Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia - Foreign Views

Foreign Views

Western critics often compare the situation of Saudi women to a system of apartheid, analogous to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during South Africa's apartheid era. As evidence, they cite restrictions on travel, fields of study, choice of profession, access to the courts, and political speech. The New York Times writes, "Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that 'Blacks' and 'Coloreds' were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club."

Some commentators have argued that Saudi gender policies constitute a crime against humanity, and warrant intervention from the international community. They criticize the U.S. government for publicizing oppression by enemies such as the Taliban, even though its allies, like Saudi Arabia, have similar policies. Mary Kaldor views gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia as similar to that enforced by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In contrast, political commentator Daniel Pipes, sees Saudi gender apartheid as tempered by other practices, such as allowing women to attend school and work.

Critics also blame Western corporations that cooperate in enforcing segregation. American chains such as Starbucks and Pizza Hut maintain separate eating areas; the men’s areas are typically high-quality, whereas the women’s are rundown or lack seats. In a 2001 column, Washington Post editor Colbert I. King commented:

As with Saudi Arabia, white-ruled South Africa viewed external criticism as a violation of its sovereignty and interference with its internal affairs. And U.S. corporations in South Africa, as with their Saudi Arabian counterparts, pleaded that they had no choice but to defer to the local "culture."

King wonders why there is nothing like the Sullivan Principles for gender-based discrimination. Journalist Anne Applebaum argues that gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia gets a free pass from American feminists. She questions why American civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson were active in protesting South Africa’s racial apartheid, but American feminists rarely venture beyond reproductive rights when discussing international politics: “Until this changes, it will be hard to mount a campaign, in the manner of the anti-apartheid movement, to enforce sanctions or codes of conduct for people doing business there.”

Cultural relativism is the root of activist inaction, according to feminists such as Azar Majedi, Pamela Bone, and Maryam Namazie. They argue that political Islam is misogynist, and the desire of Western liberals to tolerate Islam blinds them to women’s rights violations. Majedi and Namazie, both born in Iran, consider cultural relativism racist: “To put it bluntly, according to this concept, because of my birthplace, I should enjoy fewer rights relative to a woman born in Sweden, England, or France.” Pamela Bone argues feminist apathy is supported by “the dreary cultural relativism that pervades the thinking of so many of those once described as on the Left. We are no better than they are. We should not impose our values on them. We can criticise only our own. The problem with this mindset is that, with all its faults, Western culture is clearly, objectively, better.” Bone argues that cultural relativism comes from a fear that criticizing Islam will be considered racist.

Ann Elizabeth Mayer, an American specialist in Islamic law, sees gender apartheid as enshrined in the Saudi Basic Law:

Article 9. The family is the kernel of Saudi society, and its members shall be brought up on the basis of the Islamic faith, and loyalty and obedience to Allah, His Messenger, and to guardians; respect for and implementation of the law, and love of and pride in the homeland and its glorious history as the Islamic faith stipulates.
Article 10. The state will aspire to strengthen family ties, maintain its Arab and Islamic values and care for all its members, and to provide the right conditions for the growth of their resources and capabilities.

Mayer argues that Articles 9 and 10 deny women "any opportunity to participate in public law or government".