Saudi's In Bikinis Analysis

Westerners often hear of how oppressed women are in Saudi Arabia. As a result, one might expect these women to be vocal about their challenges living in such a country. However, contrary to the assumption that they are unhappy, they are quick to defend their country, saying that their often overbearing abayas are parts of their tradition. These women say that they still enjoy freedoms and that “[i]t is Western women… who have been manipulated into becoming the toys of men” (Kristof 272). Even so, they still receive unequal treatment from men. Saudi women journalists must stay in their own rooms when they work while men do not. Because of these types of segregated and deleterious practices, Nicholas Kristof argues in his essay “Saudis in Bikinis” that the West is not being paternalistic in trying to advocate for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia; they are trying to free women who have never tasted true liberty. It is

If the author wanted to learn more about Muslim women, she should have sought them out and spent time with them — those who wear hijabs as well as those who don’t. Then, instead of speaking on behalf of Muslim women’s “unheard voice” by talking about her own hijab experiment (“My hijab silenced, but simultaneously, my hijab brought unforgettable words”), she should have asked them to share their own experiences as Muslim women. Then they would have a voice.

"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.

Molly Ivins’s “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but get Rid of Guns” is the authors personal opinion on how guns should be banned from public use; she argues guns only kill that it would be safer to carry a knife or get a dog to protect us. She uses the Second Amendment to back up her argument about guns being only for the well-trained militia. The claim of the argument is Guns are a Danger, so it’s safer to get a knife or a dog. Ivins’s argument is unclear without addressing the main reasons why guns are bad overall.

Abayas, shailas, burkas, and chadors: all are forms of veiling in the Middle East, and all are perceived as symbols of oppression and patriarchy by the West. The veil worn by a Middle Eastern woman is striking and beautiful in its simplicity and elegance. The hijab, the most common form of veiling, leaves only the face visible with the neck and hair completely covered. Onlookers are in awe at the mystery and symbolism associated with the many veils created out of fine, exotic silk. But such notions of oppression and patriarchy often associated with veiling are not only inherently biased and ironic – it would be interesting to explore the symbolism behind a mini-skirt or a pair of five-inch heels, no? – but they are also inaccurate. Although veiling has most definitely been used in the Middle East as a “mechanism in the service of patriarchy, a means of regulating and controlling women’s lives” (Hoodfar, 5), it has also been used as a mode for rebellion and self-expression. Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian woman who grew up during the Islamic revolution, resisted the regime and the universalizing nature of the veil in the hope that she could maintain her individual identity whilst communicating her political ideologies. By examining the way in which the veil is represented in Satrapi’s graphic memoir, Persepolis, while also considering the history of veiling in Iran, it will become evident that the veil is not just a political tool used by male chauvinists; it also presents an

In her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Molly Ivins discusses the highly debated topic of gun control. She argues that guns are an unnecessary evil to all of humanity and that permitting them to inexperienced and unregulated citizens only spoils the national security of the United States of America. Ivins quotes the Second Amendment as saying that guns were primarily intended to be used by a “well-regulated militia”. Thus, she believes that anyone who wants to own a gun should be subject to extensive training: “That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have a gun” (385). Ivins goes on to say that guns are extremely dangerous and they should be banned, or at the very least strictly regulated (384-386). While Ivins reasonably discusses the issue of gun control in her op-ed, she does not adequately support her claims with substantial evidence or research about the negative impacts that guns have had on our society. She also seems unwilling to be open-minded about the opinions of the opposing side, calling them “gun-nuts” with a power hang-up (386). In conclusion, Ivins’ essay is not effective in urging readers who are pro-gun to change their views and she does not help reinforce the beliefs of people who oppose firearms.

Molly Ivins expresses her views on guns in her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, in which she feels guns are only needed for Military and Law Enforcement; the way she explains her opinions give little credibility due to slippery slope, non sequitur, hasty generalization, and ad hominem.

Yet, when one considers the life of a modern woman of an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, this viewpoint is still an issue in today’s world. Arabian women, just as women were in ancient Greece, are put in strata below that of men. This is illustrated by the fact that Saudi women are not allow to have a driver’s license and, therefore, can’t legally drive (washingtonpost.com). Additionally, each woman is lorded over by their male guardian to whom they must permission for anything outside the domain of the

Abu Lugod argued that in order to move past this separation, we must: “First, we need to work against the reductive interpretation of veiling as the quintessential sign of women's unfreedom. Second, we must take care not to reduce the diverse situations and attitudes of millions of Muslim women to a single item of clothing.” (2002:786). As a result, creating a better understanding and better terminology of the “east” will allow feminists in these different social locations to communicate and to create a better strategy to move beyond the basic and into the complicated nature of feminism around the world.

Catherine Williams Professor Michelle Abbott English 1101 26 September 2014 Guns Do Not Kill People, People Kill People In Molly Ivins essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns, she uses her sarcastic humor about the use of guns in the United States. Guns are spoken about every day, in every way. Molly expresses that guns should be banned by the government and should not be used by “normal” people.

Throughout American history, gun control legislation has not always existed. In today’s day and age with the start of technologies and processes, it is easy to produce guns, and that’s why gun control restrictions have been ratified. It is important to understand the reason behind America's view towards guns because it helps you better comprehend the arguments on either side you look at it. Since the first real gun control act in the 1930's, up to today, efforts to ban assault weapons throughout America and gaining knowledge about America's intricate relationship with guns will help the understanding purpose of this essay. How guns correspond and cause an affect with the crime rate can have different predetermined notions. This concept could go one of two ways that banning guns would drastically decrease crime, or on the other hand, if everyone was armed, it would equally decrease crime. The hard part is determining which of these methods would work the best, and once we figure that out, we will have a better understanding of the question “Do Guns Make Society Safer or More Violent?”

There is also a great deal of conflict found in Americans’ misunderstanding and ignorance of issues regarding women’s rights and gender equality within the religion and practices of Islam. In the context of American society, the traditional wear of Muslim women is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. The hijab, which is used to veil the heads of Muslim women, rarely goes unnoticed in the eyes of most Americans. Non-Muslims frequently associate this piece of traditional Islamic attire with ideas of subordination and oppression, while disregarding the religious, cultural, and personal motivations that influence a woman’s decision to wear such an article of clothing. While many American women might view Islamic dress code as being confining and restrictive, many Muslim women feel that their clothing actually frees them from the negative attention that can stem from one’s physical attire and appearance. Wearing hijab liberates women from “the constricting mores governing appearance such as fashion trends and the societal expectations of how a woman should look.” The modest covering of the hair and body allows a woman to walk freely in public without being subjected to the suggestive glances and flirtations of men.

Despite the fact that, since 1968, more than three hundred thousand Americans have been killed by guns. Today, just autos cause more deadly damage. As of late, the normal number of individuals murdered by a handgun for every year is twenty-four thousand. The U.S. Congress and state lawmaking bodies have discussed limitations on gun possession for quite a while. Endeavors to battle crime are best served by concentrating on the criminal component and not with gun control enactment. Hoodlums ought to realize that when they violate the law there will be quick apprehension, indictment, and discipline. Exploration is starting to demonstrate laws don't lessen the measure of brutal crime in our general public. Gun laws have just succeeded in incapacitating the law tolerating and making the criminal's workplace more secure (Unfocused 1). Official Executive of the National Rifle Affiliation Neal Knox told the subcommittee on the criminal law of the United States Senate, "Gun laws come up short on the grounds that they don't address the issue. The Issue is not ownership of the guns, but rather abuse of guns. We can't anticipate that lawbreakers will comply with gun laws when they have as of now demonstrated carelessness for law and a request by their criminal activities. The main individuals influenced by gun laws are quiet, law-standing native, who never manhandle their gun right (Gottleib

Women who cover themselves are assumed to be coerced or capitulating to make pressure, despite the fact that wearing an enveloping. Over is mandatory (in public) in only a few settings and that educated Muslim women in the past thirty years have struggled with the opposite problem: They must defy their families and sometimes the law to take on what they value as pious Islamic dress. (pg.17)

One of the main disputes in the battle of Islamic women’s rights is the conflict over dress. According to a popular Islamic leader and Egyptian television personality, the sight of women is so alluring that it can be “intolerably distracting to men” and can “even