Yes, you're quite right. There was absolutely no oppression of women in the region before the United States came on the scene, or before oil was discovered there.

(sarcasm, in case it's not clear)

I thought that was a widely known fact... that was the time when the US backed the Taliban/Bin Laden, they actually made Rambo III about it.

So, actually, yes, I think there would most certainly be less oppression of woman if the US had backed out from middle east in the 70s. I think almost every serious historian/sociologist or layperson who knows about politics in that region would agree with me, I've actually spoke to many who do, even sociologists that study Islam and Middle East with CIA grants. What they definitely don't agree with me is basically how much what they call "political stability" in that region is worth.

TL, DR; Yes, I think if the US had backed out in the past there would be less oppression of woman. I think "the US" also thinks it, but they just don't care and want a stable regime so that oil prices don't fluctuate chaotically due to heavy speculation.

EDIT: Got four e-mails about this... If someone wants references, I was just compiling some but realized that Chapter 2 of Perilous Power by Chomsky/Achcar is most likely the best place to start. So sorry, no Wikipedia or newspaper article that accurately portrays what I'm trying to explain as an undisputed fact... get used to reading and debating a lot if you want to get into Middle East politics.

Edit -- to clarify further, the OP was referring to the split in the Islamic world in the 60s-70s between traditional Saudi leadership (favoring strong religious fundamentalism) and a new, mostly secular movement termed Pan-Arabism or Arab Nationalism. Since the Pan-Arabists were usually more favorable to Soviet influence, we naturally supported the Saudis and actually fostered several initiatives to increase religious fervor & fundamentalism.

If it wasn't for the damn Cold War, probably today Afghanistan would probably be more developed than Iran... :(

By comparison, Alan Turing was persecuted for his sexual orientation by the UK in the 1950s, almost 100 years after the Ottoman Empire had seen the light. Heck, when I went to high school in Texas (1996-2000), gay sex was still a criminal offense. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law in 2003 (admist much bloviating by Antonin Scalia about how we were all being overrun by the "homosexual agenda"), and the Texas Republican Party removed the plank in its platform demanding that homosexuality be recriminalized... only this year, in 2012.

[1] edit: Actually, upon some further research, it seems this claim is incorrect. The first modern country to decriminalize homosexuality, as far as I can find, was France, which did so in 1791, during the Revolution.

That's total bullshit. Sorry, it just is.

Maybe if it wasn't for that fact, the Saudies weren't so rich and powerful, and those poor young Arabs, who for the most part like democracy as much as you do, could "rebel" against Saudies...

Evidence? That doesn't seem to be the way it's played out elsewhere in the region.

Please don't be fooled by the appearances - just because Morsi is being an asshole, Egypt parliament has banned porn websites or some cleric in Egypt says men can do XXX (some crazy thing), doesn't mean it was the will and wish of the Egyptian people. Do American people agree with everything US congress and president do?

But there's a big difference: in the US, you can disagree with them, argue about it, protest, hold a demonstration, and do anything you want to make your voice heard. Remember PIPA and SOPA? How many do you think were in favor of it? And it took the combined effort of Google/Facebook/Reddit/..., a 1-day internet blackout and millions of people mailing their senators to kill them.

Now, imagine the same thing happening in Egypt (before and after Mobarak) or KSA? Do you think people can freely protest?! What happened to those 99%-ers in US? (almost) nothing. What do you think will happen to people if/when they protest in KSA? Prison, torture, death.

That's why you don't hear as many complaints from Egyptians, Arabs, Chinese, Soviets (in the Cold War era, but even to some extent today in Russia), North Koreans or Cuban as you'd like. If the choice is to live in oppression, but live, or to die a gruesome death under torture, most people (understandably) choose the shitty live. But it doesn't mean they don't long for a better life.

And remember, you always (in any dispute, political or otherwise, anywhere in the world) hear the loudest, most extreme voice. Just because the loudest voice in KSA and Egypt is also the most backward, doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Maybe they're the minority (population-wise) and can make their voice heard because they're rich/powerful!

------

Edit: as an aside (and remember, I'm not at all anti-US, maybe quite the contrary), consider the "Civil Rights Act of 1964"[1]. Some Martian coming to Earth in 60's might think: "hey, those American were no different than Nazi fascist they fought in WWII. Black people couldn't use white people's bathrooms, or sit on 'White-only' seats on the bus? Couldn't even go to the same schools, or apply for the same jobs? That's fucked up." - It's fair to assume that American were/are racist based on that fact, but you and I know that it's not true. Most Americans were NOT in favor of segregation, not all of them approved of slavery, not all of them were racist... Yet, it took about 200 years after US independence for them to gain these right. Hell, 2008 was the first year that there was a possibility that the president might not be a white man (Hillary Clinton / Obama)! Does that mean American people (of today) are anti-woman or anti-black?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

As an aside: Would love to know how is it in Iran, from a guy like you and who lives there. So any great summary (like your comment above I am replying to), of situation in Iran, with references also if possible, would be great.

Edit(After thought): Please ignore my comment and do not reply, even if there is a slightest possibility of you facing any discomfort because of it...

US foreign policy stifles natural progress and evolution in many countries in the Middle East.

More or less continuous improvement over time. Unlike what we've seen in, say, Afghanistan and Iran.

Your point?

Of course. That was more or less the point.

The U.S.-backed Shah of Iran (who was, let's make no mistake, an authoritarian dictator) was ejected and women's rights immediately took a profound backward step.

Do you deny it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

I'm sensing a prejudicial subtext from your comment and other comments you made, that you think the governments and the people they represent, are incapable of producing prosperous and just societies.

--Wait, WAT? In general, you confuse citizenship with democracy; and more particularly, you confuse a republic, with a democracy (the USA is the former, not the latter). Democracy is an ancient concept. Equally as old and well known are its many "problems", of which the ancients were well versed. The notion of a republic is an (historically) more sophisticated take on a democracy, and is well over two millenia old (Rome, etc).

The USA is a democratic republic.

No, the main thing that the US has at stake is the fact that the petroleum markets are denominated in US currency. It is this fact above all others that makes the dollar the world's reserve currency, and it is what makes the US the world's economic hegemon.

As Meyer Rothschild said, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I don't care who makes the laws." Such is the case for the United States because of petrodollar, which is truly what is at stake in Saudi Arabia.

The US sells arms to the rulers, as does the UK. Europe buys oil from them, as does China, in large amounts. But none of these nations force the KSA government to be oppressive. That's a choice the government there makes.

I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so.

Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.

That's why we ended the profitable business of slavery, after all.

I'm fine with arguing that America should do something to help all oppressed people in the world (I don't think it's possible or should be done) but you can make that argument. You can't say it's our fault for not stopping it.

In case you aren't aware, Taliban and Mujahadeen were US allies in Afghanistan. And by ally, I mean really ally. They fought together against the Soviets. US was giving them weapons and aid. In a trip to Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor) called the Mujahadeen and Taliban (the same guys that were treating women like trash), "Soldiers of God" and told then

    We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their
    struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours and you’ll
    go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll
    have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right,
    and god is on your side.

Or, if you have time, watch this episode of the terrific CNN documentary (Cold War, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU

So, in essence: yes, US helped Mujahadeen, Taliban, Saudies and others. And people in the west are profiting from that.

I don't agree with everything these two article says, but at least watch the pictures:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-dev...

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860

Just look at this picture: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahi... - It's US president Ronald Reagan with some ass-backward, woman-beating fucks in the White House... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA

It is very easy to argue that the US would be worse off if a rebel govt made Saudi Arabia unstable. It is not the US's fault that the govt that helps our goals also does bad things.

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with you arguing we should do something about the oppression, and that we shouldn't be helping the current government. I'm not ok with saying it is our fault they are being oppressed. Just because we could do something about it, doesn't make it our fault.

If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe? No. It's Joe's fault. He's the murderer. The Saudi govt are oppressing the women, and it's the Saudi govt's fault that the women are oppressed. By all means argue for doing something about it, but don't shift the blame where it isn't due.

If you're a friend and supporter of Joe's, you testify that he's a good man in the court (or United Nations), if you elected a government that gave Joe the weapon, if you profited from Tim being killed, then yes, you're also guilty. You've basically delegated the dirty job of "finding cheap oil by any means necessary so I can have an easier life" to Joe.

I'm not saying you should be the world's police; what I'm saying is if you profit from others being oppressed (so the oppressor can sell you oil cheaper so you can have a better life), it's your duty as a human being to try to change things for your brother.

Of course, if you're not profiting from that oppression, or aren't supporting the oppressor, then it's NOT your duty but still it would be nice to intervene.

> ... don't shift the blame where it isn't due.

Not at all. Those dictators are guilty of all those crimes. No one's arguing against that.

Maybe we should ask the current govt to improve themselves as part of our sales and aid, but I don't think that makes us responsible. The point is that the act of them oppressing women does not in any way shape or form help us. Stable govt helps us, and the current govt happens to be oppressive. That's where your argument breaks down. Killing Tim is not helping us profit. It's just happening, and we aren't stopping it. That's very different from that act helping us. We'd be perfectly fine with the current stable govt not being oppressive.

What do governments exist to do? To govern.

There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people.

Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people.

So it's not really analogous.

In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.

Seriously?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.

People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible.

If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.

  - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front

  - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom

  - IRA = Irish Republican Army

By your logic: It's not the royal family's fault either since all the awful stuff gets done by employees, who don't get to be absolved of responsibility of their actions. They make their own choices.