In The Sandbox...

A television anchorman has divorced his wife at a police station. Why? Because she went there to seek assistance from authorities to prevent his [alleged] further physical abuse of her. According to the report, the unnamed woman "complained to the police that he had been beating and kicking her for years. The anchorman considered that being called upon to report to the police was a defamation of his social standing and a demeaning of his famous name." What about your wife? Your [alleged] beating of her was not a defamation of her, though, was it? "The wife's brother claimed that she had suffered for six years for the sake of her three children, and when she could stand it no longer, she decided to refer the matter to the police." Spousal abuse, like child abuse, is wide-spread. It takes place all around the world. Kudos to the woman who had the guts to try to stop the cycle. Interesting that the police made attempts to reconcile the relationship. Those efforts failed. There is no further information as to whether or not the, now, ex-husband was detained, or whether or not there is some sort of order that would offer the woman further protection. Let's hope for this woman's sake that there is.

The last couple of days, I have posted on the story of a little seven-year-old girl who died at the hands of her wicked step-mother and her own father. In one of those posts, I admitted that I did not know how custodial issues are handled, but that at some point the children are considered old enough to be taken away from their mother and that the father, typically, ends up with custody. Today, there is an article in the paper about a man who spent five months in an attempt "to have his daughter returned to him after she was kidnapped from her school by the family of her divorced mother." It says, "It all started when the girl turned eight, which is the legal age at which her father is allowed to take care of her." So, now we know. Mother's can have their children until they are old enough to get married. Then, custody is given to the father. In this particular instance, it would appear as though the child's mother and her family have tried to do everything they can to protect her. "An urgent letter was sent to Jeddah Police to contact the mother's family and return the girl to her father, but the family refused to part with her." The "case was closed" and the mother is now allowed to visit the child for two days, every two weeks.

There was a "shake-up" in government offices here, just a short time ago. I mentioned it, albeit briefly, and did not offer much in the way of comment. The report said, "One of the dismissed men was the head of the controversial religious police force. The other was the country's most senior judge... The sacked head judge... caused controversy last September when he said it was permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV channels which broadcast immoral programmes. ...some 'evil' entertainment programmes aired by the channels promoted debauchery." Well. Okay, then. In yesterday's Gulfnews.com, there was an article that said that "A Saudi religious scholar has issued an edict calling for the prosecution of a royal tycoon and another Saudi businessman, accusing the men of being as dangerous as drug dealers because the television channels they own broadcast movies." The two "prominent Saudi figures" are named. "The edict issued on Saturday... came in response to a question regarding... assertions last month that there will be movie theatres in the kingdom one day and that movies play a 'positive' social role in Saudi Arabia." The television "programmes" in question are aired by MBC.net. Take a peek at their programming and the movies being shown. I will admit to watching this station - I'm pretty sure I've seen "The Devil Wears Prada," The Nanny Diaries," and a few other movies via their airing. I even, occasionally, turn to MBC Action and catch old episodes of "Lost," and "Law and Order." The article contains a direct quote by the religious scholar who issued the edict, "Movies are a tool that hypocrites use to implement their plot to Westernise [sic] society, corrupt it and drive it away from (religion)." Who knew?!?

Underwear woes continue. Many women, here, may not have the choice of whether they can go to Bahrain or some other country to purchase their delicate undergarments. I refuse to buy them - any "undergarments" - here. Just won't do it. As long as men continue to work in the stores in The Sandbox, and as long as they think they know what size fits and what size doesn't, I will not even walk into one of our lingerie stores. The subject is back in the news, again, today. The is a "Facebook campaign to boycott lingerie shops that employ men" going on. A Saudi academic, Reem As'ad, is leading it and she "is aiming at the whole lingerie business in Saudi Arabia since women are not allowed to work in such shops." I wish Ms. As'ad success. And, for the record, I thoroughly, thoroughly agree that men should NOT be in those shops, and that women SHOULD be. There is a "never-enforced law that allows women to be employed" in the shops, but it "has been lying in a drawer for two years now." Yep. It has. [Much like other laws that are made but never enforced, i.e., not driving while talking on your mobile...] It is a good article. Worth reading. Oh, and for anyone who can't get to another country to buy these particular items? JCPenney delivers internationally [Psst! They are having a sale on bras right now.] As does Victoria's Secret. Yeah. Good luck getting to that site. It is blocked. From what I understand, if you have internet through satellite, you can get to it. We don't. I can't.