All Saudi Arabia Needs is Love
by Racialicious special correspondent Fatemeh Fakhraie
This sloppy article from CNN talks about how Saudi Arabia overreacts to Valentine’s Day every year and bans all things red in an attempt to quash any plans Saudis have to celebrate the holiday. The Saudi government considers Valentine’s Day to be un-Islamic and thus bans roses, teddy bears, and all things Valentine-related.
So the article starts out decently enough, talking about why Saudi Arabia discourages the holiday, describing the black market for roses that pops up, and speaks with a Saudi blogger for his perspective.
Then, CNN tacks on a three-paragraph description of how difficult women have it in the kingdom, complete with two of the most recent cases that have drawn international attention. Which has…what…to do with Valentine’s Day?
Attaching this to the end of an article about Valentine’s Day makes it seem like CNN blames all of Saudi Arabia’s problems with women on the fact that the government doesn’t recognize the holiday. Well, that solves it. All we have to do is invade Saudi Arabia and liberate them so they can celebrate Valentine’s Day. That should clear up everything nicely.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Wendi Muse wrote:
lol
i *heart* this piece (yeah, the cheesy heart this was because of v-day)
maybe i should move to saudi arabia, where my detesting valentine’s day will be accepted….hmmm
i wonder how much is a plane ticket…
but to be serious now…i hate how the press dumbs down certain issues and hypes up others, especially when it comes to societies abroad. sure, saudi arabia has probs when it comes to equality for women. so let’s discuss that like adults and stop spending the day looking at our belly button trying to find the truth. the mainstream media needs to go through puberty before they report on anything else.
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 8:40 am ¶
AJ wrote:
Fatemah, Wendi –
I’ve read and reread this article three times now, and i don’t understand your criticism.
Are you saying that the Saudi government’s move to ban Valentine’s Day is somehow not connected with the official view of women?
It seems to me that the writer of this article was not “sloppy” or immature but was instead, trying to put this government policy into context. I read it as an attempt to answer the obvious question that any reader would have, i.e., “Why would the government of Saudi Arabia be at all concerned with Valentine’s Day? What’s their problem with it?”
Seems to me that this is part of the job of being a journalist.
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 11:18 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
i reread the article too, and it jumps from a ban on red and valentine’s day goods to criticisms of the nation’s treatment of women, which, in my eyes, are totally disconnected. not to mention, it is completely sloppy, giving little context to the quotations used and containing little to no sentence flow. i think that an article on saudi arabian government objections to certain holiday gear would be fine, but why throw the women’s rights element in their with no real background or connection? it reminds me of the old articles i’d read on afghanistan, pre-war against terrorism, that would switch from the heroin exportation problem to burkas out of nowhere.
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
AJ wrote:
drawing a connection between opium production and the oppression of women would be an egregious stretch, i grant you.
but i don’t agree that this valentine’s day nonsense has no connection to the nation’s treatment of women.
i thought it was a given that sexual repression is simply another handy tool for keeping the womenfolk in line?
am i missing something here? please explain.
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 1:16 pm ¶
Viviana wrote:
I don’t know about other “womenfolk” but celebrating Valentine’s Day, an over-commercialized holiday, doesn’t sexually liberate me! Just keep in mind Valentine’s Day doesn’t equal a nation of happy women…I just don’t see how getting flowers one day a year makes me an equal citizen…
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
Not celebrating Valentine’s Day is hardly akin to sexual repression. Good heavens, you are elevating it into something totally more important than it is.
There is NOTHING wrong with the Saudi government banning holidays that have no basis in Islam, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with their simultaneous bad policies against women (which also have no basis in Islam). The thing is that some people act like they are “saving” the Saudi women when they try to encourage more westernized ways. What makes you arrogant people think Saudi women want what you are offering? Half of the things you think are “oppressive” are a matter of personal priority and the women themselves would disagree with you.
“Well, that solves it. All we have to do is invade Saudi Arabia and liberate them so they can celebrate Valentine’s Day. That should clear up everything nicely.” sums it up perfectly. Trying to impose western/non-Muslim ideals and cultural practices upon Muslims, Arabs, and others is NOT the solution.
The typical argument from most Muslims I know (including myself, though I hated Valentine’s before I became Muslim) is that it is stupid to celebrate a day that is not only about a non-Muslim “saint” who we do not revere, but also trivializes the love and affection a husband should give his wife all year long. Frankly, there are plenty of non-Muslims who feel the same way. Is it really in the best interest of Saudi women, does it really serve to make them less oppressed, to allow them to have this ridiculous holiday?
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 4:24 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
aaminah, fatemeh is being sarcastic, unless the “you” you refer to is general or geared toward the author of the cnn article.
i am not trying to speak for fatemeh, but based on her previous criticisms of muslims and islam in the media, this article just falls in line with her grievances, but in a tongue-in-cheek way.
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 8:55 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
Wendy, perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote before you get snarky with me. I quoted Fatemah and said she had summed it up perfectly. I also wrote expressly in agreement with her article, and I don’t think you’ve ever seen me publicly disagree with her here because OBVIOUSLY she and I are coming from the same perspective. My argument is with AJ and others like him, including the CNN journalist. I’m actually surprised that more idiots haven’t said similar things as AJ or worse since I notice that whenever Fatemah writes about something it suddenly becomes a free-for-all against Muslims/Arabs even on this site.
Posted 15 Feb 2008 at 6:55 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
wow, aaminah,
i didn’t mean for my words to be interpreted as snarky at all. i recognize that you often agree with fatemeh, but sometimes people disagree. and as your pronoun antecedent was unclear (i didn’t know who the “you” was…was it cnn, was it fatemeh, was it another comment poster?) it seemed as if you had interpreted fatemeh’s words minus the humor. that is all. i was offering clarity due to a misinterpretation, not trying to start anything.
Posted 15 Feb 2008 at 11:09 am ¶
AJ wrote:
yes. wow.
aaminah, i’ll try to address your points. and i promise i won’t stoop to personal insults, like “idiot” and “arrogant.”
first of all, this is no anti-Muslim “free-for-all.” i was simply responding, again, to what i see as fatemah’s tortured logic in attempting to prove an anti-Muslim bias in Western media.
does this bias exist? quite possibly.
is that the case in this particular instance?
if there is, i honestly don’t see it, and here’s why i say that:
1) the saudi government (NOT Islam) is officially, and quite openly, contemptuous of any person who is born a woman. (yes, i’m presenting this as a factual statement, and not an opinion. if you disagree, please tell me why.)
2) the move to ban st. valentine’s day has nothing to do with religion. i say that because, a) it’s not a religious holiday, and b), the justification quoted in the article is stated plainly: the holiday “encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women.”
it seems to me that the argument that this new policy has no connection whatsoever with the (male-dominated) society’s contempt for women is disingenuous, at best. i think it much more likely that it’s just flat-out false.
i also think that your choice of words here is very telling:
“Is it really in the best interest of Saudi women, does it really serve to make them less oppressed, to allow them to have this ridiculous holiday?”
it’s funny, i may be off-base here, but i feel that no woman, ANYwhere, should have to accept men telling her what she is or is not “allowed” to do.
it seems to me that men telling women what they are “allowed” is always, fundamentally, tied to sexuality.
and i think that’s the crux of our disagreement.
if you honestly feel that this qualifies me as “arrogant” and an “idiot,” then so be it.
i think you’re wrong.
Posted 15 Feb 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶
Hijabisoverrated wrote:
I don’t think one should state as clear fact what the banning is all about without knowing the the history on the ulema and how they come to these conclusions. The ban isn’t really on V-day but on buying of roses etc.
The ulema (highly learned) are in agreement that the celebration of pagan holiday’s is highly disliked but they couldn’t ban it outright because there are a lot of non muslims living in the country and they have a right to celebrate as they see fit. This way, they celebrate it at a premium; since the ban raised red roses to 30.00 or more.
The ban has nothing to do with women seriously. If you knew any history on how the ulema of Saudi make decisions you would know that this red rose thing is consistant with their over all stance agaisnt free mixing between the sexes.
1st they banned camera phones because people would send lewd photo’s or just regular pictures of women without their permission to others. Then they banned blue tooth becuase its well known that men sit in coffee shops all day waiting on women to walk pass so they can blue tooth them and see if they can start up a chat. However, both of these have since been over turned and people bluetooth, and send photo’s till the cows come home.
The V-day issue is really more about making the adverage non muslims day a bit harder, not about making a womans day any worst.
Posted 15 Feb 2008 at 9:30 pm ¶
Viviana wrote:
AJ and Aaminah:
I’m trying to read your comments except I’m distracted by your misspelling of FatemEh’s name. It’s not FatemAh, it’s FatemEh.
Posted 16 Feb 2008 at 2:24 am ¶
luckyfatima wrote:
celebrating valentines day has spread all over the world as a commercial, capitalist holiday and evidence of the take over of American pop-culture in every nation. Hindu fundamentalists of the BJP party in India have also had their photos in the US papers for harassing shop keepers who carry Valentines supplies, and burning Valentines paraphernelia. It isn’t just the Muslim moral police who are anti-V-day. It really is a piece of Western/American culture that is completely out of context in most places, but piped in to suck the blood of people with US dominance and capitalism. i think legally punishing people for celebrating it is extreme, but there should be more public awareness from people who do not want to have a colonized mind and wallet.
Secondly, every year there are post- Valentines Day pictures in US newspapers of the daft Muslim killjoys (this year I saw one of Pakistanis) who so irrationally and pedantically voice their dislike of the take over US culture, oops I mean their dislike of the benign celebration of Love…this is propaganda to otherize those who are not like “us,” the Love Day loving American. As in, Muslims hate puppies and butterflies, too. And Valentines. Them Moozlems are so awful, they’re barely human.
Posted 17 Feb 2008 at 3:34 am ¶
AJ wrote:
apologies, fatemeh, for misspelling your name.
but i still don’t see it.
i just don’t buy the argument that this is about resisting cultural imperialism, or anything like that.
to me, this ban is all about stamping out ANYthing that might encourage sexual liberation (and i can’t believe that i’m typing those words in the year 2008).
and, like i said, that impulse has always been about keeping the women in the kitchen, where they “belong.”
the gov’t of saudi arabia is so far beyond the pale when it comes to its view of women that i don’t see how this escapes you.
and, yes, they are really, really out there. completely around the bend.
look, i can’t state it any plainer than this:
when the saudi government stops punishing rape victims and starts punishing rapists, then i’ll start to take your arguments seriously.
Posted 18 Feb 2008 at 11:29 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
AJ, my assertion has nothing to do with the Saudi government. My personal feelings about the Saudi government’s view of women have nothing to do with this article, so I leave them out.
My assertion is that the article implies that Valentine’s Day is all Saudi Arabian women need to be full and equal citizens. And I think that this idea is stupid. Candy hearts and roses once a year don’ t make women valuable human beings all year round in any country.
Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
Viviana wrote:
AJ: How does Valentine’s Day, in your opinion, encourage and/or promote women sexuality or sexual liberation? Sexual liberation is very important but fixing this one issue will not solve all of Saudi Arabian women’s problems.
And it bugs when you’re not commenting on the article and instead going on a tirade against the Saudi government. I’m not saying that I or that other people agree or approve of the Saudi government’s treatment/attitudes towards women, but it seems like you insist on using this article as a way to show us how much you know whats best for these women.
Posted 20 Feb 2008 at 3:24 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
Fatemeh, thanks for the article. I read it and I don’t agree with your assessment.
I don’t think CNN implied that Valentine’s Day would be the apotheosis of freedom and equality for Saudi women nor do they indict the religion of Islam. They cite the government’s reason for the ban and put it in the context of other examples of gender oppression. They also quote a dissenting Saudi citizen, as a way of not attempting to speak for all Saudis or characterizing them as homogenously pro-oppression fanatics. Frankly, I think it’s a good thing to have reported on. More political and human-interest coverage from around the world is something I like to see. I would think it more problematic if U.S media ignored this sort of thing.
If anything the article suffers from being overly short and clumsily edited, probably because it’s a summary of a piece they did on television.
Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 6:41 pm ¶
Occams Razor wrote:
The issue of Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia and the ban on Valentine’s Day are not completely connected or disconnected. The reason why the Saudi government wants to ban Valentines day is because they practice an extremely strict form of Islam which does pretty much everything it can to separate males and females who are not married. They see Valentine’s day as an event which would “encourage” unmarried women and men to get together.
As for women’s rights - the belief that unmarried men and women must be separated at all costs is insulting to both men and women - it says that men can’t control themselves and women can’t look after themselves. By banning valentine’s day, the Saudi Government is treating all its citizens like children. It’s as if they think men and women would have wild sex orgies if left alone for 10 minutes. And that’s a very sad position to take.
Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 5:39 am ¶