sexual segregation in UK universities

[carlajean]

I don't know if i've missed any threads on this, but i'm horrified to have just learnt that some UK universities are going to allow sexual segregation in some lectures. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown commented on it in today's Independent, and Polly Toynbee wrote about it in the Guardian.
Why hasn 't the NUS objected?
I'd be interested to hear what other mnetters think about this. As i've said, I object strongly to this, but would be interested to hear what others think.

what PointyChristmasWand said

and I've signed the petition - here's a [[https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Universities_UK_Rescind_endorsement_of_sex_segregation_at_UK_Universities/?fbss link] again if you missed it above

oh sod it - sorry link

It's very bad.
The guidance by the way is not about segregation at normal student lectures. It is for visiting speakers and it suggests as long students are givein a choice of mixed and also segregated then that is allowed so no one would actually be segregated unless they wanted to. However even that is not good enough for me.
As Radio 4's Today programme has been highlighting in the last few days replace women for gays or blacks and there would be uproar - come to a lecture on XYZ and we will offer 3 blocks of seats - (a) straight people ; (b) gay people and ( c) the area where both will mix (or black or whatever). As it's women only the sub species under Islam it is apparently all right.

PointyChristmasFairyWand

I'm not sure that conflating this particular issue with the matter of cultural diversity in general is helpful... I would like to think we are a little more sophisticated and a little better able to identify what matters and what does not matter.

But what has happened is that we have been pushed in a direction that ALL cultural diversity is a good thing. That's been combined with a relentless attack on any aspect of Britishness (for want of a better word) to the point where we no longer have any reasonable definition for it, let alone feel comfortable demonstrating it without there being negative connotations. The ownership of a St George's flag was, until very recently, the mark of a member of the National Front or BNP, not the mark of a patriot. In the minds of many it still is grounds for suspicion.

^Condoning sexism (whether rooted in extremist religoin or not) = bad.
Condemning all multiculturalism = just as bad.^

Is it? What is multiculturalism? What it means is not us all mixing and getting along together, but ghettoisation. It's a pernicious ideology whose damaging effects only appear as decades pass. Why can't we say that a failure to adopt the mores, culture and language of the place where you live is a problem?

Most of us, whether on the left or the right politically, have the ability to distinguish right from wrong without making sweeping statements. Are you advocating that we should believe that all Western cultural values are better than all other cultural values, flatpack? Because that really would be a hiding to nowhere.

No. But we should be able to stand up and say "These values - such as the ones where we don't separate women off and treat them as second class citizens - are better than yours, they are non-negotiable, and if you don't like them then tough." And our political classes can't, because they're so uncertain about what they stand for or what country or society they're representing that they have no sense of why it matters to say 'no' to segregation in universities.

Juliet123456

As Radio 4's Today programme has been highlighting in the last few days replace women for gays or blacks and there would be uproar - come to a lecture on XYZ and we will offer 3 blocks of seats - (a) straight people ; (b) gay people and ( c) the area where both will mix (or black or whatever). As it's women only the sub species under Islam it is apparently all right.

I'm pretty sure Islam has just as clear views on gays.

For me, women's rights always trump religious rights.

And, while Brown vs. Board of Education is a US touchstone, I think it applies here. Separate is not equal.

I don't think women should be relaxed and pragmatic about the little things. I don't think we should give a single inch.

I'm pretty sure Islam has just as clear views on gays.

Yes, they're pretty much the same as those views held by fundamentalist Christians in much of Uganda. Your point is?

I absolutely agree with you that there are certain cultural things that we do better in the West. And I don't apologise for saying that they are better either. Equality and freedom are some of the bigger things in that list and we should absolutely stand up for those. We need far stronger action against FGM, forced marriage. 'honour' killings and so on.

I also agree that if you come to live in a country you should adapt - I just question how far people should be obliged to go in that. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice on here when I say that immigrants of all nationalities should have to learn English. It would be a blow for women's rights - no more men keeping their women mute and unable to flee DV because they don't speak the language, and that is just one consideration. I'm an immigrant myself and I wouldn't dream of expecting people here to speak Dutch to accommodate me.

However, there are some British mores that I have no intention of adopting - xenophobia and the island mentality being the main one. And try as I might I will never find cricket interesting. There has to be a balance. At the moment it is tipping too far towards political correctness, but pushing it in a general UKIPwards direction is just as undesirable.

PointyChristmasFairyWand
Yes, they're pretty much the same as those views held by fundamentalist Christians in much of Uganda. Your point is?

That the poster I quoted was making an incorrect claim when she said that under Islam the only people classed as a sub species were women.

Fair point. Though fundamentalist Christians of the Uganda type(and of the US surrendered wives type) class women as a subspecies too. There's something about extremes of religion that does weird things to people's brains.

so let me get this straight. If I sit next to a man in certain debates or lectures I may be infringing the human rights of the speaker?

How does that work?

I signed the petition.

I hope my University isn't buying into this nonsense.

BarbarianMum

so let me get this straight. If I sit next to a man in certain debates or lectures I may be infringing the human rights of the speaker?

Basically they're playing minority top trumps. Islamist beats woman. An inevitable consequence, sadly, of defining people in that way.

I'm so fucking sick of women being classed as second class citizens. It's the 21st century, racist segregation is frowned upon, sexuality segregation is frowned upon, but gender segregation is fine. Why? Why am I not as worthy because I don't own a penis? Are there some sort of special seats with special penis holders in them that only the men can sit in? Do they also have special boob holders in the women seats? Because I can see no other reason for separating the genders and sitting them in different areas. The only reason this being done is because the organisers/university peeps in power (I'm drunk, can't bothered figuring out what they're called) are complete and utter wankers!

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told that idiot on C4 just where he was wrong. Good for her. His arguments were simply ridiculous.

We need to stamp this nonsense out before it takes hold and women become 2nd rate citizens.

I heard Nicola Dandridge (spelling?) on BB R4 yesterday morning, she's the CEO of the UK University group that have permitted this segregation. She was wholly unconvincing during the interview and when pressed on how similar this sounds to apartheid, could not answer. As others have commented, she referred to legal advice they've had and she couldn't articulate that either. She surely should resign. And as a woman, she should be ashamed to be associated with this.
Good on Jack Straw for being the only political figure who was brave enough to speak out on the same programme.

Guidelines from Universities UK apparently say that gender segregation may be appropriate in some cases. It's disgusting.

Cameron says he's not comfortable with it, and wants the guidelines reviewed. I should bloody jolly well think so.

I can't believe this is happening in the UK, in the 21st century. It's astonishing and shameful.

Finally the politicians are weighing in (Cameron, Gove), I suppose they had to have their advisors trawl over this for a few days before they could make their mind up on what their public opinion "should" be. Pathetic.

And where are our female MPs, there might not be many of them but I would like to hear them comment on this, or are they also devoid of opinion, or perhaps afraid to speak lest they offend the people who want to segregate gender. Shame on you.

Now there are reports that UK Unis have withdrawn their advice. They seem thoroughly unfit for purpose. It would be better if they were disbanded altogether.

And, yes, where are our female MPs who should be up in arms at this? osie Winterton, the Eagles, Primarolo et al. Disgusted with the lot of you.

I've not read the whole thread... there was a blog thread about this yesterday, which prompted me to read the actual report that the brouhaha is about rather than just the media reporting. Here it is.

It is an interpretation of the laws relevant to external speakers. I really don't think that the universities should be targeted for ire for producing these guidelines - save it for campaigning to make sure that the law of the land enshrines rights due to inherent characteristics (gender, race) above religion.

Cameron says he's not comfortable with it, and wants the guidelines reviewed
I hope he has - or will - read the guidelines and then put a review of the relevant laws into place.

Hmm, today's BBC story is rather different from the original complaint:

"Universities UK concluded: "If neither women nor men were disadvantaged and a non-segregated seating area were also provided, it might in the specific circumstances of the case be appropriate for the university to agree to the request.""

That's a HUGE difference from the original text of:

"imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely-held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully."

Are UUK pretending they never made the original statement, and that all the fuss is about the existence of additional segregated areas?

The new version is also problematic - but the original is incendiary.

It's also a nice illustration of how easy it is to segue from one state to another - let's have optional segregated areas, now let's get rid of the non-segregated area; or let's harangue people who use the non-segregated areas.

Read my link. IIRC it says both but - as I said - it is an interpretation of the laws, which the UUK did not create.

I emailed UUK to ask when the next segregated talk is happening at one of their Unis. I'll be happy to attend and sit where I like, as their CEO tried to imply on R4 that despite the guidance they issued, no-one would be actually forced to be segregated unless they wanted to, it's like, all voluntary. Which makes no sense, because wouldn't that mean the precious speaker would walk out in a huff, if people voluntarily broke the segregation? However, nothing she said really made sense.
And i get that they sought legal advice, it just didn't come across as if they'd really tried hard enough on this one.
I am so incensed by this, grrr.