IMAGINING OTHER
People Power (Social Movements)
The women’s movement.
Links: Imagining-Other Home Page
Notes for Week 3
Feminism as
philosophy
Summary: #first wave #second wave #third wave #assessment of third
wave #sex
vs. gender #sexism #dualism in
language #personal
is political #recent
issues #books
Introduction:
Some more ‘theory’: note that the discussion of
‘theory’ has always been an essential part of the women’s movement, and it is
divided into ‘waves’ (three or possibly four by now!) largely on the basis of
changes in approach – leading to changing demands.
We might compare this with the labour movement,
where many demands were purely economic, or for more political power, without
(except in the case of Marxism) much in the way of theoretical or philosophical
argument.
The bracketing of periods
of feminist activity into ‘waves’ relates very much to the theory as well as
the practice.
1. The ‘First wave’ of
feminism.
All the developments that occurred up until the
middle of the 20th century can be described as belonging to the
first wave of feminism, because they shared the following ideas:
- it was believed
that political equality (the vote) would
lead to or come with legal, economic, and social equality and equal
treatment/rights – and political equality would lead to changes in attitude. But when the vote was obtained, and
nothing else changed, then formal equality was seen as not enough. There was
still a need for more fundamental material and attitudinal changes, or as
Millett puts it (p 85) - ‘changes in
social attitudes and social structure, in personality and institutions’.
- the main political perspective (philosophical viewpoint)
adopted during this phase was a liberal
perspective (though some were socialist, see below): central to this is:
(i) an emphasis on individual
freedoms and rights – which hitherto had only applied to men of course…
(ii) an emphasis on beliefs/values,
and the goal is to change attitudes.
As we saw
(with Mary Wollstonecraft especially), one early aim of the women’s movement
was to get acceptance that women had an equal ability to reason (see the extracts for examples of philosophical
and other views claiming that women were inferior in their rational abilities).
It is important to note that to be regarded as an adult – and therefore having the
ability to exercise moral and legal responsibility (i.e. autonomy) depends on a
person being accepted as rational.
There were
differences within the women’s movement in the first wave, for example the view
that women are not that different to men, and it is social conditions that prevent women realising their potential, as
against the argument that differences
between men and women are innate.
The Liberal Feminist view minimises the
differences between men and women - all are rational etc. cf. Mary
Wollstonecraft "the distinction of sex (i.e. gender) [should be]
confounded in society, unless where love animates the behaviour."
Note that many
‘liberal’ political philosophers (e.g. Rousseau) have had anti-woman elements in
their theories (see Notes on feminism). A deep
and critical examination of theories about women in society was one of the main
factors that led to the ‘second wave’.
For me, by far
the most radical of the first wave feminists was Simone de Beauvoir (1908 –
1986) whose book The Second Sex (1949) brought the
philosophy of existentialism into feminism. (See de Beauvoir). Her in-depth exploration
prepared the way for the ‘second wave’ of feminism.
The book
contained an analysis, and rejection, of other explanations of the position of
women – Marxist, Freudian etc – and advocated an approach based on
existentialism. For existentialists there is no pre-given human nature (hence
no pre-given differences between men and women, other than the purely
biological) – we make choices in life that define our being. However, these
choices are very often affected by the society in which we live, and by others,
who are competing to keep the freedom to define their own identity. For de
Beauvoir, women are an Other to
men, but men have defined themselves first (their role, identity etc), so that
women are always explained in relation to men: men are the ‘norm’ against which
women are measured – and women are not taken as existing in their own right. Men
have the ability, through work and political power, and their higher position
in society, to ‘transcend’: to gain fulfillment and to shape their own destiny.
Women lack this ability because of their position in society, and especially
because of the expectations of men. Hence: ‘the second sex’.
There is an
extract from this book in ‘The Penguin Book of Twentieth-Century Protest p
207).
2. The second wave of
feminism (1960s/70s – 1990s):
It became
clear that although women now had the
vote, (but note that many countries have taken a long time to ‘give’ the
vote to women – see #footnote) and more women now had paid jobs, nothing much had changed as regards
their status. A more radical stance needed to be taken. The conventional
political struggle has failed, and there was still a need to change the
dominant thinking about women.
Even the
youth/hippie movement of the 1960s, and the various socialist parties and
groups of the time (see later weeks) still too often treated women as
subservient to men. ‘Free love’ as
one feminist has said, simply meant that men expected women to be readily
available. Even with contraception it was not so easy for women to express
their needs, or to refuse sex if pressured into it. In socialist groups –
despite their professed belief in equality for all – women were given ancillary
roles, making the refreshments or minding the crčche. In one Trotskyist group the leader, Gerry Healy, took advantage of
his position to demand that women slept with him in return for promises of
promotion within the organisation. The WRP as it then was collapsed when the
leader’s behaviour became public knowledge. I don’t have first-hand knowledge
of right-wing groups at the time, but I doubt the pattern of behaviour was much
different!
In 1970 the
first Women’s Liberation Conference was held in Oxford. There were 600 women
present, and they formulated demands for: equal
pay, 24 hour child care, free contraception, free abortion on demand – the
new focus on reproduction, women’s experience, and the new
argument from some feminists that there are important differences between men and women is all part of a new way of
thinking in the movement.
Thus this
phase stressed "difference"
- and problems of “identity”, (see
below) and it drew on biological,
anthropological and psychological evidence and theories (as had de
Beauvoir). The political outlook of the second phase/wave was more radical than
the first, i.e. demanding more profound social changes.
During this
wave, women’s papers such as Spare Rib,
Shrew, and Wires were started.
Refuges for battered women, and rape
crisis centres were established. And within the movement, groups tackled
specific issues and especially violence against women, (e.g. Women Against Violence Against Women; Reclaim the Night; the
Working Women’s Charter 1974).
Key texts of
the second wave:
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, 1963 – resisting
the pressure on women to adopt the role ascribed to them of mother; used
arguments such as that the children of mothers who stayed at home did not
benefit but were bored and dependent. (See The Penguin Book of
Twentieth-Century Protest p 287)
Of Woman Born by Adrienne
Rich, 1976 – motherhood as penal servitude, and as a patriarchal institution –
leading to questioning of all aspects of reproduction, parenthood etc.
The GLC also had an important role in
promoting women’s causes (it gave Ł4.6 million to women’s projects before being
closed down in 1986), and there were links with the political ‘left’ over Clause 28 (which restricted discussion
of homosexuality in schools). See, for example, Beyond the Fragments by Sheila Rowbotham.
During the
1980s/90s: as in USA, extra issues were identified as needing to be addressed
within the movement: black women,
immigration, women in the third world (though movements representing the
latter had been in existence since 1913)… In Britain OWAAD (Organisation for
Women of African and Asian Descent), was set up in 1978, and wound up in 1982. See
http://www.feministactivistforum.org.uk/page23.htm
and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1395018
(the first page of an article about OWAAD.)
From 1981 a
camp was established at Greenham Common, (site of US
nuclear weapons and missiles, especially cruise) which linked the women’s movement with the anti-war movement. For many
feminists, war is derived from, or part of the problem of, male violence… The camp caused controversy (of course!) by
excluding men. In 1982 30,000 women surrounded the base – by 1990 were over 100
peace camps around the world. Eventually the base was closed down – though it
is a matter of debate as to whether the camp contributed to the decision to
close it.
See: The Road
to Greenham Common, by Jill Liddington,
Syracuse University Press,1989.
The perspective/philosophical viewpoint of the
second wave was ‘radical feminism’: central issues concerned
women’s control over their bodies,
sexuality, and reproduction. The importance of reproduction lay in the fact
that if women are tied by it, or to it, it prevents them going into public
life. (The feminist analysis of the role of ‘reproduction’ later came to
include the reproduction of ideas… see the third wave below).
Common to this
perspective is the belief that there are physical/biological as well as
psychological and socio-economic dimensions to the exploitation of women,
which go beyond capitalism. In other words, patriarchy and dominance over women
are found in other socio-political systems, and not only in capitalism.
There were
many ways in which the 2nd wave of feminism contributed to politics,
social issues (and philosophy):
- Feminism
threw new light on the ‘public/private’
distinction. Hitherto (especially in liberal political thinking) these were
regarded as completely separate – what happens in the home has nothing to do
with public issues such as politics; but when it is argued that ‘the personal is the political,’ this
has repercussions on political thought. Nowadays it is accepted that
contraception, abortion, domestic
violence, rape etc are matters that need to be publicly discussed; and
governmental policies are crucial in determining how women (more so than men)
are treated in relation to these and other issues. (Take the current debate
over the identification of men accused of rape… or the Catholic position on
condoms in dealing with the spread of AIDS).
- The second
wave of the movement led to a celebration of diversity, which arose out of discussions of women’s ‘identity.’ In
addition it was soon recognised that although they have many experiences in
common, white women and black women (for example) experience sexism differently
– black women having to face a double discrimination; similarly with other
categories such as ‘class’, sexual orientation, ability/disability… This phenomenon is called ‘intersectionality’…
It was
important therefore, given the way ‘women’ had all been squeezed into one
‘identity’, to counter this stereotyping with a celebration of our diversity.
Recently, ‘identity politics’ has come under attack – presumably because it
lacks a way of bringing together the experiences of different ‘identities.’
Other criticisms are based on the danger of ‘essentialism’ – i.e. a view that
should run counter to how feminists think, if they accept what e.g. de Beauvoir
argues, that women are ‘made’ not ‘born’. Bearing in mind that we are talking
about the ‘women’s liberation
movement’, the question has to be asked whether
‘identity’ is a liberating concept, or one that traps individuals and
groups. Nationalism, if taken as a type of identity politics, illustrates this
nicely I think. (The Wikipedia discussion, though abstruse in places, adds to
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics).
- Second wave
feminists practiced ways of organizing that were non-hierarchical – since a key feature of patriarchy is that it is
a power-relation. These ideas and practices had an impact on other social
movements (e.g. greens).
Towards the
end of this period, there was a ‘backlash’ against feminism (though we might
argue that there has always been a backlash against feminism!), and Backlash, by Susan Faludi,
1991 – noted that feminism was being blamed for women’s woes in the ‘80s.
This she saw as a way of re-domesticating women.
3. Third wave (and
perspective):
This wave is distinctive because the ideas
behind it are ‘post-modern’.
Postmodernism
is a difficult idea, but in this context one way of describing it is ‘the deconstruction of all dominant
narratives’. (See Notes on feminism and I hope to complete notes
specifically on postmodernism and feminism).
‘Deconstruction’: taking apart, breaking
down so as to reveal hidden meanings (a philosophy mostly associated with the
French 20th century philosopher Derrida – though he went beyond
deconstruction, some argue).. For example, feminists
point out that the use of the word ‘he’ or ‘mankind’ as if it includes women is deceptive – since women have been
excluded from e.g. citizenship, and denied equal rights with men. Yet most
people who use the word ‘mankind’ don’t realise this hidden past in its
meaning.
‘Narrative’ is a word used to
indicate that we should question the idea that there are ‘truths’: since the
‘truth’ has been established by white western men… perhaps the word truth hides
the fact that what is being claimed is not true. For example, in politics the
definition of the purpose of the state was for a long time (especially since
the 18th century, and the ideas of John Locke) that it ‘defends our
rights and our property’ – yet women (and blacks…) at the time had neither
property nor rights – so in relation to the state they didn’t exist? If, it was
argued, modern thinking had such appalling beliefs at its core, (because we were ‘modern’ we were
superior and justified in exploiting others) then it was necessary to take apart
(deconstruct) these ‘modern’ beliefs and to think in a new way – one that gave
women, people of other races, and the natural environment their rightful place.
Putting this in philosophical language, postmodernism saw that "discourses
of power assume inequality at their very roots" (Whelehan
1995).
What is the ‘dominant narrative’? The dominant
narrative is ‘modernism’ – the ideas
brought about by the Enlightenment: these include a belief in individual rights
as inviolable, individual property, freedom, and the scientific method. Radical
political theorists, including some feminists, want us to examine these ideas
more closely – to ‘deconstruct’ them.
Questions then
arise such as: is there such a thing as
an isolated individual whose freedom is sacrosanct? Are we not social
beings – what about our responsibility to each other? How can a mother exercise
her individual freedom and take care of a baby? What rights do people have if they have no property? (At this point
in time the Roma are being expelled from
The version of
postmodernism that I believe is the most useful follows the seminal work by
Jean-Francois Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition: A
Report on Knowledge, 1979. In fact Lyotard with this
work brought about the idea of ‘postmodernism’.
Feminist postmodernism:
Some versions
of postmodernism seem to be apolitical, or as leading to cynicism, since it
rejects all modern ideas; but the ‘third wave’ of feminism, together with
anti-colonialism in recent times, has adopted postmodern ideas in a way that
enables a critique of modernism and of patriarchy.
The ‘modern’
world, it is argued, came about with the scientific revolution and with the colonization by Europe of much of the
rest of the world. ‘Modern’ thinking almost always included (mostly explicit
but sometimes hidden) a belief in the superiority of the white man – (the
stress here is on both ‘white’ and ‘man’!) since he (never ‘she’) had developed
technologies and knowledge that were in advance of anything else in the world,
and this had enabled him to colonise other countries (to ‘bring them the
advantages the white man had’ – in theory!). Consequently a world-view emerged in which whites were superior to blacks, and men
were superior to women.
(This is the
‘flip side’ of the Enlightenment that Kate Millett saw as having contributed to
the growth of the women’s liberation movement. For critics of the Enlightenment
there was much more about it that was conducive to the emergence of patriarchy
than the liberation of women – see The
Enlightenment: race, slavery, women).
Feminists came
up with new concepts to describe, for example, the way that men’s view of the
world had taken over and was used to support men’s power over women: such
thinking was ‘phallocentric’...
Where exactly this
new ‘postmodern discourse’ has got us is a matter of controversy – but its
strength lay in not only challenging ideas that had been accepted
unquestioningly, but in its being interdisciplinary
(breaking down barriers between ‘disciplines’ such as ‘politics’ and ‘morality’
for example). Postmodernism sees the fragmentation and pigeonholing of
knowledge into disciplines as a product of the old, ‘modern’ way of thinking.
Some critics
of postmodernism say that it is ‘relativist’
– i.e. if all discourses or all points of view, are simply the expression of a
will-to-power on the part of some group or other – where is the ‘truth’? Or
should we agree with postmodernists and say that ‘truth’ is another of these
terms used to bolster the ‘modernist’ view of the world?! A less difficult
criticism is that postmodernism is simply far too academic to be of much use in
confronting real-life problems of male domination!!
As an example
of the way that the third, postmodern, wave opened up questions in the women’s
movement, there ensued an argument as to how women should behave: if men have
been able (had the right!) to be openly sexual (wolf-whistling, lads mags etc), while women are expected to be modest – and with
this to have no power or status, then why
should women not gain power by having the same freedom as men to be openly
sexual? Women then demanded the right to decide what the limits were to
their own sexual behaviour - women having always been told by men how to be ‘sexual’ – or how they should
not be! Previous
feminist arguments, that appearing attractive to men was playing into their hands, (as it were!)
now came under question: being attractive to men can be ‘empowering’ after all.
Thus,
(following a recent discussion in the pages of the Guardian) for Rebecca Walker, daughter of the novelist Alice
Walker, the ‘third wave’ meant continuing the second wave activism ‘but still
shaving your legs.’ On the other hand, for Wendy Shalit,
the third wave carried the sexual revolution too far, and ‘conditioned young women
to become sluts’ – pole-dancing [some feminists said they saw nothing wrong in
women doing this if they chose to] cannot
be empowering, and women should be
‘modest’.
For Siegal there are
still issues of power, not just sexual power either. ‘It is confusing to be a
daughter of feminism in a culture that has changed in your favour – but stopped
half way (at most)’. The stripping pole (pole dancing) has become a distraction
– much as ‘bra-burning’ did in the second wave. ‘We need to keep our eyes on the
wider array of women’s issues.’
4. Assessment of the third wave:
Germaine Greer and others believe the third wave
achieved little – as against the second wave, which brought about changes in
legislation, women’s shelters, feminist institutions etc.
On the other hand, many self-described
third-wavers said to Deborah Siegal (Guardian
31.08.07) for her book: Sisterhood
Interrupted: from radical women to grrls gone wild…
that the third wave had achieved
things, e.g. (in America): the Young Women’s Project, Third Wave Foundation,
Younger Women’s Task Force,
New concepts and perspectives: This section is as in Philosophy and feminism.
Feminism has
had a substantial impact on philosophy: it has developed new perspectives, and
new concepts – or at the least, a re-thinking of existing concepts.
Some of these
concepts have entered our everyday language – though not always in the sense
intended by feminist thinkers!
For much of
our intellectual history we have assumed that men have certain ‘natural’
characteristics, and women have others. Feminists have pointed out that there
is a difference between ‘male’(a biological category)
and ‘masculine’ (a character trait), likewise: ‘female’ and ‘feminine’. Men
(males) do not have to be ‘masculine’ (strong, ambitious, ‘big boys don’t cry’
etc) – nor do women (females) have to be ‘feminine’ (delicate, sensitive,
nurturing, intuitive etc).
In other words
we need to distinguish between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’:
Men and women have different biological
characteristics = sex (male/female), but culture determines/defines gender, i.e. what
"masculinity/femininity" mean.
As an
illustration of the feminist view, here is what Simone de Beauvoir wrote in
1949 in The Second Sex Part IV:
"One
is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or
economic
fate
determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilisation as a
whole
that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is
described
as feminine.."
i.e. de Beauvoir challenges
accepted views of the “nature" of woman, and asks that we examine the
question: how is woman constituted? (see:
Simone
de Beauvoir).
To my mind,
this is one of the least-understood words used in discussions about the
relations between the sexes. Too often it is used whenever someone says
something about a difference between men and women… However, it should only
apply in situations where ‘women's characteristics’ are said to be not just different to men’s but
"inferior".
Simone de
Beauvoir pointed out that, of course, "different" implies different from
something, and the crucial question that is often overlooked is that men’s characteristics are regarded as
‘normal’ or ‘essential’ and women’s as somehow lacking or inferior. As she
said: the question is often asked ‘what is a woman?’ – whereas
no-one asks ‘what is a man?’ ‘Man’ is assumed to be the norm, woman somehow
deviant from the norm
Sexism means arguing
three things:
(i) Women are different, and
(ii) this is by nature (women – and men - have no choice over how they are,
they cannot be changed...), and (iii)
since it is assumed that ‘men’ represent what is normal, or best, then women
are (by nature) inferior (if they were merely culturally inferior they could be
re-educated...).
Notice, in
other words, that the concept ‘sexism’ depends on what was said above about the
difference between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ with regard to sex/gender….
The
consequence of sexism is to reinforce the lack of power that women have – to
continue to take power from women by defining them in a certain way. It is when
we look - closely and critically - at the ways in which women have been
described as different that we begin to see the power-relations involved.
So, it is not sexist per se to say women are different – it depends on the kind of difference! It is not sexist to say women
are biologically different (unless from this you draw conclusions that put
women down). The term ‘sexism’ was devised by analogy with ‘racism’… There is no point in pretending that black
people don’t have black skins, and other physical difference to whites. On the
other hand, if you use these differences in a way which indicates you think
they make the black person inferior, you are being racist. So, feminists are
not trying to claim there are no biological differences between men and women,
but they are wary of differences which are given different values. (See
the list of ‘dualisms’ that comes at the end of this section).
To my mind –
and this may be controversial but I believe it follows from the above, and many
feminists would also argue this way: a disparaging remark or statement about
men is not truly sexist: men generally (men as men – this is not a question
merely of individuals, as there are of course exceptions to the rule) are in a
position of power and privilege, and no amount of negative remarks or
statements about men can alter that. On the other hand, the problem with sexism
is – as stated above – precisely that it reinforces a position of inferiority
on the part of those to whom it is directed (and superiority on the part of the
originator).
In sum,
power-relations are at the heart of the matter: men who treat women as inferior
do so in order to make themselves feel superior. Note Virginia Woolf's (1929) vivid
account of this: (quoted in Feminism: A Reader ed. Humm
1992)
Women have
served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious
power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size. Without that
power probably the earth
would
still be swamp and jungle.
Whatever may
be their use in civilised societies, mirrors are essential to all violent and heroic
action. That is why Napoleon and
Mussolini both insist so emphatically on the inferiority of women,
for
if they were not inferior, they would cease to enlarge…
How is he to
go on giving judgement, civilising natives, making laws, writing books, dressing
up and speechifying at banquets, unless he can see himself at breakfast and dinner
at least twice the
size
he really is!
4.3 It is
important to note that sexism can be deeply embedded in the language we use:
I call this
way of thinking ‘normative dualism’ -
the pairs of characteristics represent: the ‘norm’ – on the left below - and
against it an inferior or ‘abnormal’ counterpart. But of course, the
left-hand side represents attributes of men…
same thing, different values:
angry hysterical
assertive/dominant bitchy/bossy
talk/converse gossip/chatter
complain nag
stud/Don Juan/Casanova whore/slut/slag
hierarchical categories:
superior inferior
normal different
essential complementary
distinct characteristics:
mind body
reason/logic/analysis intuition/feeling/hunch
transcendence immanence
culture nature
active passive
public/state/society private/community/family
universal particular
impartial/objective personal/subjective
truth opinion
autonomous/independent dependent/nurturing/relational
self-regarding other-regarding/altruistic
hard/strong soft/sensitive/weak
polygamous monogamous
penetrating receptive
active masochistic/narcissistic
4.4 a new way of seeing the world: the personal is the political:
The pioneering 18th century
feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 – 1797), author of A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman (1791), argued that women (a) have the ability to reason but
(b) have been prevented from developing and using it by being expected to be
merely "beautiful": they are told their main value is in their beauty
– they are praised for this to ‘compensate’ for their treatment as inferior
beings:
An early demand of the women’s movement was for
‘wages for housework’ – this raises other issues, but also relates to the
question of what is personal or private and what is ‘political.
Finally, as can be seen from the statistics on
domestic violence, as well as in the anger at the inadequate policing of rape
and stalking, violence even in the home is not a purely ‘personal’ matter…
(See: Statistics on Inequality etc).
5. Recent issues: where is feminism now?
(See original notes for an earlier list: Women's Movement)
Issues that
are under discussion now include:
The ‘glass
ceiling – unequal pay e.g. for male and female broadcasters
Inequality in
pay – the gap is still large and it will take many years to equalize pay,
despite there being an equal pay law!
The #metoo movement – unwanted sexual advances, and coercion
into sex acts: women have now made it public how often this goes on
There
is much more awareness of the problem of female genital mutilation (I prefer
this term to ‘circumcision’): thousands of young girls in Britain are likely to
be affected by this practice, which in Egypt for example is incredibly
widespread. This is perhaps evidence of the importance of the second wave
concern for women other than middle-class westerners.
Oakley, Ann:
Housewife (1974?), The Men’s Room (?), Taking it like
a woman (autobiography), A Critical Woman (2011)
Recent/Forthcoming Books on Feminism Today:
‘Is Feminism
finding its voice again?’ See: Guardian: Kira Cochrane,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/24/feminism-not-finished-not-uncool
Reclaiming the
F Word: the New Feminist Movement, by Catherine Redfern,
Kristin Aune…
Kat Banyard: The Truth About men and Women Today
(Guardian):
Women of the Revolution – forty years of feminism (articles in the Guardian)
6.99/9.99
Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn: Half
the Sky (on plight of women in the developing world).
Ellie Levenson: The Noughtie Girl’s
Guide to Feminism
Nina Power:
One Dimensional Woman
Sheila Rowbotham: Dreamers of a New Day
Natasha
Walter: Living Dolls
Website: http://www.thefword.org.uk/ -
contemporary UK feminism…
Footnote: When did women
get the vote?
Women and
votes: a brief history (extracts from Atlas of Women by Joni Seager), full picture on the site of the
inter-parliamentary union: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm
1848 French
men – women not until 1944
1893
1902 white
Australian women - Aboriginals not until 1967
1915
1918
1920 white
1928
1929
‘literate’ Puerto Rican women – rest not until 1835
1930 Turkish
women
1931 white
South African women, Indians and ‘coloured’ women: 1984,
blacks not until 1994
1956 Egyptian
women
1963 Iranian
women
1971 Swiss
women
1974 Jordanian
women
1980
1989
1999
2001
2005
In 2005 men were allowed to vote in local elections in Saudi Arabia (women not allowed to vote or to stand), in the United Arab Emirates parliament is appointed: no-one has the vote!