In the Arab world, it can get that woman killed…literally. That is not to say that is the norm, but it's a commonly discussed and accepted precept with much (but notably not all) of the Arab sphere. Similarly, honor killings are considered acceptable, even with some people that have immigrated to countries that consider it cold-blooded murder.
As for whether anything has changed in the recent past that might change the tone and feel of this argument, the answer is not a lot. There is clearly a dichotomy in this world with the Western world (Europe and the United States) generally getting more permissive while much of the Arab world takes on a general anti-Western tone and actively resists any influence from the West. The chances of that fading away as a conflict, whether it be ideological or physical (and the latter does happen), is very slim. What is not fading away and what is most certainly changing with every passing year is the increased reach of technology and, by extension, cultural influence. Even people that are proponents of cultural homogeneity cannot argue that this is definitely going on and a similar amount of people would probably argue that there is no stopping it.
The question becomes whether the cultural infusions from the West (or other corners of the world) are bad for the countries being "invaded" or if it should be embrace. There are certainly people in both camps. Some say that cultural authenticity should be protected at all costs while pro-globalists point to cultural authenticity proponents to being "nanny-staters" or, worse yet, violently intolerant. it's not wise to paint with too broad a brush, but there are certainly people that validate those stereotypes both ways. Some level of cultural permissiveness is indeed too much while getting violent about a media show/event (even if it does not...
Some point to the fact that freedom and choice should dictate the direction a culture goes in, whether it is Arab or not, and not the edicts and orders of a select few. The Kraidy article makes this statement beautifully when it speaks of the "social guardians" that are "protecting" the "sovereignty" of Saudi Arabia from pernicious social influences that are increasing hard to prevent from pervading the local and national cultures of Saudi Arabia.
Conclusion
In conclusion, regardless of what the personal opinions are of Kraidy (who does do a good job of assessing both sides), it is clear that they really do have a full scope and feel for the questions involve pertaining to social/media influences and how some corners of these societies are trying to "fight back," rightly or wrongly. Some view this resistance as ethnocentrism and prefer a homogenous and localized culture with full autonomy while others say that the chips should be allowed to fall where they may and that any concerns about disembedding and revocation of cultural authenticity are against the natural orders of freedom and choice. Both of these articles certainly contribute well to the overall narrative of how the West is influencing the Arab world (among other cultural transmission pathways) and whether that is a good thing or not and/or what (if anything) can/should be done to prevent it. There are things to be said for both sides of the argument and both articles do a good job of keeping that at the forefront.
