Essay About Women Lawyers And Feminist Theory

Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia for the very first time will be allowing women lawyers in courts, but with limited powers. The country practices a strict and conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. In this essay I will be relating Feminist theory to explain this phenomenon, and will also be examining the role of religion, specifically Islam in this issue.

From this article, we can see an issue of gender inequality. Gender in this context is a form of social class, with the male class granted privileges over the female class. Feminist theorists will view Saudi Arabia to be that of a patriarchal society, where the dominant male class exerts its power over the oppressed female class through male-biased laws. The society’s structures of power and social convention are such that the men benefit from most of the legal, economic, political and cultural rights. Examples include how opportunities for education and employment are dependent on male guardianship, and how all the judges in Saudi Arabia are male religious clerics. In more extreme cases, there are no specific laws protecting women’s rights with regards to domestic violence resulting in the prevalence of ‘honour-killings’; whereby a woman is punished or even killed by male family members for having put “shame” on the family honour.

Even as reforms seem to be underway to reduce the gap in gender inequality, further limitations have been imposed on these reforms to ensure a reigning dominance of the male social class. Specifically in this article it was mentioned how women will only be allowed to handle the case of other women and are restricted to family-related cases. Feminists will argue for the need to do away with such privileges in order to solve the social problem of gender inequality, which brings us to the sensitive issue of religion.

Many modernists and liberals will share the feminist view that Islam plays a role in encouraging a gender-oppressive patriarchal social structure such as in Saudi Arabia. In Islam, Mullahs (Islamic clerics) are all male dominated. Also in religious scriptures such as the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, contains a Book of Women in which it is written that ‘righteous women are devoutly obedient… …As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them’. This seems to imply that women as the subordinate class must be unquestionably obedient to the male dominant class, or they are not deemed as ‘righteous’ or good, in the eyes of God. This issue of how feminism seems to contradict with Islamic

It seems to me that there are two elements to the question. The first is a sense of ‘women-power’ (feminism) which has been embraced for centuries, a concept that has been articulated by the likes of Fariha and Ishaq (an ex-Nawawi’s daughter).

The second element I think is more complex and quite significant is that it implies the existence that the patriarchal ruling class, which is considered as a class in Islam, is the ‘dominant force’ to be reckoned with. Even the traditionalist Muslim view on women has its roots in the Qur­na, as have a number of other texts.

I do think that this kind of ‘women-power’ idea is just as dangerous as other ideas that challenge it. The very ideas that I’m talking about are really just the ideas that I’m talking about

— —

‏

i guess. The big problem of the current debate is that any and all feminists who look at the Qur’an and the Qur’an as a text that is patriarchal think a lot of feminist beliefs (like being able to speak in a straight face, etc. etc.) are in an echo chamber for misogyny in a world that has become polarized, in a world where feminism seems to be largely ignored in some conservative circles. This is true of feminism in both Western and Eastern Europe but the West has moved in a certain direction, as recently as 2001 to open up women-friendly countries and liberal and conservative nations to women as rulers. They have become what have become known as ‘moderate Muslim’ countries such as Norway, or Sweden.

To what degree this is being said is not clear. It is also important to note that this kind of feminism is actually a response to the fact that there appears to be a real threat of sexism in these ‘liberal’ women-dominated countries to a great degree. Feminism seems to not have a place in this kind of debate because the notion that it is only some radical feminist that has the courage to challenge patriarchal systems of oppression is extremely dangerous to anyone who does not want to give up the possibility of women-power in general, or that women have a real and real and real vulnerability to all forms of oppression, to that people such as myself and others find all too often difficult—even when it is with the support of feminism on the other hand. As long as one woman may support other women to live their lives the way they think about it, women will not want to be oppressed regardless of its nature with or without support. Even if that is not what one should do, one’s commitment to the cause of women is no reflection on how an alternative to this oppressive system would feel, in the long term, at least in Western societies, and for my part I would not wish to be perceived as such.

It is worth considering that the debate about feminism in the West isn