Many have suggested that a solution that could please both advocates of women’s rights and those of freedom of religion or belief is a rather simple one: the emphasis on the right to exit one's religion being the primary right of all individuals.

In Susan Moller Okin's article for The University of Chicago Press' Journal on 'Ethics," she references the following in regards to the individual's right of exit:

"The opportunity to exit from a group is a vital protection for those members of it who are repressed by its culture. Given that most cultures known to us are repressive to a lesser or greater degree, the opportunity of exit is of vital importance as a counter to the worry that multiculturalism encourages repressive cultures to perpetuate their ways. . . . [While] groups should be encouraged to change their repressive practices . . . this is a very slow process. Opportunities of exit should be encouraged as a safeguard, however imperfect, for members who cannot develop and find adequate avenues for self-expression within their native culture."

But is the solution that simple? Does the right to exit in all religious traditions solve the problem? In a foundational sense, this is simply not practical for a couple of reasons, the first of which being that this ‘right to exit’ is something that those that are in most need of it, those that are most vulnerable, will probably not be able to exercise.

"Because of the general tendency of most cultures to try to control the lives of girls and women more than those of boys and men, women’s capacities to exit their cultures of origin are usually considerably more restricted than men’s."

This is true for three reasons: the first reason for this being education. Initially, there is a lack of opportunity for women to pursue education, which makes them less likely to exercise this right, as the need for marriage, child care and caring for their families is prioritized over education.

"The rates of female to male illiteracy in the world’s two most populous countries, China and India, in which the prevalent culture or cultures are still in their various ways highly patriarchal, are 27 percent : 10 percent and 62 percent : 35 percent, respectively."

Even where girls do have access to this education, they are often taught, as is the case with fundamentalist Christian schools in America that "a woman must submit to a subordinate, obedient role in the home; if she does not, 'the doors are wide open for Satan.'"

The second reason is that of marriage and divorce. In various religious traditions, particularly Islamic ones, girls are often forced to marry at very young ages, to an older man. “Arranged and early marriages preempt young women’s choices about the kinds of lives they may want to lead, including the choice to exit their cultural group.” As divorce is particularly difficult in certain religious traditions for the woman to obtain, they become essentially stuck in a marriage.

The third reason being that of socialization and gender roles, girls are taught to be submissive and have humility. What this often leads to is a lack of independence and sense of self, with low self-esteem. A woman oppressed in this way is not very likely to even conceive leaving their religious or cultural group. “Girls are often successfully socialized into the acceptance of practices that they would be likely to come to regard as oppressive if they were living in a less sexist cultural context.”

Although it is an attractive and succinct solution in theory, in practice this right, although important, is not the end-all solution as it is not practical.

Even if we were to assume that it could be practiced by those that needed it most, it would still be flawed. The right of exit would simply re-enforce the justification of oppression and silencing of all dissent by simply forcing them to ‘exit.'

In Alison Stuart's article "Freedom of Religion and Gender Equality: Inclusive or Exclusive?" for the Human Rights Law Review in 2010, she writes:

"If this right is interpreted and commonly understood as the right to practise one’s religion, within the context of a recognised religion, and women are excluded from influencing the content and being a part of the power structure within that religion then, in effect, not only is their fundamental right to equality being violated but also their right to religion."

It does not allow for any actual reform within religious traditions. Once again, it seems to force the woman to choose between the two aspects of her identity, in this way even if the practice of the right were available, it would still be problematic. A woman should not have to resort to or be forced to leave behind her culture, religion, family and all else to realize her right to equality and right from oppressive and harmful practices.