I'm not sure this falls under my "campus news" beat for Grist, but I heard it at a seminar at a college campus, and it's compelling enough that I'm going to say that because it falls within academia, it counts. Michael Ross is a political scientist at UCLA who was published in the February 2008 American Political Science Review with the assertion (PDF) that much of the gender inequality in the Middle East relative to the rest of the world can be explained not by traditional Islam, but by the presence of oil.
The quick version is that Ross makes a strong case that women are hurt by a previously unappreciated effect of the infamous "resource curse" that imperils democracy in countries with abundant fossil fuels.
Saudi Arabia and Nigeria are textbook examples of the "curse": when ruling elites and governments can get rich quick by exporting oil (or natural gas, or even tropical timber), they don't so much have a reason to care about the well-being of their citizens, or anything else for that matter. Many. Bad. Things. Ensue.
Speaking today at Brown University's Watson Institute, Ross emphasized that when developing economies are dominated by oil and don't diversify into things like textiles and manufacturing, women don't go into the labor force, their social status remains low, and -- because women are stuck at home or in informal employment -- their political movements remain nascent. The preponderence of oil in the Middle East and parts of North Africa would explain why traditional gender roles remain enforced even as oil wealth brings the accoutrements of liberal modernity.
Can Ross really suggest that oil impacts women's status in the Middle East and North Africa more than Islam does? Academics at his talk raised questions about the strength of his methodology. But I tend to believe, and I think there is strong evidence to suggest, that social mores shift to accommodate demonstrated economic opportunities. When women can bring home good money in the labor market, traditional gender roles bend to allow it.
Read the paper (PDF) to get the full -- and fascinating -- report. Among many others, I think this should be of specific interest to the World Bank and other development agencies that currently fund extractive industries. Ross points out that nations in sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia are revving up to pursue oil- and gas-led growth strategies -- and getting lots of international development loans to do it.
The upshot: more diversified, clean-energy economies may promote gender equality in ways that direct attempts to reduce the role of religious traditions in society might not. And the bottom line: coal may be the enemy of the human race, but in developing countries, oil may specifically be the enemy of women's empowerment.
Climate Citizen: Majora Carter
Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama
Consumer Reports finds BPA traces in common canned foods
Comments
View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 7:19 pm
03 Mar 2008
The countries where people are happiest are places where education is free, skills are valued and economic survival of the whole society depends upon cooperative effort.
Ultimately the whole world will be divided between gardens and wild preserve. If we're not careful there won't be humans here to observe it.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:59 pm
03 Mar 2008
Donnons-leur un peu de temps.
N'est-ce pas?
One might think that there is plenty of evidence for environmentalist anti-global-warming anti-fossil-fuel-exploitation activists, to find that they have common cause with social-justicist pro-woman activists.
So?, how stupid are they all? What the hell is taking everybody so long to recognize that they are all really fighting on the same side?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:13 am
04 Mar 2008
If you want to see how this whole mess leaves women and children to fend for themselves, check out "Darwin's Nightmare".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3 ...
Very few jobs are created and the only jobs that support a family are military jobs. Murdering the local population to clear the way for corporate kleptocracy. Who gets gang raped, tortured, and murdered first? Women and children.
And the fat pigs like Wolfi sit on their thrones directing the hell on earth. Using local Idi Amin clones to direct the action on the ground.
Turn Wolfi and Idi into soylent green pork sausage, to feed the starving? Better yet feed them to the armies...alive. No punishment would really be severe enough for the crimes they commit, but this would be a start.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Angry African Posted 12:16 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 3:12 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
Yasmina Posted 3:52 am
04 Mar 2008
It's not the oil, it's the HADITH, which make up 90% of shari'a law. It is perhaps true that the West can more easily strong-arm the Middle East into some decent treatment of us, but shari'a law is spreading even to places where there's not a drop of oil -- pushed by radical imams and men who can't wait for an excuse to completely dominate women -- and all the better if you can claim GOD or ALLAH agrees.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 4:44 am
04 Mar 2008
In countries where wealth is concentrated, such as oil-rich countries, isn't the government's incentive to keep society closed economically (and not to educate the populace, especially girls)? Because those countries retain huge wealth disparities, wouldn't they breed radicalism more easily?
Please tell me if I'm missing something -- I'm not an expert in this area. The examples that spring to my mind are countries like Jordan and Egypt (no oil, better educated populace) vs. Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, I don't understand how radicalism takes hold in the middle class, but clearly there is some of that going on too.
Permalink
Gabriel Posted 12:46 am
08 Mar 2008
There are quite a few countries in the world that don't have oil, are muslim (and non-muslim, and keep their women under the men's thumb (Afghanitan, Morocco, many nations in sub-Sahara Afrique, etc.)
Don't blame it on the oil, blame it on one group who don't adequately respect another group (Men & Women).
Permalink
Gabriel Posted 12:50 am
08 Mar 2008
It doesn't help make your case for you to spout hate like you've done in your comment, amazingdrx. Let that kind of thing be stated in other, less elegant, sites. Keep this one as free as possible from that venom.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:39 am
08 Mar 2008
But to continually place monsters like this in charge of the life and death of the innocent is pathological, wouldn't you agree?
A nice productive job in prison would be forgiveness enough, and it would protect the rest of us. I am not in favor of the death penalty, even for mass muderers like this.
Non-violence is the only way to defeat the masters of war.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
RealWorldCalling Posted 5:52 am
10 Mar 2008
Even before Muhammad had his cave 'visions' the Bedouin tribes had evolved this sexist caste system. Muhammad and Islam merely took advantage of the opportunity and perfected the techniques of sexual exploitation.
If OIL is the cause explain the low level of women in Islamic societies that are not reliant on oil. If oil is THE CAUSE how come women in Mexico and Venezuela are treated as inhumanly as they are in Islamic societies?
Any body want to buy a bridge cheap?
Trying to prevent too much GORE in the world. There is nothing 'CORRECT' in PC.
Permalink