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

Bear in mind too, those women photographed must be reasonably politically active to attend a Labour meeting in the first place.

And what happens as a result of that activism? They have their photo splashed all over the right wing media, no doubt with comment sections full of bile, aimed at them.

Imagine how you would feel if that happened to you and how you would feel facing that level of scrutiny, just because of where you sat in a meeting?

Do you think that might just put
them off from being politically active in the future?

The people making a fuss about this story couldn't give two hoots about Muslim women.

I'm not sure the Oldham Chronicle can be classed as Right Wing Media.

Exit
The Daily Mail have picked up on the story and I think they meet the criteria for right wing press.

It doesn't really matter anyway the postal vote will ensure a Labour win

Bertrand I happen to agree with you- but on another thread, someone corrected me and said it couldn't be considered that Muslim women, for example, decide off their own bat to wear hijab, say (even though I know plenty whose husbands actively dislike it and ask them not to), because they have been culturally conditioned and thus coerced, even if they don't realise they have.

I know you and I have different points of view on a number of things, but I value your opinions and ideas, and you always explain things extremely well: but in the instance of Oldham, do you suppose there is the possibility of a genuine choice to sit separately, rather than the expectations of the community that they will/fear of ostracism if they don't/issues of family "shame" and "honour"?

FWIW, I would always accept that, if someone tells me they have agency and believes they have agency, then indeed they do: but in this particular case, I am genuinely not sure whether there would be true freedom to make that choice. (Hence my question!)

Pity why do you persist in portraying all muslim women as pathetic, hapless creatures eternally in need of being protected ?

It's extremely demeaning, derogatory and utterly untrue.

You, me and many posters will know many muslim women who are every bit as forthright and confident as anybody else and who'd give you a deserved mouthful for patronising them with your continuous loop of 'poor victimised muslim women'.

FWIW I don't see any pandering to discrimination here as there is no evidence that this has been imposed on anyone and even if it has been, neither sex is being treated unfavourably.

Its the cultural norm for muslim men & women to segregate. They would have automatically gravitated to that arrangement.

In all likelihood I would have sat on the opposite side too (although wouldn't do so in room of non-muslim men). Its just conditioning and respecting accepted customs. If I'd had to sit at the back though, I along with I'm sure most of the women at that meeting would have objected and walked out.

Sex discrimination is definitely ingrained in Islam but that doesn't mean every muslim woman is being discriminated against or puts up with it. Far from it. Many families are gender equal and fair few matriarchal. Free mixing with the opposite sex though is a no no though, man or woman and so in public you'd never sit next to a non-related man/woman even if in private you are sleeping with half the town

Hmm, if they had a women's only section, but then the rest of the venue was mixed sex, I would be OK with that.

I accept that some women want women's only spaces in some situations. I mean, I don't exactly "get" why merely sitting next to a bloke with both of you fully dressed is going to cause you to catch the lurgey, but whatever.

If the entire venue is gender segregated on a compulsory basis, meaning that as a woman I would have no choice other than to sit in the "women's section," that is where I would start to have a problem with it.

It's pretty tone-deaf of Labour to do this right now, mind you. They are already catching lots of flack in Oldham because "politically correct London labour luvvies don't understand the racial tensions up North" etc. etc.

I'd still like to know why it's not OK for adult Muslim women to choose to sit apart from their partners, but it is ok for adult white people to send their impressionable children to segregated schools.

"I'd still like to know why it's not OK for adult Muslim women to choose to sit apart from their partners, but it is ok for adult white people to send their impressionable children to segregated schools."
I think most people who genuinely disagree with one will also disagree with the other?

Any more thoughts, OP? I'd particularly like to hear about the "repressive equalities legislation" you mentioned.

BertrandRussell not necessarily.

As it happens, I am not "against" segregation when it is the individual's choice - if adult wish to sit with other adult women, that is their choice. It may be regrettable - but many people do things that I find regrettable. It doesn't mean I have the right to interfere with their choices.

I'm against state-sponsored segregation, as in single sex schools.

Curiously, many people on this thread seem to be in favour of state sponsored segregation, but against adult Muslim women choosing where they want to sit. I wonder why that could be?

There certainly do seem to be some complex agendas on this thread........

I don't think the agendas are particularly complex

Don't you? Must be my nasty suspicious mind then.

Bertrand
I think Misti means that some of the agendas are fairly blatent

The Daily Mail must feel that Christmas has come early with this one. A story that includes the Labour Party, Ethnic Minorities and Muslims ...

Sorry- I forgot the after my last post!

Are you there, OP??

The premise of this whole thread is disingenuous and backed up by evidence from a completey separate issue. Are you having a go at Labour, Muslims or both. And was the meeting segregated purposely by Labour?

I know you and I have different points of view on a number of things, but I value your opinions and ideas, and you always explain things extremely well: but in the instance of Oldham, do you suppose there is the possibility of a genuine choice to sit separately, rather than the expectations of the community that they will/fear of ostracism if they don't/issues of family "shame" and "honour"?

Yes, they may be conditioned into sitting separately, but it does not actively harm them. Telling them they suddenly cannot do what they have been conditioned to do their whole lives would be cruel.
Why would they desire to sit with men? There is nothing in it for them if the discussion takes place in the same room and they sit as close to the speaker. Indeed, if they are so oppressed by their families, then maybe they enjoy the break from their male family members.

I am way more concerned about young girls being conditioned and thus coerced into letting their boyfriends PiV them. Which actively harms them. Yet no one aims to set the age of consent to 25.

If girls are forced into arranged marriages, outlaw it. If they are forced to wear headscarves, outlaw it. But as for adult women who make their own choices, banning them from segregating from men would be even more oppressive than banning women from wearing high heels (which are, I am convinced, only worn because women are conditioned to think it looks good.)

Not segregated because there are clearly women on the 'male' side.

But if not separating the sexes means that some women won't/can't attend, then isn't it better to do so?

YABU. There are women sitting amongst the men. There is no barrier between men and women.

Go back to the Daily Fail.

Vestal I agree with you, fwiw: I was asking because I've previously been flamed (not by anyone who's posted on this thread) for daring to suggest that Muslim women have any agency. It's interesting too that culturally, for example, religious Jews will also sit separately: but I suspect Jews are such a tiny minority in this country, and religious ones even more so, that this never gets picked up upon.

I have been at public lectures in the past where I have refused to remain, because women were expected to sit behind men (not a status thing - apparently, it's like in the mosque, where men need to be protected from their own inability to focus on anything apart from the sazzling feamle pulchritude laid out in front of them): but generally, this is done when there is no aisle, where the norm is to have each sex either side.

Mia - Nice try, but pointing out that unwarranted media attention is intrusive and that Islamophobia exists are statements of fact. Not painting anyone as a victim.

And from a feminist point of view, is it not a good idea in a community for women to sit together?

After all they can see their husbands, sons and brothers elsewhere, but when there are occasions when women are expected to be with each other rather than in the company of their menfolk it gives them a chance to build up their social networks.

I am still a little puzzled that OTheHugeManatee felt so strongly about this 24 hours ago but hasn't been back since.

I am still a little puzzled that OTheHugeManatee felt so strongly about this 24 hours ago but hasn't been back since

How odd, its something you do. You ask a poster a question over and over again. And over again, again. . Then when they reply, you dont seem to come back....