3 ms·

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

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.
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        NB. I also believe we should be careful with our terms, but on the specific claim that: > Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. here's a counterexample (prolix, but presumably it's easier to get slaves to do one's fieldwork than to edit one's rants): https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund284 https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund2... > "For, although we might compare the present condition of the Southern slaves with the condition of other laborers elsewhere, we yet fancy such would hardly be the proper method by which to arrive at any just knowledge of the benefits or evils resulting from African servitude. Certainly we believe the comparison, if made, would show that the negroes of the South are happier as a class than the peasants of other countries. We know from actual observation that they fare better than the poor of any of our cities--are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented. We know, too, that they are infinitely better off than the peons of Mexico, who are bought by the year for any nominal sum which they are presumed to owe the purchaser, and are liable in their old age to be turned adrift without a home, and with not a living soul to take an interest in their welfare. We also believe, and so must every thoughtful honest man, that their lot is even enviable compared to that of the poor Coolies and other free apprentices, those new-fangled slaves whom Cant and Hypocrisy are engaged in selling for a term of years to our tropical neighbors. But we repeat, there is no necessity to make the comparison. To arrive at any rational conclusion as to what has been the result of African slavery in the United States, we must consider what was the character of the negroes when first landed on our shores, and what is their character now. Have they improved in speech, in morals, in personal appearance, and in usefulness; or have the "degrading effects" of a century of slavery rendered them more savage than they were when they wandered about in the jungles of Congo and Guinea, feasting on human flesh, and worshipping dogs and monkeys, stocks and stones? or have they cursed the soil by their presence, rendering it as barren and unfruitful as their original desert wastes, whereon their kindred still roam, rejoicing in the rude comforts of an untutored barbarism, and in all the wealth and simplicity of Adam's fig-leaf? This is the question, and the only question."

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.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      NB. I also believe we should be careful with our terms, but on the specific claim that: > Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. here's a counterexample (prolix, but presumably it's easier to get slaves to do one's fieldwork than to edit one's rants): https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund284 https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund2... > "For, although we might compare the present condition of the Southern slaves with the condition of other laborers elsewhere, we yet fancy such would hardly be the proper method by which to arrive at any just knowledge of the benefits or evils resulting from African servitude. Certainly we believe the comparison, if made, would show that the negroes of the South are happier as a class than the peasants of other countries. We know from actual observation that they fare better than the poor of any of our cities--are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented. We know, too, that they are infinitely better off than the peons of Mexico, who are bought by the year for any nominal sum which they are presumed to owe the purchaser, and are liable in their old age to be turned adrift without a home, and with not a living soul to take an interest in their welfare. We also believe, and so must every thoughtful honest man, that their lot is even enviable compared to that of the poor Coolies and other free apprentices, those new-fangled slaves whom Cant and Hypocrisy are engaged in selling for a term of years to our tropical neighbors. But we repeat, there is no necessity to make the comparison. To arrive at any rational conclusion as to what has been the result of African slavery in the United States, we must consider what was the character of the negroes when first landed on our shores, and what is their character now. Have they improved in speech, in morals, in personal appearance, and in usefulness; or have the "degrading effects" of a century of slavery rendered them more savage than they were when they wandered about in the jungles of Congo and Guinea, feasting on human flesh, and worshipping dogs and monkeys, stocks and stones? or have they cursed the soil by their presence, rendering it as barren and unfruitful as their original desert wastes, whereon their kindred still roam, rejoicing in the rude comforts of an untutored barbarism, and in all the wealth and simplicity of Adam's fig-leaf? This is the question, and the only question."