What's new

The spectacular surge of the Saudi female labor force (lesson for Pakistan)

Maybe there were plenty of doctors, scientists, poets and merchants who were female in early Islam, but very few participated as fighters in the army back then. It was exceptional. And returning backwards is what we should be doing, because following others instead of following our own ancestors path will only bring us misery. Making 90% of the army members to be female or even 20% is a huge mistake. This is a progressive attitude, and it will lead us straight into the wall. It is progressing in the wrong path. If you want to kick out most men from their jobs and replace them with females to satisfy the West and its equality, then prepare for the total collapse of society. You are dismissing the important tasks that women do in their houses invluding baby-making, taking care and educating their kids, which is very valuable to the society, but you are seeing their role in a purely economical perspective. I admit that we need female doctors/teachers..., but women should work in accordance to their nature, and not doing commando ops and soldiers stuff. They promote these things just to brag about it in the media that this country is promoting equality and is progressive and good west ally, but this is a mistake even if they complement us. Just be aware that even the West is increasingly becoming aware of this mistake and questionning why their societies are destablized and why their population is stagnating and other problems such as sexual harassment that were not so marked after ww2. Going down with the progressive narrative and that it's 2022 or 2700 come on you live under a rock this is modernity just does not hold a candle against the dangers that are promoted in mainstream media globally.

I hope the people you are writing this long piece to, is actually open to understand the depth of your reasoning. In the age of instant gratification and celebrity worship its hard to find a person who actually thinks further away than 2 inches from their own nose.

There are plenty of these people, who look at the west and its splendour, magining it all being a result of socially and sexually liberal life that characterize the west today. Yes its party true, but hides the bigger fact that The West became economically and Militarily dominant during a time when it was far more agressive and socially conservative than forexample muslim world at that time. Is that a coincidence? Not at all.

The West today rides on the wave, the aftermath, the inertia of the pioneers from centuries ago. Extremely competitive men who were nowhere near the decadent mass consumerist world we live in today.

This same story is repeated over and over again all over the world. Never do a state or a civilization begin with decadence, but it always ends with decadence. This is not to be mixed up with some kind of approval of backwardness. For what characterizes the industrious and pioneering souls are their creativity, openess, masculinity and fearlessness.
 
Last edited:
Maybe there were plenty of doctors, scientists, poets and merchants who were female in early Islam, but very few participated as fighters in the army back then. It was exceptional. And returning backwards is what we should be doing, because following others instead of following our own ancestors path will only bring us misery. Making 90% of the army members to be female or even 20% is a huge mistake. This is a progressive attitude, and it will lead us straight into the wall. It is progressing in the wrong path. If you want to kick out most men from their jobs and replace them with females to satisfy the West and its equality, then prepare for the total collapse of society. You are dismissing the important tasks that women do in their houses invluding baby-making, taking care and educating their kids, which is very valuable to the society, but you are seeing their role in a purely economical perspective. I admit that we need female doctors/teachers..., but women should work in accordance to their nature, and not doing commando ops and soldiers stuff. They promote these things just to brag about it in the media that this country is promoting equality and is progressive and good west ally, but this is a mistake even if they complement us. Just be aware that even the West is increasingly becoming aware of this mistake and questionning why their societies are destablized and why their population is stagnating and other problems such as sexual harassment that were not so marked after ww2. Going down with the progressive narrative and that it's 2022 or 2700 come on you live under a rock this is modernity just does not hold a candle against the dangers that are promoted in mainstream media globally.

My point is that woman are a crucial part of a society. They compose half of the population after all. They should be included in an Islamic society and be constructive citizens. This entails among other things work.

Having a family and working are not two exclusive things. It is all about finding the right balance in life.

As for soldiers in the army, from what I understand none of the Saudi Arabian women in the Saudi Arabian army are involved in active combat.

It makes little sense to talk about harmful Western influence in Saudi Arabia when Saudi Arabia is one of the last bastions in the Muslim world where the ills of the West are a relatively minor problem.

First batch of female soldiers in Saudi Arabia graduate​

In February 2021, Saudi Arabia opened military posts for women for the first time, allowing them to report through a unified portal.​

Photo of Sakina FatimaSakina Fatima| Updated: 3rd September 2021 4:22 pm IST
First batch of female soldier graduate in Saudi Arabia
Armed Forces Women’s Cadre Training Center in Riyadh on Sept. 1, 2021. (Screengrab from Ministry of Defense video)

Riyadh: The first female recruits in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia graduated from the armed forces women’s cadre training center on Wednesday. The graduation ceremony marked the first time in the kingdom’s history that women begin serving in front-line positions.

The Saudi ministry of defense on Thursday took to Twitter and released a video clip of the graduation ceremony of the female soldiers after they completed a 14-week military training that began on May 30.


“The center for female military training has an important role to play as it focuses on providing excellent training programs and curricula as well as an ideal learning environment,” Adel Al-Balawi, the head of the Armed Forces Education and Training Authority, said during the ceremony.

In February 2021, Saudi Arabia opened up military posts for women for the first time which allowed them to report through a unified portal.

Saudi women can now rise from soldiers to officers in the Royal Saudi air defense, royal Saudi navy, royal Saudi strategic missile force, and the army’s medical services. Saudi women between the ages of 21 and 40 may apply for these positions.

A Saudi woman must also have an independent national identity card alongside a high school education and cannot be married to a non-Saudi to be considered eligible for applying. The change which has allowed women to join the Saudi military has become a part of the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, which seeks to reform almost every aspect of life and government. One aspect is women’s empowerment and gender equality in all areas.

The country in recent years adopted several reforms to empower women, including ensuring that women can drive cars, enter playgroups and stadiums, and pursue occupations that were previously accessible only to men.



Female soldiers must meet certain requirements to join the Saudi military sectors, the most important of which are that both of their parents must be Saudi citizens, they have certificates of good conduct, and are medically fit for military service and full-time work. They must be aged at least 21 years and not more than 40 years, and have a height of 155 cm.


Pakistan has a female labour participation rate of 21%. Let that sink in.

We could literally double our national productivity and output if more women went to work, but instead our culture shuns females who do anything other than sit at home and be a baby-making machine. We have thousands of qualified doctors, engineers, and scientists, who complete their studies and then spend the rest of their lives out of work doing nothing.

:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:

Exactly but we are still stuck in ignorance and cultural practices that are actually anti-Islamic in nature. Imagine the economic opportunities a greater participation of Pakistani women in the labor force could give our economy? Not to mention the physical and mental well-being of our women.

All good, leave Hijaz out of it.

What? Hijaz is an integral part of Saudi Arabia. It is like saying that KPK, Sindh, Baluchistan or Punjab is not Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
No better example, speaking about work and women in Islam.





But if you listen to most of our Mullah's, regardless of sect, you would get the impression that women are put into the world to solely sit at home and pump out babies. No disrespect to housewives, which are and should be respected as well.

Once again, the important thing here is to find a healthy balance between family life (which should be the priority) and work.

We have followed the extreme (hence the very low women workforce) while many Western countries have followed the other extreme (overly focus on work and a career).
 
Last edited:
No, they are not doing nothing. Females are doing productive roles in society, just in other ways than men. 80% or20% participation, overall the same work is done. If it is not sone by men then it is done by females. There is no point in increasing the proportion of women in the army, because you are diminishing the army's manpower. Any increase in that sense comes at the expense of men losing jobs and diminishing overall efficiency of the army. Women can work, but they should do it in accordance to their nature, and not as a competition against men. It is the same way as men competing against women in pregnancy, nurturing and caregiving. It is pointless, except to brag about it in the media that we have 99% of jobs taken by women, that these are heroes and all the equality stuff. Who do you want to do the baby-making stuff? Do you want men to get pregnant as well? I did not say that females should not work, just work as their nature dictates them because we need female doctors and teachers, but we do not need any female SEAL/SF/ soldier or fighter (at least until we are invaded and lack manpower). Having females as soldiers is a sign of an army working at maximum capability all the time at best, and a degenerate and decadent military at worst. It should be an exception rather than a rule in the army. For other occupations yes we need both men and female for most jobs. But kicking out men from the army and replacing them with females is a huge mistake.

Okay so for example; what productive role is being fullfilled by having a qualified doctor sitting at home all day?

How productive is it when impoverished families are relying on a single person to earn money for them all? What about when that person loses their job and the entire family then must turn to the government or charity to make ends meet?

You are looking at this from a very emotional viewpoint which doesnt line up well with reality.
 
I hope the people you are writing this long piece to, is actually open to understand the depth of your reasoning. In the age of instant gratification and celebrity worship its hard to find a person who actually thinks further away than 2 inches from their own nose.

There are plenty of these people, who look at the west and its splendour, magining it all being a result of socially and sexually liberal life that characterize the west today. Yes its party true, but hides the bigger fact that The West became economically and Militarily dominant during a time when it was far more agressive and socially conservative than forexample muslim world at that time. Is that a coincidence? Not at all.

The West today rides on the wave, the aftermath, the inertia of the pioneers from centuries ago. Extremely competitive men who were nowhere near the decadent mass consumerist world we live in today.

This same story is repeated over and over again all over the world. Never do a state or a civilization begin with decadence, but it always ends with decadence. This is not to be mixed up with some kind of approval of backwardness. For what characterizes the industrious and pioneering souls are their creativity, openess, masculinity and fearlessness.
Glad seeing people like you appreciating this and using their mind instead of copying. People like you are scarce and precious
I hope the people you are writing this long piece to, is actually open to understand the depth of your reasoning. In the age of instant gratification and celebrity worship its hard to find a person who actually thinks further away than 2 inches from their own nose.

There are plenty of these people, who look at the west and its splendour, magining it all being a result of socially and sexually liberal life that characterize the west today. Yes its party true, but hides the bigger fact that The West became economically and Militarily dominant during a time when it was far more agressive and socially conservative than forexample muslim world at that time. Is that a coincidence? Not at all.

The West today rides on the wave, the aftermath, the inertia of the pioneers from centuries ago. Extremely competitive men who were nowhere near the decadent mass consumerist world we live in today.

This same story is repeated over and over again all over the world. Never do a state or a civilization begin with decadence, but it always ends with decadence. This is not to be mixed up with some kind of approval of backwardness. For what characterizes the industrious and pioneering souls are their creativity, openess, masculinity and fearlessness.
I appreciate that there are still independent people using their mind and refusing to blindly copy others. People like you are scarce and precious. I agree with everything you wrote, and I might add that this is a moral war, the outcome of which will define the loser of the physical war that is being prepared next.
 
Glad seeing people like you appreciating this and using their mind instead of copying. People like you are scarce and precious

I appreciate that there are still independent people using their mind and refusing to blindly copy others. People like you are scarce and precious. I agree with everything you wrote, and I might add that this is a moral war, the outcome of which will define the loser of the physical war that is being prepared next.

So your solution is for women to stay at home and nothing else? Sounds like a brilliant idea. Women working and contributing to the society is not a Western creation.

Okay so for example; what productive role is being fullfilled by having a qualified doctor sitting at home all day?

How productive is it when impoverished families are relying on a single person to earn money for them all? What about when that person loses their job and the entire family then must turn to the government or charity to make ends meet?

You are looking at this from a very emotional viewpoint which doesnt line up well with reality.

Pure ignorance and populism.
 
No better example, speaking about work and women in Islam.





But if you listen to most of our Mullah's, regardless of sect, you would get the impression that women are put into the world to solely sit at home and pump out babies. No disrespect to housewives, which are and should be respected as well.

Once again, the important thing here is to find a healthy balance between family life (which should be the priority) and work.

We have followed the extreme (hence the very low women workforce) while many Western countries have followed the other extreme (overly focus on work and a career).
I understand that Islam is not banning women from participating in the economical life. But saying that we have x percent of our workforce as females is using the wrong metrics to estimate the contribution of women is society. Men and women have some common roles, and each one has a unique role that only him/her is capable of doing. But recently subtle pressure is increasing on women to go out and work to contribute to the economy, at at expense of their own unique role that men cannot fulfill, ie. caretaking, nurtuting and birth-giving, which are not to be underestimated and are taking huge time and resources to do. I agree with that it has to be a balance between women roles, but not to the expense of tasks that only them can fulfill. And many women seem to miss that balance and overinvesting in career opportunities, and her family life and the whole society will suffer from this. Men can feed themselves and women in most cases as husbands or family, but a woman left to herself only has an obligation to feed only herself, let alone another man. A woman should have jobs that suit them, not send them to do heavy construction work or commando ops and see it as progress, because they cannot do these jobs efficiently and it takes a huge toll on their physical and mental health. You can watch female US marines on youtube suffering from their hard work. Women should be doctors, teachers, nurses... there are plenty of choices. But to see it as a competition against men is false. Men and women have their own contributions to both society and economy, and should live in harmony, not in conflict. Mainstream media is encouraging women pursuing career over family, and it is only a matter of time before we suffer the consequences of this. It is like encouraging men to nurture babies, give birth and educate kids at home, which they can't. It will only produce an extremely weak and vulnerable society where balance is lost. Globalists see women from a purely capitalistic point of view and are more interested by job opportunities that women can have and the economical contribution than by the societal aspect and the physical and mental well-being of women overall.
 
I understand that Islam is not banning women from participating in the economical life. But saying that we have x percent of our workforce as females is using the wrong metrics to estimate the contribution of women is society. Men and women have some common roles, and each one has a unique role that only him/her is capable of doing. But recently subtle pressure is increasing on women to go out and work to contribute to the economy, at at expense of their own unique role that men cannot fulfill, ie. caretaking, nurtuting and birth-giving, which are not to be underestimated and are taking huge time and resources to do. I agree with that it has to be a balance between women roles, but not to the expense of tasks that only them can fulfill. And many women seem to miss that balance and overinvesting in career opportunities, and her family life and the whole society will suffer from this. Men can feed themselves and women in most cases as husbands or family, but a woman left to herself only has an obligation to feed only herself, let alone another man. A woman should have jobs that suit them, not send them to do heavy construction work or commando ops and see it as progress, because they cannot do these jobs efficiently and it takes a huge toll on their physical and mental health. You can watch female US marines on youtube suffering from their hard work. Women should be doctors, teachers, nurses... there are plenty of choices. But to see it as a competition against men is false. Men and women have their own contributions to both society and economy, and should live in harmony, not in conflict. Mainstream media is encouraging women pursuing career over family, and it is only a matter of time before we suffer the consequences of this. It is like encouraging men to nurture babies, give birth and educate kids at home, which they can't. It will only produce an extremely weak and vulnerable society where balance is lost. Globalists see women from a purely capitalistic point of view and are more interested by job opportunities that women can have and the economical contribution than by the societal aspect and the physical and mental well-being of women overall.

I agree with this but I don’t think that this problem is relevant in a very family-orientated society like KSA. There unmarried women are social outcats. Cannot compare it to the West.
 
So your solution is for women to stay at home and nothing else? Sounds like a brilliant idea. Women working and contributing to the society is not a Western creation.



Pure ignorance and populism.
Did you understand what I wrote first?
Do you think women staying at home is easy? Do you think that women do nothing when they stay at home?
Why do women come to home after they finish work if there is nothing to do there? You are truly underestimating their roles.

So your solution is for women to stay at home and nothing else? Sounds like a brilliant idea. Women working and contributing to the society is not a Western creation.



Pure ignorance and populism.
If this is ignorance, then enlighten us please. It seems like not only you understood what I wrote, but you didn't even read it in the first place.
* Edit: sorry, I made a mistake. I thought you were refering to my words as ignorance and populism. I apologize.

I agree with this but I don’t think that this problem is relevant in a very family-orientated society like KSA. There unmarried women are social outcats. Cannot compare it to the West.
Yeah, but the problem is that it is becoming an increasingly career-focused society. Societal norms are surely being changing since a while, especially with the influence of Bin Salman and his perspective of modernisation of KSA. They want to bring it to the standards of the western nations. They want to force and import the western model on KSA, and with it they will be importing western-style problems too.
 
Last edited:
Okay so for example; what productive role is being fullfilled by having a qualified doctor sitting at home all day?

How productive is it when impoverished families are relying on a single person to earn money for them all? What about when that person loses their job and the entire family then must turn to the government or charity to make ends meet?

You are looking at this from a very emotional viewpoint which doesnt line up well with reality.
I will tell you. A doctor should benefit the society. But you cannot force a female doctor to work at the expense of her family life or her choice. If her family needs her more than society, only her can help her familiy, but society has plenty of women who are ready to help and contribute. The female doctor prefering to fulfill her family obligations is de facto contributing to society. You just cannot value this contribution economically, and it does not get included in statistics although it is essential. You cannot force all females to work to maximize economical benefit because you are diminishing societal stability.
Another thing. You have 2 people: A and B forming a team to do 3 tasks: task 1 that only person A can do, task 2 that only B can do and task 3 is common for both. You cannot make person A ignore completely task 1 to help person B in task 3, otherwise the team will accomplish task 3 but not 1, and this is everyday, so task 1 will never be completed. But if persons A and B respectively focused on task 1 and 2 and worked jointly to fulfill task 3, all tasks will be accomplished. So forcing women to contribute to economy like men do and making them ignore their unique roles that only them can do at home will result in essential family and society needs going unfulfilled at the price of a marginal economical growth, and it will surely backfire not only on the physical and mental health of women but on the whole society. Look at Germany and Scandinavia where women get wellfare benefits for educating and taking care of their kids at home, because their governments is recompensing their efforts and the value added by these women to society by forming intangible assets which are kids who are the future of the nation. I am looking at this with a multifocal point of view, but you refuse to see it from any point other than the capitalist view of maximizing economical benefit. I am again stressing that we indeed need women taking jobs and contributing to economy within their own means and considering their nature without neglecting their crucial and unique roles.
 
Did you understand what I wrote first?
Do you think women staying at home is easy? Do you think that women do nothing when they stay at home?
Why do women come to home after they finish work if there is nothing to do there? You are truly underestimating their roles.


If this is ignorance, then enlighten us please. It seems like not only you understood what I wrote, but you didn't even read it in the first place.


Yeah, but the problem is that it is becoming an increasingly career-focused society. Societal norms are surely being changing since a while, especially with the influence of Bin Salman and his perspective of modernisation of KSA. They want to bring it to the standards of the western nations. They want to force and import the western model on KSA, and with it they will be importing western-style problems too.

I read your post and your valid points in regards to the unhealthy Western work to life balance does not apply to KSA or Arab societies. You are a Moroccan so you should be very familiar with Arab society. Family is the absolute key component in Arab culture and everything evolves around it. Unmarried women are looked as outcasts.

There is little sign of KSA adopting the harmful practices of the West and MbS is aware of this as are the Saudi Arabian people who are very familiar with Western society.

No sane Muslim and Arab woman will prefer a work career over raising a family.

But as I wrote a balance must be found. KSA has found that, Pakistan unfortunately not which shows.

Anyway economy is needed to raise large families otherwise you are creating neglected children which South Asia excels at.

In Pakistan it is a sign of pride for many to have as many children as possible even if you cannot feed most of them. That is a wrong thing.
 
Last edited:
????????????
Gay was originally a word borrowed from french 'gai' which means happy. But it has evolved to mean pervert or sodomist ( because inhabitants of Sodom city were the first in the world to practice the sin of homosexuality and it got renamed after them). So this is a sin that should not be refered to as anything related to happiness. Sin brings sadness and suffering, not happiness. One should choose his words carefully. They want to normalize sin by calling it good and unsuspecting names.
 
Back
Top Bottom