{"id":74920,"date":"2020-05-19T18:45:40","date_gmt":"2020-05-19T18:45:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/radical-feminism-in-saudi-arabia\/"},"modified":"2020-05-19T18:45:40","modified_gmt":"2020-05-19T18:45:40","slug":"radical-feminism-in-saudi-arabia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/radical-feminism-in-saudi-arabia\/","title":{"rendered":"Radical Feminism in Saudi Arabia"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Feminism is the only analytical lens which conveys the depth of female oppression under the essentially patriarchal society in Saudi Arabia. Both the public and private spheres within Saudi Arabia inherently uphold male dominanc<\/a>e through the strict observation of the Islamic authoritarian state. Therefore, because all power is intrinsically gendered, represented, for example, through all state power encapsulated within men, power can be directly correlated to domination over women. The growing movement of Saudi women publically walking alone without a male guardian (in defiance of the law) since December 2016 is significant of \u2018Saudi women actively\u2026challeng[ing] their society\u2026 to allow them entry into the precincts of modernity\u2019, but more importantly, the realm of equality with their male counterparts (Al-Rasheed, 2013, p.283). This essay will first justify its use of radical feminism as the most fruitful analytical framework to fully understand the embeddedness of patriarchy within Saudi Arabian culture and society, whilst progressing towards a solution to patriarchal dominance. The latter half of the essay will then explain how liberal feminist analysis of Saudi women\u2019s subordination is shallow and does not provide suitable resolutions for combating the patriarchy within the epicentre of fundamentalist Islamic culture.<\/p>\n

Radical feminism<\/a> is the only feminist strand which digs deep within society to uncover its patriarchal roots, and how it stems from the private sphere. Radical accounts are fruitful in explaining political phenomena as they adopt a more holistic conception of the political. This can be understood as politics being a \u2018process\u2019 manifest throughout society. To understand how a radical feminist analysis is most utilitarian in understanding the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, \u2018patriarchy\u2019 must be examined and defined as a concept. Patriarchy is a systematic, institutionalized and pervasive process of male dominance over women, rooted beyond the institution of the family and the household structure. Such a principle has a physical form within Saudi Arabia, and that is the King, who has long absorbed all branches of government, simultaneously embracing the role of a moral leader (of course, morality being relative to the culture Saudi Arabia is embedded in, and one that systematically disadvantages women in accordance with a strict set of fundamentalist Islamic beliefs). When dissecting the roots of the word \u2018patriarchy\u2019, the father figure lies behind the meaning, providing a linguistic reasoning behind male dominance. Within Sexual Politics, <\/em>Millett (1970) suggests patriarchy is a \u2018social constant\u2019, found in all institutions. From early in life, conditioning takes place to encourage children to conform to gender roles. Therefore, she suggests patriarchy is a hierarchical institution, as she relates the government to a \u2018patriarchal government\u2019. Traditionally, men are the head of the household and the breadwinners, whereas women are reduced to their reproductive roles. A link can be drawn from Millett to a more radical feminist thinker, who suggests women are conditioned to a passive, sexual role (Greer, 1970). Within The Female Eunuch,<\/em> Greer argues women have been rendered sexless objects by a cultural stereotype. More so, within Patriarchal Attitudes, <\/em>Figes (1970) also portrays women as inferior and subordinate to men, perpetuating a stereotype of \u2018femininity\u2019. However, with relation to women\u2019s rights in Saudi Arabia, this is far too shallow an explanation. Though evident through practices of female genital mutilation within Saudi Arabia, and purely through the fact that women are domesticated and have not been assimilated into the public sphere, such an explanation falls short of understanding the history of authoritarian and fundamentalist Islam embedded within Saudi Arabia. Rather than cultural stereotypes as the main perpetrator of male dominance (as is the case in Western society), it is the institutionalized oppression of women as doctrine through fundamentalist Islam and the authoritarian state which entirely impedes women\u2019s entry into the public sphere, whilst legitimizing female subordination within the private sphere. Thus, women\u2019s oppression is rooted in male dominance within the home and legitimized by society\u2019s fundamentalist doctrines, and this idea is encapsulated with \u2018the personal is political\u2019. This slogan highlights the view that gender roles and relations in the home cumulatively hold significant influence for gender outcomes in society.<\/p>\n

Moreover, radical feminists incorporate not only the private sphere but
\nthe public sphere within their analysis and critique of the status quo<\/em>. An attempt is made to draw
\nattention to all aspects of life and the patriarchal values that pervade
\nsociety. The very nature of what is \u2018political\u2019 must be redefined. For
\ninstance, sexual inequality is preserved because of the sexual division of
\nlabour, which is considered natural and based off traditional views of woman
\nand man\u2019s respective roles both in society and in the household. These views
\nare substantiated only by socially-constructed stereotypes of how people should
\nbehave traditionally (caring for a woman and competitive for a man),
\nperpetuating social conditioning throughout society as a whole entity. Radical
\nfeminists would approach this issue with a solution drastically different than
\nthat of liberal feminists, not only accomplishing shallow achievements within
\nthe public sphere, but targeting the core of female oppression at the home.
\nMillett (1970) proposes conscious-raising to be the solution to patriarchy
\nsociety. One could argue how this appears to be a liberal solution, concerning
\nthe improvement of education, or representation in the public sphere, or even
\nprotests raising awareness of women\u2019s subordination. However, Millett\u2019s
\nproposal is a perfect counter-balance resolution for Saudi Arabia. One must
\nunderstand how this issue is located at the cradle of Islamic culture, one that
\nfollows the religion\u2019s doctrines fundamentally. It is futile and
\ncounter-intuitive to suggest a sexual revolution, as most radical feminists do,
\nwould bear successful fruit in Saudi Arabia, due to the fact that a sexual
\nrevolution would warp the very foundations of society, which are embedded in
\nculture, history and religion. More so, shallow attempts at equality in the
\npublic sphere have been made, including women\u2019s suffrage being awarded in 2015.
\nHowever, to what extent is this a true representation of the culture finally
\nbeing tolerant to the idea of female equality in the public sphere? If men are
\nindeed seen to be the head of their household, within a state that legitimizes
\nbehaviour to ensure this view become instantiated, what is to stop a man
\nforcing his wife to vote a certain way, if at all? The idea of a sexual
\nrevolution being the vehicle for female emancipation is too drastic for life in
\nSaudi Arabia. Millett\u2019s conscious raising to overthrow patriarchal society and
\nform a more cohesive, equal entity seems not only practical considering the
\nenvironment, but occurring already. Thus, radical feminism reveals the
\ngendered and unequal character of social political power more effectively than
\nliberal feminism by incorporating its critique beyond the public sphere, and
\nfocus in on the core issue of patriarchy rooted within culture and the
\nhousehold.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Liberal feminism is far too shallow in scope, meaning the solutions it
\nascribes to a problem within the public realm does not address the crucial
\nissue of patriarchy rooted within Saudi Arabia\u2019s culture and underpinned by the
\nlaw. Liberal feminists believe patriarchy is used to describe the unequal
\ndistribution of rights and entitlements between men and women, as well as the
\nunder-representation of women in the public sphere. More so, liberal feminists
\nchampion legal and political equality with men, which would mean equity with
\nregards to the public sphere. However, as analysed previously, radical feminists
\nhave clearly demonstrated how women\u2019s oppression by men in Saudi Arabia is sown
\nwithin a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam by the state, sustaining this
\ndominance by awarding men with full control over the public sphere and legal or
\nmoral laws upholding their dominance in the household. Liberals do not address
\nthe private sphere, which is the bedrock of societal patriarchy, and the
\nbirthplace of male dominance in the public sphere. Because of the reformist
\nlimits liberal feminists adopt, there is not much emphasis on the sexual
\ndivision of labour or the power distribution within the family, which is
\nreflected in society. This may be because liberal feminists have accepted to a
\nslight degree that women have natural impulses towards family and domestic
\nlife, which is evident through Friedan\u2019s attempt to reconcile \u2018personhood\u2019 with
\nfamily life in The Feminist Mystique<\/em>
\n(Friedan, 1963). <\/p>\n

Moreover, Saudi women gained the right to vote in 2015. There are
\ncultural and social implications as to how this particular example of suffrage
\nis not genuine progress. Culturally, it is accepted that because the man is the
\nhead of the household, and for other religious reasons, he is in control of his
\nfamily, even physically. There is no mechanism instantiated within the law to
\nlimit the control of the man over the woman. Thus, in a society where man is
\ndominant and his actions within the family are sheltered by law, he can easily
\ncoerce his wife to either vote one way or not vote at all. Patriarchy within
\nthe private sphere still lies at the heart of Saudi women\u2019s struggle for true
\nemancipation from male oppression, and this seemingly illusionary attempt at
\nsuffrage does not target the true issue at hand. With regards to how this
\nattempt at suffrage is failing Saudi women in the public sphere, one must not
\nforget that society is still utterly male dominated, with a King as executor
\nfor all branches of power, as well as a moral force to enforce fundamentalist
\nIslam. The King as an entity wholly encapsulates patriarchy and should be
\nregarded as a symbol of male suppression of women for the reasons listed above,
\nas well as the persistence of nepotism favouring males. Additionally, liberal
\nfeminists strive for a liberal democratic system, falsely believing that the
\nsolution to patriarchy is to assist women through anti-discrimination laws to
\ncompete on the same basis as men in the liberal democratic system. However such
\na hope is not feasible within Saudi Arabia. Working within the state is
\nimpossible as women are almost entirely isolated from political participation. Liberal
\nfeminists provide a shallow, politically structural approach, but simply
\nallowing women to compete for power will not solve the fundamental, deep-seated
\nissues of patriarchal dominance. On a final note, linking into this idealist
\nmodel for liberal feminists, one could argue that such a concept is
\nWestern-oriented. This model fails to account for the environment it would be
\nimplemented in. A complete reversal within the political, social, cultural,
\njudicial, and religious relations of Saudi Arabia to fit a Western model of
\ndemocracy and freedom would only invoke chaos on a society that has only
\nunderstood society through its own Islamic, authoritarian lens. The liberal
\nprinciple of \u2018add women and stir\u2019 is implausible for numerous reasons. One
\nreason, which has not already been highlighted, is employment rates for women
\nwith relation to the foreign workforce. Roughly 10 million of Saudi Arabia\u2019s
\nworkforce are foreigners, which is staggering when compared to Saudi women\u2019s 13%
\nof Saudi Arabia\u2019s workforce, as of 2015. Despite being 51% of all Saudi
\nuniversity graduates, women are still oppressed from the inherent injustice
\nwithin patriarchal society which inhibits their attempts at replacing the
\nforeign workforce and inching towards true emancipation through economic
\nindependence as a possible step forward.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/h2>\n