While visiting friends during the weekend I heard on the telly an item sternly informing us that driving is deleterious for women's virginity ... at least in Saudi Arabia. Since the noises coming out from the box were competing with the conversation in the room no one got the full story; as many times happens with television stories. This thing, however, did not prevent people from commenting seriously and half-jokingly about the matter.
I think that there is a connection between cars and sex. A quick look at several car adverts would indicate the connection. Sex is used to sell cars as it is used to sell so many other things. The commodification of sex is today a staple ingredient of the neo-liberal mentality.
There is, though, a different kind of connection. Cars and contraceptives, albeit for different reasons, were at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Contraceptives gave one a feeling – sometimes misplaced – of safety. Cars provided the occupant with a mobile flat. Secluded spots, with a view or no view, used to provide the rest. Steamed up car windows provided an element of privacy.
I checked the Saudi item on Google. It concerned a so-called scientific report drawn up by Saudi academics members of the Majlis al-Ifta 'al-A'ali, the largest religious organization in the country. The "scientific" part of the report was drawn up in collaboration with Kamal Subhi, former professor at King Fahd University. The report was sent to all 150 members of the Shura Council, the legislative assembly which has an advisory role. It seemed that these venerable religious academics were horrified at the prospective that women would be allowed to drive in this arch-conservative monarchy.
The debate about whether women should be allowed to drive has been stewing for many years. The report was a reaction rumours that the ban would be reviewed following the controversial ruling that sentenced a 34 year old woman, Shaima Jastaniya, to 10 lashes, because she was caught at the wheel of a car in Jeddah.
This "scientific" report concluded that the lifting of the ban would lead to widespread moral decline. The report predicts that the lifting of the ban would be followed by a rise in homosexuality – both male and female -, pornography and prostitution. It also predicts that – horrors of horrors - "there would no longer be any virgins" within 10 years if women could drive. I do not know whether it was also said that the lifting of the ban would have any effect on climate change.
The report was solidly placed on empirical evidence. In fact, as scientific evidence, Professor Subhi recounted what happened him in a café in a in a Muslim country which is so deprived and corrupted that there is no ban on women drivers: "All the women looked at me." This can be a matter of concern. Unless the venerable professor is as attractive as Richard Geer then one could conclude that aesthetic tastes are going to the dogs wherever women are allowed to drive.
Just a few concluding remards:
The driving ban is nothing but a measure of control devised by man to preserve their authority. A driving ban means lack of female mobility. From the chastity belt to voting or driving bans men have used all sorts of strategem to try to control women.Even scientific reports drawn out by academics should be taken with a pinch of salt. Those who strut around lauding academic and scientific evidence do sometimes have feet of clay.Whenever theology is reduced to an ideology of control, religion stops being a liberating force and is, consequently, adulterated.
Bursting the bubble
Last Saturday's press conference by Alternattiva Demokratika and yesterday's front page story in The Sunday Times are indications that even Sargas has feet of clay. Is it not amazing that a PR exercise by Sargas was conveniently purported to be an objective exposition of commonly accepted scientific conclusions?
One can never stop wondering at the games that politicians and complacent media play to con people in believes that there is a delicious pie in the sky.