In Saudi Arabia,
it is so rare to hear that a group of people protested a law, or broke some
rules in order to get some rights. However, a number of women in Saudi protested
few days ago hoping to get their right of driving cars. A lot of opinions were given
on that event around the world, in the Saudi community itself there was very
different opinion. So I involved the Saudi perspective to be compared to, and
as a first party of the issue, and the other party is the American Community. The
reason I chose that particular Saudi text is because I think it is the most
popular article discussing the issue since it has been everywhere in Saudi. It
is a text written by Dr. Hind Alqahtani, who is a dean of the Academic Affairs
in AL-Qassim University. On the American side, the first was written by Max
Fisher who has a master's degree in security studies from Johns Hopkins
University. The second text was written by Elliot Hannon who is a writer and producer
for NPR News and Slate.com. The Saudi and American articles that wrote about women
driving cars in Saudi have many differences in content due to the audiences’
interests. The focus of the articles was different because of the cultural
background that emphasize different rhetorical modes.
In the article “Where does women driving fall?” Dr. Hind Alqahtani’s
supported the prohibition of women driving cars in Saudi, she strengthen her
opinion by reasoning and comparing the issue to more important issues that have
to be solved first. Dr. Alqahtani said explained that the main argument of protesters
is reducing the large numbers of expats who work as drivers which can lead to
lower expenses for families as a result, she then asked if that is the case of
neighboring countries. Dr. Alqahtani argued that allowing women to drive would
affect child-rearing, since house servants will replace the task of mothers who
will be less often around, she wondered why we did not hear of a movement
called “I will take care of my house by myself”. Dr. Alqahtani followed her
argument with some of the society’s problems that is not paid attention by the aristocratic
class, she talked about 90 thousand women teachers teach in remote villages who
need to travel for three hours on dangerous roads, she also spook about
32% of women population who are widows or divorced living with insufficient
government subsidies. She then left us to answer her questions of why CNN or AL
Arabiya did not even mention those problems, “For whose benefit we turned our
backs to Palestine, Egypt, and Bahrain?” she also asked. She continued asking
Why “women driving movement” appeared now in this time after the Arabic Spring,
after a first try after the Gulf War?, Dr. Alqahtani said “I am writing these
words while Netanyahu is bothering our ears in the U.S. Congress”. She
concluded her article by saying “where does “women driving” fall between all
that? I do not know. However, I know that we will lose a lot as the world has
lost when they forget the truth that says “male and female are different”.
On the other hand, most of the American opinions focused on the
humans rights and the economical side. Commenting
on women driving, Max Fisher said “Saudi
Arabian women are subject to some of the most severe legal restrictions in the
world”, even though the government of Saudi gave the women some rights like the
right to vote, running in municipal elections, and by sending two female
athletics to the Olympics, a runner and a judo fighter to compete in London. Another
opinion covered the economical side of the issue, and the benefits that will be
gained as a result. Elliot Hannon said that women were protested the country’s
prohibition on female driving cars by getting behind the wheel anyway. Hannon
explained “the idea that women driving is somehow un-Islamic has been debunked
by some Saudi leaders within the country”, and that there is no law in Saudi
prohibits issuing driving licenses to women. Hannon
gave an economical reason of allowing women to drive by saying, according to Oxford Strategic Consulting last year; there will be a significant benefit behind having more women in
workplaces. In case Saudi raised the number of women in workplaces to 40% of workers,
it would increase the GDP to $17 billion per annum, and “it
could add $58bn in revenues to Saudi companies as well as”. Hannon then argued
that allowing women to drive will help them get to work, which is going to be a
good start in a country looking to diversify its petro-economy.
After reading the
two perspectives, it is better to start with the similarities, because it has
always been better to start with common parts. Let’s look at the rhetorical
modes that both essays had in common. Both sides who reported the issue and
commented on it started with describing the actual event then viewing the timeline
of the event, like when did it start, how many were protesting, and how did it
end. Regarding rhetorical modes, logos were used in the Saudi article in
several places to back up the argument that was made, Dr. Hind argued that if
women were allowed to drive, they will not be at home as much, which means that
servants will take a more effective part in raising the children, which is a
negative consequence of women driving. The author here moved from one point to
another in an acceptable approach, so if you accepted the first point you
should be accepting the second, which is called a deductive argument in
philosophy. Logos or persuading methods were used in the American articles as
well with the same way of building argument. For instance, Hannon argued that
by allowing women to drive, it will be easier for women to go to work, and that
encourages more women to go to work, which lead to increase the economic
situation of the country. So both articles described the same event with the
same argument building structures, but they both arrived to different results
that back up every one’s goal of the argument.
Regarding the
differences, there were more differences than similarities. Every party’s
credibility was different, and everyone wrote on a different rhetorical mode
that matches his or her relationship to the audience or to the people of the
issue. Dr. Hind started her article saying “I’m writing these next lines
because I am a Saudi woman”, by saying that the reader would trust her because
she is relevant and directly affected by the issue. In contrast, being far from
the event just like the American side will weaken the opportunities of
persuading the reader unless they were highly aware of the subject. That was
the reason why the American articles focused so much on giving numbers and
studies to be more accurate and trusted, we see that clear when Hannon based
his whole argument on the Oxford Strategic Consulting study. The same strategy was
used by Max Fisher when he list some rights that were recently giving to women
in Saudi Arabia and the dates of them, which can be seen as a graph of Saudi
women rights. However, the Saudi Article used pathos well, as we see that Dr. Alqahtani
asked questions about the hidden purposes of the movement, and when she threw examples
of other issues that are more important from her point of view and then asked
why those issues did not get the same amount of attention. Dr. Alqahtani played
deeply with the audience’s emotions by mentioning the issue of Palestine and Netanyahu bothering their ears, and then reminding them that they should stay united
because of their mission as the heart of the Islamic world, and being a citizen
in the country that happened to be responsible about the area and Middle East.
All of the
writers put in mind the nature of the audience that they are writing to, and
what interests them. It has been said that Arabs loves eloquence, and literary
figures have always taken the lead of countries through all the Arabic history.
-As a clarification, the main miracle of the only Arabic Prophet, Prophet Mohammed-
peace be upon him-
was the Quran, which challenged Arabs to write even a single line close to The
level of fluency of the Quran-. Therefore Dr. Hind, tried to be as fluent as she
can, by writing in short sentences that have a kind of rhythm, and some
historical or religious phrases. Another point that she attempted to emphasize
was simulation feelings when she reminded Saudis whether they were males or
females of their religious goal, since Saudi is a religious country and
religion always comes first for its people. However; the American side used activists
language of human rights the most, those opinions supported their position by
accusing Saudi of limiting the freedom of women, and treat them in a lower way
comparing to men. That language is perfect to use in American society, because
human studies and women rights are the focus of view, and because this is how
Americans see equivalent to be. Another different was the style of writing and
the use of language. In the American style the writers wrote their articles in
paragraphs, those paragraphs almost have an equal amount of words. Also each
point was discussed in a separate paragraph. In contrast, the Saudi author was
going from a pint to another without separating them into paragraphs. Sometimes
she wrote six lines full of words in a row, but sometimes she wrote only couple
of words in each line, so there was no particular format for her Arabic style
of writing. Those differences belong to the why how every writer has been
taught, and he or she believes that readers will find it easy to read.
In conclusion, there
was one issue which is women driving cars in Saudi, however; we saw how each society
argued in a different way, so we ended up having different content and
believes. Each writer attempt to answer
the questions that he or she came up with, also each article reflected the
culture of the writer, and the thinking way of that society. The American
articles reflected the American culture that treats women as it treats men, no
one is better and both are equal. At the other side the Saudi article showed
how women have their unique kind of treatment which is different from men, but
also still no one is better and both are equal. The two societies have
different definitions of equivalent, what is it equal in the Saudi society is
seen as racism against women, and what is it equal in the American society seen
as disrespecting the essence of women. The Saudi Article used the language of
emotions and historical rhetoric the most since it is the most effective way to
persuade the Saudi community. While in the American articles more logical methods
and logos modes were used, because Americans always want to know “why”. At the
end, no doubt that there are things need to be changed or improved in Saudi,
and women driving is one of those problems; but is it the right time to allow a
turning point to happen?. Not all of the people in Saudi agree to legalize
women driving, not even close to half of the population. So that would create
worse problems than what could be avoided with the right timing. I believe that
Saudi is a unique situation in this world that should not be compared to any
other country.
Works Cited
Max Fisher. Saudi women to drive in mass protest. Www.washingtonpost.com. WP Company LLC. 25 October 2013
Elliot Hannon. Why Should Women Drive in Saudi
Arabia? Here’s Another Reason: the Economy. Www.slate.com. The Slate Group. 28 October 2013.
