"women in Saudi, who have money, can start a business as they wish. They don't have to mix though to make that happen. This also does not mean they are deprived of thier right."
They may not HAVE TO mix to do something for their business, but by putting that restriction on them (and not on men), perhaps you ARE adversely affecting them and their business. Maybe (just an example I'm thinking up here) they'd have to go with a certain supplier because the one they would prefer, the one with the cheaper price, would require them to interact with men. So they are forced to go with the higher priced company to avoid this.
This would directly lead to disadvantaging them and their business, and would, I think, constitute depriving them of their rights because you do not similarly disadvantage male business owners.
I understand the point you're trying to make -- that there is some sort of modified way that women can kind of go about the same sorts of things that men can do there -- so you think that's fair. But as has been said before, separate but equal doesn't really work out to be truly equal.
PM's analogy to racism in the US wasn't completely off the mark; I think it's a relatively good comparison to make. Blacks and whites weren't forced to live in different states, as you said. But blacks DID have to sit in the back of the bus. They had certain sections in restaurants they had to sit in so they weren't mixing with the whites. They had separate schools. A lot of similar situations, I think...
"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."
-- Maya Angelou
"women in Saudi, who have money, can start a business as they wish. They don't have to mix though to make that happen. This also does not mean they are deprived of thier right."
They may not HAVE TO mix to do something for their business, but by putting that restriction on them (and not on men), perhaps you ARE adversely affecting them and their business. Maybe (just an example I'm thinking up here) they'd have to go with a certain supplier because the one they would prefer, the one with the cheaper price, would require them to interact with men. So they are forced to go with the higher priced company to avoid this.
This would directly lead to disadvantaging them and their business, and would, I think, constitute depriving them of their rights because you do not similarly disadvantage male business owners.
I understand the point you're trying to make -- that there is some sort of modified way that women can kind of go about the same sorts of things that men can do there -- so you think that's fair. But as has been said before, separate but equal doesn't really work out to be truly equal.
PM's analogy to racism in the US wasn't completely off the mark; I think it's a relatively good comparison to make. Blacks and whites weren't forced to live in different states, as you said. But blacks DID have to sit in the back of the bus. They had certain sections in restaurants they had to sit in so they weren't mixing with the whites. They had separate schools. A lot of similar situations, I think...
"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."
-- Maya Angelou