Talk:Sex segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] General structure

This article is so narrow and focused on religion that it is basically useless. Why shouldn't that information just be moved to the pages for those religions, or the general pages on sex and gender? I've added one sentence on occupational segregation, which is surely a major part of sex segregation, with a link - and faced hassle and reverts over it. What is the agenda here? Yyyikes 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam section

The new Islam section isn't NPOV - and makes vast generalizations... there are many different ways to practice Islam, the wahabi will not be like the liberal. gren 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Sex Segregation in ISLAM" given so much emphasis in this article anyway? How about "sex segregation in Judaism", "schools" and whatnot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.209.176 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 August 2005.
Because sex segregation in Islam is the most prominent (but not necessarily the strictest) of the foremost three religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Also, recent events stemming from 9/11 have brought forth Islam to the public eye, resulting in a focus on the various aspects of the religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.27.191 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 August 2005.
I haven't even read the sex segregation in Islam yet and already I'm alarmed. It definately should not have such a prominant, dominating position in a potentially vast topic. I think it should be removed until the article grow to accomodate it in a proportionally representative way. It could perhaps be moved to a relevant page on Islam rather than deleted... but it is misplaced on this, which would otherwise be a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJM (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2005.
to the above comment -> Sorry, you wanting it just doesn't cut it, buddy. The fact is that Islam DOES segregate women from men, i.e. different wagons in the Cairo subway for them, among the lightest forms of discrimination), and there is nothing wrong in reporting things as they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.34.228 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 September 2005.
Oh, I see whats happened here.. some random anon has confused the secular city of "cairo" (The biggest city in Africa) with the religion of "Islam".. it's not that common a mistake, but they've made it. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is almost completely devoted to segregation based on gender within Islamic society. Should issues about gender segregation (which on a minor note may be a more appropriate title) in normal society (i.e. western and non relgion specific soceity) not be covered here also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 October 2005.

"Political Correctness" is often used as a blind for covering the truth, and the truth is that Islam has more disturbing elements against women than Christianity or Judaism - while Christianity and Judaism may have been sexist at one point, they have embraced the modern world and are moving towards a fairer society, while Islam in parts of the world remains largely unchanged from medieval ways of thinking. Perhaps you should READ the article first before you criticize it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.34.27 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 October 2005.

Sex segregation is one of the most visible aspects of Islam, so the nature of the article isn't surprising, especially as it appears to be new. However, I agree that the title implies a wider treatment of the issue than it is getting at the moment. Perhaps the answer is to simply edit the title to "Sex (or gender) Segregation in Islam" and let people get on with elucidating the issue as it applies there. If there are major differences between wahabi and liberal perhaps Grenavitar or others would be kind enough to add to the article to make it clearer. I, for one, would be interested to know. Igsy 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No there really is segregation in islam. Women aren't allowed to leave the house without a man and are required to be covered from head to toe!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayaikenfan365 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 October 2005.

I would not mention "Islam" but rather whichever conservative/fundamentalist parts of the world happen to segregate the sexes (be there muslim/christian or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.2.66 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 January 2006.
            -------------------------------

I found errors & biases in the article in relation to Saudi Arabia. I (an American woman) live in Saudi Arabia and have frequented various McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Starbucks, and other places with my children or with my girlfriends, and while they are segregated, they are also as clean as they would be in the States. (And, to be frank, the number of segregated establishments is small in comparison to those that are not segregated.)
Women do attend university, work, and socialize outside of the home, they do own property and businesses (the building we live in belongs to a business woman!).
In Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates one sees just as many women out and about as men. However, I can't comment on other countries (Afghanistan, Iran...), for I've never been there thus can't claim any knowledge of their customs.
In reply to the comment above, women are indeed allowed to leave the house without a man, many women work or study, and most have drivers to take them where they wish to go. Also, not all women cover from head to toe -that seems to be a personal choice. Aouandme 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme

[edit] NPOV tags

Until someone actually brings up an NPOV issue, I'm going to remove the tags. If you want to split out the section, that's fine, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Melchoir 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, is there something you'd like to say here? Melchoir 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After being reverted twice without explanation, I'm now reinstating my change for the third time. Melchoir 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's number four! Melchoir 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest utilizing WP:AN/3RR? That'll put a stop to revert warring when one party doesn't explain their reasons for reverting. Netscott 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but technically he stopped short. Melchoir 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Irishpunktom, explain yourself or I will continue to remove the tags. Melchoir 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They are factual errors/claims that are bordering on misleading. For e.g. on Saudi Arabia it states that women are prevented from holding property or forced to remain ignorant (presumably by being denyed education). This is untrue, women are free to hold/own property and the number of women in universities has exceeded that of men. Also in Iran the number of women in univerisities has exceeded that of men. This entire article has from the beginning an agenda to associate all types of repression of women with Islam.

[edit] Judaism section

It appears that the section header only applied to one sentence. I've moved the remaining text out of the section (unless someone can explain that Josei Senyo Sharyo is derived from Judaism). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of this material may be useful

This is the material related to gender apartheid that was in the article Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article:

Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". [1] According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam).[2]

Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":

Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in.[3]

Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:

One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them." [4]

Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:

Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement.[5]

According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:

The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays.[6] Tiamat 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)