to think it's disgraceful that Labour MPs are condoning gender segregation?

[OTheHugeManatee]

I thought Labour were supposed to be against discrimination. But I'm hearing multiple reports of Labour MPs attending gender segregated rallies around the Olham by-election and uttering not a peep about it.

AIBU to think it's disgraceful that once again women's right to equality is being quietly set aside for other political priorities? And by the party that makes the most noise about equality, no less?

Fucking hypocrites

I am so torn about this one. I'm not entirely sure that it is the role of the Labour Party to reform the social structure of any particular group- the important thing is to get across the Labour message and get rid of the Tories. So I can see an argument for a pragmatic approach and allowing people to decide where they want to sit. And in a ward with a significant Muslim voters the last thing a prospective MP wants to do is alienate the voters! And there is no suggestion that the seating was being imposed on non Muslims- Muslim men were not, presumably, refusing to sit next to non Muslim women?

I'd shrug my shoulders and do my best to fit in. In fact I have done exactly that, when living abroad. How would you react?

But it wouldn't change your views would it? If you went to Saudi and were told women shouldn't drive and homosexuality was an abomination, you might not drive whilst you were there, and you might not comment publicly on homosexuality, but you would still believe the same things.

So are we basically saying it's enough to force men and women to sit together in public for our own purposes because a pretence at removing segregation in our public spaces is all we require? Seems a low aim. (and I stand by my previous point about the fact that the women would stay home).

the important thing is to get across the Labour message and get rid of the Tories

And the Labour message is, we will turn a blind eye to sexual in equality?

However I disagree with Exit that these depressing, sexist norms can't be laid at Labour's door. It's not wholly Labour's fault - there's an entire post-structuralist philosophical canon out there making things worse - but their policies have encouraged exactly the kind of ghettoisation and fragmentation of social norms that results in this kind of ugly paradox

Or it could be that people are practicing a religion that you want to bash.

If the women were excluded or sitting where they couldn't hear or participate as well as the men, I too would have a problem with it, but that is not the case.

In non-Muslim communities we often divide up between the men and the women, but we take it so much for granted that we do not see it happening.

Librairies

Saudi is a repugnant country and I would never ever ever go there.

Some of these communities are frightening insular, its a great opportunity at a public meeting so say = this is not how we do things. It may be the first time some of the attendees had heard it was OK to sit to among the men..

"And the Labour message is, we will turn a blind eye to sexual in equality?"

No. But the women were there. They were in the same room, attending the same meeting.

So are we basically saying it's enough to force men and women to sit together in public for our own purposes because a pretence at removing segregation in our public spaces is all we require?

I don't have any desire to control people's thoughts. But actions that reinforce sexism should not be condoned by national political parties, especially those that make a big song and dance about being all for equality.

I'm not entirely sure that it is the role of the Labour Party to reform the social structure of any particular group

They seem pretty keen on meddling in all kinds of other social structures that are seen to be in contravention of equalities.

That's fundamentally why this sticks so badly in my craw. They bring in all kinds of actually IMO quite repressive equalities legislation, and beat the Tories and UKIP round the head with their superior egalitarianism. But then when it's not in their interests to make a big deal out of it - ie when there's favour to be curried with the Bangladeshi vote in Oldham - suddenly they're all softly-softly. It's the hypocrisy that gets me, even more than the rank sexism.

"But actions that reinforce sexism should not be condoned by national political parties, especially those that make a big song and dance about being all for equality."

I wasn't aware of any "big song and dance". Just a range of sensible policies. Are you a Labour supporter, by the way?

Although I think gender-segregated seating is ridiculous, it's not particularly discriminatory against women - unless you're forcing women to sit at the back or in uncomfortable seats or on a balcony or something. Having men one side and women the other is absurd but it doesn't discriminate against women more than against men.

"They bring in all kinds of actually IMO quite repressive equalities legislation,"

Gosh- like what? My mind is boggling a bit at the idea of "repressive equalities legislation".............

I don't have any desire to control people's thoughts. But actions that reinforce sexism should not be condoned by national political parties.

So it's ok to punish those women who live under social structures you find unacceptable by (in effect) excluding them from the political process until they conform?

They seem pretty keen on meddling in all kinds of other social structures that are seen to be in contravention of equalities.

I have no idea what you're getting at there. You'd have to explain. Oh god, it isn't about self definition of trans is it. Because I literally can't take another trans thread.

and what about the women who maybe wanted to sit with their dh,or df or db? what the women who felt obliged to go and sit with women they did not know?

Having men one side and women the other is absurd but it doesn't discriminate against women more than against men

the same could be said for apartheid.

libraries

You are punishing those women by not saying anything. Your denying them knowledge and power.

Tbh I hate this people are usually full of shit tbh the same women who wouldn't attend this meeting if were mixed I presume get on buses that are not serrated send there children to schools that are not serrated attend school meetings that are not serrated and work in mixed envioments

It's horse shit and needs to be stamped out my oh worked with a lady who would not shake his hand or expect a lift home from work because he is male due to her religion they are nurse last week she had to give one of the male patients a bed bath it's horse shit

I agree OP, the misogyny inherent in modern Islam goes unaddressed and tacitly condoned for fear of being seen as racist or "islamophobic". I come from a Muslim country - I have no phobia of Islam. I have a perfectly rational fear and dislike of the misogyny, homophobia and anti semitisim which is rampant in practice.

People use their religion the same way people use health and safety to get out of doing things

Personally I would of sat with the men just to make a point and they would of had to drag me out if they didn't like it

That's what you get either liberal left to worried about sensibilitys of others

I'm with the person who asked would it be ok to have white people on one side and black people on the other.

Why do we think sexism is ok and racism isn't? Racism is/has been culturally ok in some countries but we don't accept it eg sanctions against South Africa. So why do we accept sexism because it is culturally acceptable in some countries?

And I would be annoyed to be told I couldn't sit with my husband/brother/male colleague at a public event or vice versa. If people naturally gravitate towards sitting next to other women, that's fine. What isn't fine is that people are told where they can and cannot sit based on whether they are in possession of a penis or a vagina.

So... a right wing politico starts a blog for plots, rumours and conspiracy... of tittle tattle, gossip and rumours about Westminster's Mother of Parliaments. Written from the perspective of the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions. The intention being to blow it up with gunpowder...

Now the blog posts a picture that obviously shows men and women in one place, not segregated, as can clearly be evidenced by the presence of women, sat right next to men making the picture an example of that tittle tattle and conspiracy that the self aggrandising blogger promised.

The founder really isn't a reliable source: have a quick Google Guido Fawkes Paul Staines

Liar, convicted criminal, journalistic equivalent of an arsonist, bankrupt ex hedge fund manager, recidivist drunk driver, tax avoider and coward - he went to great lengths to keep his identity anonymous when he set up his blog, registering his website in the Caribbean tax haven of Nevis under a false name and address, and refusing to give interviews when his eye-catching postings started to attract more mainstream attention.

Yes, I'd get all uptight about anything he claimed to have evidence of. I wouldn't use my own eyes to see that the claim is simply not true.

Pshaw!!!

"And I would be annoyed to be told I couldn't sit with my husband/brother/male colleague at a public event or vice versa. If people naturally gravitate towards sitting next to other women, that's fine. What isn't fine is that people are told where they can and cannot sit based on whether they are in possession of a penis or a vagina."

I don't think there is any suggestion that people were told where they could sit. Or is there?

A comparison with segregation on race grounds is reasonable.

However - ever been to a business conference in Africa? There is often de facto "segregation" on grounds of race. White bankers from London sit with other white bankers from London, with whom they are travelling. Black executives from companies controlled by historically-disadvantaged groups sit with their black colleagues. This is not "segregation" and it does not (necessarily) prevent the two groups from having mutual respect for each other.

If we were really against segregation, then wouldn't we be railing against single sex schools? Or against schools where a high proportion of pupils come from one ethnic group?

This is just a silly excuse to bash Labour and have a go at Muslims, unless you're seriously prepared to debate the above issues.

There are mainstream paper reports on it. There was no 'telling'. But the meeting was for Friends o Bangladesh and those pictured in the cropped G Fawkes image are all Asian except for the 2 non Asian women, who sat amongst the men, that are quite easy to spot.

The segregation seems to have been a social more... not a demand by Labour or anyone associated with them. Just one of those things a group of people choose to do. That it is old fashioned, not 'our thing' and looks odd to us, does not mean it was enforced by Labour.

To be fair I won't send my children single sex schools and segregated areas (see Oldham actually) are an issue for this country. I have lived alongside a separate Catholic schooling system for most of my life and I think it ought to have had its day.

On the Labour meetingissue if adults choose to self segregate ok but if there was an organiser directing folk then that would be different.