The US backed militant jihadists when a movement usually known as "arab nationalism" was thriving in the region and had vast popular support. Arab nationalism was against current foreign policy of Saudi Arabia and was in fact pretty secular and very progressive for its time. The US didn't want them because "it waz teh commiez".

I thought that was a widely known fact... that was the time when the US backed the Taliban/Bin Laden, they actually made Rambo III about it.

So, actually, yes, I think there would most certainly be less oppression of woman if the US had backed out from middle east in the 70s. I think almost every serious historian/sociologist or layperson who knows about politics in that region would agree with me, I've actually spoke to many who do, even sociologists that study Islam and Middle East with CIA grants. What they definitely don't agree with me is basically how much what they call "political stability" in that region is worth.

TL, DR; Yes, I think if the US had backed out in the past there would be less oppression of woman. I think "the US" also thinks it, but they just don't care and want a stable regime so that oil prices don't fluctuate chaotically due to heavy speculation.

EDIT: Got four e-mails about this... If someone wants references, I was just compiling some but realized that Chapter 2 of Perilous Power by Chomsky/Achcar is most likely the best place to start. So sorry, no Wikipedia or newspaper article that accurately portrays what I'm trying to explain as an undisputed fact... get used to reading and debating a lot if you want to get into Middle East politics.

Thomas Friedman, in "hot flat and crowded" makes an elaborate case linking the price of crude oil to the undemocratic and oppressive nature of (middle eastern) governments.

It's come and gone, but the region has actually has some pretty socially liberal governments on and off, at times when the West in comparison were pretty backwards. The Ottoman Empire, which ruled most of Saudi Arabia at the time, decriminalized homosexuality as part of its Tanzimat liberal reforms, in 1858. It was the first country in the world to do so.[1]

By comparison, Alan Turing was persecuted for his sexual orientation by the UK in the 1950s, almost 100 years after the Ottoman Empire had seen the light. Heck, when I went to high school in Texas (1996-2000), gay sex was still a criminal offense. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law in 2003 (admist much bloviating by Antonin Scalia about how we were all being overrun by the "homosexual agenda"), and the Texas Republican Party removed the plank in its platform demanding that homosexuality be recriminalized... only this year, in 2012.

[1] edit: Actually, upon some further research, it seems this claim is incorrect. The first modern country to decriminalize homosexuality, as far as I can find, was France, which did so in 1791, during the Revolution.

Of course the United States, since its inception, has a perfect track record of treating women and minorities (sarcasm).

US foreign policy stifles natural progress and evolution in many countries in the Middle East.

Set aside national boundaries and what we're talking about is super-rich ultra-religious hypocrites, and Saudi Arabia sure has no monopoly on those. There are plenty of people in the US who'd happily roll back two hundred or more years of social progress for the great unwashed, and then send their daughters to Europe to get educated and Canada for abortions, and send their sons to Monte Carlo to have sex and gamble.

Subtract the sarcasm from your comment for more effect.