India is maybe the most understandable case, since AFAIK Hinduism is actually not a sexist religion (relatively speaking, anyway) and the predominant discrimination in India is by caste, not gender. Certainly there is sexual stereotyping, but it doesn't seem to lead particularly to submission/repression of women, rather to rigid but more equal demarcation of territory - which does not seem to include the wielding of political power. Possibly Indira Ghandi was a start of that, or maybe it's an attitude since pre-Moghul days?
Islam, at least as applied in the world today, does seem to lead to a very noticeable shift of power towards men - I'm sure brees will confirm that this is not proper Koranic teaching, but women are very definitely repressed (have fewer effective rights, less scope for the individual and far less power) in Islamic countries.
Which makes it all the odder that Pakistan (given a return by Benazir Bhutto), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Indonesia could all soon be governed by women via 'elected dynasties', where it's certain that the descendants would never have attained power had it not been for the example of their husbands/fathers... incidentally a concept which was tried in the UK 200+ years ago (the Pitt's) but is, of course, totally alien to modern nations like the USA <vbg> |
