> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
Why the surprise? Clerics are not known as rational thinkers.
Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
11–20 of 225 posts
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#12> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries.
Cycling can cause sexual impotence in men, yet we don't see anyone claiming men should be banned from cycling.
Arguments like this are toxic; even if true (which they obviously aren't), they expose an ugly underlying sexism with the implicit assumption that somehow it's okay for men to make these decisions for women as long as it's for a 'good reason.'
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#13But do they have to be accompanied on that drive by a male relative?
It's not mentioned anywhere in the article that a male relative is required to be in the car. Also, it sounds like their police will need some training to interact with female drivers, as by my understanding Saudi women don't normally interact with people who aren't family members.
The police will need to be trained to interact with women in a way that they rarely do in a society where men and women who are not related rarely interact.
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#14> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
There are many such opinions, apparently, but there is push-back.
[Saad al-Hijri, head of fatwas (legal opinions) in Saudi Arabia’s Assir governorate], who said women should not drive because their brains shrink to a quarter the size of a man’s when they go shopping has been banned from preaching. [...] In a video this week, Hijri asked what the traffic department would do it if it discovered a man with only half a brain. “Would it give him a licence or not? It would not. So how can it give it to a woman when she has only half?” he said.
“If she goes to the market she loses another half. What is left? A quarter ... We demand the traffic department check because she is not suitable to drive and she has only a quarter.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/saudi-cleric-s...
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#15> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
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"?
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.
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#16> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
I listen to Sawbones podcast and this reminds me of how primitive North American and European cultures were too. "Hysteria" being my favourite example of "I can't believe we thought that..."
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#17In 2017 ...
Actually, 2018. June of next year.
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#18> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
You seem surprised
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#19"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.
Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive
#20> One cleric claimed — with no evidence — that driving harmed women’s ovaries. Wait. What?
What people say crazy stuff?
Unrelated but ran across the following story: woman gets rare and slow developing cancer at 22, decides against surgery, gets on "Gerson therapy", runs lifestyle blog for years, credible (and credulous) media eat up claim she cured cancer. Mother gets breast cancer, uses Gerson therapy, dies in 2013 (horrible now removed blog posts where they discuss "flare ups" as symptoms of the therapy working, was actually symptoms of growing cancer). Down to her last days was hiding growing cancer and deceiving rabid fanbase, criticizing "bullies" who were pointing out her cancer was back. Of course after she died, her fans and Gerson therapy advocates now leave crazy comments about how she didn't do it right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ainscough
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/17/sharyn-ainscoug...
Gerson therapy vids are all over YouTube even today with the implication it is effective. I mean people are basically committing suicide because YouTube is making money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvWlZ4-7Lo
If that's possible in open and connected societies, what's unscientific bullshit but the norm? We all believe delusional stuff, the question is, what seemingly accepted and reasonable views in our own societies are are actually delusional and harmful?