
Saudi Arabia Allows Women to Travel Without a Male Guardian's Permission - Alyan
https://time.com/5642228/saudi-arabia-ends-guardianship-system/
======
Konnstann
It's always funny for me to see articles like this, the last one I remember
was about women being able to drive. What does Saudi Arabia have that prevents
the world from interfering in its politics? Don't say oil, if it was just that
the US would have been in there long ago.

~~~
Alyan
Why is that even a good idea at all? First most of these laws are a result of
the culture here and if a vote were to happen are likely to remain or at least
be controversial. Even the silly driving ban which have no religious basis
is/was controversial even amongst women. Enforcing non popular laws from a
foreign entity is a good recipe for disaster and may increase resistance to
these laws and start wars or other bad stuff. Heck I think most Saudi
citizens, even the liberal ones, would not want such actions.

In addition, I think they are also too many countries which doesn’t match US
ideals, will US start WW3? For example there are many islamic countries with
differing laws but I would guess most don’t match US ideals.

~~~
d2mw
The western world has sad tendency to believe its ideals are the only ideals,
so you're unlikely to attract much productive comment. Fanaticism is found
everywhere, it's just common for some cultures to give it another name when
convenient

~~~
Retra
It's not that simple to equate the two. Modern western ideals are _modern_
western ideals. If living under an authoritarian monarchy were just another
way of living, there wouldn't have been a history of revolt against it in the
west, because western civilization is no stranger to this kind of society.
Western societies have _tried_ autocracy many times. How many times has Saudi
Arabia tried liberal democracy?

------
D-Coder
To quote a comment from other places, "Welcome to the 19th Century."

------
lioeters
Time has one of those data-collection consent forms that are seemingly
impossible to opt out of, before being able to read the article. I refuse to
fall for that dark pattern.

Here's a better link: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/01/saudi-
women-ca...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/01/saudi-women-can-
now-travel-without-a-male-guardian-reports-say)

"Women in Saudi Arabia will no longer need the permission of a male guardian
to travel.."

"Still in place, however, are rules that require male consent for a woman to
leave prison, exit a domestic abuse shelter or marry. Women, unlike men, still
cannot pass on citizenship to their children and cannot provide consent for
their children to marry."

~~~
Alyan
I would like to add, quoting from times:

“Other changes issued in the decrees allow women to register a marriage,
divorce or child’s birth and to be issued official family documents”

IANAL but I am a Saudi citizen and it seems male consent to leave prison and
abuse shelter may be included in these changes. I have seen Saudi citizens
speculate about both possibilities so it is not clear yet.

Only one of the four major Islamic Sunni madhhaps allow females to marry
without consent. Saudi Arabia follows a different madhhap. So if I were to
speculate I don’t think it will happen soon because it may risk a revolt as I
believe most citizens are religious or at least conservative. However, I also
did not expect the current changes to happen this soon for the same reasons so
I may be wrong.

~~~
lioeters
Thank you, that's really interesting to hear a first-person perspective about
the cultural changes.

> [Allowing] females to marry without consent..may risk a revolt..

Wow, I didn't realize how strongly people (I guess in this case mainly men)
felt about this issue. I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see
that it must be done in a sensitive manner, as it relates to fundamental
values of religion, gender roles, and I suppose power dynamics in society.

~~~
grumpydba
> I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in
> a sensitive manner.

These laws are ruthless and insensitive towards women though...

~~~
magduf
Yeah, but women need to consider the desires of men who want to keep them
oppressed. /s

Replace the word "women" with "black people abducted from Africa" and change
the time period to the 15-1800s in the US/Europe. "I'm all for the liberation
of enslaved black people, but it needs to be done slowly, in a sensitive
manner..." It's amazing how, when you get a religion involved that says
oppression is good and right, that you can justify stuff like slavery and
oppression.

~~~
lioeters
I get what you mean, especially when compared with historical examples of
fighting for civil rights.

The anger from the oppressed, those demanding their rights, is justified. And
it does sound absurd to ask anyone to be sensitive to their oppressors'
feelings and reaction.

I guess by "sensitive", I meant changing the system together, rather than
against each other. But in retrospect, that may be a naive and unrealistic
expectation.

If Saudi Arabia continues to improve civil rights for women and there's a
"gender riot", angry men on the streets calling for return to "traditional
values".. Well, so be it, that might be the price of progress?

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Yes, if someone wants to riot because they're no longer allowed to oppress
someone else then fuck them.

~~~
magduf
I agree, but the problem is when 1) those people have large enough numbers to
be politically powerful, and even worse 2) when those people have convinced
those people they've oppressed that they _should_ be oppressed, so those
victims join them in upholding the oppression. When #2 happens in sufficient
numbers, I'm not really sure what the answer is, except to lead by example.

------
devoply
Bonesaw has done it again!

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

