I am absolutely shocked that the great liberal New York Times would publish an article of immense length and detail about a young Saudi prince without one mention—ONE MENTION—of the plight of Saudi females.
Women and feminists worldwide sit on the edge of our seats awaiting the moment when the kingdom changes its Dark Ages policy to its female population that does not have the right to drive or to study or travel without the permission of a male “guardian.” And of course, they (and we when visiting the kingdom) cannot appear in public without being covered. The humiliation heaped upon Saudi women, who are treated like children no matter their age, education, or intelligence level is abhorrent.
Dear New York Times, and the TWO GUYS who wrote the piece. The treatment of women MATTERS to women (and a great deal of men). Even if you did not know and were not able to discover the young prince’s policy toward Saudi women, you should have at least have mentioned that his position has not been disclosed.
However, if you’d spent a fraction of the time digging into his history with women or his comments about women as you did his purchase of a yacht, you probably could have come up with a detail or two.
And this, friends, is the problem with a male-dominated, well, a male-dominated, male-run, all-male ANYTHING. They simply forget the women. Yes, forget to mention them or worry over the treatment or status of HALF THE POPULATION at all.
I’m sure that Pulitzer Prize-winning Mark Mazzetti and Middle East Correspondent Ben Hubbard consider themselves quite liberal when it comes to women’s issues. That is an educated guess from many years of reading the New York Times and following some of its writers and columnists.
The problem is that when considering “important” political issues and international affairs, they do not consider women at all.