On Thursday Saudi Arabia began gradual implementation of a law that says shops selling women's underwear must be staffed by women. The move – widely portrayed as a reform – has divided feminists, with some supporting it and others opposing it.

Reem Asaad (interviewed here on NPR) campaigned for the change. One powerful argument, apart from the possible embarrassment of women having to discuss their underwear requirements with male shop assistants, is that it will create new jobs for women – possibly as many as 20,000.

That, in itself, is a shocking development as far as some traditionalists are concerned. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, has reportedly condemned it as "a crime and disrespectful".

Regardless of what the mufti thinks, creating more job opportunities for Saudi women is a good idea. It gives them independence, challenges traditional assumptions about the role of women and benefits the kingdom economically.

At the same time, though, it can be argued that this type of employment further entrenches the principle of gender segregation, creating ghettoised "women's work" rather than equal opportunities. A similar objection can be made about the all-women factories, even though they do help some families to escape financial hardship.

Even if we accept that the lingerie law is a reform of sorts, it doesn't say much for the kingdom's ability to modernise at a time when Arab protesters in other parts of the region are demanding much more far-reaching change. The "new" law was originally issued six years ago and has only now reached the implementation stage. It will take a further two years to fully implement it – assuming the authorities keep up their pressure on shopkeepers (which is by no means certain).

Considering how far the Saudi Arabia lags behind on the issue of women's rights, Khadija Magardie is probably correct when 
she says the underwear campaign was "nothing but a useful distraction", giving the impression that the kingdom is making progress when in fact it's making very little.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 5 January 2012.