Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Current Event #2: Sing Out, Hillary
Should Hillary have been more forceful in pushing the Saudi Arabian government for more rights for women (like simply driving)? Summarize Maureen Dowd's opinion, and then tell us what you think. What comes first, diplomacy (and good relations with other countries) or the rights of individuals in those countries?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion Hillary should not push any more than she already is for women's rights. If she starts to push more, then the countries that support the way that women are treated will simply become angrier at the United States for trying to impose their policies onto them. And if Hillary tries to push harder the women will not follow what she says because there would be too much change, too quickly for them to handle. And that could result in more deaths simply because the men wouldn't take too kindly to the sudden changes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I think she should push for most, is the simple right to walk around outside of their own home. That of all things should not be illegal, it's ridiculous to say that if a woman is without a person in their family outside of their home, she should be stoned, or burned, or decapitated. That law is just unnecessarily inhumane.
In this article, Maureen Dowd explained the problems that women face in Saudi Arabia and the strict laws they must abide by. Laws that include: a strict dress code, where to walk, if they can drive or not, etc., and horrific punishments. I think that as a country with a history of civil and womens' rights movements, interest groups for minorities, and a past that includes pushing for human rights in other countries, the United States has a responsibility to assist in human rights in other countries. The rights of women in countries like Saudi Arabia are negligible, and, as Evan H. said, inhumane. Ideally, I think the rights of others should come before diplomacy, but in reality, it would be nearly impossible. Too much money resides in the oil wells of Saudi Arabia for the US to make a fast movement. Also, I think that we must remember that in America, even after slaves were freed, segregation remained, and even after civil rights legislation was passed, racism and de facto segregation remained. Changes (especially philosophical ones) of extreme magnitude happen slowly, and forced changes result in violence. Giving rights to women in a country where they have been denied for decades means changing the philosophies of much of the population, and most people don't like it if you jump in and tell them that what they think and do is wrong; it initiates a defensive view rather than a collaborative view. So no, I don't think Hillary should be pushing more for womens' rights now, I think that (to an extent) the slower the process is, the easier and less violent it will be, and that this should be the goal of US diplomats, rather than forcing fast change against a resisting regime.
ReplyDeleteMira N.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaureen Dowd says in her article that the Saudi Arabian women are reaching out for help and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, a well known activist in women’s rights, is surprisingly being quiet on this issue. Dowd raises the question as to whether the US should get involved with the gender discrimination going on, or should we leave it up to the Saudi Arabians. Dowd makes one thing clear and that is what is happening to the Saudi women is not right and extremely cruel. The dress code, the banning of even being able to drive, and the unfair justice system against women are just a few examples mentioned in the article. I think that what Saudi Arabia is doing is very wrong, but for the US to get involved is a very risky move to make. Gasoline prices would rise tremendously if something were to escalate. Hilary did bring the issue up in a more respectful way to the Saudi foreign minister, and at the moment, this is all that can be done. The risk it would bring to our country is far too great. The government governs and protects our country above anything else. We can not afford to fix all the horrible things happening in the world. Women’s rights are very important, but we can not be the world’s policemen.
ReplyDeleteEmily B.
Overall, I think Maureen Dowd is talking about the restrictions that have been placed on the women in Saudi Arabia and how unnecessarily strict they are. She thinks that Hillary should have been more aggressive in her fight for women’s rights as she was in Beijing in 1995. I also believe that Hillary should have been slightly more forceful in pushing the Saudi Arabian government for women’s rights, but her decision to practice quiet diplomacy was wise and well thought out. Pushing too hard could just make the Saudi’s more stubborn and would jeopardize all the hard work that has been done for women’s rights thus far. I think that theoretically the rights of individuals should come first because it is the people that make up the country. However, as Mira N. said, in reality it would be nearly impossible. The governments today are no longer overly concerned about the people, but about the money. Since Saudi Arabia controls the oil, America won’t do anything that could anger them to the point where the relationship would be jeopardized enough to affect our oil dealings. I think that the fight for women’s rights should be push as hard as they possibly can without jeopardizing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Like Evan H. said at least let the women walk around outside their houses or drive a car without the risk of being decapitated.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the tragic repression of women in Saudi Arabia is explored. The author explains the government’s blatant disregard for women’s civil rights. I believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to fight for these women. We, as a nation, have a rich history of fighting for gender equality, it seems selfish that we would simply sit back and watch women in other parts of the world suffer. I think it is more important to abide by the American ideals of freedom than to try to cozy up to repressive regimes in order to get oil. Hillary should speak up and continue to fight for these women and not be restricted by our interest in oil and Middle Eastern politics. If we do not do something now, what will happen to these women? They do not have the means to fight for themselves, are they simply doomed to a fate of cruelty for the rest of time? It is our job to make the world a better place, which includes helping these women fight for freedom.
ReplyDeleteAlaina B.
Maureen Dowd describes past events that involved women being killed and punished for not meeting the expectations of Saudi Arabian men. She stresses how unjust it is for women to be told they can’t drive and are told how to dress, etc. In the article, it is implied that Hillary should have tried harder to help women fight for their rights, as she had done in Beijing in 1995. There is a limit on what she could do, however. It is a difficult decision whether or not to get involved in a situation like this; if arguments were to arise, that could cause problems between Saudi Arabia and the US. Women shouldn’t be treated the way they are, but there isn’t much the US can do to make a big impact in women’s civil rights and also maintain a healthy relationship with the country. This situation should be handled delicately and over a span of time. If it is not rushed and is done in a non-belligerent fashion, we could make a difference in women’s lives by giving them more freedom.
ReplyDeleteIsabel S.
In her article, Maureen Dowd writes about the strict laws that limit women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Dowd explains some of the gruesome fatalities that resulted from these laws. She goes on to describe the impact of Hillary Clinton, a well known women's rights activist to the women in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately for these women, Clinton hasn't been as aggressive to defend women in this case. I think that Clinton's choice to simply bring up the issues is the most she should do. Although i agree with Alaina B.'s argument that our country's history of fighting for equality should matter the most, there is an issue with us fighting for these women. Unlike China, where Hillary spoke out about the treatment of women, the Middle East culture is important to keep in mind. That region has a history of women having little rights. It would be very difficult to get them to just change their culture. I think that's why Hillary isn't pushing any further. The best thing to do is to not rush the process, which could mean waiting for Prince Nayef to no longer have control. If the process is rushed there may be a revolt that ends in even more murdered women. Keeping a good relationship through a slow process with such an important trade partner is key for those women and our trade.
ReplyDeleteEllis M.
Maureen Dowd describes the unjust treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. She suggests that Hillary Clinton ought to have been more vocal in supporting women’s rights. However, Hillary is responsible for managing the United States’ relations with foreign countries. Her position as Secretary of State forces her to put diplomacy before the rights of individuals. She should do what she can to fight for women’s rights but not at the expense of the country’s diplomatic relations. I agree with Mira that ideally human rights should be put before diplomacy, but in reality they cannot be. If all we had to worry about was ideals the question of US involvement would be a lot simpler. The United States cannot do much to help because doing so could have negative economic effects on our own country. Also, if the United States pushed too hard we may anger the Saudi Arabian government and possibly lose what influence we have. If we maintain good relations we are more likely to be able to help advance women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.
ReplyDeleteMargaret R.
Hillary Clinton shouldn’t push any more than she already has for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. It is in the U.S’s best interest to maintain good foreign relations, especially with countries such as Saudi Arabia, and things such as trying to impose our ideals on them will not help. The human rights of the people in a foreign country should be left to the people of those countries. If they want change enough, they will fight for it. If they haven’t, then there’s probably a reason for that, but it not of our concern. We don’t allow other countries to tell us what rights our people have, and any change has come as a result of our own people’s assertiveness and action towards that change. Although some of the things that the women have to deal with are horrible, the really isn’t much the U.S. can do, and if they really want change, it is best for them to accomplish it on their own. In the end, foreign policy is about our relationship with another country, not their relationship with themselves.
ReplyDelete-Nile R
In Maureen Dowd’s article she writes about the horrific way’s women are treated in Saudi Arabia. Dowd wrote about the strict laws that limit the lives of the women in Saudi Arabia. Dowd also writes about the dress code women have to abide by or they suffer serious consequences such as being murdered. Women are publicly humiliated in Saudi Arabia and Dowd goes on to write that Hilary Clinton is not fighting enough for these women, like she did in Beijing. Dowd also gives a piece of advice to the government ,which is, if more pressure is put on Saudi Arabia to change women’s rights then the gender apartheid will end.
ReplyDeleteI think Hilary Clinton should be more forceful in pushing the Saudi Arabian country for more women’s rights, because keeping it quite and on the down low will not force the Saudi Arabian government to change and they will not give these women a chance. I think putting more light on the issue will make the Saudi Arabian government feel pressured by other countries to change and it will, because the world will see how gruesome these women are being treated. It does not matter what country you come from everyone deserves the same basic human rights.
The rights of individuals in foreign countries of the world should come first in my opinion, because you can not help a country that is hurting its people and just stand there and do nothing about it. You do not want to interfere in an offensive way, but you do interfere for the rights of those people, which in this case are the women in Saudi Arabia.
-Vanessa C.
Maureen Dowd's opinion is that Hillary Clinton did not do enough for the women in Saudi Arabia's rights. There are always problems with interfering with other countries' policies. Though I believe Saudi women should have every right any human should, the U.S. depends on these conservative Middle Eastern countries for much of our oil and would experience further economic hardships without it. Every person in this world is entitled to basic human rights and there should be no limitations to get them those rights. As our own struggling country, we are not responsible for making this happen. The question that gets raised then is, who is responsible? This is where the moral and ethical dilemma comes into play, we believe that these people should enjoy the same rights as our own citizens, but we don't want to come under fire for doing so. We feel obligated to help in some way, and I believe the reason that Mrs. Clinton didn't voice more of her strong opinions, is because she knew that this was doing too much. There is a point past which it is alright to interfere with another country's government, and Clinton wisely did not overstep it.
ReplyDeleteMaureen Dowd's opinion is that Hillary Clinton needs to fight harder for women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Especially right now since King Abdullah's health is declining and the next likely person to take the crown is Prince Nayef Bin Abdel Aziz. Dowd seems to still respect Hillary Clinton for all that she has done but feels that if the liberal saudi women had more support their campaigns will have better results and a greater impact. I agree with the top foreign policy officer who told Dowd "we have bigger fish to fry." The Saudis are already in conflict with our president, the one who ultimately represents us as a whole, because of conflicts involving other countries; we shouldn't antagonize Saudi Arabia further with our ideas on how they should run their country. Resolving the former issue first rather than the latter will allow us to give Saudi Arabia a better interpretation of our intentions of giving their women rights. Once they're not "disgusted" by our president, then hopefully they'll be less resentful to our ideas. Hillary Clinton should still give subtle undertones about equality but shouldn't make it her number one issue in her international agenda right now.
ReplyDeleteBrenda h.
Through out the article Maureen Dowd expresses her thoughts and opinions on how women are treated, restrictions places on them and how gender apartheid exists in Saudi Arabia. I think Hillary has done more than enough when it comes to expressing her thoughts and beliefs on Female rights. Here in the United States,when change was due to come, people got together and demanded it, Saudi Arabians should learn to do the same. How can she expect to help a country who can’t help themselves. It’s wrong for anyone to be forced to have a strict dress code and code of conduct like in Saudi Arabia but at the same time they should all stand up for whats right and demand change.
ReplyDeleteIn Maureen Dowd’s op-ed “Sing Out, Hillary” the columnist describes the repressive conditions by which Saudi women are forced to live. The progressive King Abdullah is declining in health, giving women limited time to make a difference before his reign ends and the crown is possibly passed to the ultraconservative Price Nayef bin Abdel Aziz. Dowd’s article focuses on the involvement of Hillary Clinton, a known female rights activist, and on complaints that she has not done enough to ensure that the Saudi women are freed from their tyrannical treatment.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that to maintain diplomacy our nation must ignore cries of help from oppressed citizens abroad is a cynical outlook on our international relations. Do we have to choose between diplomacy and human rights? We have always been proud to fight for human rights abroad. Particularly now, when Saudi Arabia is under a relatively progressive regime, Hillary Clinton should press harder for women’s rights. Arguing the issue does not mean we have to surrender our diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia – negotiations are in the definition of diplomacy. In an evolving world that is beginning to accept all human rights, we cannot sit back and watch those rights being violated.
-Phoebe W.
In her article, Maureen Dowd talks about the unfair treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and how US diplomat Hilary Clinton is dealing with it. Dowd says that despite Hilary's 1995 human rights speech in China when she was First-Lady, she is staying out the struggle for women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The way the article is written suggests that Dowd wants Hilary to advocate for those women who want their rights. I think that what those women deal with is terrible, but they are treated the way they are because it is and has been their culture. The US thinks it's terrible and wants to help, but the US doesn't understand why women are treated the way they are, because it is a culture thing. Women aren't killed for not wearing headscarves or beaten or banned from driving in the US, so we naturally think that those women need to be helped, without thinking about the culture difference. The US does have a habit of meddling with other countries' affairs-China even called us out for that, but even if we are meddling, we always have good intentions. I ideally think that it would be great for Hilary to go into Saudi Arabia and advocate for women's rights. But when she advocated for human rights in China, she was a first-lady, not a diplomat. So because she is trying to keep good relations with other countries, she made a wise decision of staying out of it, considering the situation caused her to be "stuck between a rock and a hard place." I think that those women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia should keep fighting for their rights. It is their country and they have experienced so much oppression and strife, so they deserve to have rights not just as women but as humans. I think that if Hilary wasn't a diplomat, she would be over in Saudi Arabia standing tall right next to those women.
ReplyDelete-Elise K.
Maureen Dowd depicts the oppressive control of the Saudi Arabian government over women throughout their country. Murder, abuse, and terror are part of the daily life of Saudi women, who are initiating a battle against this long standing tyranny. This article portrays Hillary Clinton as a disappointment thus far in standing up for women’s right as she has done with pride previously. Clinton has taken a passive approach to relieving Saudi women of the injustice they suffer. As Secretary of State, Clinton adopts a diplomatic strategy for fighting this atrocity, but as human being she has not campaigned for the advancement of women with her full capacity. Diplomacy does not necessarily need to be sacrificed in order to protect individual rights. If a choice between the two is necessary, then Clinton has a responsibility, not only as a world leader but more importantly as an individual who has a voice, to advocate for Saudi women. It is important to use diplomacy when negotiating with foreign countries, but it is more important to do what is moral and promote justice.
ReplyDeleteHannah R
Maureen Dowd gives a very vivid and brutally honest depiction of the Saudi-Arabian government and their gender oppression. However, the argument that Hilary Clinton should voice her opinion more is one I agree with to a certain extent. The fact is that the Saudi-Arabian government is harsh and unfair to women, but will Hilary voicing a louder opinion change values that are deeply built within a religion and country?
ReplyDeleteI believe she should have made a statement empowering and backing up the women brave enough to voice their opinions, but as she stated “this is not about the United States. It’s not about what any of us on the outside say.” That’s the truth of the matter, and in regards to peace and diplomacy vs. the rights of those in the country, I do believe the U.S should voice their opinion and give input to the issue, after we settle the problems within our country.
-Teewon R