So what?? Social changes don't always happen for pure political reasons, you know. If economic forces succeed where social pressure does not, it's still success. The day that law changes, I doubt many Saudi women will be sitting at home fretting over their leaders reacting more to economics than to political petitions. They'll be happily taking advantage of their new freedom while looking forward to the next challenge, which will doubtless come up quickly, seeing as how their driving will create, domino-style, more areas of freedom that will have to open up for them.

Try not to insist that every other country do things the way you want for exactly the same reasons you have. The world is a complicated place, and you can't have everything.

I think they've started adding up the amount of money they make from women driving around the world.

How can they take money from women drivers if they consider it immoral for women to drive?

If you're really a strict Muslim then I'd think you'd have turn down any money earned through an activity that your version of Islam forbids.

They're not going to turn down the cash.

If half the money they live on comes from foreign women drivers, then it becomes difficult for them to justify this view that women shouldn't be allowed to drive.

If you want something to change societally, find the way to make it profitable.

Women who are cloistered creatures only valued for their chastity are EXPENSIVE. They are enormous financial drains on their families and are far more vulnerable to abuse.

When women go from being a liability to an asset budget-wise they get more say. They get more education. The horrors that they are subjected to when their sexual purity is their only worth (genital mutilation, honor killings, etc.) begin to lose ground.

Saudi Arabia's growing middle class, where people simply can't afford absurdly sheltered women, could be a societal tipping point. Sentiment and philosophy are great and all -- and they'll catch up even if evolution comes from necessity. In fact, the changes may have more sticking power this way.

It was largely due to economic pressures that women began to move into industrial factory jobs in the West, first during the dark times of the Industrial Revolution, then during WWII. This led to increased autonomy and self reliance, as well as an increased acceptance of women filling roles that were once predominantly male. The concept of human rights didn't come into it.

Remember, many parts of the third world as well as places like Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, have not yet gone through any version of the Industrial Revolution. In Saudi, technology can be bought, and infrastructure built, but the widespread societal changes precipitated by the pressures of production have not occurred.

It would have been nice if slavery in the United States had never started, but... why did it start? The economy, stupid.

and why was it not needed in the North? The economy, stupid.

Your analysis, as usual, is petty.

What is useful about what is happening in Saudi Arabia is to one see how economic reasons do shape social mores, and then think about how that is useful information, and two, to see how the influence of Western media and technology also shapes social mores, and think about that as well. Now the latter was used by Bin Laden, et. al., as a reason to attack us, but what it does show is that the proper response to a lot of these social issues is a) economic, and b) western media.

That is, jobs and education, followed by movies and music.

That and patience can do quite a bit that armies cannot.

Or you can miss the point and demand interventions and wars, or just rail uselessly in a blog post about the patriarchy and the pope.

People rarely change out of the goodness of their own hearts.

The Soviet Union didn't collapse because Russians started loving freedom. It collapsed because the state-run economy was unsustainable and that fact became inescapable in daily life.

Look at Russia now -- Russian people are welcoming restrictions on their political freedom under Putin. That's because they've got oil money now.

And look at medical marijuana. All the science being peer-reviewed and published right now is very clearly heading in one amazing direction -- this is the most incredibly valuable medicinal substance that has ever been synthesized by any plant or laboratory on this planet.

What's holding it back? Certainly not any scientific facts.

It's economic, pure and simple. You cannot patent the cannabinoids in marijuana.

So Big Pharm is never going to allow the federal laws to change.

The only force that can really work here is economic. When insurance comanies start to realize that medical marijuana patients only use about 1/5 of the high-priced prescription drugs that other patients with the same illnesses are consuming, then insurance companies will recognize that medical marijuana has a major impact in reducing the cost of health care, and they will get behind a change in the laws.

And only then will the laws finally change.

I gues that means I should shut up about this topic. Let people remain in ignorance about the science.

The insurance companies are going to figure it out eventually all by themselves.

People rarely change out of the goodness of their own hearts.

More snarkily, but maybe more realistically, it's amazing the power of economics to change the goodness function of one's heart.

Regardless, I think your constant raising the issue of marijuana legality and your belief in its intentional suppression is actually very interesting.

I find it interesting you think it's being actively suppressed by Salon's editors (and other publications) -- I am not there yet, and am still not sure why you think so, but I whole heartedly agree with you that it should be legalized.

I think pointing out errors and hypocrisy in publications that claim to be progressive is a very good thing. In lieu of the direct effect of economic means, a bit of education, consciousness rising can do an okay job of creating pressure.

(It's one reason why I think it's important for people to rail at Broadsheet for its crappy one-sided and shallow approach to most gender issues, it's a loss to Salon and its readers.)