First off, I've re-read the thread and haven't found the comment, i.e, 'anti-Islam' you referred to so I'm not sure who you're actually addressing here.

As to the 'reaction'...this started as a thread regarding an all women Islamic city in Saudi Arabia, but rapidly turned into one - yet another one, I hasten to add - regarding the (supposed) poor lot of Muslim women in general regardless of where they live. Which would be annoying enough in itself. But now, a lot of what's being said has nothing to do with Islamic Law but with the way in which the male leaders of certain countries twist and turn it to their own advantage, and voila, you get a 'reaction'.

So what exactly are we discussing? Islamic Law? Saudi Law? The law in Malaysia? Women's rights in general? Or just we just all chime in with random comments that have nothing to do with the original post but everything to do with the fact that few if any non-Muslim Westerners make any attempt to differentiate between Islamic Law and the way in which it's interpreted in the various Islamic countries?


Words

P.S. I spent 25 years living in Lebanon, Libya, Iran, and then Arab East Jerusalem - if you have any specific questions relating to my experience based on living there, do please feel free to ask.

http://www.autostraddle.com/saudi-ar...aiting-143776/

i'm not sure i fully agree with everything in this article, but i like that it includes input from one of the women who proposed the idea, and that it adds some nuance to the segregation arguments being made elsewhere.

also, i've had a hard time finding info about what the setup of the city would actually be like, but my impression is that women would go there to work/study and wouldn't necessarily live there year-round. it's just setting up the workplace so it's all women without any problems with gender mixing in the workplace (which currently make it difficult for women to work).

Thank you for sharing this Aishah. It illuminated a lot. I'm going to enjoy watching this city unfold and develop. Hopefully the women who are single parents will find solace in a city with sisters of a similar background. It would be fascinating to see this city in 50 years and see how the people who live there grow and change.
I wish the makers of this city all the ease of the world in creating it. The world needs places for women to raise children (probably alone in this city) and a place for business women to thrive.

This certainly adds far more context as a city by women for women, which I like. That said, given the responses that were smeared against the female athletes, I wonder how long before the Patriarchal-dominated Saudi society starts flinging crap at the idea and eventually kill it. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic but I have to wonder..

i think it's helpful to situate this in the larger context of the issue of gender mixing among muslims.

i seriously doubt the patriarchal saudi government is going to decide this is a terrible idea (but, i don't know, 10 years down the road i might be proven wrong, lol). because it actually makes sense within the context of gender segregation as it's practiced in saudi arabia.

the fact is, most straight muslims i know don't like gender mixing. (women included.) there is a religious basis in islam for not practicing free mixing of genders unless for business or study reasons. even in the u.s., most straight muslims (and some queer and progressive muslims) i've met don't free mix outside of these contexts. and in business or study contexts, things are usually kept very platonic and focused on a specific purpose, and if a man and a woman are alone together the door is open, and usually men and women are not alone together unless there is another woman present. at least, that's been my experience being a part of two predominantly straight muslim students' associations and interacting in the larger muslim community in the u.s.

the issue i see is that gender segregation becomes problematic when it's enforced heavily in the school and workplace (because generally women get pushed out of the school/workplace, which is part of why saudi arabia has such problems with women's unemployment rates) and when it is enforced by law to the point that individuals no longer have any choice about what level they want to participate. and combined with mahram (guardianship) laws, it creates a situation where women can no longer advocate for participating to the extent they want. but it's really complicated - there are situations where gender segregation and mahram laws are actually helpful (especially to poor and rural women), so just repealing the law can actually harm some women (which has been an issue in morocco). and just because a woman is uncomfortable with guardianship laws does not mean she'll be totally comfortable with free mixing of genders. the other issue is when women choose gender segregation and women's spaces are not equally accessible - for example in mosques - women are not required but are permitted to go to the mosque whenever we choose. except women's prayer areas in mosques tend to be extremely inaccessible. another issue is that when gender segregation is combined with the idea that public space is men's space and private space is women's space, it affects women's opportunities to work, study, or otherwise participate in public life. but this is not a new idea the saudis just came up with - it's something non-muslims in the u.s. have struggled with until recently and still continue to struggle with in some ways (the issue of women participating in public life). the issue of gender segregation is also not new in u.s. contexts...the lds church practices it too.

one of the earlier articles i posted included a paragraph about saudi women who are seriously uncomfortable working with men (for religious reasons) and how this idea might give them a space where they can work and be more comfortable.

so yeah, there are a lot of issues with enshrining these things in law and taking away women's right to choose whether and how they will interact with men, and that's really problematic. there's also the issue that saudi arabia takes this to an extreme that really isn't grounded in islamic law (to the point of having women and men not interact publicly, even in business and study contexts). but since those laws are probably not going to change in saudi arabia anytime soon, this is one way to create more access for women to work and study.

but are we saying that women should be forced to interact with men in all spaces whether they want to or not? because that's really problematic, too. i think it's important to respect women's agency to decide when and how they are comfortable interacting with men.

I'm not going to comment about what, if any, role Islamic belief plays in this. Perhaps it is being done for entirely secular reasons (which I would be fascinated to know what that justification would look like if it were the case). I am going to turn the question around and ask people to filter their responses (pro or con) through this lens which I think is useful:

Hold *everything* else constant. The justifications for creating this woman-only city are the same justifications being used but change two variables: place and the religion promoting it. So instead of in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, let's put it in Alabama and instead of it being promoted by a branch of Sunni Islam, let's say it was being promoted by Southern Baptists.

With that in hand, would people think this is a good idea or a bad idea? So at the next SBC national gathering it is proposed that in the state of Alabama (the state of my birth) it is proposed that a city be built that will be *entirely* composed of women. Women will work and go to school separate from men for whatever the reasons being used to justify this in Saudi Arabia. What would people think then?

If it is okay in Saudi Arabia why would it be a bad idea in Alabama? Is there anyone here who is prepared to say that they would be okay with this if proposed by white Christians living in Alabama? If you would not be prepared to say it is a good idea in Alabama but would be prepared to say that it might be a good idea in Saudi Arabia, can you explain why it isn't good for women living in the former but not the latter?

Cheers
Aj

the difference between saudi arabia and alabama is that this is happening in the context of living in a country with gender segregation enforced by law. when gender segregation was enforced by law in the u.s., women-only colleges came into existence because that was the only way for women to go to college.

all things being equal, it's not something many people would consider a "good" idea, but all things are NOT equal and this is a strategy that saudi women have come up with to deal with the gender segregation laws in their country. (and this idea was proposed BY saudi businesswomen, not by male clerics.) so...if there are saudi women who want to use this strategy to resist a system that creates high rates of unemployment and poverty for women...i say why not?

and, i mean, hell...i'm from south georgia (two steps from the alabama line) in an area where most families are headed by single mothers, and the average income for women is below the poverty line, and they make 2/3 of what men make. if creating a city of women-owned businesses and industries could change those poverty statistics, i know some women in my hometown who would be all for it.

No argument there. I would maintain that if *possible* it would be better to do away with laws mandating gender segregation but if that isn't doable (for whatever reason that might be) then this might be the next best thing to treating women like we might, possibly, be people.

The reason I phrased my question the way I did is because I didn't want to get into dealing with the issue of Islam (which I'm not qualified to speak intelligently on) and would rather deal with the issue of gender discrimination (and I will absolutely maintain that gender segregation is an egregious example of gender discrimination just as racial segregation is an egregious example of racial discrimination).

Cheers
Aj

I haven't watched this yet but I like Al Jazeera.
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/sa...-again-0022319

To me this sounded like--as a previous poster mentioned--a ghetto created by this nation's strangling patriarchy, but I also wasn't aware it was proposed by Saudi businesswomen as a solution to limited opportunities for women in the country rather than a cleric or something. That does change my perspective somewhat.

I will say I have not one drop of love for the social conditions that created this idea, but I can accept why it is being done in that context.

Fundamentalists of all ilks are right about one thing. The future is NOT theirs. Women and men will interact in public space everywhere. Where culture and sacred belief conflict with that, they will change. That's because it's a human rights issue.

it's funny. i saw the title to this thread and immediatly thought, 'Charlotte Perkins Gilman! cool!'

guess not

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Herland-Lost-Feminist-Utopian-Novel/dp/0394736656"]Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman[/ame]

why not 6000 womyn do it every year in michigan