(no subject)
only at TNR Online | Post date 10.03.05
Let's face it: If God were looking down on the United States and trying to pick the country's finest possible ambassador to the Muslim world, He probably wouldn't say, "Get me the author of Ten Minutes from Normal." But while Karen Hughes has been widely, and often justly, ridiculed for her recent performance in the Middle East, she should at least get credit for one thing: her statement criticizing the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia. "I believe women should be free and equal participants in society," she told a gathering of Saudis last week. "I feel that as an American woman that my ability to drive is an important part of my freedom."
I would have thought that saying Saudi women have a right to drive would be a no-brainer. Weirdly, it's not. Condoleezza Rice, for example, has called the topic of women drivers "just a line that I have not wanted to cross." And press accounts of Hughes's attempt to talk to a group of Saudi women about the subject have been, at times, sneering. Here's Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate: "She assures a room of Saudi women that they, too, will someday drive cars; they tell her they're actually happy right now, thank you." Most puzzling of all, even Hollywood seems to think that talking about Saudi female drivers is way out of bounds. A few years ago, in a 9/11-themed episode of "The West Wing," Chief of Staff Leo McGarry, who's looking for a terrorist mole, has a heated exchange with a staffer named Ali, who is livid about America's presence in Saudi Arabia:
ALI : You sent an army composed of women as well as men to protect a Muslim dynasty where women aren't even allowed to drive a car.
LEO: Maybe we can teach them.
Ali is terribly offended, and Leo comes to his senses by the end of the episode. He apologizes to Ali for everything:
LEO: I'm sorry about that. Also about the crack I made about teaching Muslim women how to drive.
Women drivers! How rude of Leo to have suggested it.
Condoleezza Rice may, of course, have good reasons not to broach the topic with the Saudis. Men are in charge of Saudi Arabia, and the men can help us, so angering them might be unwise. And perhaps it was impolite of Hughes to bring up the subject. But since when do progressives favor politesse in the face of discrimination? And why, exactly, should liberals like "West Wing" writer Aaron Sorkin be more deferential about the Saudi driving ban than Karen Hughes?
Isolationist conservatives generally take the position that it's not the proper role of American politicians to comment on another society's treatment of women. But liberals don't have that excuse. Instead, their dilemma is by now an old story: For the contemporary left, when any value--in this case, equal rights for women--comes up against the value of not judging other cultures, non-judgment tends to win. The left prizes tolerance so highly that it often refuses to condemn intolerance. (Europe, with a large population of immigrants who oppose the values of the society in which they live, has grappled with this problem for years.)
Liberals, it seems, are more likely to sanction such attacks when the attacker is one of their own. Here is playwright Harold Pinter describing a row he had 20 years ago with the U.S. ambassador in Ankara over the use of torture in Turkish prisons:
The Ambassador said to me: "Mr. Pinter, you don't seem to understand the realities of the situation here. Don't forget, the Russians are just over the border. You have to bear in mind the political reality, the diplomatic reality, the military reality."
"The reality I've been referring to," I said, "is that of electric current on your genitals."
The Ambassador drew himself, as they say, up to his full height and glared at me. "Sir," he said, "you are a guest in my house." He turned, as they also say, on his heel and his aides turned too.
Pinter calls this one of his "proudest moments." No one on the left seems to have accused him of cultural imperialism for it.
To find fault with another society is not, of course, to suggest an immediate correction-by-Tomahawk. It's not even to suggest that we always make our views known to places like Saudi Arabia--there are times for courtesy and times for moral clarity, and we have to pick our moments.
Still, one can go too far in the direction of civility. Sure, if I were talking to King Abdullah at a cocktail party, I imagine I'd avoid the subject of discrimination. Instead, in the name of decorum, I'd probably discuss the weather, or sand varieties, or beards. But Karen Hughes wasn't at a cocktail party last week. She was acting as an ambassador of American values. And one of those values is, or at least should be, opposition to sexism of all kinds. Good for her for bringing it up.
T. A. Frank writes regularly for TNR Online.
-------------------------------------------------
Someone sent me this, and I appreciate it.
Someone told me that a professor (FEMALE) said in class that, though she would never choose to undergo it, she would be sad to see female genital mutilation be abolished. from anthropological standpoint.
Smith, I hate you.
Let's face it: If God were looking down on the United States and trying to pick the country's finest possible ambassador to the Muslim world, He probably wouldn't say, "Get me the author of Ten Minutes from Normal." But while Karen Hughes has been widely, and often justly, ridiculed for her recent performance in the Middle East, she should at least get credit for one thing: her statement criticizing the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia. "I believe women should be free and equal participants in society," she told a gathering of Saudis last week. "I feel that as an American woman that my ability to drive is an important part of my freedom."
I would have thought that saying Saudi women have a right to drive would be a no-brainer. Weirdly, it's not. Condoleezza Rice, for example, has called the topic of women drivers "just a line that I have not wanted to cross." And press accounts of Hughes's attempt to talk to a group of Saudi women about the subject have been, at times, sneering. Here's Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate: "She assures a room of Saudi women that they, too, will someday drive cars; they tell her they're actually happy right now, thank you." Most puzzling of all, even Hollywood seems to think that talking about Saudi female drivers is way out of bounds. A few years ago, in a 9/11-themed episode of "The West Wing," Chief of Staff Leo McGarry, who's looking for a terrorist mole, has a heated exchange with a staffer named Ali, who is livid about America's presence in Saudi Arabia:
ALI : You sent an army composed of women as well as men to protect a Muslim dynasty where women aren't even allowed to drive a car.
LEO: Maybe we can teach them.
Ali is terribly offended, and Leo comes to his senses by the end of the episode. He apologizes to Ali for everything:
LEO: I'm sorry about that. Also about the crack I made about teaching Muslim women how to drive.
Women drivers! How rude of Leo to have suggested it.
Condoleezza Rice may, of course, have good reasons not to broach the topic with the Saudis. Men are in charge of Saudi Arabia, and the men can help us, so angering them might be unwise. And perhaps it was impolite of Hughes to bring up the subject. But since when do progressives favor politesse in the face of discrimination? And why, exactly, should liberals like "West Wing" writer Aaron Sorkin be more deferential about the Saudi driving ban than Karen Hughes?
Isolationist conservatives generally take the position that it's not the proper role of American politicians to comment on another society's treatment of women. But liberals don't have that excuse. Instead, their dilemma is by now an old story: For the contemporary left, when any value--in this case, equal rights for women--comes up against the value of not judging other cultures, non-judgment tends to win. The left prizes tolerance so highly that it often refuses to condemn intolerance. (Europe, with a large population of immigrants who oppose the values of the society in which they live, has grappled with this problem for years.)
Liberals, it seems, are more likely to sanction such attacks when the attacker is one of their own. Here is playwright Harold Pinter describing a row he had 20 years ago with the U.S. ambassador in Ankara over the use of torture in Turkish prisons:
The Ambassador said to me: "Mr. Pinter, you don't seem to understand the realities of the situation here. Don't forget, the Russians are just over the border. You have to bear in mind the political reality, the diplomatic reality, the military reality."
"The reality I've been referring to," I said, "is that of electric current on your genitals."
The Ambassador drew himself, as they say, up to his full height and glared at me. "Sir," he said, "you are a guest in my house." He turned, as they also say, on his heel and his aides turned too.
Pinter calls this one of his "proudest moments." No one on the left seems to have accused him of cultural imperialism for it.
To find fault with another society is not, of course, to suggest an immediate correction-by-Tomahawk. It's not even to suggest that we always make our views known to places like Saudi Arabia--there are times for courtesy and times for moral clarity, and we have to pick our moments.
Still, one can go too far in the direction of civility. Sure, if I were talking to King Abdullah at a cocktail party, I imagine I'd avoid the subject of discrimination. Instead, in the name of decorum, I'd probably discuss the weather, or sand varieties, or beards. But Karen Hughes wasn't at a cocktail party last week. She was acting as an ambassador of American values. And one of those values is, or at least should be, opposition to sexism of all kinds. Good for her for bringing it up.
T. A. Frank writes regularly for TNR Online.
-------------------------------------------------
Someone sent me this, and I appreciate it.
Someone told me that a professor (FEMALE) said in class that, though she would never choose to undergo it, she would be sad to see female genital mutilation be abolished. from anthropological standpoint.
Smith, I hate you.