7 ms·

It's not freedom, but it's not slavery.

by sukilot 6y ago

watwut 6y ago
It is not chattel slavery. It is that far off to other forms of slavery.
- luckylion 6y ago
  It's pretty far off from other forms of slavery as well. The slaves in Saudi Arabia are the foreign domestic workers, like in pretty much all Arab countries. It's an underdeveloped culture, women don't have equal rights by any means, but it's not slavery. Continuously reaching for superlatives just makes the terms useless.
  - watwut 6y ago
    The "not having equal rights" is euphemism too, it makes it feel like western 1950-1960 when women still had significantly more freedom. Inability to leave makes big difference. Especially when limts are enforced by police prisons and both state and private violence. It is hard to distinguish from ownership.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I said they don't have equal rights by any means, in other words they're not close to having equal rights. But it's still not slavery. Navy blue isn't as light as aqua blue, but that doesn't make it black. I'm not arguing for Saudi Arabia here, I find most things I know about their culture and traditions to be disgusting (though they appear to be making progress, no doubt thanks to international pressure and the oil money drying up). But I'm strongly against this trend of constantly reaching for the most extreme words for dramatic effect. Saudi Arabia does have slaves, actual real slaves. But they're not Saudi women (they're often women, but they're from e.g. Malaysia or the Philippines and are forced to serve these Saudi women you call slaves). If you call the Saudi women slaves, what word would you use for their slaves? Slaves' slaves? Super slaves? Real slaves? Why not just call them slaves, and call the Saudi women something else, describe their situation with different words. Something like saying they're not given anywhere close to the same rights as Saudi men of equal standing, are not given the freedom that we consider a basic human right, and are forced to live in an underdeveloped society. That's bad enough, and I hope their situation improves, but it's not slavery.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        In the US, house slaves were no less slaves just because they could boss the plantation slaves around. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have autonomy, and they're treated as property by the legal system and by the culture. You're responding to somebody who said "effectively slaves," an attempt at softening the language that you're taking issue with. What other word in our language conveys that a person is property?
        luckylion 6y ago
        House slaves did not have slaves, at least to my knowledge. Saudi women do. > they're treated as property by the legal system and by the culture They're not. The culture is stupid, don't get me wrong, but it's not about property but about some paternalistic form of guardianship, i.e. it's based on the belief that they couldn't decide for themselves or couldn't be trusted to make the right decision or are in some form of danger. It's ridiculous, I know, but it's not about them being property. Property can be sold and traded, and you can't sell your wife in Saudi Arabia, because the relationship isn't like property, it's more like parental custody of children. That's still crazy, but throwing a false framing on it doesn't help.
        watwut 6y ago
        I would not qualify it as guarduanship. The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization and made better". It was BS back then and it is BS in Saudi. It is something that sounds good and is an attempt to make whole thing sound better. But when you lool at it, when protector is the actual danger, it is no guardianship but aggression. The male female relationship in saudi also do not ressemble parental relationships. It is really softening what is going on. Look at infractions and jail times. Look at violence. Plus, look at female right advocates treatment - jail and torture.
        luckylion 6y ago
        > The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization and made better". No, it wasn't. Actual slavery was always very obvious in the property, trading and exploitation system. You bought slaves, you sold them, your children inherited them, and you financially profited from owning them because they worked for you. Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. > The male female relationship in saudi also do not ressemble parental relationships. It is really softening what is going on. That's not what I said. The legal relationship is close to that of custody/guardianship, not the emotional one. I don't get why you're so set on re-framing them as slaves. They have slaves. Slaves don't have slaves. You can find the Saudi system despicable without grossly misrepresenting it.
klyrs 6y ago
Women are effectively owned by men. They can do very little without permission of a male guardian. There's been a bit of progress in the last few years, but for example marriage is a contract between two men amounting to transfering ownership of the bride.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  That's not as radically different from Western culture as Western culture likes to pretend it is. We have traditions like a man asking her father for her hand in marriage. We change her last name to signify she has transferred identity from her father's clan to her husband's. We treat marriage as very much a financial contract and divorce tends to hurt women financially much more than it does men. Etc.
  - bitexploder 6y ago
    Anecdotally this is just wrong. My wife’s Dad was a real piece of work. In a country like SA she would never have gotten away from him. She met me online. The day after she graduated college, without ever discussing it with her father, she moved away with me across the country. Her choice. She decided to take my last name, for simplicities sake, but it was a rational choice we made. Every step of the way it was her choice. Amongst my peer group almost all married women are in a similar situation. The level of freedom is orders of magnitude difference IMO.
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      I chose to take my husband's name and kept it when I divorced him. But the tradition is rooted in that idea that she left her clan and joined his. That's the origin story for it. I don't have a simple solution for that one. I don't think it's inherently bad that women typically change their last name. But the reason it is done is because the way women get treated the world over has some things in common. The level of freedom is debatable for Western women. But I already said Westerners don't like to hear that and it got downvoted and dismissed out of hand. So I'm not really up for trying to argue it, given the climate.

It's not freedom, but it's not slavery.

watwut 6y ago

It is not chattel slavery. It is that far off to other forms of slavery.

luckylion 6y ago
It's pretty far off from other forms of slavery as well. The slaves in Saudi Arabia are the foreign domestic workers, like in pretty much all Arab countries. It's an underdeveloped culture, women don't have equal rights by any means, but it's not slavery. Continuously reaching for superlatives just makes the terms useless.
- watwut 6y ago
  The "not having equal rights" is euphemism too, it makes it feel like western 1950-1960 when women still had significantly more freedom. Inability to leave makes big difference. Especially when limts are enforced by police prisons and both state and private violence. It is hard to distinguish from ownership.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I said they don't have equal rights by any means, in other words they're not close to having equal rights. But it's still not slavery. Navy blue isn't as light as aqua blue, but that doesn't make it black. I'm not arguing for Saudi Arabia here, I find most things I know about their culture and traditions to be disgusting (though they appear to be making progress, no doubt thanks to international pressure and the oil money drying up). But I'm strongly against this trend of constantly reaching for the most extreme words for dramatic effect. Saudi Arabia does have slaves, actual real slaves. But they're not Saudi women (they're often women, but they're from e.g. Malaysia or the Philippines and are forced to serve these Saudi women you call slaves). If you call the Saudi women slaves, what word would you use for their slaves? Slaves' slaves? Super slaves? Real slaves? Why not just call them slaves, and call the Saudi women something else, describe their situation with different words. Something like saying they're not given anywhere close to the same rights as Saudi men of equal standing, are not given the freedom that we consider a basic human right, and are forced to live in an underdeveloped society. That's bad enough, and I hope their situation improves, but it's not slavery.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      In the US, house slaves were no less slaves just because they could boss the plantation slaves around. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have autonomy, and they're treated as property by the legal system and by the culture. You're responding to somebody who said "effectively slaves," an attempt at softening the language that you're taking issue with. What other word in our language conveys that a person is property?
      - luckylion 6y ago
        House slaves did not have slaves, at least to my knowledge. Saudi women do. > they're treated as property by the legal system and by the culture They're not. The culture is stupid, don't get me wrong, but it's not about property but about some paternalistic form of guardianship, i.e. it's based on the belief that they couldn't decide for themselves or couldn't be trusted to make the right decision or are in some form of danger. It's ridiculous, I know, but it's not about them being property. Property can be sold and traded, and you can't sell your wife in Saudi Arabia, because the relationship isn't like property, it's more like parental custody of children. That's still crazy, but throwing a false framing on it doesn't help.
        watwut 6y ago
        I would not qualify it as guarduanship. The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization and made better". It was BS back then and it is BS in Saudi. It is something that sounds good and is an attempt to make whole thing sound better. But when you lool at it, when protector is the actual danger, it is no guardianship but aggression. The male female relationship in saudi also do not ressemble parental relationships. It is really softening what is going on. Look at infractions and jail times. Look at violence. Plus, look at female right advocates treatment - jail and torture.
        luckylion 6y ago
        > The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization and made better". No, it wasn't. Actual slavery was always very obvious in the property, trading and exploitation system. You bought slaves, you sold them, your children inherited them, and you financially profited from owning them because they worked for you. Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. > The male female relationship in saudi also do not ressemble parental relationships. It is really softening what is going on. That's not what I said. The legal relationship is close to that of custody/guardianship, not the emotional one. I don't get why you're so set on re-framing them as slaves. They have slaves. Slaves don't have slaves. You can find the Saudi system despicable without grossly misrepresenting it.

klyrs 6y ago

Women are effectively owned by men. They can do very little without permission of a male guardian. There's been a bit of progress in the last few years, but for example marriage is a contract between two men amounting to transfering ownership of the bride.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
That's not as radically different from Western culture as Western culture likes to pretend it is. We have traditions like a man asking her father for her hand in marriage. We change her last name to signify she has transferred identity from her father's clan to her husband's. We treat marriage as very much a financial contract and divorce tends to hurt women financially much more than it does men. Etc.
- bitexploder 6y ago
  Anecdotally this is just wrong. My wife’s Dad was a real piece of work. In a country like SA she would never have gotten away from him. She met me online. The day after she graduated college, without ever discussing it with her father, she moved away with me across the country. Her choice. She decided to take my last name, for simplicities sake, but it was a rational choice we made. Every step of the way it was her choice. Amongst my peer group almost all married women are in a similar situation. The level of freedom is orders of magnitude difference IMO.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I chose to take my husband's name and kept it when I divorced him. But the tradition is rooted in that idea that she left her clan and joined his. That's the origin story for it. I don't have a simple solution for that one. I don't think it's inherently bad that women typically change their last name. But the reason it is done is because the way women get treated the world over has some things in common. The level of freedom is debatable for Western women. But I already said Westerners don't like to hear that and it got downvoted and dismissed out of hand. So I'm not really up for trying to argue it, given the climate.