There are a few that stem from the cultural expectation that the husband's income pays for the whole family, while the wife's income (if she has one) is for her use alone. Therefore, if the wife works outside the home, she is selfish, and not contributing to the family. This leads to discouragement or prohibition of external work and the education required to pursue it, especially higher education.
Divorces tend to asymmetrically favor the husband with respect to child custody and what Anglo-American common law would usually consider joint or common property.
Women's fashion may be limited by modesty laws, and certainly still restricted by social pressures.
Premarital public displays of affection may provoke punishments.
Adultery and rape are still handled in a manner considered improper in the US and Europe.
Homosexuality is still punishable by execution, as far as I know.
I'm not of the mind that Saudis are on-par with Sweden. Ultimately was hoping for something a bit more insightful than a Wikipedia article, especially when "Women were previously forbidden from" appears throughout.
Though from Wikipedia, thought this was an oddly discriminatory:
> women are still required to have men swear for them in a court of law.
All it takes is for a religious hardliner to reinterpret the decrees and the Quran for a more restrictive outcome again, right? Usually a literal reading?
That is a fair request, but why is this story allowed? It's clearly off-topic for HN (Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless
they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of
pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on
TV news, it's probably off-topic.)
"Allowed" is too coarse a term; there are too many variations and details it can't cover.
In this case, the submission has been flagged by users, and it's not one where moderators would turn off the flags. In that sense you can say it's not "allowed".
HN had previously articles with a tech angle of using phone apps to track and restrict movement of saudi women. It's nice to keep seeing the evolution of the topic here.
That's a real stretch. You could argue any post on HN is slightly related to tech and there for should be allowed. However, even if that were the case, then comments about Khashoggi should be allowed as well as for it's directly related and was also previously discussed on HN. Obviously that's just playing devils advocate.
The issue wasn't just that you commented on Khashoggi but that you did it in snarky and flamebaity and drive-by way ("in-embassy pick-up"). That breaks a number of the site guidelines, including: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
