This article by Antonia Zerbisias is actually a review of a paper by Michael Ross, entitled “Oil, Islam and Women,” that was published in The American Political Science Review. The paper itself argues that an oil rich economy is at the root of the oppression of women in countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates. It’s not Islam that oppresses women, Ross argues, but the way the presence of oil increases foreign dollar imports and therefore curtails mainland production. (Women don’t have skilled jobs because most of the skilled labour positions available in those countries have to do with heavy machinery. Also, because oil increases the amount of trade with foreign economies, there is less of a need to develop a skilled labour force in other industries, like textiles, which are historically known to employ women. So, in short, women don’t have skilled jobs because the oil industry makes those jobs unnecessary – or allows for a climate in which those jobs can be done without because of imports.) Of course, it follows that if women had more skilled jobs then they would rise up against their oppressors once they had come together as a skilled and educated proletariat. (Living at home, Ross argues, is an isolating and oppressive factor.) Ross (or Zerbisias, it isn’t clear) also compares their situation to the situation of white Anglo-Saxon women at the turn of the century. North American immigrants are also included in terms of their organisation through factory work – organization that came about because of their numbers, their close proximity in working conditions and their increased education.
We should pay attention to the fact that the author writes the article in such a way as to indicate some fervour that belongs to a community. The review hardly starts as a review at all: “Smash the patriarchy in the Middle East!” is clearly a call to arms for women who are sympathetic to feminism, and want to develop a global consciousness. In fact, to further support this idea that this is an article targeted at women, one should note that it is directly above an article about Fashion Week, and a picture of a trendy-looking girl. Then, at the end, there is the remark “[Ross’] work suggests one thing. Sisters shouldn’t drive SUV’s.” This last comment suggests that the modest action of refusing to drive a high energy consuming car is an act of moral righteousness and feminist solidarity. And what’s dangerous about it is the way it seems to let women off the hook. The reader can find this moral tack attractive, and s/he (more probably she) doesn’t have to analyse her actions further, as in take the subway more. (Although it should be noted that immediately following the opening call to arms Zerbisias writes: “Walk, ride your bike, take the TTC.”)
What’s most troubling about this article though, from the perspective of media awareness, is the way the author of the article is really very cursory in her analysis of Middle Eastern issues. Her article, which is snappy (as is demonstrated by the opening sentence) doesn’t delve particularly deeply into the issues. Is Michael Ross’ paper really a sound analysis of the reason for the poor state of women’s rights in those countries? Zerbisias barely even asks. In fact, she leaves her criticism at : “[The article] makes sense, although it lets ancient tribal customs off the hook.” In this way, the article manages to be both community orientated and somewhat a-moral, as it fails to show that this issue, which is important on a global scale, considering the number of women affected, is actually important enough to warrant further analysis.
-From the Globe and Mail – March 14, 2008
