Saudi Women Protest Their Country's Partnership With Uber

[Kuwaiti Girl]

Saudi Women Protest Their Country's Partnership With Uber
https://www.good.is/articles/saudi-women-driving-ban



Women in Saudi Arabia are standing up in opposition to the kingdom’s $3.5 billion investment in Uber. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women from driving and the investment is seen as a way for the country and Uber to profit from oppression. To travel freely, women in the conservative Islamic country are forced to either be driven by a male family member or pay for services such as Uber.

“They’re investing in our pain, in our suffering,” Hatoon al-Fassi, a Saudi women’s historian who teaches at Qatar University, said. “This institutionalizes women’s inferiority and dependency, and it turns women into an object of investment.” Women in Saudi Arabia who are caught behind the wheel are subject fines and, in some cases, flogging. To protest Uber’s partnership with the kingdom, Saudi women have posted pictures of themselves deleting the Uber app from their phones on social media.

Jill Hazelbaker, an Uber spokeswoman, says the partnership gives women additional transportation options in spite of the driving ban. “Of course we think women should be allowed to drive,” she told The New York Times. “In the absence of that, we have been able to provide extraordinary mobility that didn’t exist before – and we’re incredibly proud of that.” On a macro level, it appears the Saudi government and Uber are colluding to profit from a captive market: oppressed women.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

@Zaki @Jungibaaz kindly take notice of fake news.

 

[Jungibaaz]

@Zaki @Jungibaaz kindly take notice of fake news.

What part of this is fake? I've looked it up and it's not just this article reporting it.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Picture is not related to this article.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

What part of this is fake? I've looked it up and it's not just this article reporting it.

The picture. Its okay if it does not appear fake to you.

 

[Jungibaaz]

The picture. Its okay if it does not appear fake to you.

The picture isn't directly related, but that's not the same thing as the article being fake news.
A petty thing it is, I'll edit it, but the article stays unless you can prove it is fake.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

The picture isn't directly related, but that's not the same thing as the article being fake news.
A petty thing it is, I'll edit it, but the article stays unless you can prove it is fake.

Okay the article is not fake, despite not showing a single proof of protest and using a fake image for the news. It could be that the author might have spoken to saudi woman through personal communication mean about which he quotes in the article as the basis of the story, but that still does not count for a protest while the picture shown is fake too.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Okay the article is not fake, despite not showing a single proof of protest and using a fake image for the news. It could be that the author might have spoken to saudi woman through personal communication mean about which he quotes in the article as the basis of the story, but that still does not count for a protest while the picture shown is fake too.

First of all the picture posted in the article was not even 'fake', merely unrelated. Perhaps it wasn't even Saudi women in the picture. But this is the style of articles these days, not all pictures are original content or directly related.

However... if you had read the article, which I'm sure by the sound of it, you haven't. Nowhere did the article in content reference that picture, nowhere did that picture have a caption. Instead it goes on to talk about Saudi women using social media, tweets and pictures of themselves deleting Uber app in protest:

I do suggest you actually read the article now. If you for whatever bias still believe that the above picture too is 'fake' or unrelated, then I suggest you reverse image search it, it will show you it's from Saudi protest.

And as I've already said. They are not the only people reporting about this:

http://edgardaily.com/en/life/2016/why-saudi-s-35bn-investment-in-uber-is-bad-news-32001
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...arabia-hasn-t-gone-down-well-with-saudi-women
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/b...among-saudi-women-over-exploitative-uber-deal
https://truthaboutwomenoftheworld.wordpress.com/lets-drive/

Any reasonable person now would give up and conclude that it is not fake news. But from experience, I know you might still respond. Good luck to you.

 

[Jugger]

This is a very important topic and must be discussed throughout. Woman should be allowed to drive, it is absolutely necessary in today's times for example in case of emergency a women can drive and reach for help insted of waiting for a man to come and help get out.
Such reforms are mandatory for Saudi Arabia.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

First of all the picture posted in the article was not even 'fake', merely unrelated. Perhaps it wasn't even Saudi women in the picture. But this is the style of articles these days, not all pictures are original content or directly related.

However... if you had read the article, which I'm sure by the sound of it, you haven't. Nowhere did the article in content reference that picture, nowhere did that picture have a caption. Instead it goes on to talk about Saudi women using social media, tweets and pictures of themselves deleting Uber app in protest:

View attachment 373313

I do suggest you actually read the article now. If you for whatever bias still believe that the above picture too is 'fake' or unrelated, then I suggest you reverse image search it, it will show you it's from Saudi protest.

And as I've already said. They are not the only people reporting about this:

http://edgardaily.com/en/life/2016/why-saudi-s-35bn-investment-in-uber-is-bad-news-32001
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...arabia-hasn-t-gone-down-well-with-saudi-women
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/b...among-saudi-women-over-exploitative-uber-deal
https://truthaboutwomenoftheworld.wordpress.com/lets-drive/

Any reasonable person now would give up and conclude that it is not fake news. But from experience, I know you might still respond. Good luck to you.

Oh dear God!.
Why I mentioned you .

Please tag me on other articles where the pictures shown even does include the people being discusses rather the picture is telling a quite opposite story as compared to the original situation. "Merely" irrelevant should not be the word in such situations.

I had to read the article twice because of your post. There are 5 parts of the article which is used in OP.
First part is about a fake, strictly irrelevant and quite contradicting picture as compared to the title.
Second part is a general commenting and discussion.
Third part is based on personal account of a Saudi woman which the author quotes as only example of the article without linking the tweets and other proves which are present in the articles you posted.
4th part is simple Uber deleting dialogue box.
5th part is about general information of the deal.

Using a picture without caption and not referring the picture in the content is also against the standards of professional writings.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Oh dear God!.
Why I mentioned you .

Please tag me on other articles where the pictures shown even does include the people being discusses rather the picture is telling a quite opposite story as compared to the original situation. "Merely" irrelevant should not be the word in such situations.

I had to read the article twice because of your post. There are 5 parts of the article which is used in OP.
First part is about a fake, strictly irrelevant and quite contradicting picture as compared to the title.
Second part is a general commenting and discussion.
Third part is based on personal account of a Saudi woman which the author quotes as only example of the article without linking the tweets and other proves which are present in the articles you posted.
4th part is simple Uber deleting dialogue box.
5th part is about general information of the deal.

Using a picture without caption and not referring the picture in the content is also against the standards of professional writings.

Okay, please never mention me again. Keep to your rock solid and impenetrable wilful ignorance.

The article is fine as it is, and I've proved it, but you're stubbornness doesn't require any effort on my part for a response.
No mod will show up here and take this article down either, anyone who's half as reasonable as they need to be could see who's in the right here.

Auf Wiedersehen.

 

[The SC]

Saudi Women Protest Their Country's Partnership With Uber
https://www.good.is/articles/saudi-women-driving-ban



Women in Saudi Arabia are standing up in opposition to the kingdom’s $3.5 billion investment in Uber. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women from driving and the investment is seen as a way for the country and Uber to profit from oppression. To travel freely, women in the conservative Islamic country are forced to either be driven by a male family member or pay for services such as Uber.

“They’re investing in our pain, in our suffering,” Hatoon al-Fassi, a Saudi women’s historian who teaches at Qatar University, said. “This institutionalizes women’s inferiority and dependency, and it turns women into an object of investment.” Women in Saudi Arabia who are caught behind the wheel are subject fines and, in some cases, flogging. To protest Uber’s partnership with the kingdom, Saudi women have posted pictures of themselves deleting the Uber app from their phones on social media.

Jill Hazelbaker, an Uber spokeswoman, says the partnership gives women additional transportation options in spite of the driving ban. “Of course we think women should be allowed to drive,” she told The New York Times. “In the absence of that, we have been able to provide extraordinary mobility that didn’t exist before – and we’re incredibly proud of that.” On a macro level, it appears the Saudi government and Uber are colluding to profit from a captive market: oppressed women.

Isn't Uber like Taxi, but in an improved shell/concept?
On the green part, should one say that on a macro level, all governments of the world and Taxi corporations are colluding to profit from a captive market, people who do not own a car?