Is Women-Only City in Saudi Arabia Revolutionary or Regressive?

by AdriHead Posted 2012/08/13 19:00:00

Related Topics: Women Only City, Islam, Saudi Arabia, Sharia Law

1,018 votes
Read all 1,035 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Revolutionary	475 votes	47%
	Regressive	543 votes	53%

We're not sure whether to file this under "revolutionary" or "regressive." A new town will be built in Saudi Arabia that is just reserved for women... and the reason behind it is so women can be encouraged to pursue careers without breaking the country's strict Islamic laws. As of now, only 15 percent of women in the Islamic nation work.

The controversial city is expected to have companies and firms run by women, produce about 5,000 jobs in industries like pharmaceutics and food processing and lure in millions of dollars in investments. Do you think the idea behind this upcoming women-only city is revolutionary... or is it kind of regressive?

NEWS.COM.AU reports:
BUILD them a city, and they will come!

+32

Add a comment above

Melkor 2012/08/13 20:34:46 (edited)

Regressive

+18
While people say it is revolutionary, let is think about it: a city only for women. Pretend this was only for men. Is it really revolutionary? No I say this is discrminating to men, this doesn't improve their standing relating to men. This makes women unequal to men. It Only makes the gap between each greater.
>> See Replies

More polls by AdriHead

Mj PINKYFINGERDOWN 2013/01/07 20:56:37
Omar Dahir 2012/09/02 00:51:44

Revolutionary

+1
They get jobs right?

reply
JustBeingAtPeace 2012/09/02 00:02:23

Revolutionary

+1
Its a start for them, just thankful to see something being done period for the women over there.

reply
Obamarules2012 2012/08/31 17:41:49 (edited)

Regressive

+2
I guess for Saudi Arabia, it's revolutionary. Pretty backwards by any other standards. God, I'm glad I'm not from there.

reply
Luna Wren 2012/08/25 21:12:46

Revolutionary

+1
Neither nor. But I do think that giving them some sort of freedom is a good thing

reply
Corey 2012/08/24 17:43:34
EllE 2012/08/23 19:30:21 (edited)

Regressive

Women are second class citizens in Saudi Arabia, comparable to slaves or pets. )))
So, they will get their own stable now? ;-)
Iranian women have 90% more freedom, than women in SA - country that inslave's & sales women like pets & actually they have real slavery - today.
Sunni Wahhabism - the most oppressive & primitive if you compare to Shia & other primitives out there... )))

reply
Moejj 2012/08/23 03:03:53

Regressive

freakin' backward freaks. i

reply
fightingquip 2012/08/22 04:26:53

Regressive

Too much leisure time in that country.

reply
Stiffy 2012/08/20 10:56:14

Revolutionary

+1
YEEESSSS!!!
FI-NAL-LY!
I Hope they have pools and parks and rides! Thank Allah for Privacy...
I hope i get the chance to visit.
oh and i hope there are sceneries!
and for those men who say: hey, that's discrimination!
Then SOA-RRY, BUT the women that'll be there will not be for YOUR eyes to see.
Muslim women?
part of the elite..
;P
no seriously, it's like saying "hey, girls have their own bathroom? THAT'S DESCRIMINATION!"
ya5y, WE DON'T WANT YOU (MEN) THERE.
WE'D LOOOOOVE TO WEAR WHATEVER WE WANT, WITHOUT A DUDE GLARING AT US UP AND DOWN THANK YOU.
AND IF YOU THINK IT'S SUCH A BAD PLACE, THEN SAVE YOURSELF THE TROUBLE AND DON'T GO THERE.
Because whether you like it or not, SOME girls OUT THERE and some MEN as well, LOOOOOOOVITY LOVE LOVE this idea :)
so just go to disney land or something aight..?
plenty of MIXED resorts or whatever in the world...
so take your pick.
NEXT THING THEY'LL SAY IS: "hey, there are GIRL SCHOOLS that are JUST for GIRLS?! *gassssssp* DESCRIMINATION!!!!!"
come on, take a kit kat, take a break, 'kay?

reply
Sal Del... to Stiffy 2012/08/23 12:26:28

+1
I don't thing anyone's saying it's discriminating to men, but we're saying that it's not adding any rights to the women. You'll still have to be covered because in the muslim faith it is considered a form of adultery for anyone except your husband or Direct family to see your face, that goes for other women seeing your face too.

reply
Stiffy to Sal Del... 2012/08/27 22:21:24

hahahaha!!! wow, you know, I'm wondering, were you TRYING to be funny? if you were you really hit the spot!
okay, A) OF COURSE IT DOES SAUDI WOMEN SOME GOOD, GENIUS! THEY AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO DRIVE!? THIS, THE CITY I MEAN, IS A HUUUGE STEP FOR THE MALES OVER THERE TO SEEEEE WHAT WOMEN CAN DO! THAT IS GOOOOD.
B) WHOOO TOLD YOU THAT IT IS "it is considered a form of adultery for anyone except your husband or Direct family to SEE your FACE, that goes for OTHER WOMEN SEEING YOUR FACE TOO." - I'm like whaa?! who THE HECK TOLD YOU, or WHAT ON EARTH WAS YOUR SOURCE?!
Bi) it is NOT considered adultery if a woman chooses NOT to cover her FACE. You should our weddings (yes, they're not mixed, but that's beside the point); WE can wear whatever WE want AS long as MALES are not included. It's a girls-only party. Until the groom comes in and we put on our abayas, but he only comes at the end, and by then we're SOO tired of DANCING that we JUST wanna SIT down and finally help ourselves to the abundant food on the tables. walla il3atheem...."ADULTERY"? SERIOUSLY? WOW.
SO "that goes for other women seeing your face too" is WRONG. dude, I'm at home in my Jamies... MUM walks by. Dad walks by, MY OLDER BROTHER WALKS BY. SO WHAT? NO, IT IS NOT ADULTERY. GO GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. and... don't argue ...

hahahaha!!! wow, you know, I'm wondering, were you TRYING to be funny? if you were you really hit the spot!
okay, A) OF COURSE IT DOES SAUDI WOMEN SOME GOOD, GENIUS! THEY AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO DRIVE!? THIS, THE CITY I MEAN, IS A HUUUGE STEP FOR THE MALES OVER THERE TO SEEEEE WHAT WOMEN CAN DO! THAT IS GOOOOD.
B) WHOOO TOLD YOU THAT IT IS "it is considered a form of adultery for anyone except your husband or Direct family to SEE your FACE, that goes for OTHER WOMEN SEEING YOUR FACE TOO." - I'm like whaa?! who THE HECK TOLD YOU, or WHAT ON EARTH WAS YOUR SOURCE?!
Bi) it is NOT considered adultery if a woman chooses NOT to cover her FACE. You should our weddings (yes, they're not mixed, but that's beside the point); WE can wear whatever WE want AS long as MALES are not included. It's a girls-only party. Until the groom comes in and we put on our abayas, but he only comes at the end, and by then we're SOO tired of DANCING that we JUST wanna SIT down and finally help ourselves to the abundant food on the tables. walla il3atheem...."ADULTERY"? SERIOUSLY? WOW.
SO "that goes for other women seeing your face too" is WRONG. dude, I'm at home in my Jamies... MUM walks by. Dad walks by, MY OLDER BROTHER WALKS BY. SO WHAT? NO, IT IS NOT ADULTERY. GO GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. and... don't argue with me, aight? Cuz I'm LIVING PROOF. Just SAY-YIN.

NOT ADDING RIGHTS TO WOMEN.... PA-LEASE... you don't know, so don't judge please.

AND FOR THAT DAVE 007, yeah, you, if you're reading this: SHUT UP you wind bag. if you wanna say anymore trash please stick your head in a toilet, cause honestly, what you said, PROVES that YOU belong there.
PEACE. :D
(more)

reply
Sal Del... to Stiffy 2012/08/30 13:51:15

Ok first off in no way did I disrespect you, but obviously you're a child on here trying to play adult cause you're only way of debating is insult, i'm sure that like most religions it depends on the sect of said religion how strict the rules are. Now over here I'm sure your religion isn't as strict as in Saudi Arabia. If you would take the time to learn that you're particular sect doesn't apply to all sects then you would be worth actually talking to but, alas ignorance appears to be your one and only reality.

reply
Stiffy to Sal Del... 2012/08/31 23:10:21

okay, perhaps I was a little harsh, but I'm not a kid. I have NEVER in my LIFE heard of a sect that BANS other women to see other women's faces. THAT I don't think ANYONE has ever HEARD of. That was what you were talking about, right?
And i know my religion and WOULD know if this rule existed. I have never HEARD of the women-not-allowed-to-see-othe... thingy.Never. I have to be honest and say it upset me. I would really love to know who or from where you heard that because if someone is spreading lies... then the world has to know?
i realise i have been slightly insulting in my reply, sorry about that. Really, you just sounded like one of those people who didn't know what they were talking about. You didn't even mention the "sects" in your first reply, you just GENERALIZED and said "in the muslim faith", now i just wanted to show you or tell you MORE about my religion than what you see in the News or whatever. So excuse me for getting carried away and expressing myself freely for a second.

reply
Corey to Stiffy 2012/08/24 17:53:52
Dave 007 2012/08/19 11:36:11

Regressive

Will one Muhammed be the husbad for all?

reply
Yousif to Dave 007 2012/08/20 02:07:32

Prophet Mohammed - Peace been upon him - is not the husband for all Dave !!! You look dosen't know about Islam and basics of Islam. If so, you wouldn't been answered this question by this silly way ...

reply
Carl 2012/08/17 21:14:47

Regressive

+2
It's been done before..... on a small island west of Greece, coupla thousand years ago. Women who chose to get out of the company of men, wanted to live their own lifestyle, and celebrate their beliefs about their Rights in the universe, including having only women as partners.
The island was named Lesbos. The resident were known as Lesbians.

reply
The I 2012/08/17 18:01:47

Revolutionary

+1
Women are not allowed to work in Saudia Arabia. They are dependent on the male for everything. Looks like 54% of people would expect Mars to be like Earth if they think Saudi Arabia is like most western nations.

reply
ShadowGirl 2012/08/17 17:51:09

Regressive

I don't know how many of you looked at the actual article link, but here is a clip:
Saleh Al Rasheed added: ''We are now working on a second industrial city for women.

''We have plans to establish a number of women-only industries in various parts of the kingdom''.

Sounds to me like they are just trying to monetize us. If this was a one off city in the US, it would be revolutionary, however it is not.

reply
Marianne 2012/08/17 17:19:40

Regressive

+1
I am not quite sure if it is revolutionary or regressive.

Women are still considered 2nd class citizens, and there should be a change of mentality first, regarding their civil rights.

Seperate cities or ghettos will not really change mentalities, as women will still be subject to the control and the authority of males.

reply
Riley 2012/08/17 17:15:10

Regressive

+1
A city without the presence of males seems somewhat delightful and refreshing(sorry guys), alot of women will be able to work and such, but why should they have to go to a whole nother city to be able to work? If Islamic males are finally seeing that women can work too I don't see why a city needs to be built.

reply
MrsB 2012/08/17 17:00:35

Regressive

Wow ... in order for them to live what we would consider a "normal" life, these women have to be yanked away from their families, friends and lives just to live in a town by themselves? Will they be taken away in the middle of the night and shipped on trains? Maybe have all of their hair cut off and get a numerical tattoo on their arms?

Sounds a little like an idea from a certain 'stached coward from Germany that I've heard about ...

reply
Corey to MrsB 2012/08/24 17:59:27

Ich finde du ist eine blood schwienehund. He isnt from germany he is from Austria, the only reason he got to power is for making promises about how he was going to take back german land that was taken away from them in the ww1 treaty and restore Deutcheland to its former glory of being a super power.

reply
MrsB to Corey 2012/08/28 23:37:24

He was born in Austria. Moved to Germany and became a citizen ... hence the "from Germany" part.

By the way ... Sie müssen lernen, wie man sprechen Deutsch richtig.

And I think that I'm allowed to give my opinion ... if you're a fan of Hitler, good for you, but there's no reason to say ugly things to me in a language you obviously don't even understand. My family is German, so before you think that you can "school" someone, make sure you understand the difference between opinion and fact.

Basically, that means that I can say he's a coward and not be offended by your chopped up German that you got from Google Translate.

reply
Kalechi808 2012/08/17 16:43:33

Regressive

That's just naturally stupid.....there's absolutely no point to it

reply
Greenbay 2012/08/17 13:30:50

Revolutionary

They need to escape the opression

reply
InoYamanaka 2012/08/16 23:37:37

Revolutionary

+1
I'd be iffy if it was any other country; but that one, where women are stoned to death, yeah they need to get away from all of that.

reply
EricVanSingleton 2012/08/16 20:36:32

Regressive

Didn't we try the "Separate but Equal" carrot here in our country. Then again, Wonder Woman and other Amazons seem to do just fine.

reply
Transquesta 2012/08/16 20:30:27

Regressive

+1
Get back to me when this city is run by women from top to bottom, and wholly autonomous in its function, and I may change my mind/answer. Till then it's just another example of fundy Islamic men doing what fundy Islamic men do: brutalize their women.

reply
donna.robinson.102 2012/08/16 20:27:03

Regressive

I, say its regressive the reason being is because the women are still being given an ultimatum, its either live by our rules or go live amongst the women with those same ideas, no husband, and let us not forget that while they will be encouraged to work,there is still the question of which percentage of their income will they be allowed to maintain? will there be individual quarters or will they be forced to share?

reply
lucky 2012/08/16 14:49:15

Regressive

+1
equality isnt gained by differential treatment.

reply
CJ M 2012/08/16 10:51:05

Revolutionary

+3
What's regressive about this is the fact that this kind of thing is necessary in a country like Saudi.

reply
bettyboop 2012/08/16 10:50:18

Regressive

I guess the men cannot handle the competition so they are sending the women off to a city made just for them. I think it is silly.

reply
jessica 2012/08/16 05:14:07

Revolutionary

+1
It's a good start for women to gain there freedom

reply
Moon 2012/08/15 23:19:11

Regressive

It's a little bit of both really. Great for the women to be able to pursue careers since men there make it so hard with their Islamic laws for a woman do anything. Regressive since they won't stop acting like women are second class citizens and let them grow and progress to their full potential.

reply
lurch 2012/08/15 22:20:22

Regressive

Population certainly won't grow . . . unless there philandering elsewhere. And what happens if an impregnated woman gives birth to a boy?

The need to segregate in order to obtain equality - supposedly - is sad.

reply
rereblue 2012/08/15 20:59:13

Regressive

Oh wow! A whole city for just women! I feel so warm and fuzzy inside.

reply
MIchele Thomas 2012/08/15 20:25:40

Revolutionary

+1
Its revolutionary for their "restrictive" religious environment

reply
Noor 2012/08/15 19:30:59

Regressive

+1
Considering this is taking place in Saudi Arabia, home of fanatic Wahabbis and Salafis, who subjugate women horrendously, it is an understandable and revolutionary goal for the women of that country.

The KSA is one of the worst countries in history of our planet for women's equality ~ largely due to the fact that it seems their men cannot control their lusts at the sight of a female, so the women are isolated and blamed by the .

Sad to see that divide and conquer methodology come to this point but it is not a simple black and white issue. Islam before the creation of these sects stressed unity and cooperation between man and woman. These modern problems are largely due to these fundamentalists slowly moving into other branches of Islam.

Were this city to be built in the west, or for a lesbian population, I would have a different opinion. Unbalanced I would think. I like men and seeing them around ... so... it would definitely be regressive to me.

reply