Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Muslim Topic => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on September 29, 2017, 02:40:38 PM
-
Is this that really a big deal? It's not as if anybody was forced to attend..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-university-islamic-society-gender-segregated-event-unlawful-london-school-economics-lse-a7972311.html#commentsDiv
-
Nobody was forced to attend, but the fact in itself of having a sex-segregated event - parties divided by a curtain, for crying out loud - is repugnant. This is Britain in 2017. We don't act in such a manner. We're better than that.
-
That is what happens in some Muslim, and some Jewish weddings.
If you don't like it, you don't have to go.
-
That is what happens in some Muslim, and some Jewish weddings.
Simply repeating a fact doesn't make it acceptable.
If you don't like it, you don't have to go.
Or how about people stop being twats?
-
That is what happens in some Muslim, and some Jewish weddings.
Those weddings, though, are not state subsidised, I suspect, whereas UK universities and their activities are. Not that it's acceptable in the 21st century anyway to be cleaving to such a crass, barbaric concept.
If you don't like it, you don't have to go.
But if you want to go, you have to accept it? Or can you, say, publicly campaign against it...
O.
-
Simply repeating a fact doesn't make it acceptable.
Or how about people stop being twats?
Were you invited?
-
Those weddings, though, are not state subsidised, I suspect, whereas UK universities and their activities are. Not that it's acceptable in the 21st century anyway to be cleaving to such a crass, barbaric concept.
But if you want to go, you have to accept it? Or can you, say, publicly campaign against it...
O.
The function was organised by the local NUS Islamic Society. There have been many NUS Women Only events, what is so wrong about this event?
-
The function was organised by the local NUS Islamic Society. There have been many NUS Women Only events, what is so wrong about this event?
The fact that the content of the event did not justify segregating people, but that they did it to enforce the cultural taboos of a primitive superstition.
O.
-
Were you invited?
No, why?
-
Then why grumble about somebody else's party?I was not invited either.
-
Then why grumble about somebody else's party?I was not invited either.
Am I required to be directly involved to note a problem, to highlight issues, to draw attention to barbaric practices? When I dial 999 and say I've just seen someone being mugged, I don't think they point out that it's not me so I shouldn't grumble.
O.
-
Then why grumble about somebody else's party?I was not invited either.
Because my circle of concern doesn't begin and end with me, not being the selfish, self-absorbed twat type.
-
Because my circle of concern doesn't begin and end with me, not being the selfish, self-absorbed twat type.
are you 'avin' a laugh? ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder if the men and women involved are quite happy with the segregation. If both groups are, it's not a problem.
-
I wonder if the men and women involved are quite happy with the segregation. If both groups are, it's not a problem.
No, it still is - raising people to be accepting of this sort of behaviour doesn't make it right, it just stifles the objections.
O.
-
I wonder if the men and women involved are quite happy with the segregation. If both groups are, it's not a problem.
NO , it highlights another problem , BRAINWASHING
-
Maybe it is worth listing the reasons of why it is wrong or right? Otherwise it is just a pointless back and forth of rhetoric.
-
Maybe it is worth listing the reasons of why it is wrong or right? Otherwise it is just a pointless back and forth of rhetoric.
You mean like ...that they did it to enforce the cultural taboos of a primitive superstition
O.
-
Maybe it is worth listing the reasons of why it is wrong or right? Otherwise it is just a pointless back and forth of rhetoric.
No, its just WRONG, get over it.
-
You mean like
O.
...that they did it to enforce the cultural taboos of a primitive superstition
But that is not a reason, it's just name calling.
-
But that is not a reason, it's just name calling.
How is that not a reason that it's wrong? You might not like the reason, you might not like the phrasing, you might even disagree with the reason, but it's a reason for thinking that it's wrong to segregate people based on gender on nothing more than barbaric cultural mores.
O.
-
But that is not a reason, it's just name calling.
It is a reason.
However partial and fragmentary and flouted in practice, secular liberal democracies are predicated on (amongst other things of course) the equality of the sexes - that discrimination on the grounds of biological sex is irrational and unjust. This ridiculous pantomime as reported in the OP is in flagrant breach of this simple principle - the unpleasant outcome of unpleasant attitudes of an unpleasant religion.
-
How is that not a reason that it's wrong? You might not like the reason, you might not like the phrasing, you might even disagree with the reason, but it's a reason for thinking that it's wrong to segregate people based on gender on nothing more than barbaric cultural mores.
O.
hmm ... So if someone calls an action "a barbaric cultural more" that makes it wrong?
-
It is a reason.
However partial and fragmentary and flouted in practice, secular liberal democracies are predicated on (amongst other things of course) the equality of the sexes - that discrimination on the grounds of biological sex is irrational and unjust. This ridiculous pantomime as reported in the OP is in flagrant breach of this simple principle - the unpleasant outcome of unpleasant attitudes of an unpleasant religion.
It might be unjust, but need not be - depends on the reason for it. "irrational" needs a logical context to mean anything.
-
It might be unjust, but need not be - depends on the reason for it. "irrational" needs a logical context to mean anything.
Very well.
The logical context of the story in the OP is that it's absurd to segregate on the grounds of sex at an annual (i.e. regular) gala dinner. Nothing about such an event invites or requires sex segregation. It's a gala dinner at an establishment supposed to be open to all which honours the equality principle I mentioned in my previous post.
"The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that gender segregation is not permitted in any academic meetings or at events, lectures or meetings provided for students, or at events attended by members of the public or employees of the university or the students’ union."
-
Very well.
The logical context of the story in the OP is that it's absurd to segregate on the grounds of sex at an annual (i.e. regular) gala dinner. Nothing about such an event invites or requires sex segregation. It's a gala dinner at an establishment supposed to be open to all which honours the equality principle I mentioned in my previous post.
Yes, indeed as the link in the OP makes clear the segregation at this event was wrong as it was against the rules and guidelines of the EHRC. The reason for the EHRC rules is to prevent various forms of sex discrimination that might occur because of or in association with the segregation, particularly in the situations covered by the Equality act.
It doesn't mean that the segregation in itself is repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious, or wrong for that matter.
-
Yes, indeed as the link in the OP makes clear the segregation at this event was wrong as it was against the rules and guidelines of the EHRC. The reason for the EHRC rules is to prevent various forms of sex discrimination that might occur because of or in association with the segregation, particularly in the situations covered by the Equality act.
It doesn't mean that the segregation in itself is repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious, or wrong for that matter.
It's all of those things.
-
It's all of those things.
So ... I should just take that as an unreasoned emotional reaction to something that has become unfashionable.
-
I recall that fairly recently Muirfield Golf Club voted in line with their tradition and continued to not allow female members - to a chorus of anger and derision regarding their unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of gender, and that this was so unacceptable that it would also prevent them from hosting The Open again.
However, after a re-think, it seems they have since reviewed their tradition and changed their minds: pity that some religions can't do the same with their tablets of stone.
-
So ... I should just take that as an unreasoned emotional reaction to something that has become unfashionable.
"Unfashionable"?
-
I recall that fairly recently Muirfield Golf Club voted in line with their tradition and continued to not allow female members - to a chorus of anger and derision regarding their unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of gender, and that this was so unacceptable that it would also prevent them from hosting The Open again.
However, after a re-think, it seems they have since reviewed their tradition and changed their minds: pity that some religions can't do the same with their tablets of stone.
Good. Presumably they were persuaded by reasoned arguments that their tradition was unfair and discriminatory. So I don't see why such arguments would not work for a religion whatever their scriptures were written on.
Oops ... on the other hand maybe they changed because they were called lots of rude names and threatened with loss of revenues ... can't see that working for a religion.
-
Good. Presumably they were persuaded by reasoned arguments that their tradition was unfair and discriminatory. So I don't see why such arguments would not work for a religion whatever their scriptures were written on.
Oops ... on the other hand maybe they changed because they were called lots of rude names and threatened with loss of revenues ... can't see that working for a religion.
Anyone adhering to obnoxious ideas about the inferiority of women based on religious ideas is unlikely to be in the frame for being persuaded by reasoned arguments, by definition.
-
"Unfashionable"?
Yes. Different peoples at different times practice various cultural mores and social rituals. Assuming there are no strong reasons for or against these, eg wrt. rights, equality or injustice and so on, the subjective preferences left are just a matter of "fashion".
-
Yes. Different peoples at different times practice various cultural mores and social rituals. Assuming there are no strong reasons for or against these, eg wrt. rights, equality or injustice and so on
Rights, equality and injustice applying in this case.
-
Anyone adhering to obnoxious ideas about the inferiority of women based on religious ideas is unlikely to be in the frame for being persuaded by reasoned arguments, by definition.
At the end of the day, all religions are practised based on some interpretation or other. Most people will take heed of reasoned arguments and apply them to them their circumstances. Of-course there will always be some who will not discuss their understanding and just react with emotional language and bullying or resentment - can't do much with them.
-
Good. Presumably they were persuaded by reasoned arguments that their tradition was unfair and discriminatory. So I don't see why such arguments would not work for a religion whatever their scriptures were written on.
Neither do I.
Oops ... on the other hand maybe they changed because they were called lots of rude names and threatened with loss of revenues ... can't see that working for a religion.
Presumably because religious factions set greater store on their fallacious arguments from authority and tradition to the extent that, presumably, they think these trump any social progress they don't agree with: at least Muirfield, albeit under pressure and no doubt some there had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the current century, eventually recognised that their stance was untenable and that nobody was going to treat them as a special case just because it was their 'tradition'.
Of course most non-golfers were personally unaffected by this but, based on the responses when the situation became public knowledge, it seems that that UK society at large was concerned at this example of overt and unjustified gender discrimination - just as some of us think that the gender separation in this case is just another example of unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of religious tradition.
-
I recall that fairly recently Muirfield Golf Club voted in line with their tradition and continued to not allow female members - to a chorus of anger and derision regarding their unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of gender, and that this was so unacceptable that it would also prevent them from hosting The Open again.
However, after a re-think, it seems they have since reviewed their tradition and changed their minds: pity that some religions can't do the same with their tablets of stone.
if a group of blokes got together , say once a week for drinkies, at a regular venue and decided no women were allowed.
How would you view that situation Gordon?
-
if a group of blokes got together , say once a week for drinkies, at a regular venue and decided no women were allowed.
How would you view that situation Gordon?
That situation would seem like not inviting others (men or women) along to an informal gathering of friends: I regularly meet with one or two wise men in just such a situation (a social one) and there are no women coming along to join us: however, we don't have a men-only policy and nor do we insist that any women straying into the venue are kept away from us.
We don't have a formal policy to exclude or discriminate, and we aren't demanding or expecting any special privileges. If, say, Mrs G insisted on joining us: that would be fine.
-
That situation would seem like not inviting others (men or women) along to an informal gathering of friends: I regularly meet with one or two wise men in just such a situation (a social one) and there are no women coming along to join us: however, we don't have a men-only policy and nor do we insist that any women straying into the venue are kept away from us.
We don't have a formal policy to exclude or discriminate, and we aren't demanding or expecting any special privileges. If, say, Mrs G insisted on joining us: that would be fine.
Pussy! ;)
-
hmm ... So if someone calls an action "a barbaric cultural more" that makes it wrong?
No, if someone thinks it's a barbaric cultural more that's a reason for them to decry it. If you don't think either that's sufficient grounds, or if you think the rationale is mistaken, by all means address those issues, but to just say 'oh, that's not a reason' is weak.
O.
-
No, if someone thinks it's a barbaric cultural more that's a reason for them to decry it. If you don't think either that's sufficient grounds, or if you think the rationale is mistaken, by all means address those issues, but to just say 'oh, that's not a reason' is weak.
O.
If you want a make a case against something, offering a value judgment is not of much use unless you provide the rationale behind it.
-
If you want a make a case against something, offering a value judgment is not of much use unless you provide the rationale behind it.
I wouldn't have thought the rationale of equality, individual liberty and personal freedom particularly needed reiterating, but if needs be there it is. That's why sex and gender segregation are barbaric, because they condemn particular parts of the populace to particular roles, excise them particular fields based not on who they are, but on someone else's determination of what they are.
At its most egregious you get the sort of nonsense we see in Saudi Arabia, where about half the populace are subject to the morality police if they don't get someone's permission to go outside, or if they talk to whomever they choose, or if they don't want to wear the headgear that their guardian has required of them. That's the worst case scenario, and although this level of segregation isn't at the same depth, it's still barbaric, it's still a remnant of an antiquated, outdated, outmoded, restrictive, oppressive way of life that doesn't have a place in the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first.
O.
-
I wouldn't have thought the rationale of equality, individual liberty and personal freedom particularly needed reiterating, but if needs be there it is. That's why sex and gender segregation are barbaric, because they condemn particular parts of the populace to particular roles, excise them particular fields based not on who they are, but on someone else's determination of what they are.
And based on criteria which are not matters of choice over which the individual has control to boot.
-
I wouldn't have thought the rationale of equality, individual liberty and personal freedom particularly needed reiterating, but if needs be there it is. That's why sex and gender segregation are barbaric, because they condemn particular parts of the populace to particular roles, excise them particular fields based not on who they are, but on someone else's determination of what they are.
At its most egregious you get the sort of nonsense we see in Saudi Arabia, where about half the populace are subject to the morality police if they don't get someone's permission to go outside, or if they talk to whomever they choose, or if they don't want to wear the headgear that their guardian has required of them. That's the worst case scenario, and although this level of segregation isn't at the same depth, it's still barbaric, it's still a remnant of an antiquated, outdated, outmoded, restrictive, oppressive way of life that doesn't have a place in the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first.
O.
Well obviously the Islamic Society in question does not see that the principle of equality has been violated and do not regard "individual liberty and personal freedom" as something worthy or desirable.
Saudi Arabia is a different case - iirc they are not even signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and don't subscribe to the principle of equality.
-
Well obviously the Islamic Society in question does not see that the principle of equality has been violated and do not regard "individual liberty and personal freedom" as something worthy or desirable.
Hence my description of 'barbaric'.
Saudi Arabia is a different case - iirc they are not even signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and don't subscribe to the principle of equality.
They haven't signed, that doesn't mean that the people there aren't human and shouldn't have those rights, it just means that Saudi Arabia is a backward third-world shit-hole that needs to join the twenty-first century.
As an aside, Saudi Arabia, by virtue of its membership in the United Nations, is committed to uphold universal human rights standards, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which are recognized as norms of customary international law.
So, despite not being a signatory to the UDHR, are university Islamic societies.
O.
-
No need to bring in the UDHR lawyers as clearly the arrangements were in violation of the UK's own Equality Act.
However the organisers clearly do not understand why this kind of segregation is considered unequal as they tried to avoid the rules using separate ticketing and so on.
-
However the organisers clearly do not understand why this kind of segregation is considered unequal as they tried to avoid the rules using separate ticketing and so on.
You think they don't understand? I think they understand perfectly well, but their culture is dominated by men who benefit from the status quo, so they strive to maintain it.
O.
-
You think they don't understand? I think they understand perfectly well, but their culture is dominated by men who benefit from the status quo, so they strive to maintain it.
O.
Ah! At last .. well done!
-
Ah! At last .. well done!
Well done what?
-
Well done what?
Well done for finally spitting out the reason why segregation is unequal and wrong instead of blathering on about barbaric cultural taboos, primitive superstitions and other irrelevancies or expressions of disgust and prejudice.
-
It's still a poor generalisation by Outrider based on lack of knowledge and experience of the culture. Lots of women prefer segregation at events - it's a simplistic assertion to say it continues because men want to maintain male privilege.
Lots of women just feel more relaxed and comfortable being among women at an event and don't want men "invading" their space. They are not going to give up their freedoms and individulaism in order to comply with Outrider's arbitrary cultural impositions, without putting up a fight against those arbitrary cultural impositions.
My daughters go to segregated schools largely because they prefer a boy-free environment when trying to learn. Of course it may be that at some point British society will ignore their preferences based on their intelligence and experiences as young women, because a man who knows better thinks segregated schools are wrong.
-
It's still a poor generalisation by Outrider based on lack of knowledge and experience of the culture. Lots of women prefer segregation at events - it's a simplistic assertion to say it continues because men want to maintain male privilege.
Lots of women just feel more relaxed and comfortable being among women at an event and don't want men "invading" their space. They are not going to give up their freedoms and individulaism in order to comply with Outrider's arbitrary cultural impositions, without putting up a fight against those arbitrary cultural impositions.
My daughters go to segregated schools largely because they prefer a boy-free environment when trying to learn. Of course it may be that at some point British society will ignore their preferences based on their intelligence and experiences as young women, because a man who knows better thinks segregated schools are wrong.
substitute female references with male and this post would be berated as overtly sexist .
-
substitute female references with male and this post would be berated as overtly sexist .
Certain parts of British culture do seem to come under the barbaric cudgel of political correctness. I don't have a problem with men not wanting women to "invade" their space. I do have a problem with people being unfairly denied access to employment or educational or service opportunities.
-
Well done for finally spitting out the reason why segregation is unequal and wrong instead of blathering on about barbaric cultural taboos, primitive superstitions and other irrelevancies or expressions of disgust and prejudice.
You need it spelt out why sexual and gender segregation is barbaric, and then you patronise me... ::)
O.
-
It's still a poor generalisation by Outrider based on lack of knowledge and experience of the culture.
You don't think that this is a demonstration of the underlying fundamental Islamic doctrine that men and women should be segregated?
Lots of women prefer segregation at events - it's a simplistic assertion to say it continues because men want to maintain male privilege. Lots of women just feel more relaxed and comfortable being among women at an event and don't want men "invading" their space.
Lots of women go back to their abusive husbands, that doesn't make the abuse any less, does it? If you bring people up to think that they 'deserve' to be segregated, they will believe it.
They are not going to give up their freedoms and individulaism in order to comply with Outrider's arbitrary cultural impositions, without putting up a fight against those arbitrary cultural impositions.
Except that they weren't choosing the segregation, it was being imposed on them from the leadership of their group.
My daughters go to segregated schools largely because they prefer a boy-free environment when trying to learn. Of course it may be that at some point British society will ignore their preferences based on their intelligence and experiences as young women, because a man who knows better thinks segregated schools are wrong.
Probably more on the basis that it's demonstrably detrimental to boys and young men to be educated in a single-gender environment, even whilst it's generally beneficial for girls. Someone has to compare those two effects and determine what they believe is the best overall outcome for society - that's a tough call, and I don't have the detailed information to be able to make the decision.
O.
-
Certain parts of British culture do seem to come under the barbaric cudgel of political correctness. I don't have a problem with men not wanting women to "invade" their space. I do have a problem with people being unfairly denied access to employment or educational or service opportunities.
to clarify my thinking, please give some examples
-
You don't think that this is a demonstration of the underlying fundamental Islamic doctrine that men and women should be segregated?
I was talking about your generalisation that this is imposed by men on women.
Lots of women go back to their abusive husbands, that doesn't make the abuse any less, does it? If you bring people up to think that they 'deserve' to be segregated, they will believe it.
If you bring people up to think they 'deserve' to have arbitrary cultural practices like non-segregation imposed on them, they will believe that too.
Except that they weren't choosing the segregation, it was being imposed on them from the leadership of their group.
If people were informed that it was a segregated event before they freely chose to buy tickets to a segregated event, it was not imposed on them - but of course the courts can determine otherwise, if they want to barbarically impose non-segregation on charity events.
Probably more on the basis that it's demonstrably detrimental to boys and young men to be educated in a single-gender environment, even whilst it's generally beneficial for girls. Someone has to compare those two effects and determine what they believe is the best overall outcome for society - that's a tough call, and I don't have the detailed information to be able to make the decision.
O.
Yes that's a bit like an argument that I heard from a teacher that private education is better for intelligent/ more able individuals but the less able children in society benefit from those more able kids being in their classroom with them rather than being segregated in a private school and working to their full potential. So even though it is detrimental to the more able kids, the teacher argued that it is better to abolish private education for the sake of society. But she did say that this argument does not apply to her own children, and she would want them to have a private education, because she prioritised the needs of individuals over the generalised needs of society, where her own children were concerned.
Personally, I would prioritise my kids' needs for the best education they can get over the needs of boys in society to have a non-segregated education, and find another solution to counter the detrimental effect on boys of segregation e.g. by giving boys other educational opportunities to interact with girls e.g. in science or music and arts projects/ camps.
-
to clarify my thinking, please give some examples
Examples of what?
-
Examples of what?
see! even you don't know what you're talking about.
-
see! even you don't know what you're talking about.
You seem to have forgotten what you wanted examples of. Feel free to come back to your question when you remember what you were confused about and what you wanted examples of.
-
You seem to have forgotten what you wanted examples of. Feel free to come back to your question when you remember what you were confused about and what you wanted examples of.
as one of those men who knows better, you're not worth it love.
-
as one of those men who knows better..
So you claim but no evidence of it in your posts. Must be just your sincerely held belief. Love.
-
Certain parts of British culture do seem to come under the barbaric cudgel of political correctness.
Ah, the 'political correctness gone mad' canard. How is giving people personal freedom a 'cudgel'? If women at these events want to sit in their own corner, they can, but then it's their choice, it's not a diktat from on high.
I don't have a problem with men not wanting women to "invade" their space.
I do. It suggests that there are activities that women should somehow be excluded from, that there is a general need for sexes to the segregated - there are specific times and events where it's warranted, but it should not be a blanket expectation.
I do have a problem with people being unfairly denied access to employment or educational or service opportunities.
Which at least some of the people implementing these policies don't have a problem with, and the fact is that this sort of segregation increases the likelihood of that happening.
O.
-
So you claim but no evidence of it in your posts. Must be just your sincerely held belief. Love.
you're so cute when you're angry, awww!
-
I was talking about your generalisation that this is imposed by men on women.
And you don't believe that's the case?
If you bring people up to think they 'deserve' to have arbitrary cultural practices like non-segregation imposed on them, they will believe that too.
Personal liberty is an 'arbitrary cultural practice' now, is it?
If people were informed that it was a segregated event before they freely chose to buy tickets to a segregated event, it was not imposed on them - but of course the courts can determine otherwise, if they want to barbarically impose non-segregation on charity events.
No, if they were informed in advance they had the Hobson's choice - they didn't have the option to choose between a barbarically segregated or non-segregated event.
Yes that's a bit like an argument that I heard from a teacher that private education is better for intelligent/ more able individuals but the less able children in society benefit from those more able kids being in their classroom with them rather than being segregated in a private school and working to their full potential.
That may be the case, I've not seen the evidence one way or the other.
So even though it is detrimental to the more able kids, the teacher argued that it is better to abolish private education for the sake of society. But she did say that this argument does not apply to her own children, and she would want them to have a private education, because she prioritised the needs of individuals over the generalised needs of society, where her own children were concerned.
Understandable, if not necessarily morally justifiable depending on your frame of reference.
Personally, I would prioritise my kids' needs for the best education they can get over the needs of boys in society to have a non-segregated education, and find another solution to counter the detrimental effect on boys of segregation e.g. by giving boys other educational opportunities to interact with girls e.g. in science or music and arts projects/ camps.
That's fine, but the people making education policy shouldn't be predicating their decision on what's good for your children particularly, they have to balance the general good against the good of subsections of the populace.
Similarly, the people deciding whether it's justifiable to segregate genders need to look at all the cultural and societal impacts of that segregation against the immediate benefit - and they've decided, in this instance, that where there's no immediate benefit that the ideological throw-back of segregation for its own sake should be put off for the betterment of society.
O.
-
Ah, the 'political correctness gone mad' canard. How is giving people personal freedom a 'cudgel'? If women at these events want to sit in their own corner, they can, but then it's their choice, it's not a diktat from on high.
Ah the 'political correctness gone mad is just a canard' canard. As I explained if they chose to buy the ticket knowing it was segregated, it isn't imposed. If they did not know when they bought the ticket that it was for a men only or women only section, then it was being imposed.
I do. It suggests that there are activities that women should somehow be excluded from, that there is a general need for sexes to the segregated - there are specific times and events where it's warranted, but it should not be a blanket expectation.
Which at least some of the people implementing these policies don't have a problem with, and the fact is that this sort of segregation increases the likelihood of that happening.
O.
I am not supporting banning women from engaging in activities either - there is nothing preventing them from organising and engaging in those activities themselves and allowing men to engage in the activities with them. Nor am i arguing for a need for segregation at social events - it's a preference or a personal freedom to have segregated events, which people are free to attend or not.
Who decides when segregation is warranted - you? And any other time except when you say it is warranted, it is an example of barbarism. So much for personal freedom.
-
Ah the 'political correctness gone mad is just a canard' canard. As I explained if they chose to buy the ticket knowing it was segregated, it isn't imposed.
And I pointed out what a Hobson's choice argument that was - choice is between segregated and non-segregated, not between segregated event or self-exclusion.
I am not supporting banning women from engaging in activities either - there is nothing preventing them from organising and engaging in those activities themselves and allowing men to engage in the activities with them. Nor am i arguing for a need for segregation at social events - it's a preference or a personal freedom to have segregated events, which people are free to attend or not.
It's not acceptable for an organisation to segregate people based purely on a desire to segregate, whether it's gender or race or sexuality.
Who decides when segregation is warranted - you? And any other time except when you say it is warranted, it is an example of barbarism. So much for personal freedom.
At the moment, the courts, though we can all have an opinion. Do you have a justification for the segregation in this instance, because I've not heard one offered.
O.
-
And you don't believe that's the case?
As a generalisation, no. I know lots of women who like segregation - when they are at events, when they are working out, just because ...e.g. men can be loud, opinionated, annoyingly patronising, steal food of your plate, talk about boring stuff and can generally be a pain in the neck at events and it's sometimes a relief to get away from them...and I know lots of men who feel the same way about women. At moments like that it's good to have the option to buy a ticket to a segregated event.
Other times your own gender can be really annoying and you want the option of attending a non-segregated gathering. For example, at the mosque men generally shut up and listen to the sermon, while women generally talk. I would love to either be in the men's section at the mosque so I don't have to struggle to hear over the chatter or in a section for people who want to listen and not talk and so won't be disturbed by other people talking - I don't mind if that section is segregated or not.
Personal liberty is an 'arbitrary cultural practice' now, is it?
Seems to me that you're the one barbarically advocating restriction of personal liberty.
No, if they were informed in advance they had the Hobson's choice - they didn't have the option to choose between a barbarically segregated or non-segregated event.
Nothing preventing people who don't want to attend a segregated event from organising a non-segregated event. Again you seem to be the one barbarically advocating that people have to go with your arbitrary opinions on how to organise events.
That's fine, but the people making education policy shouldn't be predicating their decision on what's good for your children particularly, they have to balance the general good against the good of subsections of the populace.
Similarly, the people deciding whether it's justifiable to segregate genders need to look at all the cultural and societal impacts of that segregation against the immediate benefit - and they've decided, in this instance, that where there's no immediate benefit that the ideological throw-back of segregation for its own sake should be put off for the betterment of society.
O.
So you are barbarically advocating limiting personal freedom and choice.
-
Ah the 'political correctness gone mad is just a canard' canard. As I explained if they chose to buy the ticket knowing it was segregated, it isn't imposed. If they did not know when they bought the ticket that it was for a men only or women only section, then it was being imposed.
I am not supporting banning women from engaging in activities either - there is nothing preventing them from organising and engaging in those activities themselves and allowing men to engage in the activities with them. Nor am i arguing for a need for segregation at social events - it's a preference or a personal freedom to have segregated events, which people are free to attend or not.
Who decides when segregation is warranted - you? And any other time except when you say it is warranted, it is an example of barbarism. So much for personal freedom.
too much hidden 'between the lines' there and I'm guessing its not just me who sees it .
-
And I pointed out what a Hobson's choice argument that was - choice is between segregated and non-segregated, not between segregated event or self-exclusion.
Is your solution that people who want to go to a segregated event self-exclude?
It's not acceptable for an organisation to segregate people based purely on a desire to segregate, whether it's gender or race or sexuality.
Yes it is acceptable to segregate based on gender - schools and gyms do it all the time.
-
Is your solution that people who want to go to a segregated event self-exclude?
No, my point is that people who want to go to a segregated event need to be introduced to the idea that people are far more alike across divides like gender than they are between examples of given gender, and that isolating themselves and each other is bad for everyone.
Yes it is acceptable to segregate based on gender - schools and gyms do it all the time.
And, as I've said repeatedly, there are times when it is appropriate. Do you know of any reason why it would be appropriate in this instance, I asked.
O.
-
. I would love to either be in the men's section at the mosque so I don't have to struggle to hear over the chatter
Why dont you go there regularly ?
-
You need it spelt out why sexual and gender segregation is barbaric, and then you patronise me... ::)
O.
To be honest, I fully expected a developed argument from you at the start, but for some reason you just seemed to want to vent about barbarian culture, after that I couldn't be bothered. And, such segregation is often wrong, but that does not mean that all sex/gender segregation is always wrong or "barbaric".
-
No, my point is that people who want to go to a segregated event need to be introduced to the idea that people are far more alike across divides like gender than they are between examples of given gender, and that isolating themselves and each other is bad for everyone.
They probably are more alike than different. But as we are not talking about permanent segregation at all times, you have not demonstrated why that point is relevant or that there is some critical degree of "alikeness" that determines whether people at specific events are allowed by you to exercise their personal freedom to segregate themselves or whether their personal freedom will be barbarically over-ruled in favour of imposing your arbitrary culture norms on them with the false argument that segregation at that event is bad for everyone.
Are you suggesting that people who don't segregate and don't attend segregated events are somehow harmed by segregation at this event? Sounds very similar to the argument that gay marriage is bad for people who want to have heterosexual marriages, and therefore gay marriage is bad for society.
And, as I've said repeatedly, there are times when it is appropriate. Do you know of any reason why it would be appropriate in this instance, I asked.
O.
Yes. See reply #67. Also it is good for the individuals to be able to exercise their personal freedom in relation to choosing to attend segregated events.
ETA - oh I forgot. I went to a women only charity event where over £100,000 was raised for humanitarian aid in Syria. Because there were no men there, other than one of the speakers who was male and who left straight after his speech, the women could take off their head scarves and the abayas covering their cocktail dresses and could dance. So they exercised their personal freedom to dance without being watched by men and have a good time and raise money.
-
you're so cute when you're angry, awww!
I'm not angry, but you're most welcome to believe I am if it helps you feel better about your inability to perform on here.....love
-
Why dont you go there regularly ?
Lack of room - the men's section is already overflowing outside and into the car park during the congregational prayers on Festival days or Fridays. There are plans to rebuild the mosque to have a bigger capacity and better sound systems. Plus mosques are generally segregated and for me the irritation of chatting women is preferable to feeling uncomfortable in an already over-crowded men's section.
-
Plus mosques are generally segregated
Probably not a lot of your vaunted individual choice and personal freedom involved, then.
-
Probably not a lot of your vaunted individual choice and personal freedom involved, then.
Yes - they're a bit like Outrider and you at this mosque i.e. wanting to enforce their rules and barbarically override other people's personal freedoms. Makes you wonder why those people freely choose to turn up at this particular mosque if they all vehemently disagree with the idea of segregation.
-
Yes - they're a bit like Outrider and you at this mosque i.e. wanting to enforce their rules and barbarically
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not difficult to find examples of actual barbarism.
Makes you wonder why those people freely choose to turn up at this particular mosque if they all vehemently disagree with the idea of segregation.
The fact that they're at a mosque in the first instance suggests that they don't.
-
Yes - they're a bit like Outrider and you at this mosque i.e. wanting to enforce their rules and barbarically override other people's personal freedoms.
Who is it that you think is falling for that crap?
Makes you wonder why those people freely choose to turn up at this particular mosque if they all vehemently disagree with the idea of segregation.
No, it really doesn't, the impact of cultural and social pressures and their facility to maintain religious observance in the face of reality is fairly well-documented.
O.
-
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes - it's fun - Outrider was having fun with it earlier on in relation to a segregated charity gala.
The fact that they're at a mosque in the first instance suggests that they don't.
Yes but the question is whether you and Outrider know what's best for them and think yourselves qualified to over-ride their personal choices and freedoms.
-
I'm not angry, but you're most welcome to believe I am if it helps you feel better about your inability to perform on here.....love
perhaps I should remind you, the system in which you believe is viewed as ridiculous , stupid , uneducated , wrong , dangerous, made up, .Someone flew to the moon on a winged horse, ffs .
Lets see how you preform, reality is not your strong point is it?
-
Who is it that you think is falling for that crap?
. You should ask yourself the same question when you come out with your crap masquerading as protecting personal freedom.
No, it really doesn't, the impact of cultural and social pressures and their facility to maintain religious observance in the face of reality is fairly well-documented.
O.
Feel free to link to the documentation on the impact of voluntarily attending a segregated ticketed charity gala or a place of worship - I'll take a look and get back to you. Out of interest are you going to balance those reports with links to the well-documented impact of non-segregation - women feeling intimidated, inhibited or women being sexually assaulted?
-
perhaps I should remind you, the system in which you believe is viewed as ridiculous , stupid , uneducated , wrong , dangerous, made up, .Someone flew to the moon on a winged horse, ffs .
Lets see how you preform, reality is not your strong point is it?
Start a new thread instead of derailing this one. By the way, I don't believe someone flew to the moon on a winged horse. There are lots of different beliefs in religions - your inability to comprehend that and your tendency to generalise is an example of your inability to perform...love. Aww - it's sweet though - your inability to perform - makes you seem all soft and vulnerable.
-
Start a new thread instead of derailing this one. By the way, I don't believe someone flew to the moon on a winged horse. There are lots of different beliefs in religions - your inability to comprehend that and your tendency to generalise is an example of your inability to perform...love. Aww - it's sweet though - your inability to perform - makes you seem all soft and vulnerable.
I doubt the mosque knows you say theses things . Being religious is a choice . Choose wisely , you could be FREE.
-
Lack of room - the men's section is already overflowing outside and into the car park during the congregational prayers on Festival days or Fridays. There are plans to rebuild the mosque to have a bigger capacity and better sound systems. Plus mosques are generally segregated and for me the irritation of chatting women is preferable to feeling uncomfortable in an already over-crowded men's section.
Is there no control over the chattering women?
Is there not an process that could be followed wherein they could be politely reminded that there are some people there who actually want to participate in the event rather than chatter?
-
Is there no control over the chattering women?
Is there not an process that could be followed wherein they could be politely reminded that there are some people there who actually want to participate in the event rather than chatter?
Not really. There are a couple of women in high vis jackets who try to keep people quiet but you can't force people to do anything, and they don't want to kick people out or call the police, and there are little kids present as well, so they can be a bit noisy.
It's a cultural thing I guess - people are used to being quiet in certain environments and unfortunately unlike in a library or in a lecture, for some reason the women who talk think it is ok to talk during the sermon, whereas the men don't. Maybe the women who talk don't spend a lot of time in libraries or at lectures. Some/ many women do understand the concept of keeping quiet during a sermon.
-
I doubt the mosque knows you say theses things .
Why do you doubt it? What do you imagine the mosque would do if they knew - prevent me from entering the mosque because I don't agree with a particular traditional story that is not even in the Quran?
They don't check who comes into the mosque - anyone can walk in. Lots of non.Muslims visit, including from a local school when they are learning about Islam in R.E.
Being religious is a choice . Choose wisely , you could be FREE.
Think you are over-egging this freedom concept. I was an atheist - it was ok/ fun. Nothing particularly special or different. And what do you mean by "choose wisely"? What do you want me to choose?
-
Not really. There are a couple of women in high vis jackets who try to keep people quiet but you can't force people to do anything, and they don't want to kick people out or call the police, and there are little kids present as well, so they can be a bit noisy.
It's a cultural thing I guess - people are used to being quiet in certain environments and unfortunately unlike in a library or in a lecture, for some reason the women who talk think it is ok to talk during the sermon, whereas the men don't. Maybe the women who talk don't spend a lot of time in libraries or at lectures. Some/ many women do understand the concept of keeping quiet during a sermon.
I guess you will just have to get there early enough to get a space in the mens section then?
-
They don't check who comes into the mosque - anyone can walk in. Lots of non.Muslims visit, including from a local school when they are learning about Islam in R.E.
Which version of Islam is this then - Shia - Sunni - Wahhbai ???? To name but 3 !?!!?
-
Does sexual segregation automatically equal inequality? It's not usual in 'our' society but it happens, Orthodox Jews for example, and Jewish women rule the roost! Surely if the Muslim women in this instance felt they were being treated as second class, they wouldn't have gone to the 'do'. I'm just wondering if we are reading more into it than there is, only thoughts, but there are sections of our society who do things differently to the mainstream and we can't automatically condemn differences because we may not understand.
-
I guess you will just have to get there early enough to get a space in the mens section then?
Nah - being caught in a crush of men is not my idea of fun. I experienced it on Hajj going around the Kaaba and was light-headed when I got out of the crush - I actually thought there was a chance I could die in that crush. I prefer the segregation approach - I feel more comfortable.
-
The stupidity, needless to say, continues: http://tinyurl.com/y7ylznct
An Islamic faith school's policy of segregating boys and girls is unlawful sex discrimination, a court has ruled.
The case was heard at the Court of Appeal as Ofsted challenged a High Court ruling clearing the Al-Hijrah school in Birmingham of discrimination.
Ofsted's lawyers argued the segregation left girls "unprepared for life in modern Britain" [...]
The three appeal judges heard boys and girls, aged four to 16, attend the Birmingham City Council-maintained Al-Hijrah school, in Bordesley Green.
But from Year Five, boys and girls are completely separated for lessons, breaks, school trips and school clubs [...]
Speaking after the Court of Appeal ruling Amanda Spielman, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, said educational institutions should never treat pupils less favourably because of their sex.
"The school is teaching boys and girls entirely separately, making them walk down separate corridors, and keeping them apart at all times," she said.
"This is discrimination and is wrong. It places these boys and girls at a disadvantage for life beyond the classroom and the workplace, and fails to prepare them for life in modern Britain," she said.
Unfortunately a come-one-come-all immigration policy for decades has allowed these repellent belief systems into the country and a spineless multiculturalism has allowed the toxin to flourish. How much can realistically be done about it now is uncertain. Very little, would be my guess.
-
Some of the pupils in that school stated that they would like to interact with pupils of the other sex, and since this was a co-ed school, it was decided by the court that pupils who wanted to interact were being discriminated against because they were not having the opportunity to learn to interact.
This ruling would not apply to a single sex school. And given the thread on the other board about children sexually assaulting children in co-ed schools in our current sexualised culture, I can see why it's unlikely that segregated schools will be phased out for those parents who want them. And I can also see why segregated events might appeal to some people, if they want the peace of mind segregation gives them.
-
Ofsted's lawyers argued the segregation left girls "unprepared for life in modern Britain" [...]
May I make a contribution to this discussion from a rather different perspective and tradition and time?
I was born during WW2 and grew up in the East Midlands in a Roman Catholic working-class family. Apart from my mother, my family was all male.
My primary school was the local RC primary school. In this school boys and girls were treated differently - girls were protected, boys were treated as if they were inherently problematic (remember the old rhyme - sugar and spice and all things nice .... slugs and snails and puppy dogs' tails?) One event I recall was a sudden rainstorm shortly before the afternoon session began. The girls were let into the school, the boys left outside in the playground. This was typical of the difference in treatment.
The messages from the pulpit - as far as a growing boy could deduce - contrasted the virtues of girls with the vices of boys. And when I became an adolescent I noted in these messages an implication that the virtues of young women were special and should be respected. By this time I had moved to the boys' grammar school and had little day-to-day contact with girls. My school had lessons on Saturday mornings and compulsory attendance at sporting fixtures on Saturday afternoons meant that weekends were girl contact free as well.
I left school having had little contact with girls, having little reliable information about the motivations, interests and behaviour of young women. It took me a considerable time to acquire the self-confidence to show an interest in close friendships with girls. I had been conditioned to regard my (hetero)sexuality with caution and to respect virginity. In retrospect, the period of my life which should have been an adventure was sterile, painful and empty.
The prevention of normal socialisation of boys and girls by means of physical, moral and educational segregation should be seen as totally unacceptable. And allowing this segregation to be driven by philosophical values derived from fairy and folk tales from another millennium is unforgivable.