Talk:Sex segregation and Islam

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.
A summary of this article appears in Women and Islam.

This article could use a prominent link to Sex segregation at the top; I'm just not sure how. Melchoir 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Striver 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit was done using content from the Sex segregation article. Calliopejen1 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merger proposal

I move that Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Gender_apartheid be merged into this article as this is the more appropriate and more specific location for this content. Lothar of the Hill People 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

as with the other article: i agree. i see no reason for the content forking. ITAQALLAH 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I would totally agree, if they were they same thing. Unfortunately, they are not. In this country, women are not allowed to move freely outside without a male relative accompanying them. Segregation would mean that there were different roads where they could walk. Gender Apartheid reduces freedom of women and impacts their human rights. Bigglove 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, since that article deals with these very common terms - gender apartheid and should be in the allegation article, like other allegation articles. If you think it's a word to avoid, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid and merge all articles to "segregation" articles... that's the only proper way to do it IMO, Amoruso 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amoruso. I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid." That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries. I also second Amoruso's reference to Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid, and I have already commented there that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles. 6SJ7 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The precedent is that Allegations of articles are being treated separately. That's why several of the AFD's have succeeded in deleting individual articles while others are not. They aren't all the same and can't be treated in a cookie-cutter, one sise fits all manner. Lothar of the Hill People 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the term "apartheid" belongs anywhere but S. Africa, but as long as it is used in other titles across WP, it should be dealt with consistently. Here the AFD has failed, and now we have an effort to delete the case where "the apartheid is starkest in Saudi Arabia" by other means. Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Apartheid is a good place to start. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD didn't fail, it was closed before it ran its course so that there could be further discussion. This is an attempt at such a discussion and if it fails it's quite likely the AFD will be re-opened. Lothar of the Hill People 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if any article truly merits the word apartheid (outside of SA), this one does. IronDuke 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a valid option to merge articles, once AFDs did fail. Besides, Bigglove's reasoning is correct. --tickle me 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Situation in Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan due to women who strictrly disagree with islamic attitude to women the number of muslims is significantly less than number of Kazakhs and other ethnic groups who traditionally considered as islamic peoples. (70% of islamic peoples vs 47% of muslims) Typically the first visit of mosque by such women is the last visit of it, as they meet sex segregation in mosques, which considered as very offencive and leed to decision to change religion.

Strothra just simply deletes it by fully ignoring the facts that the number of ethnic groups that traditionaly considered as islamic peoples are 70% however number of muslims is only 47% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are not in compliance with Wikipedia's citation and verification policies. Please add reliable sources for such information. --Strothra 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
look at statistsics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many many problem with your statements - First, you do not provide a source for your statistical information. Second, you don't define what you mean by "traditionally considered as Islamic people." What people? What do you mean by "traditionally?" You say that there are "women who strictly disagree with islamic attitude to women." Who are these women? What do you mean by "Islamic attitudes to women". That's all very vague. These are all claims that need to be cited. Further, the syntax and diction used in your statement makes very little sense to an English reader. --Strothra 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are trying to say that most women who attend Mosque in Kazakhstan only do so once and then leave and change their religion because they are offended by Muslim views of women. If so, that is an incredibly subjective point of view and will need a reliable source. --Strothra 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

The article is moved from "Sex segregation in Islam" to "Sex segregation and Islam".

The reason being, the concept is disputed, and often used by critics of Islam. Thus, it's not NPOV for an article title to side with one bias (particularly that of critics).Bless sins (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain why the more accurate title is POV. Arrow740 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
When did I say "the more accurate title is POV"? Infact, if anything, the more inaccurate title "Sex segregation in Islam" is POV. It's POV because it assumes there is sex segregation, just like the critics of Islam do. "Sex segregation in Islam" would be just as POV as "Lack of sex segregation in Islam" because the latter would assume there is little segregation.Bless sins (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is sex segregation in Islam. Non-mahram, etc. Arrow740 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is under dispute.21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)

[edit] Removed section of quote

I've ellipsed out the following section of the Daniel McNeill quote: Amusement parks and skating rinks have segregated hours, so families cannot visit together. This is factually incorrect: segregation in Saudi Arabia is between unmarried men and families, not women and men. A husband, wife and children can visit an amusement park together during family hours. Jpatokal (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse sex segregation?

What exactly is "reversed sex segregation"?

[edit] See also

Hijab
Burqa Chador
Niqab Abaya
Jilbab Khimar


Sultana's Dream is about sex segregation towards men, but does that make it "reversed sex segregation"? I think that sex segregation is sex segregation no matter which sex is inflicted.. I vote for removing the word "reversed" in the sentence above! - "Sultana's Dream, a 1905 Bengali story of reversed sex segregation"