It seems that a BBC reporter has ruffled the feathers of some of the Saudi women. I frequently read Nzingha's Soapbox because she gives a "frontline" view of living in Saudi that isn't tainted by the BS from American propaganda. She's there. She's living there, and she chose to be there. I'm not particularly thrilled with the name she and her "Mr. Man" chose for their son, but he's their kid...
What interests me about the article she posted about the swimming incident, isn't her sarcastic attitude, but one specific quote from one of the comments: "You should explain more about why segregation is valued and how women swim in Saudi under "safe" conditions islamically."
Think about this for a moment. These women WANT to have segregated (separate but equal?) swimming facilities. They WANT to not have the ability to swim whenever/wherever. They consider it PROTECTION.
This flys in the face of the mindset of We the Liberated Female People of the United States, and the whole concept of "They hate us because of our freedom." They don't WANT the freedoms we have.
I suspect this should have occurred to me earlier. What country, given the examples surrounding them on all sides, would stay in the 5th Century unless they WANTED to live in the 5th century? Given the opportunity to move forward, the examples all around to show them HOW to move forward, these folks have, not unlike the Amish, CHOSEN to renounce the benefits of freedom and choose to embrace their cultural and religious retardation with affection and determination.
And because of this, I wonder just how much we should feel "sorry" for any of their trials and tribulations. They've chosen to allow themselves to be forced into the black abaya in the equatorial heat. They've chosen to enslave themselves to their menfolk, chosen to take the "safe" road, rather than the more dangerous "free" road.
This is getting perilously close to a political statement about choosing safety over freedom...