It's 2016 and slavery still exists

Puppycow said:
Saudi women file petition to end male guardianship system

"Guardianship". It's a euphemism for ownership and male supremacy.



Of course, I knew about this before, but it still flabbergasts me every time I am reminded.

It's slavery really. Pure chattel slavery and legally enforced too. Supposedly every country in the world has officially banned slavery but it still persists in a de facto manner in some countries. However the rights of Saudi women are little better than slaves owned by their men. Bizarre.

And of course, they cannot drive a car, no matter what their "guardian" says.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia a pariah like Apartheid South Africa was? I'm glad these women are taking action and I hope the government responds appropriately. If they just ignore it, clearly something more needs to be done. Is it just a domestic matter that shouldn't concern non Saudis?
Click to expand...

If the US stopped supporting such people, one would have a chance to try to make some sort of pressure. Alas, the plight of women in that country, the horrific laws, are nothing in face of "realpolitik".
 
Aepervius said:
If the US stopped supporting such people, one would have a chance to try to make some sort of pressure. Alas, the plight of women in that country, the horrific laws, are nothing in face of "realpolitik".
Click to expand...

The US is not the only customer of Saudi oil. Please cast your net a bit wider.
 
If the definition of slavery has to do specifically with some humans being able to dictate to other humans the terms and conditions of their existence, with the right to punish offenders for any attempt to move toward freedom, then practically everyone is a slave.

This thread is about the masculine (master) in a ruling position over the feminine (slave), but slavery is the symptom of the disease and the disease is disparity. Look for any system which endorses disparity and therein you will find various types of slavery going on.

While it is important that those who are more free than others should use this relative freedom to point out the evil of slavery, (and offer ways in which to deal with that evil) it is equally important for them to also consider the state of their own existence and how they are also enslaved and assisting the very systems which enslave them to enslave others.

Without this, all such protest is ultimately - for all good intent and purpose, an exercise in futility.
 
theprestige said:
Now this is interesting. As a Sci Fi author, what would you say are the three most influential Sci Fi books, in terms of social justice?

Me? I like The Time Machine, I, Robot, and Use of Weapons. But none of them were very influential at all. I look forward to your contribution to the otherwise anemic field of socially influential Sci Fi books.
Click to expand...

I've not thought about which books have been most influential. One I've read recently I would say has a significant contribution is The Water Knife, by Paolo Bacigalupi.
 
Navigator said:
If the definition of slavery has to do specifically with some humans being able to dictate to other humans the terms and conditions of their existence, with the right to punish offenders for any attempt to move toward freedom, then practically everyone is a slave.

This thread is about the masculine (master) in a ruling position over the feminine (slave), but slavery is the symptom of the disease and the disease is disparity. Look for any system which endorses disparity and therein you will find various types of slavery going on.

While it is important that those who are more free than others should use this relative freedom to point out the evil of slavery, (and offer ways in which to deal with that evil) it is equally important for them to also consider the state of their own existence and how they are also enslaved and assisting the very systems which enslave them to enslave others.

Without this, all such protest is ultimately - for all good intent and purpose, an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this strikes me as sophistry and false equivalence. I am not a "slave" because I have to pay taxes and obey laws in a democratic society.

The "guardianship" system treats adult women like children and men as effectively parents (in the West, a "guardian" is either the parent of a child with legal custody of the child, or someone appointed by a court to take on the role of a parent.)
 
Puppycow said:
Sorry, but this strikes me as sophistry and false equivalence. I am not a "slave" because I have to pay taxes and obey laws in a democratic society.
Click to expand...

Well even given that it appears to you to be the case, does not mean that it is. You pay taxes but you don't get to say how those taxes are spent and if they are spent in a way which gives you the illusion of freedom on the one hand and takes what little freedom you have away from you through 'laws' on the other hand, the illusion of itself does not signify that you are not an actual slave to that system, whatever else you might believe.

The system itself is an example of sophistry and pointing the finger at more obvious forms of slavery does not in any way mean that you are free.

However, I will grant that you believe you are free.

But you are not and no one is. Some are just freer than others, (in the way that a 'top-dog' prisoner is freer than his/her fellow prisoners) which is really where the notion and practice of disparity derives.

Until disparity is seen for the slave inducing system it serves and genuine effort is put into correcting that problem, the more obvious forms of slavery (as with the OP) are merely distractions.

Freeing someone from one form of slavery and injecting them into other - more deceptive (by being less obvious) systems of government does not make a slave free. Democracy is useless if the majority choose to continue with systems of disparity.

Eventually that will become very obvious. If you are still around when it does, you will know without a doubt that the governance of the system you presently serve obey and respect, is that which is sophistry in practice.
 
Puppycow said:
Saudi women file petition to end male guardianship system

"Guardianship". It's a euphemism for ownership and male supremacy.



Of course, I knew about this before, but it still flabbergasts me every time I am reminded.

It's slavery really. Pure chattel slavery and legally enforced too. Supposedly every country in the world has officially banned slavery but it still persists in a de facto manner in some countries. However the rights of Saudi women are little better than slaves owned by their men. Bizarre.

And of course, they cannot drive a car, no matter what their "guardian" says.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia a pariah like Apartheid South Africa was? I'm glad these women are taking action and I hope the government responds appropriately. If they just ignore it, clearly something more needs to be done. Is it just a domestic matter that shouldn't concern non Saudis?
Click to expand...

Oil.

End of story.
 
theprestige said:
Now this is interesting. As a Sci Fi author, what would you say are the three most influential Sci Fi books, in terms of social justice?

Me? I like The Time Machine, I, Robot, and Use of Weapons. But none of them were very influential at all. I look forward to your contribution to the otherwise anemic field of socially influential Sci Fi books.
Click to expand...

"1984" says Hi.
 
Aepervius said:
No but it is the one most supporting of the regime, including intelligence and military. So yeah the net does not need to be that big.
Click to expand...
You tunnel vision is noted. In other news, it appears that a big arms sale is pending with Qatar, dozens of F-15s and F-16s. Heh, they like to buy nice shiny jet planes, but their likelihood of being any good with them is pretty small. PT Barnum has an old adage that I think applies.
 
theprestige said:
It's an interesting question.

Apartheid in South Africa was opposed on several levels. There were sanctions imposed by national governments. There were divestments and boycotts by local and municipal governments, independently of their national governments. And there were boycotts and protests by groups of private citizens as well.

But it's relatively easy to cut off commerce with a nation like South Africa. As an individual consumer, I can't boycott Saudi Oil, because there's no such thing as a gas station chain that only offers Saudi Oil. The same goes for other retailers.

Municipalities and other local governments are in a similar situation. You could threaten to boycott all oil vendors, unless they were able to certify that they don't source any Saudi oil. Similar things have been done to influence the market in humanitarian coffee, and organic produce. But doing this with oil would almost certainly shut down all your operations, long before it made a significant impact on the bad actors.

And of course nation states must be concerned with the global economy. So they can't just start a game of chicken with Saudi Arabia, the way they could with South Africa.

But that still leaves public outcry. Apartheid received a lot of official condemnation over the years. But it also became a target of popular activism and protest. We don't see that happening with Saudi Arabia. Why?

People like oil, but they don't like oil that much, do they? And people are colossal hypocrites. Is it really the case that people are ashamed to drive their oil-powered car to an anti-oil producer rally?

There's also the obvious opportunity for a nudging effect here. Cities can't embargo all oil vendors--they'd grind to a halt within days. But they can offer incentives, subsidies, etc. to contractors who are able to certify they are not sourcing Saudi oil. San Francisco has taken the lead in so many other social justice fights. Why not this one?

I don't think the lack of public outcry, and the lack of public demand for a new and better way of doing business with oil producers, can be attributed solely to Saudi Arabia's central place in the oil economy.
Click to expand...

I think Aparthied is an interesting analogy... the OP asks, "Why isn't Saudi Arabia a pariah like Apartheid South Africa was?" - in a way, it is... Apartheid was enacted in 1950 or thereabouts) but the USA didn't officially sanction them until 1985, and even then, after half a decade of its President rationalizing the regime, Reagan [vetoed] anything we would call 'harsh'. Why? Because ZA was an ally against the Commies, and that made Aparthied what they call "[our bastard]".

So, the short answer is: "because they're one of our bastards and exempt"
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Sorry, but this strikes me as sophistry and false equivalence. I am not a "slave" because I have to pay taxes and obey laws in a democratic society.

The "guardianship" system treats adult women like children and men as effectively parents (in the West, a "guardian" is either the parent of a child with legal custody of the child, or someone appointed by a court to take on the role of a parent.)
Click to expand...

It's also an insult to the Saudi women, to try to drag the thread off track into whining about First World problems. Seriously. People love to say that they're slaves when they can vote, enter into contracts, earn money, travel freely... I don't think they know what a slave is.

I'm curious what a home-bound person, who can write but not donate scads of money or much else, and isn't on Twitter or Facebook, can do to support these women. Is there any way I could help? I would love to see them have basic rights and freedoms, but it feels like yet another of those situations where I can only sit and watch. :(
 
blutoski said:
I think Aparthied is an interesting analogy... the OP asks, "Why isn't Saudi Arabia a pariah like Apartheid South Africa was?" - in a way, it is... Apartheid was enacted in 1950 or thereabouts) but the USA didn't officially sanction them until 1985, and even then, after half a decade of its President rationalizing the regime, Reagan [vetoed] anything we would call 'harsh'. Why? Because ZA was an ally against the Commies, and that made Aparthied what they call "[our bastard]".

So, the short answer is: "because they're one of our bastards and exempt"
Click to expand...
That's not the short answer at all. You've simply explained the government's reluctance to condemn Saudi Arabia.

I'm asking, why hasn't the general public condemned Saudi Arabia?
 
theprestige said:
That's not the short answer at all. You've simply explained the government's reluctance to condemn Saudi Arabia.

I'm asking, why hasn't the general public condemned Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

Because if they do, they'd have to look at a LOT more.
Let's be honest, if we truly want slavery to end us in the west (myself included) would have to be willing to accept a major reduction in our livestyles in order to allow the rest of the world to get closer to us.
And virtually no one is willing to do that (again, myself included).
 
@theprestige

I am far more concerned with the abuses of illegal aliens, the underground hooker networks, and the criminal enterprises that benefit from our failure, here at home, to address that. Those folks on the other side of the world need to solve that problem, and I think this related problem right here at home needs more effort, at least as much effort as the war on drugs ever got, maybe more. That means that in time the price of a variety of things goes up, but we don't aid and abet the criminal class by turning a blind eye at the political level.

My give a shirt fatigue regarding the plight of oppression in the third world is palpable: we need to work on how any of that has a bad effect here, and with our closest neighbors, as our priority. The Muslims in Saudi Arabia have over 10 centuries of cultural inertia to deal with in their social issues. The UN has over time shown to be an utter failure at doing anything about such issues. That tells me that collectively, the world does not care enough. For example, I seriously doubt that the Chinese care about Saudi cultural habits. Their influence is growing, as is the influence of another major economy in India. Do they care? No. That's about 40% of the world's population in just those two major countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom