Disgraceful Guidance By Universities Uk

[LazyGun]

Universities UK have issued guidelines suggesting it is acceptable for gender segregation to be enforced in Universities within the UK - putting the "rights" of religious fundamentalists above gender equality.

This is appalling.

http://www.channel4.com/news/universities-uk-uuk-gender-segregation-demo-protest

[LazyGun]

@Milvus I am not seeing any elephant- sized gender imbalance in favour of women in the UK, Milvus. Perhaps you could offer some more examples?

Even were this latest issue of gender segregation be "only a gnats bite" - which I do not accept - we can still oppose it as well as any other examples that can be found.

I can see a justification for, say the Black Police Officers Association, or Womens institutions, for that matter, that are formed with the intent of addressing the prevailing societal gender imbalance though.

Are there still Male-Only Golf Clubs? That surprises me...

[pixie373]

Yes, i do agree with you, lg. Just thinking aloud. Private schools are usually single-sex and have little or no selection procedure. It should be possible to tell, i think.

[naomi24]

Talk of single sex schools, the WI, and golf clubs is undermining the issue. This is segregation imposed upon the majority in order to accede to the religious foibles of one – and personally I see no justification whatsoever for that.

[jake-the-peg]

You do know don't you that the guidance specified that it would be OK *if mixed seating were also available* ?

Or was that rather key point omitted from the report?

[naomi24]

Jake, did you not read the report? That wasn’t omitted.


//…. and a non-segregated seating area also provided… //


I don't agree that it would be 'ok'. We shouldn't be compromising civilised behaviour in order to facilitate religious eccentricities.

[pixie373]

I agree, it's a retrograde step. I'm not sure how it would work, exactly? One room for males, one for females and one mixed? Making sure lecturers and guests are the right sex?
I don't really see the difference with single -sex schools, Naomi, although i went to one and was very happy there. But really, what's the difference? Is it ok as long as it's not for religious reasons?

[douglas9401]

It could be an attempt to stem the spread of cooties

[naomi24]

Pixie, the difference is choice - not imposition.

[naomi24]

Pixie, Sorry, I should have answered your other question. Segregated seating - females on the left side of the room, males on the right side - for example - so opposite sexes are not seated directly next to one another.

[jomifl]

I think the fact that children go to schools and adults (technically) go to universities has been overlooked here.

[jake-the-peg]

No can't play it now that's why I asked

I think that's pretty important

If mixed seating is available then it's up to people's free choice whether they sit in a mixed area or a gender specific area

That's what we're meant to be backing here yes? freedom of choice?


I mean Cambridge still has 3 women only colleges - you going to picket them?

[beso]

If someone expects to address an audience then that audience is whoever comes along. It is not the right of a speaker to dictate the audience.

If the speaker can't handle that then they should go back to their cave.

[naomi24]

Jake, ha ha! What’s that? As long as there are enough seats to go around?

As has already been said, women choose to attend women only colleges - so, no, I won't be picketing those.

Curious, Jake, that you defend such outdated misogynistic practices. Why is that? I’m genuinely interested to know.

[jomifl]

Naomi, I think Jake is defending everyones religious right to be misogynistic. Of course if you aren't religious you cannot claim that right.

[naomi24]

Ha ha! You could be right. ;o)

[jake-the-peg]

No jomifl - I'm defending people's right to choice

That's why I think the point about mixed seating available is key

It seems to me some people ae deliberately trying to be outraged

If segregated lectures were enforced in an otherwise mixed group that would be unacceptable.

It would similarly be unacceptable if the mixed seating or the female seating were somehow disadvantaged like being right at the back or something like that.

But I think the guidance given from what I've heard is not that unreasonable and tries to accomodate all

Apart of course for those with an agenda who do not wish to be accomodating

[naomi24]

Jake, the right of choice you are defending is that of the misogynistic speakers - but you’re absolutely right in one respect. I don’t want to accommodate misogyny.

[FredPuli43]

Single sex clubs, be they golf clubs or any other, are permitted in law. However, it is unlawful for such clubs to admit members of the other sex on unequal terms. They cannot have 'lady members' who are not allowed in the 'full members', male, bars or who are otherwise treated on unequal terms. And, if they admit guests,guests of both sexes must be treated equally.

When this reform was proposed, the instigators soon realised that banning single sex clubs would be difficult to get through Parliament. The law does, in any case, allow establishments which exist to promote the interests of one sex only and which are defined by gender; male voice choirs, for example. Distinguishing where a club was not so identified was not always easy; some St James's Clubs were created exclusively for men, and their original constitution declared so, though we might not think that the gender was essential to such an establishment now.

[LazyGun]

Hmm - Imposing gender segregation is hardly defending choice is it? Apart from defending the choice of a vocal religious minority to impose their patriarchal views upon institutions of higher education in this country.

Gender segregation is not part of the mainstream UK culture and has not been for a very long time. You might find remnants here and there, but it is largely a thing of the past.

To attempt to impose it now, even with a nod to "inclusiveness" by including a token "non-segregated area" is a retrograde step and I do not think we should be pandering to religious patriarchy, and most certainly not on the grounds of "choice".

If they wish to honour their religion and have gender segregation, let them do it in their places of worship, or their private homes - not attempt to erode gender equality and the freedoms of the individual. These are hard won cultural attributes which are far more important than acceding to the wishes of those who wish to impose cultural values derived from outdated and outmoded religious observance.

Prof. Laurence Krauss had it right recently at the UCL, refusing to engage in the debate with some mouthpiece from the Islamic Society, until the requirement for gender segregation had been removed.

This is a pusillanimous approach by the UUK and echoes the shameful behaviour of the LSE recently during their harassment of the atheist society members manning the stand at freshers week recently.

[FredPuli43]

It is pusillanimous and saying that there will be non-segregated seating too is no answer.

It is not mainstream. That is not per se a bar, since two religions in this country have segregation for religious services, but these events are not religious services. It should be stopped however much of a theoretical sop of 'some' mixed seating is offered.


(It takes a long time to change mainstream thought. When Mrs Pankhurst was widowed, her husband had been due to address a meeting so she was invited in his stead. When she arrived, she was told that she could not be served any refreshment and was to be allowed in only to make the speech, the place being men only. She promptly left. It took a while for this to be remedied in our law; too mainstream! Anyway, she had rather more important matters to concern her).