Jennifer Graham notes that reporters covering Karen Hughes’ recent foray into Middle East diplomacy couldn’t conceal their schadenfreude when Arabs talked back. I believe she specifically references this New York Times article by Steven Weisman, titled “Saudi Women Have Message for U.S. Envoy.” The message? According to the NY Times, it was “We are happy slaves”:
When Ms. Hughes expressed the hope here that Saudi women would be able to drive and “fully participate in society” much as they do in her country, many challenged her.
“The general image of the Arab woman is that she isn’t happy,” one audience member said. “Well, we’re all pretty happy.” The room, full of students, faculty members and some professionals, resounded with applause… [snip]
Many in this region say they resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans.
The group of women, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country. And while they were certainly friendly toward Ms. Hughes, half a dozen who spoke up took issue with what she said.
So is it “many”? Or is it “half a dozen”?
Weisman lets “many” of the women’s quotes go by without providing the reader with some kind of fact-check. For instance:
“There is more male chauvinism in my profession in Europe and America than in my country,” said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital.
“I don’t want to drive a car,” she said. “I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver’s license?”
I have a question: Are women doctors allowed to see male patients in Saudi Arabia?
And another thing: I don’t want to drive a car either. I’m a terrible driver. Texas is a safer place since I moved to NYC. But the difference between me and Dr. Kamal is that I can choose whether I want to drive a car. Why can’t the Times keep things in perspective on these stories?