Hacker News Reader

Comment by lioeters | Hacker News Reader

Thank you, that's really interesting to hear a first-person perspective about the cultural changes.

> [Allowing] females to marry without consent..may risk a revolt..

Wow, I didn't realize how strongly people (I guess in this case mainly men) felt about this issue. I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in a sensitive manner, as it relates to fundamental values of religion, gender roles, and I suppose power dynamics in society.

View on HN

I think it is a conservative/religious issue mostly. Women are harmed from this so it may be easier for them to change their opinions. However many women hold the same view and are not happy with such changes. The marriage without consent could be possible because there is one sunni maddhap which allow this. (For example in Egypt I think)

My views maybe inaccurate and in general I am pessimistic. However many are not happy with what the current government is doing and any change which may seem clearly against Islam could be the straw that break the camel’s back.

I would like to add that the criticism is lower and maybe in kinder tone due to the low freedom speech ceiling so it is actually hard to gauge the general opinion of current changes in this article.

Almost no body I know talked about this, perhaps many are unhappy with it or afraid of society judgement for supporting such changes.

As a Somali, i am mostly aligned with the Shafi' madh-hab and yes, a woman can be married without consent from a male guardian. This happens in the case where the male guardian refuses to grant permission without any reason. The kadhi thus takes the responsibility. But, Saudi's money and so called Salafism, most Somalis are now only marginally Shafi'.

I see, it's a difficult road to progress.. In a way, I think there are parallels with other civil rights movements elsewhere in the world. People react to it so emotionally, and its connection with religion and politics makes the issue problematic to even talk about.

My hope is that there's a tide of history in the right direction, and although it's a struggle, progress will be achieved and humanity will be kinder to each other. I guess it's easier to be an optimist when I'm not personally involved, though..

For others who were wondering like me, I learned that "madhhab" is a religious school of thought, and different ones dominate in different parts of the world. Apparently, they're quite involved in Islamic legal institutions.

> I'm all for women's rights and liberation, but I see that it must be done in a sensitive manner.

These laws are ruthless and insensitive towards women though...

Change that is successful and actually changes behaviour is preferable. It is surprisingly easy to look at cultural behaviour, find something that should be changed and pick a method of change that has no hope of success. "But they should just <insert whatever you want here>" does not work if they just won't <whatever>. From one perspective things seem clear, but from the perspective of the people involved it may be far from clear.

I've seen well meaning foreign expats set back improvements in their work place by galvanising the opinion of all the locals against them -- even the people who were meant to be helped by the change. You need to tread exceptionally carefully, take your wins where you can take them and wait for another day when you can not win. It's incredibly frustrating when people ignore this truth and destroy huge amounts of work progressing forward.

Edit: missing "not"

They need to be put to shame. By every body.

Yeah, but women need to consider the desires of men who want to keep them oppressed. /s

Replace the word "women" with "black people abducted from Africa" and change the time period to the 15-1800s in the US/Europe. "I'm all for the liberation of enslaved black people, but it needs to be done slowly, in a sensitive manner..." It's amazing how, when you get a religion involved that says oppression is good and right, that you can justify stuff like slavery and oppression.

I get what you mean, especially when compared with historical examples of fighting for civil rights.

The anger from the oppressed, those demanding their rights, is justified. And it does sound absurd to ask anyone to be sensitive to their oppressors' feelings and reaction.

I guess by "sensitive", I meant changing the system together, rather than against each other. But in retrospect, that may be a naive and unrealistic expectation.

If Saudi Arabia continues to improve civil rights for women and there's a "gender riot", angry men on the streets calling for return to "traditional values".. Well, so be it, that might be the price of progress?

Yes, if someone wants to riot because they're no longer allowed to oppress someone else then fuck them.

I agree, but the problem is when 1) those people have large enough numbers to be politically powerful, and even worse 2) when those people have convinced those people they've oppressed that they should be oppressed, so those victims join them in upholding the oppression. When #2 happens in sufficient numbers, I'm not really sure what the answer is, except to lead by example.

"it needs to be done slowly, in a sensitive manner"

I'm not sure "sensitive" is the right word, but I would go for "done in a manner that doesn't lead to mass deaths".

About 600,000 people died in the US civil war. It would have been better if the slaves could have been freed with fewer deaths, even if it took a few years longer.

(Note: I've no idea whether there was any real possibility of that.)

Sounds like one of those "do you want to talk about absolutes, or practical solutions" cases. Sometimes the only options you get are "terrible" or "slightly less terrible". Unless you're up for taking part in a violent revolution, that is.

Violent Revolution, by definition, is going to fall somewhere on the terrible scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com