5 ms·

> 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

• viraptor 7y ago
  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.
  • whiddershins 7y ago
    Violent Revolution, by definition, is going to fall somewhere on the terrible scale.
• mikekchar 7y ago
  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"
  • grumpydba 7y ago
    They need to be put to shame. By every body.
• magduf 7y ago
  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.
  • lioeters 7y ago
    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?
    • TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      Yes, if someone wants to riot because they're no longer allowed to oppress someone else then fuck them.
      • magduf 7y ago
        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.
  • radford-neal 7y ago
    "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.)