Segregated Party

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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

[Shaker]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

That is what happens in some Muslim, and some Jewish weddings.

If you don't like it, you don't have to go.

[Shaker]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Simply repeating a fact doesn't make it acceptable.
Or how about people stop being twats?

Were you invited?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Shaker]

Were you invited?

No, why?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Then why grumble about somebody else's party?I was not invited either.

[Outrider]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walter]

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?

[Robbie]

I wonder if the men and women involved are quite happy with the segregation.   If both groups are, it's not a problem.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walter]

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

[Udayana]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walter]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Udayana]

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?

[Udayana]

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.

[Shaker]

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."