Of note, this is the third time in the spotlight for the gender/oil issue.

Feminist Kate Millet went to Iran in 1979, was expelled, and wrote about the experience in "Going to Iran" 1982 (out of print).  At that time Ms magazine noted the US accomodation of sexual apartheid oil regimes, of which Saudi Arabia is the worst.

Jay Leno's wife Mavis has been a longtime advocate for the rights of women in Moslem oil nations.  Jay Leno (much to the dismay of then Pres. G.H.W. Bush) complained about Saudi law when entertaining the troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991.  (This was before Jay became the permanent Tonight Show host in 1992)

I agree with your comments about the unnecessary lewdness of some posts. However, I don't think it's fair to tar this issue with the same brush.

People of both genders are exporting untold billions of their hard-earned dollars which support regimes with appalling policies. It's not unreasonable for the human rights issue to surface, or for feminists to view it through their own lens. And bringing it up 3 times in 24 years doesn't seem very pushy.

And then there is the cultural lens. If you live in a country where women are taken seriously, it's easy to forget that it's not true everywhere. In gender gap ratings (PDF), just as an example, New Zealand ranks #6 overall, and #1 in political empowerment for women--versus #17 and #19 respectively for the USA. The American sisters have a long way to go, and bringing up the issues can't hurt.

I am just tired of fighting the flow of history, and complaining about gender apartheid in oil states while the world lurches into resource wars just feels like the ultimate futility.  IMO, the 1970s were humanity's last chance to head off all the catastrophes that are unfolding now.  The last chance to get serious about population stabilization, to prepare for the transition to a post oil infrastructure, to complete the enlightenment by removing ancient tribal superstitions from public policy.  Establishment of universal human rights including gender equity would have been a part of that.  Well, humanity failed all the tests.  We acted like the only slightly upgraded Homo ergasters that we are.

We decided as a species to continue investing in living arrangements that were increasingly oil dependent.  We doubled the global population and the cult of consumerism and endless growth spread worldwide.  Hundreds of millions embraced the various fundamentalist religions, including insane death cults who believe global thermonuclear war would trigger the rapture.  Feminist splinter movements within traditionally masculinist cultures (never more than a small minority of women) were a passing artifact of the cheap oil era.  As the world becomes poorer, and once again more local, gender relations will return to the local past.

In a few places like Scandanavia, NZ, and Oregon's Willamette Valley, the deep rooted local cultures of gender balance will persist.  In Mississippi and Afghanistan the patriarchal plantation master and warlord will rise again.  There is no more hope of changing this than Jimmy Carter had of selling peak oil mitigation 30 years in advance.  Going forward, post peak women will need the same things that men will need - allies who can help acquire and defend survival resources.  There will be no post peak sisterhood other than ones biological sisters and in-laws.

I agree with this...just seems like a stretch to force a "feminist perspective" of peak oil. BTW, I agree with your posts on this thread. ALL OF THEM.
The reason that it's important to pitch energy issues with a feminist perspective is because most people really do see things through a particular filter. People who read Ms. Magazine don't also read Oil and Gas Journal, and they read Ms. because they are interested of the ramifications of some issue on women. Same thing for any other kind of special interest group. If you could couch PO in a way that best relates to the specific interests of Native Americans or rock musicians or runway models, then you would be able to explain to each different group why PO is such a serious issue.

I don't know what will happen to gender relations in a future era, but if the point now is to get the message out to as many people as we can, then we're going to have to learn how to tailor our delivery to different constituencies.