Post #20,942
12/10/01 5:03:20 PM
|
Reinstate it - BeeP (of all people) corroborated it!
Don: Just did a little googling trying to find some kind of number for federal female employees in Saudi Arabia. Nothing. BeeP found it for you. From his linked [link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-24-mcsally.htm|article:] The State Department policy ... "Embassy women are not expected to wear... Apparently there are at least SOME women in U.S. federal employ in Saudi Arabia, and they are NOT required to wear sacks. Furthermore, from that article, what major McSally suggested seems to have been not that she be allowed to run around in halter-tops or bikinis, but "that women should be able to wear their uniforms on official business and dress in long pants and long-sleeve shirts when off-duty". Oh yeah, and she isn't there Attacking A Son Of Saudi for purely US-egotistic reasons -- well, at least not officially -- either, but "flew her A-10 Warthog jet 100 hours over southern Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone [, and] now runs search and rescue for that operation"; i.e, she is -- at least officially -- there on *their* request, defending *them* from Big Bad Saddam. Does it *still* seem reasonable to anyone that they be allowed not only to shelter under the wing of her country's generous protection, but also to impose their disgusting old superstitions on her while she goes about providing that very protection for them? If so, then how the fuck do you define "reasonable"?!? Actually, it seems to me BeeP found total corroboration for his opponents' original view, and rebuttal for his own... Big of ya to post it, Bill! :-) Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #20,949
12/10/01 6:01:58 PM
|
Yup.
And I must say after reading about the State Dept. and Saudi policies, the US military does seem more restrictive than necessary. I agree that it doesn't seem fair, and it sounds like the military is being arbitrary. I don't know what sort of deal was cut for/about our presence there, either. Having foreign military on your soil just might be considered a big deal... I don't know whether or not it entered into negotiations at all or not, though. Unless I hear/find out more about it, I would have to say that she might have a point, and as long as she's not disobeying orders, she is justified in taking this through the appropriate channels. If the Saudis do not require it, why should the military, after all? Of course, if the Saudis DO require it, all I said before still stands.
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Post #20,954
12/10/01 8:59:03 PM
|
not really...
The State Department policy, updated in an embassy memo last August, says men and women should dress conservatively. Women, it says, should wear long dresses and avoid trousers.
It adds, "Embassy women are not expected to wear abayas when out on official business. ... The guidance issued by the Saudi Embassy in Washington states that non-Muslim women are not required to wear an abaya but should dress conservatively" when in public, including loose-fitting dresses draped well below the knees with long sleeves and a high neckline.
The memo notes that some Western women, especially those living in the more conservative areas such as Riyadh, wear an abaya "in order to avoid harassment" by the mutawa. Even so, "harassment still occurs," the memo says. Of course...bold added to highlight the appropriate section. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,138
12/12/01 7:36:18 AM
|
Seems it only notes that they DO; doesn't say HAVE TO.
And, "wear an abaya 'in order to avoid harassment' by the mutawa. Even so, 'harassment still occurs,' the memo says"?!?
So you are saying she should be *forced*, _by her own superiors_, to go out of her way and humiliate herself -- in order to avoid APPARENTLY _NON_-SANCTIONED "harassment" from an out-of-control organ of the very state she's there to help defend?
Wouldn't it make more sense for those superiors to say, "She's a US soldier here to defend you country. Since you seem to have 'issues' with clothing, we'll order all our soldiers (male as well as female) to wear uniform -- an outfit that clearly states this is a member of your greatest ally's military, here defending YOU on YOUR request -- at all times, on duty as well as off."?
And then add, under their breath, "So reign in your fuckwit 'mutawa', or bear the consequences: if they DARE to harass a member of your greatest ally's military, here defending YOU on YOUR request, then they'll be treated just like any other rag-head in the world that pisses us off."
The fact that they're NOT already saying exactly that (which has nothing at all to do with Saudian oil, oh no, nooo...) is why America is seen as such a gigantic hypocrite by the world. If only you guys could get your act together and act a little more consistently, I'm sure at least a lot more Europeans would respect you a little more -- and, heck, for all I know, so would probably quite a few rag-heads, too!
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #21,143
12/12/01 9:32:10 AM
|
So you are all in favor...
...of our continued lack of respect for other cultures.
Thats cool.
I'm not.
I've seen "ugly American" syndrome. I'm not a big fan.
When were you indoctrinated into different cultures? When was a 2nd language demanded of you?
We used to be able to afford ignorance...because so many of us stayed within our borders. Now its a penalty...and a very big problem.
And this kind of crap just makes that issue more pronounced.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,147
12/12/01 10:01:00 AM
|
Nice two step
Elegantly side stepping the point there Beep. Instead of addressing the issue that only the military female employees are ordered to wear a sack, you bring up the ugly american argument. Slick. Hard to defend against when it isn't the point that was being discussed originally. The State Department itself has guidelines for dress that are less restrictive than the military orders.
-quote
Dress. Although Westerners have some leeway in dress and social contacts within company residential compounds, both men and women should dress conservatively in public. Women's clothing should be loose fitting and concealing, with high necks, skirts worn well below the knee, and sleeves below the elbow. It is recommended that women not wear pants.
-endquote
[link|http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/sa1/wwwhcn29.html|[link|http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/sa1/wwwhcn29.html|http://usembassy.st...wwhcn29.html]]
From what I remember of dress uniforms, they should fit the bill. Of course, work uniforms don't make it, the "no pants" guideline rules that out.
The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you say, but the way you belittled and ridiculed the pilot trying to change what she sees as unfair treatment does you no credit.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #21,152
12/12/01 10:19:35 AM
|
Upthread
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=20954|My previous post] where even the State Department recommends wearing the "sack" in the Riyadh area...where the military compound just happens to be located.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #21,156
12/12/01 10:46:24 AM
|
Yeah. And?
I read it. Recommend vs. order. You still did the logic two step in the post I was responding to.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #21,153
12/12/01 10:21:23 AM
|
You're making Marlowe's mistake: Conflating...
...Multiculturalism/Cultural Diversity with Moral Relativism; only, you're making it in reverse, compared to him. Where he needlessly blasts "Multiculturalism" because he abhors Moral Relativism, you are allowing Moral Relativism out of a needless zeal to promote Cultural Diversity.
If only you -- both of you -- could see that they aren't the same thing, maybe you'd realize it's possible (and just and good and righteous too, BTW) to defend the one and at the same time condemn the other.
(And no, I *don't* mean defend Moral Relativism and condemn Cultural Diversity! :-)
HTH!
Oh yes, almost forgot: At age five, as I'd think you very well know. Why -- what does it have to do with anything?
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
