Scheherazade, the heroine of the Arabian Nights, is the basis of Mernissi's treatise about the differences in misogyny between Europeans and Arabs. It is an interesting concept and having read Mernissi's memoir about her own childhood days in a harem, it gave me a lot of extra context as well. So what are the differences? Are they comparable?
According to Mernissi, Scheherezade is celebrated as a feminist icon in the Arab world. She used her wit and intelligence to keep the despot king entertained and saved the life of countless other women. This is a cold-blooded strategy that could not be easily done if Scheherezade had been considered emotionally unstable as women were commonly portrayed in the west. However, this raises up other questions, especially where Mernissi praises the king's transformation.
A violent despot acknowledges that dialogue with his wife changed his entire world view, has inspired many famous twentieth-century Arab writers to grant Scheherazade, and by extension all women, the status of civilizing agents. Peace and serenity will replace violence in men’s intentions and deeds, predicted the influential Egyptian thinker Taha Hussein, if they are redeemed by a woman’s love.
This is just what women don't want to do. We are not agents for redeeming men. This is really feminism 101, and I am surprised Mernissi uses such an argument. It's basically saying women can survive if they put all their time and energy into making men better. Why is this a woman's job? No, thanks. Women's 'rights' like this, I can do without.
One of the major differences between Arab misogyny European misogyny is that European women are expected to not have a brain. The entire trope of 'women can't do maths' is a typical western concept that is not seen anywhere else. Mernissi discusses this idea in detail and makes some very good points. She points out that women leaders are accepted easily in many Islamic countries. The same actually also goes for India, Africa, and other non-Islamic countries. A woman doesn't have to dress up or behave like a man to lead.
Mernissi also points out that while political power is still very much in the hands of men, women often are omnipresent in the scientific and technological fields in Islamic and eastern countries. It is definitely true that in India, taking up science is considered the best way for a girl to become independent of the mandatory forced-arranged marriage that would otherwise be soon thrust upon her.
Mernissi then goes on to discuss sexist European philosophers and artists. But does this make Arabs any less sexist? She kept insisting that Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres painting passive harem women is equal to Ingres having a harem himself. This is a ridiculous theory and I found her complete confusion over why his wife was not upset over him 'taking another woman in his harem' very embarrassing. While Ingres' paintings may have a sexist element, a real harem with women being pretty much locked up is a horror that Ingres' wife did not have to deal with. A painting is not a mistress. I found this theory ridiculous.
She also focuses completely on Ingres' Turkish slave women and fails to take some other western art into account. There are plenty of paintings of Jeanne d'Arc, portrayed as a warrior woman, which in fact, she was. Anne Boleyn, hunting alongside her husband, is also a very popular 16th century portrait. Sor Juana, a Spanish nun, is depicted in front of a book, obviously a thinking scholar. By selectively choosing Ingres' Turkish odalisques as the sole reference point, Mernissi makes a point that falls a bit flat. Especially when she misses an important point: European colonisation.
The author is confused why western men portray Turkish harem women as passive and submissive. This is definitely sexist but might also have to do more with colonising and white supremacy attitudes than them wanting a harem or that western culture didn't produce portraits of active women. It's the idea that Arab / Turkish women are passive slaves that drive these portrayals. The effects of colonisation on gender relations is hardly touched upon, and I personally think that a lot of modern attitudes in the east stem back to colonisation and 'reclaiming our old way of life' which has stunted growth in many countries. Then there is the fact that colonisation led to the abolition of several types of misogyny but brought in different ones at the same time. The suppression of communist activists in Islamic countries by western powers in the mid 1900s also led in large part to the fanaticism that suppresses women. Mernissi skips these discussions completely.
I also disagree with her idea that Muslim men consider women their equals. I hardly need to point out the systemic repressions enforced through religious means that Islam, like all other religions, allows men to systematically enforce gendered laws and customs. In the same sentence, Mernissi contradicts herself here. Women, like Christians or Jews, are considered to be the equal of men in Islam, even though they are granted a minority status that restricts their legal rights and denies them access to the decision-making process. Women in most Islamic nations can participate in their countries’ respective decision-making bodies, but only indirectly. How are women equal if they aren't, in fact, actually equal?
Ultimately, Mernissi does get to the gist of the matter with this timeless question: What kind of revolution, I wonder, do we need to make men dream of self-assertive independent women as the epitome of beauty? And this is a question all cultures need to ponder.