Frederick Akoun
ENGL 102
Aaron Percich
December 6th, 2011

Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia One of the most driving forces in the world today is the issue of power and who should have it or not have it. Power relates to rights and applies to both males and females alike. Power transcends to human rights and the free will to do as a person wants to do as long as it’s within the boundaries of the rules and regulations that govern a particular place. However, we know that power has been held by an overwhelming majority by males which has led to women being deprived of some of the basic privileges that should be afforded to every human being. There have been varying reasons why women’s rights and privileges have been denied ranging from their biological inferiority to religious reasons. Saudi Arabia is known as the birthplace of Islam. Consequentially, the country adheres to a strict interpretation of Islamic religious law called the Sharia. For example, in Saudi Arabia, men and women are not permitted to attend public events together. Furthermore, men and women are segregated in the work place with men getting finer office spaces and women getting offices that alienate them from public view. In Saudi Arabia, there is an obvious divide of gender roles where men basically have majority of the power while women are afforded very limited rights (Mackey 10). I will be evaluating women’s rights in Saudi Arabia to show how they are denied their basic rights as human beings like economic rights, marriage, and purdah (concepts for separation of men and women) as well as analyze how changes to their unequal treatment (compared to men) can be implemented. Proponents of the continued mistreatment of women in Saudi Arabia argue that such a treatment is sanctioned by the Koran. Anthony Giddens (who is a well renowned British sociologist) says “in most western countries, reduced women’s rights are usually attributed to biological reasons” (Giddens 183). However in Saudi Arabia, gender roles come from the Sharia (Islamic law) and tribal culture. The Arabian Peninsula is the ancestral home of patriarchal, nomadic tribes, in which purdah (separation of women and men) and namus (honor) are central to how gender roles are applied. Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are defined by Islam and tribal customs. Islamic law (Shari'a) is based on the Qur'an and hadith (teachings of Muhammad (Mackey 20 - 23). It is important to note this law is mostly unwritten and ambiguous in nature, leaving judges and other authorities with significant discretionary power which they usually exercise in favor of tribal customs. In other words, these authority figures (which are always males) interpret it based on the patriarchal customs of the region which subjugates females. Here, they claim that the way women are treated is just and does not violate any human rights. Furthermore, as a result of the ambiguity of these laws, there have been varying interpretations of the Sharia which in many ways shows that women are being treated the wrong way. For example, Sheikh Ahmad Qassim Al-Ghamdi, chief of the Makkah region’s mutaween (religious police), has said prohibiting ikhtilat (gender mixing) has no basis in Sharia. Meanwhile, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak, another prominent cleric, issued a fatwa (religious opinion) that proponents of ikhtilat should be killed (Nazir 10-12). This shows that the laws which minimize women’s rights are in many ways not entirely based on religious reasons but rather based on the opinion of men. The enforcement of rules relating to gender roles should be equal. As a result, it can boldly be stated that the religious (Islamic laws) reasons used to support the claim that women are treated humanely in Saudi Arabia has no divine justification and as such changes need to be made. In Saudi Arabia, women are denied economic freedom and rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are a broad category of human rights guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other legally binding international and regional human rights treaties (King et al. 180). These rights include the right to employment, education, and sports. According to Saudi culture, a woman's place is at home and a man's place is at the workplace. Obviously, this does not only limit women’s right for choice of employment but also limits them to domestic duties which are a violation of their economic rights. Even though Sharia (Islamic law) allows women to work, it ensures that women do not neglect their essential domestic duties. For example, women are usually only allowed to work if it is necessary for their support and they are forbidden to be appointed to positions of high public office (Butters 44-47). This should not be the case as it has been proven in western countries that women are cable of being appointed to high political offices. A good example is Hillary Clinton who is the Secretary of State for the United States. Women as human beings should be able to work as a matter of choice. Many proponents of the way women are treated in respect to economic rights argue that the laws are only applied to the public sector. However, it is important to note that private sectors which afford the employment of women are usually sanctioned by the government to deny the employment of women and violations of this rule usually leads to a government take down of that business. Sameena Nazir (a well known international women’s advocate) says “women are only allowed to work if it is approved by their husbands or male guardians” (Nazir 16-23). The fact that all women need a male guardian in the first place is definitely a violation of human rights. Women are human beings like their male counterparts and have a right to choose where or when they want to work as long as they meet the qualifications. Furthermore, the prescription of a male guardian implies that women are treated like children and not full adults. This is obviously a violation of their rights. Sharia restricts the rights of women denying them equal economic treatment as men.
In Saudi Arabia, women are restricted by the way they dress, marriage, and socialization with their male counterparts which violates their rights to these entities. This law is enforced through purdah. Purdah requires women to avoid men and to cover parts of their body that might lead to sexual temptations. In Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states, all of the female body is expected to be covered except the hands and eyes. It is important to note that this law is strictly enforced under severe punishment (Khan 6-10). Traditionally, women's clothing must not reveal anything about her body. It is supposed to be thick, opaque, and loose. It is also required to be a dull color, unadorned, and generally not of interest to their male counterpart. The whole idea behind this is to prevent sexual temptations and sexual immorality. Many historians and Islamic scholars hold that the custom of the veil predates Islam in parts of the Gulf region. Andrew Lee Butters (Time Magazine’s Middle East correspondent) emphasizes the argument that the Qur'an was interpreted to require the veil as part of adapting it to tribal traditions and not due to religious reasons as cited by proponents of Sharia laws (Butters 46). While many people might say that the types of clothes afforded to women help prevent immorality, it is important to note that these clothes also represent a symbol of oppression. In such extreme temperatures in a country like Saudi Arabia, one can only imagine how a woman feels covering her body. For example, with such temperature most women must sweat a lot and this leads to hyper functioning of the kidneys as it tries to regulate the body temperature. Thus, the probability of a woman willingly dressing in such a manner everyday of her life is very low. Thus, these women are forced to wear these clothes in such extreme temperatures which constitute a violation of their rights. Hence, the dress code is often regarded as a highly visible symbol of oppression.
Another area where women’s rights are violated is in segregation based on their sex. Women in Saudi Arabia encounter sexual segregation everyday of their lives. Here, women are afforded no public social contact with their male counterparts. Most offices, banks, and universities have separate entrances for men and women. According to law, there should be physical and visual separate sections for the sexes at all meetings and places including weddings, public transportation, and even restaurants (Bone). Sex segregation even applies to private residences. Many Saudi homes have one entrance for men and another for women. Private space is associated with women while the public space, such as the living room, is reserved for the men. It is preposterous to think that a woman is not allowed to go to certain parts of her house even though the Saudi interpretation of the Sharia law stipulates that women’s role is for domestic duties. These are obviously clear examples of mistreatment that parallels the apartheid situation in South Africa but in this case the men are the whites and the women are the blacks. Women can be charged with prostitution for socializing with a man who is not her relative or her husband. In other words, women are denied the basic right of making any social contact of any form with males. This denial violates a human beings right to communicate with whoever he or she chooses. Punishment for breaking this law is strictly enforced in varying ways namely flogging or being tabooed. A famous recent example was when an elderly woman was flogged publicly for having a man deliver bread to her house. This is interesting considering that the man involved in this case did not face any punishment at all (Truszkowska 10). As such, it can be clearly seen that men and women in Saudi Arabia obviously do not have equal rights.
Even though it can be argued that women enjoy a freedom of will in the area of education, there are hindrances to them actually finishing their education as a result of pre-arranged or forced marriages. Approximately 71% to 78% of females are literate, in comparison to 85% literacy rates in males. Sandra Mackey, who is an award winning writer on Middle Eastern culture and politics says “In fact, more women receive secondary and tertiary-education than men. Fifty percent of working women have a college education, compared to 16 percent of working men” (Mackey 90-100). However, these numbers can be very deceiving because the amount of women working pales in comparison to the amount of men working. A major hindrance to the increase in the number of women being educated is marriage. Marriage hinders the cause of women's education because “traditional” responsibilities and child-bearing are deemed too burdensome and as a result women are denied the right to work (Mtango 12-18). This obviously constitutes a violation of their rights as that choice should be made by the woman and not the government. It is important to note that these marriages frequently occur during the teen years of the women. As a result, the dropout rate of girls increases around puberty, as they exchange education for marriage. For example, 25% of college-aged young women do not attend college, and between 2005 and 2006, women had a 60% dropout rate at this time of their life (Mtango 20). The fact that these young girls are forced to marry at such a young age is obviously a violation of child protection laws which protect children at certain ages from getting married. These forced marriages can even be seen as a crime against women.
Even though education is one area where women enjoy notable freedom (as compared to other areas), it is important to note that the quality of education including participation in extracurricular activities like sports is lower for females than males. The first point is that school and universities are segregated. Furthermore, the curricula and textbooks used for women are updated less frequently, and their teachers tend to be less qualified. For example, in universities women have inferior research facilities. This obviously constitutes unequal and unfair treatment. Saudi Arabia was one of the few countries in the 2008 Olympics without a female delegation because women's sports are strongly discouraged in principle (Butters 46). The denial of right to participate in a sport (like many activities) would be done based only on ability and talent not gender. As a result, this denial adds to their argument that there is indeed a human rights violation against women in Saudi Arabia.
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. Some commentators have argued that Saudi gender policies constitute a crime against humanity, and warrant intervention from the international community. Critics also blame Western corporations that cooperate in enforcing segregation. American franchise restaurants such as Starbucks and Pizza Hut maintain separate eating areas where the men’s areas are typically high-quality, whereas the women’s are rundown or lack seats. This segregation and unequal treatment of women is unfair and constitutes mistreatment of a human being. In a 2001 column, Washington Post editor Colbert I. King stated that, “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" (180). Here, King wonders why there is nothing like the proper principles for gender-based discrimination. 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 these practices change, it will be hard to mount a campaign, in the manner of the anti-apartheid movement, to enforce sanctions or codes of conduct that treat women fair and equally and thus help with the women’s rights violations.
There is no doubt that the issue of women’s rights has changed in recent years. However, it is important to note that more is needed to be done. Changing women’s rights in Saudi Arabia has to be done carefully and slowly in other to prevent violence as more than 80% of women in Saudi Arabia are against any change (Khan 8). For example, it will take some time for a Saudi Arabian to feel comfortable seeing women driving a car, or serving as sales peoples, or being able to freely roam the streets to name a few. In recent years, fundamentalists occupied the Grand Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and demanded a more conservative Islamic state, including "an end of education of women" (Ambah). As a result, the government responded with stricter interpretations and enforcement of Islamic laws. This does not help the situation as these fundamentalists need to realize that they are violating women’s rights through marriage, education, and economic rights. However, a move towards evening the playground and giving women more rights has been enacted in recent years. For example, the government says it has withdrawn support from schools deemed extremist and moderated school textbooks. This movement towards reform has been welcomed by critics and Saudi Arabian women alike (Ambah). Furthermore, the government under its current rule is regarded as moderately progressive. Here, it has opened the country's first co-educational university, appointed the first female cabinet member, and prohibited domestic violence. All these point to giving women more power which will eventually lead to more rights and real freedom.
Overall, it can easily be said that women’s rights in Saudi Arabia is obviously below par and in many cases a human rights violation. The government of Saudi Arabia maintains that the country is a religious one (Islamic country) and as such the treatment of women is warranted under the Islamic code and is irrefutable. Critics of this code have pointed to the fact that some of the interpretations of the Sharia law are not definite and in many cases are the perspectives of a male ego. Regardless of the way the interpretation is done, the situation is critical and borders on the apartheid situation that once existed in South Africa. It is important to note that the treatment of women has improved over the years as more women are given more economic, political, and legal rights. This change has been received with mixed emotions as some still maintain that it is too slow. However, such a perspective has been called hypocritical since any radical change requires the proper environment to take place. In Saudi Arabia, the majority still favors maintaining the current status on this issue and as such a sudden change might lead to civil unrest. Thus, in the coming decades, it is important for the western world and advocates for equality and rightful treatment of women to thread carefully on this issue so as not to retard the major positive changes that have taken place so far.

Works-Cited
Ambah, F., S. “Saudi King Tiptoes Toward More Openness.” The Christian Science Monitor, 6
Oct. 2005. Web. 7 Apr. 2011.
Bone, P. "Why We Stay Mute on Islamic Sex Apartheid." The Australian, 7 Dec. 2007. Web.
6 Apr. 2011.
Butters, A. L. “Saudi's Small Steps.” Time 174.15 (2009): 44-47. Academic Search
Premier. EBSCOhost. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.
Giddens, A. The Progressive Manifesto: New Ideas for the Centre-Left. London, United
Kingdom: Polity, 2003, p. 183.
King, C. I. and John M. Klein. Ethics for International Business: Decision-Making in a Global
Political Economy. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2005, p. 180
Khan, S. “Women Fight Back: Don't Ban the Veil!” The Daily Beast 8 Apr. 2010: 6-10.
Mackey, S. The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom. New York, New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2002, p. 1-100.
Mtango, S. “A State Of Oppression? Women’s Rights In Saudi Arabia.” Asia-Pacific
Journal on Human Rights & the Law 5.1 (2004): 9-67. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Web. 06 April, 2011.
Nazir, S. and L. Tompper. Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa:
Citizenship and Justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 1-26.
Truszkowska, N. “Irreligious Police.” Harvard International Review 23.2 (2001): 10.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Web. 06 April, 2011.