There is a pervasive assumption that women in third world countries are largely subordinated and do not have any power or say in public sphere matters. This is by and large not true. Here is a great paper which examines the multiple ways in which women can and do influence the public sphere in the (gasp!) horrible, oppressive Middle East.

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100

The writer suggests that the frequently drawn contrast between the female social world, which is said to be private, 'domestic, narrow and restricted', and the 'political, broad, and expansive' public world of men, represents, in the Middle Eastern context she examines, an inappropriate imposition of Western social scientists' own categories.

What the ethnographic materials suggest is that women do approach public affairs but they do so from private positions. "Women can and do exercise influence over men, for example, as mediators between natal and affinal groups in marriage alliances, as controllers of the products or the property, and as wielders of authority in the domestic sphere."

In many places in the Middle East, especially pastoral societies, women depart from their natal household to take up residence elsewhere with a man (female exogamy), and in this critical position communicate one group to another. As such women play a crucial role as structural links between kinship groups, and act as “information-brokers,” mediating social relations within the family and larger society.

Essentially, the woman is in a position to channel or withhold information to the male members of the kindred. And in this position the woman influences decision-making about alliances, actually sets up marriage relations, and informs male members of the household what is going on in other homes. But the “home” in question is not that of a tiny nuclear family, but of a wider family group. And this family group is one upon which many of the affairs of the society turn. Basically, the Middle Eastern woman's 'domestic' world is, in its own way, political, broad and expansive.

The author also argues that the sharp sexual segregation found in the Middle East means, not so much that women are relegated to restricted private realms, but that they have a wide range of contacts among themselves, from which men are excluded. In many places women form their own exclusive solidarity groups and these groups exercise considerable social control. Also, by seeking alliance and support from other women in the community, certain women achieve high social status in the community and consequently exercise political influence.

Another thing the author addresses is the degree to which the public image of a man is influenced by the particular behaviour of women - through ridiculing, through gossip, through honour and shame. A good example of this is the Baggara Arabs, where women do not occupy many formal political positions, BUT they are arbiters of men’s conduct and they can make or break a man’s political career. "They do this by singing songs of praise or alternatively of mockery. Both the brave man and the cowardly man have their fame spread."

So despite women occupying a minority of formal positions of power in the Middle East, they are not nearly as powerless as most have concluded. However, since they tend to wield power and exercise influence without directly participating in formal political institutions, theirs is a power that gets largely overlooked and dismissed.

Informal relationships and forms of power are at least as significant a force as formalised, authorised relationships and power, and a close study of these societies shows that women can and do exert influence over men and society there.