are not disabled and unable to walk or easily take public transportation. When I lived in New York and Chicago I didn't have a car and it was wonderful to be "free" of the headaches and expenses of it.

Cars don't equal freedom. But in the case of Saudi Arabia, clearly women would have greater freedom if they could drive themselves, and their children, wherever they wanted. And FYI -- in parts of some Muslim countries, women can't WALK places alone either.

LizaBean -- Thank you for your words of encouragement last night on the Layoff's discussion. Meant a lot --

Right on, leslie, if only I could convince more people here that cars are oppressive! Certainly not freedom. I'd like to walk out my door and go anywhere at anytime without having to worry about parking, getting the kids in and out of the car (they could walk or be in a stroller), etc.

I HATE HATE HATE driving. one day, we'll move somewhere I don't have to. Ahhhh, to dream....

"Also, Muslim women aren't the only ones asked to cover. As was mentioned, Jewish women do so also, and Catholics still cover their heads when they go to church"

Yes but no threatens to chop off her head or stone her to death if they refuse. Your ability to practice your religion is based on the freedoms we hold dear. I as a christian can't practice my faith in saudi arabia.

Leslie wrote: "any chance you could lay off me today? i think you got plenty of good digs in yesterday! enough for one week."

Not if the shoe fits. Do a better job and you'll be praised accordingly.

Matt, I think that it's very important to study and evaluate other cultures. I come from a family of anthropologists, and I've seen some horrible injustices in other parts of the world with my own eyes. But it does no good to judge those people, because you end up judging the victims as well as the oppressors. Trust me, I have my opinions, but I didn't think it was important to air them.

Laura, I completely agree with you. That practice is alive and well here in the States, too. The Patriot Act, anyone? So many of our freedoms are slowly being chipped away so that the government can control us better. Abortion laws are an example of oppressive laws that target women.

But see? Some one will say that the freedom of a mother to choose is not as important as the freedom of the fetus to live. It's all about how you interpret freedom.

Women in Saudi Arabia might say that while they give up the freedom to drive, they get the freedom from being saddled with that burden.

We should avoid judgement and stick to facts. We need to study cultures objectively to decide what laws can be repeal on the basis of human rights. That way, we're not saying "you primitive people! You need someone to save you from these laws that treat you as property and you obviously can't save yourselves!" We're saying "these laws are unjust based on human rights," not in comparison to what we have in the West.

And if Abe Lincoln had not sent the Union Army with infantry, cavalry and artillery to free the slaves, behold: they, and their children, and their children's children would still be slaves to the rednecks in Dixie. And therefore, no matter how wise we are, no matter how smart we are, no matter how learned we are, it is incumbent upon us to study the history of the War Between the States, and whoever studies the history of the War Between the States is greatly to be praised.

Posted by: MattInAberdeen | September 26, 2007 10:12 AM

So true that it is incumbent upon us to study the history of the War Between the States, what led up to it and its aftermath, and the realities and myths about Mr. Lincoln, the pragmatist. Those who do so generally agree that slavery, a commercially driven enterprise, would have died long before now, whether or not the War occurred, because progress marches on in the form of improvements to agricultural practices and machinery. No one would be a slave in Dixie today, whether to a redneck (nice perjorative term - that) or to anyone else.

People are so much more complex than 4th grade history books permit. Abe Lincoln's preferred solution to the slavery debate was to establish an island and send all of the slaves to it. We don't hear much about that. In fact, Lincoln did not intend to free slaves at all, but was forced into it as a matter of political expediency. Here as his words, written one month before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

Slavery was a terrible thing. Knowledge of history, on the other hand, is a beautiful thing and within all of our respective grasps.

altmom I feel icky of late and can't wait for the baby to come.

Isra,

I am Catholic and have never covered my head at church or for that matter ever seen any other lady do it. I also can't recall the last time I saw a nun at church in her habit. I also don't care what you wear as long as you don't care what me and my daugher wears.

(how could we all enjoy the Creepy Van (tm)without motor transport?)

Small story about sainted mother. When we lived in Chicago the first few years of my life, mom was able to get around the small city we were in.

When we moved to L.A. it became a necessity that mom learn to drive at the age of 32! Mom took a commercial driving course and she had her permanent license before she completed the course!

pATRICK: but what she was saying is she does it because she *wants* to. She won't get her head chopped off if she doesn't comply, but it is her choice.

I think we mainly agree, though - re: whether it's one's choice to cover/not drive/etc, or whether it's govt imposed.

And, for the record, I love my republic in the US (even though some of it has deteriorated recently), I love the freedoms, and I do think that this is the best way there is. I do think we should storm our own govt for things that they are doing these days (and no, I don't mean the bushies, actually), but all in all, for the most part, I think it's sort of running okay. Better than most anywhere else.

As churchill said (and I quote, poorly): democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others.

Isra, interesting post. One big difference between nuns & muslim women is that only nuns dress like that. I'm not catholic, so I don't know, but I don't think that even devout catholic women wear habits! But the point is that _you_ choose to wear the hijab, and that's fine, you should wear what you want. And people should dress appropriately when they go to a synagogue or a church or a mosque. I doubt you would say that these should be government mandated, though, right? It's rules & customs v. laws. Someone breaking the norm, whether it's regarding dress or getting a driver's license shouldn't be subjected to fines or imprisonment.

"pATRICK: but what she was saying is she does it because she *wants* to. She won't get her head chopped off if she doesn't comply, but it is her choice"

yes HERE it is her choice based on the freedoms we enforce. There it would NOT be her choice it would be compulsory and refusal could lead to death by very nasty means.

IMO wearing those burqas and headscarves are really no different then when the Nazis forced the jews to wear a star of david everywhere they went upon penalty of death. The names change, the garb changes but the oppression is always stays the same.

I'm no advocate of the canvas sack as fashion wear (though some would say it'd be an improvement on my current wardrobe) but I'm not sure American women have some great advantage in facing cultural pressures to dress like Britney Spears.

And best wishes to Irishgirl -- keep us posted.

irishgirl: Sorry to hear that! Hope it's getting better though...
Have some ice cream.

And Laura, did I thank you for your sanity today as well?

Gotta jet...I am going to DRIVE myself to teach a class and then DRIVE myself to kids' school to DRIVE them to their annual dentist appointment.

All by myself! Love this country!

"Leslie wrote: "any chance you could lay off me today? i think you got plenty of good digs in yesterday! enough for one week."

Not if the shoe fits. Do a better job and you'll be praised accordingly."

CATLADY, I think that is LESLIE's way of crying uncle...................

irishgirl: Sorry to hear that! Hope it's getting better though...
Have some ice cream

I've been eating everything and still have only gained 15 pounds. One of my neighbors hates me because she has gained 40.

pATRICK: I completely agree with you on that one. Keep the government OUT of my business. Don't tell me what to wear, say, do, etc.
Just protect me (from others) as best you can (big thanks to those in the armed forces).

As for abortion rights (MN, right, you brought it up?), I so think abortion should be legal for a zillion reasons. But in reality, on laws, I think you CAN have moral relativity. I.e., is it better for something to be legal or illegal?
All laws will be broken, no matter what. So, what are the consequences to society when they are? With something like murder: hey, you don't want people able to murder others in the street, do you? SO, okay, that one's illegal.

With abortion, being legal is a better way to go - because the mom has decided that she can't raise the child properly. Because if she had one and it was illegal, she could die, or have other medical complications. I guess if you think the woman should be 'punished' for getting pregnant and not wanting to have the child, you disagree with me, however.

Sorry, pATRICK, that's just Leslie's way of trying to whine her way out of being held accountable for not doing a good enough job. Maybe it worked with her parents or teachers when she was a kid, but some of us recognize the transparency of her tactic, and it's irresponsible as adult behavior..

IMO wearing those burqas and headscarves are really no different then when the Nazis forced the jews to wear a star of david everywhere they went upon penalty of death. The names change, the garb changes but the oppression is always stays the same.

Posted by: pATRICK | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM

Wow, didn't take long before Nazis were brought into this. Forcing Jews to wear something that, in that form, hadn't been historically or traditionally part of the religion is *slightly* different from a woman choosing to wear something that women in her religion have been wearing in that matter for centuries.

Btw, I am Catholic. It was traditional in Church for women to cover their hair on Sunday mass. I don't know the reason, just been that way for a long long long time. Only in the 60s after Vatican II did they decide women no longer have to do this. I still some older women who cover their hair at mass, but most don't. I'd like to think those that do, do so because the tradition of their religion is important to them whether it's required of them or not. I don't think they are being oppressed, it's just a choice they've made. And yeah, in America at least, prior to Vatican II if you didn't like it you always had the freedom to go join another religion.

Isra,

I am Catholic and have never covered my head at church or for that matter ever seen any other lady do it. I also can't recall the last time I saw a nun at church in her habit. I also don't care what you wear as long as you don't care what me and my daugher wears.

Posted by: Irishgirl | September 26, 2007 11:14 AM

psst. Scarry, is it okay if we comment on the awfulness of 15-year old girls wearing low-slung, short shorts with JUICY or any other sexually suggestive wording on their tushes?

I'm sorry you feel lousy and am crossing my fingers that this phase is for you as short as healthfully possible.

"Wow, didn't take long before Nazis were brought into this. Forcing Jews to wear something that, in that form, hadn't been historically or traditionally part of the religion is *slightly* different from a woman choosing to wear something that women in her religion have been wearing in that matter for centuries."

You completely missed the point! When a government FORCES a people (jews, women) to wear something upon penalty of death, it is OPPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!

Miles: they probably do it cause that's the way they are comfortable. In the last 20-30 years in Judaism, some things that had been reserved only for men are now starting to be done by women. I am not comfortable with doing some of them, as I did not grow up with it - but I have actually started to do it for various reasons. however, i have a friend who used to teach kids who specifically did not teach the girls to do some things since he was uncomfortable (even though they should have been doing them). The issue wasn't pushed, he is no longer there, etc, but it's kind of what you're used to.
I think the changes are good, but understand when people are uncomfortable (I was of the first year of Bat Mitzvahs who could have theirs on Saturday mornings - before that girls were bat mitzvahed on Friday nights, which is what my sisters did - I'm sure there were MANY in the congregation who were uncomfortable, but it was a sign of the times and the synagogue was changing).

"As for abortion rights (MN, right, you brought it up?), "

Abortion rights were raised by Meesh.

Anyway, my point was to look at what's better for society as a whole. And I guess if you're looking at it from a religious perspective, you can interpret your documents as you please. As was mentioned, driving is not prohibited in the Koran, so it's the interpretation by the Saudi govt that says it should be.

Whereas, with the way the laws have been implemented, with women not being able to do what they want when they can't drive (have to wait for DH to bring them somewhere), if you want your women to be oppressed, to not have options, then that law has definitely succeeded.

If you just want women to be modest, it has not succeeded.

You completely missed the point! When a government FORCES a people (jews, women) to wear something upon penalty of death, it is OPPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: pATRICK | September 26, 2007 11:38 AM

Agree with you there. Just think people are a bit quick to start calling up the specter of Naziism everytime it fits their particular argument. Oppression, yes.

In the US, you can go to jail if you're "indecently exposed." We do have laws that prevent us from exposing ourselves, it's just level cover-up that's different.

And women don't get stoned here for breaking that law, but no one gets stoned here (um, you know what I mean), so you can't look at that as unfair because men get stoned in SA as well. That's just another form of punishment that they have.

The human right atrocities that occur in SA are, to me, more important to fight against. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
(I know it's Wikipedia. Take it with a grain of salt)
I think that our view of SA may be a little more conservative than the way things actually are.

pATRICK, mehitabel, can we give it a rest RE Leslie? I think we all understand exactly how you feel.

"Women, both of Saudi citizenship and foreign, are often victims of discrimination and human rights violations. With the rise of conservative Islamic culture as well as the ongoing adherence to Shari'a, women in parts of the Middle East continue to be treated as second-class citizens. In Saudi Arabia, an unmarried adult woman is a ward of her father. Once married, she becomes a ward of her husband. Without the express permission of her male guardian ('mahram'), a woman cannot be admitted to a hospital, obtain an exit visa, or attain an identification card. Furthermore, women are strictly segregated from men in public. They are required to wear an abaya (a black garment that covers them from head to toe) at all times when outside of their homes, barred from workplaces, educated in female only schools, restricted to "family sections" of restaurants and made to shop in female-only stores. They are prohibited from driving and forbidden to travel without the company of a male relative. In fact, women cannot leave the country without the written permission of a male relative, and may not even travel in a taxi unless accompanied by her mahram or husband. Women are made to enter buses from separate entrances in the rear and must sit in designated sections.2 In other words, the ability of Saudi Arabian women to move about freely is nearly non-existent. This lack of freedom of movement has severe impact on other basic human rights, such as the right to work. Foreign domestic workers are often locked inside their workplaces and forbidden to leave. This restriction of movement makes any course to redress for this and other human rights virtually impossible."

Modesty my rearend. Substitute women for Jews and you have 1930's Germany. This is oppression plain and simple.

The following article was linked in Weingarten's chat yesterday:
"The Kingdom in the Closet":
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/gay-saudi-arabia

If I approached this issue solely from the whitebread, American, my way is the right way point of view, then sure, I would think this is oppressive. However, if I approach this from a different cultural practices are just different and not wrong POV, then it's easier to understand this.

Heck, some of you think it's oppressive to live on less than $200,000 a year and to not have enough money to dine at fine restaurants and live in exclusive neighborhoods. Other people, like myself, understand that freedom is a state of mind, not a list of permissable and available activities.

Still advocating "tolerance"? Read on.....

Saudi Arabia's inability to protect women from the acts of non-state actors as well as the continued impunity of those that commit violent acts against women is disturbing. Limitations on the freedom of movement often make it difficult to seek safe haven or redress for domestic violence. Domestic workers are often knowingly held captive by their employers and are denied any sort of rights based on their gender and religion (many are non-Muslim).10 Domestic workers are not afforded protection under labor codes; they are frequently overworked and locked in their employer's homes, making them vulnerable to sexual and physical assaults. The conditions that domestic workers face are tantamount to slavery.11 On a wider scale, domestic violence is a quiet secret in Saudi society. Authorities do not publish statistics, and the state tolerates men chastising their wives for certain things such as disobedience. Police do not respond sympathetically to wives who have been beaten by their husbands, and the legal system offers women virtually no recourse.12 There are also no centers or shelters for women who are at risk of abuse and who want to flee. Information on state support for counseling or other treatment services is not available. Even for serious crimes, the legal system provides little help or refuge for women. For example, in the case of rape, either a confession or four witnesses are required to convict the accused. Rapists are almost impossible to convict, so the impunity continues and women are left without a voice.13

«Islam isn't the reason the women in Saudi aren't allowed to drive. It's not in the Quran or Islamic teachings, it's a cultural issue. All other "Muslim" countries allow women to drive. The culture in these lands unfortunately has superceded what the religion allows.»
«Posted by: Isra | September 26, 2007 11:01 AM »

As-salaamu alaykum, O Isra, and a thousand thanks for defending Islam. Crusaders, they confuse Saudi with all Islam. Saudi, that is where religious police, they forced girls back into a burning school, the girls were not modestly dressed, this would not happen in Pakistan. But in Pakistan, religious police, they break up with force any Ahmadiyya Muslim wedding, they persecute Ahmadiyya Muslims. The best place for a Muslim woman to live, it is right here in America, no French or Turkish laws forbidding wearing hijab, no AGM (African genital mutilation) as in Egypt and Somalia, AGM is illegal in USA, no Danish or Swedish cartoons mocking the Prophet (SAWS), no checkpoints on roads. In America, Christian workers go off to lunch, they do not harass you for keeping Ramadan.

Basically, women are treated like children. Slightly different than Nazi Germany, actually, pATRICK.
Jews were not treated as children, they were treated as animals.

A few years ago, I believe it might have been in Chechnya, but I could be wrong, at a muslim girl's school there was a fire. Since it was a girl's school - and the teachers were women, the girls did not have the full muslim regalia on. Apparently, the occupants of the building were not allowed to leave as they were not properly covered, so many of them died, rather than be immodest for a short period of time so they could leave the school and perhaps dress more appropriately.

This is only one of the stories we hear about.

"I am Catholic and have never covered my head at church or for that matter ever seen any other lady do it. I also can't recall the last time I saw a nun at church in her habit. I also don't care what you wear as long as you don't care what me and my daugher wears."

Irishgirl, I'm also Catholic and I have to tell you that covering your head and shoulders was a common practice, and still is in more conservative countries. In Italy, I have had to cover my shoulders and wear pants below my knees in order to enter some churches. Orthodox Catholics do cover their head and shoulders as well.

There are also different orders of nuns, and not all wear the habit. Some orders are cloistered, meaning that they renounce the outside world.

"Basically, women are treated like children. Slightly different than Nazi Germany, actually, pATRICK.
Jews were not treated as children, they were treated as animals."

Yes there are significant differences. But when you can be raped with impunity,can't work, can't travel based on your own free will and can be put to death for refusal to wear certain clothes, it's a little bit more than being treated as children.

"The south later on was using their slaves to do work that was helping them in the war, so Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to seceded states, not union states that were slaveholding) to try to encourage slaves to run away to the north so that they wouldn't be helping the south."

Actually, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, hardly "near the end of the war" as you said, and it wasn't to deprive the South from a source of labor. He issued it after Antietam, the bloodiest day of the entire war, to solidify support for the war in the North, which was wavering after that fight.

The Proclamation also only applied to the occupied (or liberated, take your pick based on your geography) parts of the South. While technically it applied to all the seceded states, since he had no way to enforce it in unoccupied areas, it had no force there and very few slaves tried to escape as a result.

What it did do was unify the North into defeating the South under one banner; in much the same manner it tended to unify the South as well, however.

pATRICK, That sounds just like the Fundamentalist LDSs in Southern Utah/Northern Arizona/Edl Dorado, Texas.

Wow - a little different topic today!

I thought Leslie's post at the end of yesterday hit just the right tone. She is a woman of many talents. But I think we're still gonna call her on it if she gets all lazy and elitist on us again.

I'm sort of disappointed at the number of people who are mixing "choosing not to drive" with "being prohibited under penalty of death from driving." Not the same thing at all. I think some of the Saudi laws are weird.

I'm sort of like pATRICK - when someone tries to limit by law or rule what my daughters can do because of their gender, I turn into a left-wing feminist. If my daughters choose to be a SAHM, or drive or not drive, or want to major in English or Electrical Engineering, or have kids or not, that's their choice. NO ONE will tell them that they can't while their brother can just because of the respective genders. Period.

_Miles is right; covering of the head for Catholic women went out with Vatican II. Some (a very small minority in my experience) women do choose to cover their heads, either because they're old enough to remember when it was mandatory and keep the tradition, or because they see it as a sign of respect and want to do it. But it's a choice, even for most orders of nuns. (And yes, we have the constant fights with our teenagers about what's appropriate dress for church and what's not. Grrr - sometimes there are four or five trips upstairs before we come to an agreement, and we wind up going to a later Mass because of it!)

Irishgirl/Scarry - the best to you and child. You're in our thoughts/prayers - keep us posted.

DS is a Civil War buff - belongs to the History Club at school, and goes on all the field trips to battlefields. He and I have the discussion all the time about the reasons for the war. Political Correctness dictates that the reason was slavery; it was the only reason; and any other assertion is simply wrong. While slavery was a horrible, horrible stain on this country, it was far from the only reason for the war and he needs to understand that. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Or, as former Senator Moynihan once put it, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Back to work - this work/life balance thing has been a little unbalanced away from work lately!

"Leslie, would you consider all visually- or hearing-impaired women, or women with epilepsy or other physical conditions which preclude their being eligible for a driver's license, to be bad mothers? Likewise are fathers with these conditions bad parents? That's the prejudice you're conveying here. Is driving a bona fide occupational qualification for being a good parent? I'd say not. Leslie, you need to THINK more carefully about what you write before hitting the "Send" button."

Mehitabel, you seem to have it in for Leslie, no matter what she says. In this case, she used the word, "transport", not drive. In this case, she was talking about the situation in Saudi Arabia, in which there is apparently limited public transportation, and womem are not allowed to drive. Not a lot of choices there. Leslie even clarified and stated the following:

"What I specifically said was "transport and protect your children." And even then, there are exceptions -- for instance, a mother who is paralyzed can still be a very, very wonderful mother and advocate for her children.

What I meant was for us to sit back and imagine life for all of us women (men should try this too) if our government and society said we weren't allowed to to take public transportation or a taxi or drive a car."

Perhaps you are the one who needs to think and perhaps read more carefully before YOU hit the send button.

Other people, like myself, understand that freedom is a state of mind, not a list of permissable and available activities.

Posted by: Strawberry23 | September 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Or, as former Senator Moynihan once put it, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Army Brat's already provided the best response to Strawberry's nonsense. Ask the men in Attica whether freedom is a state of mind. Better yet, ask Nelson Mandela.

Leslie's paragraph began: "Think for a moment. What couldn't you have done today if you weren't allowed to drive yourself and your children anywhere?" So the part about transporting children was clearly in the context of driving, as is the title of today's blog, "Driving Women Crazy."

This is the rare poster formerly known as MaryB...

I grew up Roman Catholic post-Vatican II (think that came into play right around the time of my birth). Not only did we not cover our heads, most people didn't dress up for church at all. This, of course, was different church to church, but we went to 7 that I can remember plus when visiting my grandmother, and there really was no dress code at all. Now I'm mainline protestant and most people choose to dress nicely for church (even some with hats!).

As for nuns, most American nuns no longer wear habits. This varies throughout the world depending on the culture of the country and the strictness of the order.

Mehitabel,
Believe me, I have felt (about other people) the same way you seem to feel about Leslie. I disagreed with them and they bothered me, to such an extent that I could find fault with anything they said. But eventually, I figured out that some of it was me, not them, when I discovered that I was looking for something offensive in everything about them.

You seem to be searching for offensive things about Leslie, and you seem to be finding them, not because they are objectively there, but because you are so intent on interpreting everything she says that way. Sure. She is human and will sometimes stick her foot in her mouth. But come on. Not everything about her merits your constant hand slapping. Pick your battles. You are being petty here.

"Yeah, right, barefoot uphill for five miles in the snow. Then immediately upon delivery, barefoot uphill another five miles in the snow going home."

Posted by: mehitabel | September 26, 2007 10:47 AM

Leslie,

Please remove this personal attack. Thank you.

Sorry, Leslie is supposed to be the professional on this blog. She's being paid to do her job, so she has a responsibility to her employer to do a better job.

personal attack. heh. Your post was what pATRICK would call a soft ball. Surely you saw that coming!

Gee, why so much acrimony today?

Especially on a delicious day like today. Who would have ever thunk it? Both pATRICK and Army Brat one (small) step away from being a "left-wing feminist!" WOW!

Sorry, Leslie is supposed to be the professional on this blog. She's being paid to do her job, so she has a responsibility to her employer to do a better job.

Posted by: mehitabel | September 26, 2007 12:31 PM

I don't find major fault with Leslie as I consider her comments on equal with everyone else who comments here. Her comment to ArmyBrat yesterday(?) was a little snarky, but other than that, she's human and allowed to attack people in text as much as we all attack/argue with each other.

The thing that really gets me, is that i still find it hard to believe someone like her gets paid what she does, gets to work from home most days, just to "blog" and work on the occasional book. Someone please tell me how it's done. I'd love to sit at home all day and write crap that only sometimes has to be good and still have a steady paycheck coming which (judging from her attitude) is more than I get paid now.

[Ok, you could argue I *am* writing on a blog right now, and that I *am* in fact getting paid for it, but this isn't what I mean, putting aside my serious lack of a work ethic, how does one get this job?]

Miles, you and I are not getting paid to post here -- although goodness knows we're both good enough to deserve it, don'tcha think? -- so we don't have the level of responsibility that Leslie does. Leslie, in her professional capacity as the leader of this blog-board, ought not to be "allowed to attack people in text as much as we all attack/argue with each other."

LOL, Miles, I would live Leslie's gig also.

But my guess is you have to establish yourself professionally first, like by, for example, heading up a major marketing campaign and getting a successful book published. After that, you may be able to get away with coasting for a while. But you have to pay your dues first.

Leslie, in her professional capacity as the leader of this blog-board, ought not to be "allowed to attack people in text as much as we all attack/argue with each other."

Why shouldn't she be allowed to argue with people? It's a blog for goodness sakes. It is a place for voicing dissent, and disagreeing. What fun would it be if we all thought the same thing? FWIW, I have never seen her be vicious. Flip, yes. Sometimes even confrontational. But never vicious or cruel.

Look at other mediums for voicing opinions. Radio and tv talk show hosts often disagree forcefully, and sometimes even humiliate the people who come on their show. I have never seen Leslie behave in extreme ways. I think she should absolutely be able to stand up for herself when she thinks it is appropriate.

Personally, I think WashPost should give this job to somebody like Laura since she seems to have more meaningful things to say than Leslie (not that she'd want it). I have nothing against Leslie per se, but some (most) of her comments just don't seem thoughtful enough to be getting paid for...

"But when you can be raped with impunity,can't work, can't travel based on your own free will and can be put to death for refusal to wear certain clothes, it's a little bit more than being treated as children."

I agree. Let's pick our battles, though. In India, dowry murders - by burning, by beatings - continue. I'm thinking I'd rather walk to the hospital than be burned to death, but that's just me.

Following (paraphrased, barely) are the countries and sufferings highlighted by Human Rights Watch's Womens Rights Divisions.

Combatants and their sympathizers in conflicts, such as those in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, have raped women as a weapon of war with near complete impunity.

Men in Pakistan, South Africa, Peru, Russia, and Uzbekistan beat women in the home at astounding rates, while these governments alternatively refuse to intervene to protect women and punish their batterers or do so haphazardly.

Women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution, with insufficient government attention to protect their rights and punish the traffickers.

In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women's ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed by private employers who use women's reproductive status to exclude them from work and by discriminatory employment laws or discriminatory enforcement of the law.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait consider women chattel.

Is not being able to travel freely awful? Sure thing. There are worse things, though, IMHO.

So Leslie insulting Army Brat's intelligence yesterday wasn't "vicious or cruel"? She should've thought twice, or even thrice, before hitting the "Submit" button on that one. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on...

Excellent points, MN.

I thought maybe she was trying to be funny/sarcastic. I didn't take it to be a serious attack, though not well thought out obviously.

And when I say I'm getting paid I mean I'm getting to paid to do something else, that obviously when I'm typing/reading/clicking submit am not doing. But yes, I'd take Leslie's gig in a heart beat. I might even do it for free, it's obvious I have the time!

MN,
YOu are so right. Among the list of oppressive things that women in the world endure, not driving seems to be a small thing. But even small things add up. Being hispanic, I think I have been exposed to a wider range of subtler oppressions that are perhaps less severe than institutionalized beatings, rapes, etc., but which are just as insidious and debilitating to women. I know a woman who will not sit down until she has served her husband her meals and he has tasted it and approved. I know another woman who works full time and has an infant, but has never had any help cooking, cleaning, taking care of the baby, or doing any of the tasks that her hispanic husband deems to be women's work. I know a woman who, after her father died and she was in her 20s, needed her brother's approval to date. And these examples are all in the great USA. So yes, we have come a long way. But we still have a ways to go.

mehitabel: but the supposed attack on army brat was, to me at least, just a joke.

Like: hey, you must not be that smart (with a wink and a smile and maybe a little laugh). Of course, in blogland, things like that are hard to 'hear' since you don't have any context at all.

I think ArmyBrat can take care of himself (please don't see any of this as an attack on you, though - I think a lot of what you're saying is true - but what I'm hearing as your tone is what is turning me off more).

"Sorry, Leslie is supposed to be the professional on this blog. She's being paid to do her job, so she has a responsibility to her employer to do a better job."

It's a blog!!! It doesn't require much! What she needs to do is provoke people, start a conversation...and she's doing that so her employers must be happy.

And I know a woman (my great aunt, may she rest in peace) who, within two weeks of marriage thought: wow, what a jerk - I'm not living with someone who hits me and tells me I'm worthless, so she left him and went to live with my very gracious grandmother. This was 70+ years ago, btw.

But certainly, still know women who stay with their oppressive husbands cause they 'love' them. People make their own choices.

Awww, thanks, Londonmom. But I ain't giving up my day job. :-)

Oh, and OT: thanks to everyone who responded on the homework issue. I talked to the teacher, and apparently the issue is that she's actually in the second grade reading class (which explains why the two non-reading 1st-grade worksheets took @ 5 mins each, while the reading/writing one took over an hour). She keeps pace in class just fine, but since she's newer to writing and spelling, it just took her longer to look stuff up and write it out. So the teacher is going to help her during "homework hour" until she gets the hang of things -- and I'm going to keep a close eye to make sure she's not overwhelmed. Meanwhile, last night's only took 30 mins. -- yay.

"Look at other mediums for voicing opinions. Radio and tv talk show hosts often disagree forcefully, and sometimes even humiliate the people who come on their show. I have never seen Leslie behave in extreme ways. I think she should absolutely be able to stand up for herself when she thinks it is appropriate."

Posted by: Emily | September 26, 2007 12:50 PM

I agree with the analogy to radio talk show hosts. With no TV or cable (yes, this means I have never watched Fox News), we listen to a lot of talk radio. The radio talk show host that I liken Leslie Steiner '87 to is the Rev. Les Kinsolving, White House correspondent for World Net Daily and host of "Uninhibited Radio" on WCBM, Baltimore. We listen to Les a lot. Here is how Baltimore's City Paper Online captioned a picture of Les at his microphone in 2005:

"GOOD SPORT: Kinsolving is generally kind with his callers, and often invites those who vehemently disagree with him to call again."

Just as Lester invites those who disagree with him to call back, so Leslie invited Baba Booey '02 MPP to return to "On Balance." If the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, surely the battle for civility is led by alumni like Les Kinsolving Penn '51. I have never heard Les snap, "Get off the 'phone, you big dope," or call those who differ with his politics "mentally deranged."

And to top it off, Les Kinsolving is a student of the War Between the States, that great victory of Freedom over Slavery.

Journalist Megan Stack of the Los Angeles Times wrote a great article this summer on what it felt like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia. Here is the link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-women6jun06,0,5491632,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Like: hey, you must not be that smart (with a wink and a smile and maybe a little laugh). Of course, in blogland, things like that are hard to 'hear' since you don't have any context at all.

I think ArmyBrat can take care of himself..

Yes, I agree that ArmyBrat handles himself well :-) But Leslie needs to provide verbal cues if she's doing the wink-wink, nudge-nudge thing. Otherwise she comes across as insulting and elitist.

So yes, we have come a long way. But we still have a ways to go.

Posted by: Emily | September 26, 2007 01:02 PM

I agree, Emily, and I'm probably taking a more extreme devil's advocate position than I would on other days. It's not that the lesser evils don't matter, like restrictions on girls' education in parts of Afghanistan. I don't in any way mean to minimize the oppression that is death by a thousand cuts, only to suggest perspective. (My MIL is like the woman you describe AND her adult sons are told to leave their plates on the table, she or her daughters will clean up after them.)

yeah, looking back I think it's utterly horrific that my dad was just allowed to leave the table after dinner, DW and the three girls will clean up. He never took a dish to the sink, or cleaned up when he ate something (like making himself a sandwich).

It's mind boggling. I'm teaching my two sons to clean up after themselves. And it's working, too.

"Let's pick our battles, though. In India, dowry murders . . . Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, have raped women as a weapon of war . . .Men in Pakistan, South Africa, Peru, Russia, and Uzbekistan beat women in the home at astounding rates, . . .Women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution, . . . In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women's ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed by private employers . . . Along with Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait consider women chattel."

Posted by: MN | September 26, 2007 12:53 PM

Unfortunately, the Third World is a hellhole of barbarism and savagery. Part of the Western man's burden, part of what the French call their "mission civilisatrice," is to bring the Third World up to speed on human rights. Make no mistake about it: Our own Western ancestors engaged in all these primitive anti-woman behaviors (except for Chinese foot-binding; see Andrea Dworkin's book, "Woman Hating"). But we have passed beyond these practices. We have overcome them. And, praise to the West, over the last 500 years the light of Western civilization has been able to extinguish monstrosities like Suttee in India (burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres), hara-kiri in Japan, and cannibalism. And what thanks does the Western man get for his efforts? He gets accused of Orientalism, of cultural imperialism, of (gasp!) racism. In Rudyard Kipling's words, he gets to

". . . reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
'Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?'"

GOOD SPORT: Kinsolving is generally kind with his callers, and often invites those who vehemently disagree with him to call again."

Just as Lester invites those who disagree with him to call back, so Leslie invited Baba Booey '02 MPP to return to "On Balance."

What you call a good sport, in this case I call a lazy spineless spare. IT does not disagree, IT posts crazy funny farm things.

And we haven't even touched on honor killings...another "cultural" issue that has migrated to the West.

But we do have a long way to go here in the U.S. as well with r