Segregated Party

[Udayana]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Udayana]

It's all of those things.

So ... I should just take that as an unreasoned emotional reaction to something that has become unfashionable.

[Gordon]

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.

[Shaker]

So ... I should just take that as an unreasoned emotional reaction to something that has become unfashionable.

"Unfashionable"?

[Udayana]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Udayana]

"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".

[Shaker]

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.

[Udayana]

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.
 

[Gordon]

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.   

[Walter]

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?

[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.

[Walter]

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!

[Outrider]

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.

[Udayana]

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.
 

[Outrider]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Udayana]

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. 

[Outrider]

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.

[Udayana]

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!

[Outrider]

Ah! At last .. well done!

Well done what?

[Udayana]

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.