
Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive - fmihaila
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-drive.html
======
idoh
"Low oil prices have limited the government jobs that many Saudis have long
relied on, and the kingdom is trying to push more citizens, including women,
into gainful employment. But some working Saudi women say hiring private
drivers to get them to and from work eats up much of their pay, diminishing
the incentive to work."

I'm guessing that this is the biggest driver - Saudi Arabia just cannot afford
to not allow this anymore.

~~~
ihsw2
The dual income household had an unbelievable impact on Western and Asian
economies, buoying incredible growth.

How the KSA handles the coming social liberalization will be interesting,
Chinese women still grapple with social conservative attitudes regarding
working women (ie: leftover women). It is inevitable that the people of the
KSA will encounter similar difficulties.

~~~
qiqing
Actually, the "leftover women" phrase refers to the relationship / marital
status of some women, not their job status. Many of these women (including
people I know personally) have reclaimed the term as a compliment -- there's a
pun where they substitute a word that roughly means god-like or badass.

My mom and both of my grandmothers lived in a world where the dual income
household is the norm, and has been the norm since the 50's, but since the
80's and 90's, there has been a retrograde shift because for a while, being a
stay-at-home-mom became a status symbol. However, all of my cousins, male or
female, are part of dual-income households. (They all live in Shanghai.) But
that's a much longer rant and off-topic to the current discussion.

But +1 to your initial point, re: effect of dual income households on the
economy.

~~~
vfulco
Knowing more than a handful of 20s-30s ladies in SH through my Toastmasters
club, although there is selection bias, they are some of the most capable,
driven, hard working, talented young people I have ever met. And I am almost
50 so have seen a bit over the years. If they were unleashed by the system and
cultural expectations, norms, and restrictions, there is nothing they could
not accomplish.

------
ericfrenkiel
::slow clap::

It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality
in the 21st century.

The faster we can transition to clean, renewable energy, the better for
everyone in the world.

~~~
rconti
My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few
years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor
poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time
and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law--
some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children
(TM) would all die, and others arguing that bartenders would rip off patrons
with 'short pours'.

All without a single thought to stop and consider the example of the other 49
states, not to mention other countries...

~~~
knz
Laws related to firearms are often similar.

The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those
opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and
poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very
loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation)
allow or even encourage the use of suppressors.

The sad part about using fear to support or oppose change is that you rarely
end up with solutions that actually solve the underlying societal problem via
a sensible compromise.

~~~
ufo
Why do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?

~~~
korethr
Think about it.

The threshold for potential instant noise-induced hearing loss is 120 dB SPL
at the ear. A rifle can exceed 170 dB SPL at a distance of one meter[1]. When
you're shooting a rifle, it's going to be cradled firmly against the shoulder
-- a lot closer than 1 meter. Even the lowly .22lr fired from a handgun can
exceed 160 dB SPL[2]. A suppressor can knock that down about 30 dB. 130 dB is
still a lot, but it's out of the ' _will_ -immedately-and-permanently-damage-
your-hearing' range at least, and makes further hearing protection (earmuffs,
earplugs) that much more effective.

tl;dr - A suppressor is safety equipment.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure)
2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Effectiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Effectiveness)

~~~
jcrben
Maybe it should be a thing for the gun range then. Require people to attach
them there and require that they leave them there.

In general, if people are shooting outside in my neighborhood, I'd rather be
woken up. That's not the type of thing that should go unnoticed. And I live in
the middle of San Franciso where I've watched people get shot and killed.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
As someone living in a rural area, near a nature preserve, I'd prefer the
opposite.

I'm tired of being woken up way too early in the morning by gunshots.
Waterfowl season started last weekend, so it was shotguns going off a mile
away. Rifle season for deer starts soon (it's bowhunting season now), and that
will bring its own set of loud noises from even closer.

I'm all for suppressors, if only so I can sleep past 5AM without having to
keep my windows closed.

------
harisamin
This is a REALLY big deal. I was born and raised there. Glad to see some
progress.

~~~
agumonkey
is it the first time or, like lebannon or iran, there was a time when women
could drive before ?

~~~
ma1313
First time in Saudi. Women were never banned from driving in Lebanon, not sure
about Iran, but I don't think so

~~~
agumonkey
Sorry I didn't mean driving per se, but in the 70s women had more freedom and
it regressed since.

~~~
dibujante
That's not exactly true. People tout those photographs of "liberated" women in
Iran in the 70's but that was a tiny slice of a female urban lifestyle
restricted to a small number of elite women. That was not representative of
the lives of the overwhelming majority of Iranian women.

~~~
dmix
Iran was still far more liberal in general before the cultural revolution, no?
Women don't have to be in nice clothes in urban areas to not be repressed by
clerical rule backed by state rule... There may have been societal pressure
but it's significantly different when it's backed by government security
services and religious police.

~~~
Khaine
Yes, the Shah of Iran pushed a massive modernisation program [aka liberal
agenda] to westernise Iran. The pushback from conservative elements was one of
the driving forces of the revolution.

The interference from western powers to prop up the Shah did not help matters.

At least this was the impression I got from my time in Iran and visiting the
tourist sites.

~~~
Feniks
Actually, and this is forgotten by most non Iranians, the revolution against
the shah was NOT Islamic.

It was a coalition of factions that took him down including socialists and
communists. The ayatollah and his followers seized the country within a few
years though and turned it into an Islamic republic.

~~~
Khaine
I'm aware of that. Everyone from socialists to islamists banded together to
overthrow the shah, and the from this chaos the ayatollah and his followers
seized the country.

------
reaperducer
The use of "Agrees" in the headline reveals societal bias. "Decides" would
have been better.

~~~
KZeillmann
Is there something wrong with societal bias? Especially towards ideals like
personal liberty?

~~~
nebabyte
The word "bias" probably should have tipped you off

~~~
pwinnski
Or not? One can be biased toward life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or
any number of generally-agreeable things.

I'm biased against death, and toward life. I don't generally feel a need to
disclose that, since it's a widely-shared bias.

------
vonnik
I'm totally in support of this. Strangely, the second thought after "wow" that
I had was: I wonder what the backlash will be. I think my big, pessimistic
lesson from the Obama years was that moves that I see as progress will
probably be met with an equal and opposite antithesis.

------
pmoriarty
But do they have to be accompanied on that drive by a male relative?

~~~
drcode
It's pretty messed up how this mirrors similar questions that come up when
discussing autonomous vehicles- While we in the West try to come to grips with
the agency of computer systems, other places are still trying to come to grips
with agency for adult humans.

~~~
wavefunction
We in the West are still struggling to come to grips with agency for adult
humans.

~~~
drcode
Sorry if I didn't couch my argument with enough disclaimers to satisfy every
variant of moral relativism- Yes, both the US and Saudi Arabia struggle with
human rights, in some fashion.

------
amelius
Serious question: how safe is it to drive with a burqa?

~~~
probably_wrong
Germany has recently banned burqas while driving[1], but not because they were
considered unsafe. Instead, the ban forbids having anything that makes you
impossible to identify in camera.

So my guess is that they are not really unsafe, or they would have been banned
earlier for that specific reason.

[1] [http://www.dw.com/en/german-bundesrat-approves-burqa-ban-
for...](http://www.dw.com/en/german-bundesrat-approves-burqa-ban-for-drivers-
beefs-up-road-race-sanctions/a-40642060)

------
oh_sigh
I wonder to what extent private families/society at large will accept women
driving?

------
anon-123
Posting as anon because I don't want to be condemned, honestly, you can't
marginalize half of your population and be successful and you don't need a
degree in econ to understand that. It's simple math.

~~~
kobeya
But a degree in history would show you that yes, indeed you can marginalize
half your population and be quite successful for a very long time.

~~~
astrodust
When money bubbles out of the ground or grows on trees, yes, yes you can.

~~~
kobeya
The window of time in which a majority of the members of a society have been
franchised in the history of human societies is fleetingly short, totaling the
last 50-100 years.

------
potlee
How is this helpful if they cannot be outside alone without a male relative?

~~~
friedbeef
It is helpful because women can be outside alone without male relatives. You
realize that most women go around with personal drivers rather than male
relatives.

~~~
awakeasleep
Isn't the male relative's guardianship considered to pass to the 'servant'
that accompanies them?

------
vermontdevil
Would they still need permission of the male in their household to drive?

------
jayess
When do they stop executing gays?

~~~
irrational
When climate change makes the Middle East too hot to be habitable by humans
([http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/news/climate-change-
middle-e...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/news/climate-change-middle-
east/index.html)).

------
jimmy2020
Anyway that doesn't mean they can actually drive in real life, i am sure there
will be more strict regulations about this issue beside the masculine
religious community opposition.

------
quattrofan
I had to just check, yep it is the 21st century.

~~~
randyrand
The 21st century is not as homogeneous as you think. Not every country will
have the same cultural timeline as the USA, and it's odd to me that comments
like yours are so prevalent. The world is bigger than america. Comments like
this just seem incredibly self-centered, and a bit culturally supremacist.

~~~
bogomipz
Why is the OP automatically deemed an American for expressing cynicism? Its
amazing that you yourself see no hypocrisy in making such discriminatory
remarks based on what you perceive another's nationality to be.

The 21st century might not be homogenous but please name me one other place on
the planet where women can't drive, where women can't open a banking
account[1], or where women can't enter a Starbucks[2] or where there are
public beheadings on Fridays[3]

Actually name one other place that even comes close to that level of
chauvinism and barbarism. That cynicism is not without merit.

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-
thi...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-things-that-
saudi-arabian-women-still-cannot-do-a6765666.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deera_Square](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deera_Square)

[3] [https://www.eater.com/2016/2/1/10885722/saudi-arabia-
starbuc...](https://www.eater.com/2016/2/1/10885722/saudi-arabia-starbucks-
women-banned)

~~~
randyrand
To your first point, I could/should have replaced "America" with "western
culture", but it originally made the sentence less clear. I noticed the
hypocrisy =)

To your second point, I was not talking about the specifics of Saudia Arabia,
but rather the common idom of going "what centry is this" with respect to
judging other cultures. People forget that western history is distinct from
world history. And it feels a bit supremacist too - "Western culture is at X
point, so everyone should be at X point"

------
vadym909
Don't know whether to be happy this happened or sad that it took so long!

------
bluesnowmonkey
Welcome to the twentieth century, Saudi Arabia.

------
huffmsa
Yeah, someone needs to buy their oil.

------
lucb1e
Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be
allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or
some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students...
nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation
apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the
effects of allowing women to vote" he agreed.

What the hell. Don't let women vote because they tend to vote "left" and
"emotionally" (allegedly). What if the women of this planet decide that male
votes are shit, what then? Are we just going to have to fight it out? (I
didn't really get a response to that.)

I just don't have words for this, it's so alien. Am I weird for rejecting the
notion out of hand?

Edit: two downvotes, please explain? I am honestly interested in opinions; I
just found it _very_ weird to hear someone say this.

~~~
xupybd
Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they
weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem
in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that.

I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the
party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say
participation is high but I'd rather only those interested enough to know
what's going on voted.

~~~
averagewall
There's already a self-selecting mechanism to eliminate most voters. It's
called partisanship. Those people who vote for their favorite party no matter
what cancel out each other's vote so they don't count. That leaves only the
people who're making a decision each election that matter.

~~~
Gormisdomai
This is a good joke, but please don't believe it's actually true.

In application it's based on the false assumption that there are an equal
amount of partisans on both sides.

~~~
averagewall
Considering that neither major party consistently dominates in the US, I have
a feeling they do cancel out. That, or the deciding-each-election voters apply
pressure against any long-lasting incumbent.

~~~
geofft
They cancel out because the parties move towards the political positions that
cause them to approach 50%.

I had this realization after meeting a political strategist through a mutual
friend and having a conversation with him about what he does, and then I felt
stupid for not having realized it before. His job is, at a high level, to find
areas where polling indicates that his party's support in a particular
election is a little under 50%, and then find ways to get a few more people to
vote. If they reach 50% + epsilon, he's succeeded. If they reach significantly
over 50%, that effort is wasted; you win an election equally well with 51% or
90% of the vote, so as long as you have 50% + a comfortable margin of error,
you might as well spend your time trying to win other districts. And then, of
course, the other party is trying to do same thing.

So a roughly 50/50 split in votes in a district, or in senators in Congress,
or whatever, isn't indicative of an equal number of the voters being partisans
of each party. You might have 10% partisans of one and 40% partisans of the
other, which would cause the first party to run a centrist campaign/candidate
to attract a lot of undecided voters and the second party to be willing to run
a much less centrist/candidate.

Essentially, as long as you have two political parties, you're basically never
going to lose the partisans (they certainly won't vote for the other party,
and an extremist third party will always sound like a spoiler), so once you've
settled on two major parties, they'll end up getting about 50% of the vote,
even as their actual political positions move.

One way to avoid this problem would be to move to a non-first-past-the-post
voting system, so a centrist third party (or one with orthogonal ideas) can
successfully beat them both by attracting the non-partisans. Or, at the
congressional level, move to a parliamentary system that requires forming
coalition governments, which would enable something similar. But the US has
neither of these.

~~~
in_cahoots
Not sure if you’re familiar with Hotelling’s law, but you’ve basically
described it here. I always like the beach shop analogy: if two vendors are
selling beach chairs along a strip of sand, the optimum location is right next
to each other in the middle of the strip. That way each vendor gets 50% of the
customers.

------
justboxing
> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries.

Wait. What?

~~~
dmurray
It would be surprising if someone hadn't made such a ridiculous claim. But in
an article on gay marriage in the US, would the NY Times really have felt the
need to observe that "one preacher even claimed - with no evidence - that
homosexuality caused earthquakes"?

~~~
drspacemonkey
It depends on how much political influence that specific preacher wielded. In
Saudi, clerics wield a LOT of political influence. They're not just religious
advisers, they get to set and interpret law based on their understanding of
the Quran and the Hadiths.

~~~
smsm42
No, mainly depends on how much outrage can be mined out of it. Influence is
largely the byproduct of the press attention, at least in the scales we have
in the US, and the press wants to have people engaged (clicks, views, ads) and
also preferably show their political opponents are crazy evil idiots.
Emphasizing outrageously stupid claims by some obscure personality serves both
goals - people get outraged, share the links, ad impressions follow,
discussion follows, etc. etc.

~~~
drspacemonkey
>Influence is largely the byproduct of the press attention

That's not how it works with clerics in Saudi. They have official standing
with the government, have their own police force with the authority to enforce
morality laws (the mutaween), and even get to decide who the next king will
be.

------
__Julia
In 2017 ...

~~~
ovulator
Actually, 2018. June of next year.

------
irln
Simultaneously they are banning all non-autonomous cars.

