
Saudi king orders that women no longer need man’s permission to travel or study - elmar
http://www.gulf-insider.com/saudi-king-orders-women-no-longer-need-mans-permission-travel-study-make-police-complaints/
======
candiodari
Women are still not considered their own legal person in Saudi Arabia. While
this is progress, for sure, this upgrades the position of women from outright
slaves (perhaps comparable to the legal status of a dog or other pet in the
west), and this doesn't change that.

In sharia/islam, women are the legal property (effectively, not "in legal
theory") of their "guardian". When they're married (yes I'm using the passive,
they don't get to pick when, where & to whom after all) that becomes their
husband. They have full legal authority over them.

In fact they have less rights than a dog has in the West: in legal theory, you
cannot legally just abandon a dog in the west, but you can just abandon a
woman, even if you're her guardian, in Saudi Arabia.

~~~
cup
>In sharia/islam, women are the legal property (effectively, not "in legal
theory") of their "guardian". When they're married (yes I'm using the passive,
they don't get to pick when, where & to whom after all) that becomes their
husband. They have full legal authority over them.

You must have got your Ijazah in Fiqh and Usool from Sheikh Google.

~~~
candiodari
> You must have got your Ijazah in Fiqh and Usool from Sheikh Google.

I take it you're muslim ? Why do muslims always lie about the basic properties
of islamic law ? Are you ashamed about it ?

I mean basic statements like "islam demands slavery" (another one of those
legal classes of people in islam) are obvious and very simple facts, but the
rucus online if anybody mentions it is deafening.

~~~
cup
If you're trying to claim dogs have more rights in Islam than women or that
such a ridiculous comment is a basic property of Islam then there's not much
hope for you mate.

~~~
wruza
Funny thing, we're freely comparing women to dogs itt and _even_ argue that
they have less rights. That's how apologists distort the sense of humanity.
Try to not hold pr-defensive position and simply open them eyes.

------
zensavona
"The order made by King Salman, pictured, is the latest in a series of steps
to include more women in the workforce to help diversify the country’s economy
and reduce its reliance on oil"

So this tells us a couple of things:

1\. If this whole oppressing women thing was ever about religion (that is
their justification), they are pretty willing to forget religion when they
need money.

2\. That whole oil thing isn't going so great for them these days.

~~~
wand3r
Look, I'm super cynical and I make statements that group people together like
this too; but that said: King fights religious & cultural bias to promote a
more equitable set of norms; works on fixing reliance on a finite and harmful
resource for sustainability

Your response was that all of "them" (hundreds or millions of people
potentially depending on how you define it) are backward. Religion isn't math;
it's subjective. Not a subscriber myself but I welcome the reinterpretation.

Oil / The economy isn't going so great. 1) It is certainly generating income
and power. 2) The most wealthy and powerful beneficiary announced he's trying
to distribute the money using that power and transform it in a positive way

~~~
rebootthesystem
> Religion isn't math; it's subjective.

No I'm sorry. It is objectively delusional.

~~~
Griffinsauce
It's objectively (1) a very early way to make sense of the world and (2) a way
to set up ready made norms and values for even your most unintelligent parts
of society. It's very effective at those things.

That said: we have science now for the first bit, which is much more effective
at that job minus the simplicity. What do we have to replace the second part?

~~~
Schwolop
Sports.

I should probably expand on that somewhat tongue in cheek answer. It's a
pretty cynical response, but there's truth in it. Following and/or playing
sports provides people with a tribe and a set of shared values and
camaraderie. Much like religion, I've never felt the need for this, but
there's certainly a very large set of people who do.

------
sytelus
>But Saudi Arabia was still ranked 141 of 144 countries in the 2016 Global
Gender Gap

So apparently there are 3 countries below SA. To find out what these odd
places are I went to [http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-
report-2016/ran...](http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-
report-2016/rankings/). And apparently these 3 countries are Syria, Pakistan
and Yemen! How is that even possible? Didn't Pakistan had a female prime
minister? And I believe there were no rigorous restrictions on clothings or
driving or working for women in any of these countries.

~~~
i_feel_great
The female prime minister of Pakistan was Benazir Bhutto, a scion of the
wealthy and powerful Bhutto family. Her father was a former prime minister,
Zulfikar Bhutto. Gender gaps do not apply to women from wealthy and powerful
backgrounds.

------
icu
To think in 2017 that this isn't the norm around the world just goes to show
how good we have it in the west and how far we as a species has to go.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
This is the norm around the world. Saudi and wherever this is not already the
norm are in the minority.

~~~
woodandsteel
That's true, but think how much worse things would be if modern western
civilization had never happened.

~~~
legolas2412
I wouldn't go down the what-if road. While it is obvious that human rights are
a result of progressive European and American countries. But the world would
be a much different place if the Europeans didn't go around colonizing.
Several of the Victorian era rules imposed by the Britishers in India were
regressive. They also caused communal divisions for their own gains. It's not
fair to forget the evils of imperialism while basking in the grandeur of
industrialization.

------
muninn_
Is it just me, or is it that ever since Saudi Arabia joined the UN Women's
Rights Council that they have changed quite a few policies?

I was very critical of this initially, but if it results in pro-women changes,
then that's good.

~~~
astebbin
They've changed policies for now. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy,
however, so we'll have to hope these changes stick with the next ruler.

------
alphabettsy
Is this a credible source?

~~~
ankushnarula
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4479488/Saudi-
king-o...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4479488/Saudi-king-orders-
relaxation-male-guardianship.html#ixzz4gOp7T2qR)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-
ar...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-male-
guardianship-relax-women-work-study-gender-equality-a7721641.html)

~~~
unfunco
Article similarities aside, those might be two of the worst websites to quote
as sources, the Daily Mail is banned from being cited on Wikipedia as it's not
a reputable source; and the Independent is no longer producing what many
people would consider journalism.

~~~
ankushnarula
Those two links came up when I typed my initial search to verify the original
source. When I later changed my query to "saudi arabia male guardianship" I
found the main stream of related articles on Google News:

[https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d8vQiW5woz_iD_MaFaFAQ...](https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d8vQiW5woz_iD_MaFaFAQMVeK6WbM&q=saudi+arabia+male+guardianship)

Note: I am not evaluating thousands of sourced references per day like
Wikipedia - nor do I have a partisan political agenda. In this case, I
evaluated the source content and it seemed fairly apolitical. Very likely,
both of my linked sources used an AP or Reuters articles as their primary
source.

------
drspacemonkey
Wow, did not expect that from King Salman. He's supposed to be quite the
hardliner as compared to his predecessor.

