Let’s see if the regressive left will write about this, decrying sex-segregation by a university society. After all, that noxious strain of Leftism already decries sex-segregation in restrooms (let me hasten to add that I’m in favor of having some unisex bathrooms), so clearly the same group would object to gender segregation at social events, right? But I wouldn’t hold my breath, because when it’s Muslims doing the segregation, it’s apparently okay.
I must be brief, as I’m off to lecture, but according to multiple sources, including the Torygraph, the Daily Mail, the Metro and ite, the Islamic Society of the London School of Economics held a “gala evening” at the Grant Connaught Rooms in London. At the event, males and females were separated by a seven-foot screen, unable to mingle or even see each other. Further, the “brothers” and “sisters” had to buy their £20 tickets by calling different phone numbers.
Here’s the screen:
But apparently there was some sneaking around the edges:
On its Facebook page, the Islamic Society has justified this segregation:
The report in The Daily Mail spoke against the seating arrangement by suggesting that it may be in violation of the university’s policy on gender equality. As a society, we reject any suggestion that our Annual Dinner contravened the LSE’s Equality Policy. The guidelines explicitly state that segregation is permissible both in the event of religious ceremonies and when it is voluntarily chosen. The curtain was in fact set up at the request of our members and the layout of the room was necessary for the facilitation of three prayers, a spiritual sermon, and Quran recitation. Furthermore, the seating arrangement at the event was not mandatory, as there were numerous spaces around the venue that allowed men and women to mix freely. It is important to note that the coverage of the event was entirely false and written with an islamophobic agenda.
“Voluntarily” chosen? Give me a break! Look at the “brother” above trying to talk to a woman! Before the Islamic takeover of Afghanistan and Iran, there was none of this nonsense, so it’s not an inherent part of Islam, and back then, when there was a real choice in a more Westernized society, men and women would mingle.
Further, according to the Torygraph, “the LSE’s student union defended the event as being held in a ‘relaxed’ atmosphere where men and women did interact with each other.” A Student Union official also said this:
Nona Buckley-Irvine, the head of LSE’s student union, told the Daily Telegraph there were no tensions in the room and the event was amicable.
She said: “I went as the head of the students union because I support our faith societies. There were absolutely no tensions, it was a relaxed evening. Brothers and sisters were co-hosting the event, which was one of the best I’ve been to. It was a celebration of each other and each other talents.
“Men and women were talking throughout and everyone went through the same entrance.”
They went through same entrance! Well isn’t that equitable! Buckley-Irvine added, “‘I had a lovely time at the dinner and barely noticed the separation between men and women.” What? She didn’t notice the seven-foot screen? Did she get to sit with the men?
Now it’s just possible that this gender segregation, which we’ve seen at other official student events in the UK, didn’t contravene any university guidelines. The Metro notes this (my emphasis):
A spokesman for LSE told the Metro the issue will be raised with the society and student’s union.
He said: ‘LSE follows the EHRC guidance on this matter, and regards gender segregation at events on campus or organised by LSE or the LSE community as contrary to the law, except for certain exceptions such as occasions of religious worship or where segregation is entirely voluntary.
‘This dinner was a private function, off-campus and organised by a society of the Students’ Union, which itself is a legally separate body to LSE.’
Here we have the “entirely voluntary” canard, then. But that’s bogus, for the event was segregated from the outset, with “brothers and sisters” having to reserve their tickets by calling different phone numbers. And as for its being a “private function”, well, the Islamic Society’s own Facebook page says this:
. . . . LSESU Islamic Society (ISoc) for our flagship Annual Dinner hosted on Sunday. This decade-old event commends ISoc students’ achievements throughout the year, and celebrates the contributions of its members towards the wider LSE community.
That doesn’t sound like a private event, but rather part of the ISoc’s activities.
Finally, if this event was kosher (pardon my French), why will the issue even be raised with the Student Union and the Islamic Society?
Now of course Muslims can segregate the sexes however they want in their mosques or private functions, but not at events connected with British universities. This appears to be a case of the latter, though the event was held off campus. Further, it’s clear that not all the Muslim women students liked it: two of the reports mention some Muslim women who either objected to the segregation or who stopped going to these events because they were opposed to the segregation.
Let us be clear about this: the segregation is based on an interpretation of Islam in which mingling with women is supposed to arouse men’s barely-controllable lust, so that women are regarded largely as catalysts for the release of testosterone. And this is also combined with the second-class status conferred on women by many branches of Islam, so that they must worship from the rear of the mosque, remain veiled or covered, or, under sharia law, see their legal testimony worth only half of a man’s.
That’s reprehensible, of course, but religions can do what they want. But when operating under the aegis of a public university in a democratic country with legal gender equality, that right comes to an end. The same would hold if there were an ultra-Orthodox Jewish Student Society that tried the same sex-segregating gambit.
I don’t know what’s more pathetic: twenty-first-century human beings adhering to this regressive form of misogyny and segregation, or its defense by feminists and student unions who, while supposedly progressive, turn a blind eye to the subjugation of women by Muslims. The same blind eye is turned away from Muslims’ demonization of gays, an act tacitly supported by some student LGBT societies.
We cannot have democracies in which some groups, operating under the aegis of government bodies like universities, practice values inimical to basic equality. Let’s see which “progressive” groups concerned with social justice will speak out against this kind of segregation.
Oh god, the regressive left are vile!
Where are the ultra-feminists talking about the horrid treatment of women in certain Middle Eastern and African countries? They never talk about it!
Because they don’t want to appear racist.
Exactly!
I am quite proud of myself as I actually got an SJW to admit this very thing.
I asked why social media was ablaze with outrage mere minutes after Matt Taylor went on TV with his sexay-lady shirt vs the non-reaction to the Cologne attacks, where it took feminists over a week to comment on it, at which point they claimed that Muslim men only rape because German men do so with impunity.
And she was all ‘because, we don’t want to appear racist’
Score!
Unbelievable! If feminists really want to make a mark, they need to rally against cruelty towards women in Africa and the Middle East! But they never will, because they’d be killed! lol
In Australia our national broadcaster (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website has a Religion and Ethics portal.
An article from 2013 critiques Femen for protesting in Muslim North Africa and being insensitive to religious feeling.
Women’s rights are victims of Femen’s feigned outrage – Opinion piece – ABC, Susan Carland
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/10/3734377.htm
Whilst I agree such an approach could endanger feminists in such very conservative societies, theres a lot of the regressive left moral superiority in the tone of the article “This is prejudice, racism and imperialism, dressed up in the apparently scant clothing of women’s rights.”
Other Western women academics write in a similar vein e.g.
The dignity of the feminine in Islam: Against Zizek’s Orientalism, Rachel Woodlock
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/15/3503569.htm
Martha Nussbaum
The burqa and the new religious intolerance
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/01/04/3664305.htm
The Religion and Ethics portal is generally soft religion but leans towards regressive left or else tends to equate liberalism and modernity with consumerism, sin and selfishness. Economic social justice seen as equating to either somewhat(or outright) regressive left or old fashioned social conservatism. Very occasionally invites Islamists (including Hizbut Tahrir’s spokesperson Uthman Badar) to do a piece. There’s even one by one Mohammed Ansar
“Islamophobia and the Muslim civil rights crisis” http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/01/29/3678693.htm
A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/306868.php
I have come across SJW feminists, online, who agree with this. Amusingly, one of these feminists also stated that a few rapes a year in women’s toilets and change rooms was an acceptable sacrifice for women to make because protecting trans women was more important.
In response to Cindy below –
Yes I saw references to that US medical article … Problem is if its illegal (in most states anyway) its illegal – OK the doctors think that by doing a “nick” they might be able to pacify some parents and discourage them from doing some awful operation where its legal or backyard but what if relevant Muslims quickly come to see the nick as
A) not making a difference so they seek the traditional methods anyway; and
B) further endorsement of what they think is the superiority of the traditional ways, even by non Muslims – and maybe even start encouraging the practise by done by All muslims
PLUS it discourages other states from making it illegal. Either you’re a liberal democratic society and you expect that or you’re just not really a free democratic society.
In response the LGBT rights idiot suggesting rapes are ok price to pay for effectively unisex loos …. what to say???
“Amusingly, one of these feminists also stated that a few rapes a year in women’s toilets and change rooms was an acceptable sacrifice for women to make because protecting trans women was more important.”
Cindy, your constant need to bring your anti-trans bigotry into this subject doesn’t help the matter. You sound just like the conservative Christians in North Carolina and Georgia.
Just like religion and culture aren’t a race, they’re also not a medical condition either. I don’t have a perfect solution to the possibility of some sexual predator men posing as trans women, but you’re bringing in this hobby horse of yours when the real issue is Islamic misogyny.
@Victoria
It was part of an overarching point that i was trying to make.
These third wave sjw feminists spend a lot of time talking about consent. About rape culture. Yet, when confronted with actual rape culture, they will ignore it because they do not want to appear racist. These same people (hence my example) will defend FGM and yes, bathroom rapes (which will occur because of bad laws). They are so very dedicated to signalling how virtuous they are that they will betray their own ideals and throw women under the bus. They see rape and sexual violence everywhere, they express their outrage over shirtgate, yet they will turn around and argue with you that Cologne was ‘not really rape’, that to oppose FGM is ‘culturally insensitive’ and that yes, it’s ok if women are raped to *protect trans women who are more oppressed*. Hence the examples I provided in this thread: FGM, trans bathrooms and Muslims. All from the same SJW feminists.
There’s a theme here! Can you spot it?
Their overall belief is that racism, sexism, other -isms can only happen with power + privilege, and since certain groups don’t have that power or privilege, it cannot possibly be a case of actual rape culture when a Muslim man rapes a woman. No, he is disenfranchised and is merely ‘punching up’. They see women as a privileged class in such cases, and thus incapable of being victims of sexual violence from a disenfranchised group. Just like you can’t be racist against white people, or sexist against men, it can’t be actual misogyny against the women of Cologne because these poor Muslim men are ‘disenfranchised’ and they only behave this way because the *ultimate* cause is colonialism. White capitalist patriarchy is the reason why Islamists hate women.
As I asked Heather earlier, I really do wonder if they believe this stuff. If they are utterly clueless about how these men perceive them. If they don’t understand that to these Muslim men, they are dirty wh*res who *deserve* to be raped for merely being out of the house. Or maybe they do ‘get it’, and just don’t care, since they won’t be making the sacrifice. SJWs tend to be privileged. They are not the folks who will be living in crime ridden neighbourhoods with these immigrants. They will be going to an elite university instead of having to walk home from work at 2am. To me what seems clear is that they want to sacrifice *other* people in order to feel good about themselves and to signal their virtue. The same thought process applies to my other examples – bathrooms and FGM.
As for your charge of anti-trans bigotry, I don’t think you know what ‘trans’ means nowadays’. The trans umbrella has all but ditched the transexuals. They are an afterthought. In fact, true transexuals (truscum or transmedicalists) are *hated* by many in the ‘trans community’ because they question the validity of ‘gender identity’. ‘Trans’ now includes anyone who says they are trans. It includes people who are 50 genders simultaneously. It includes people who switch from one gender to another throughout the day (without changing their appearance as it’s all about their gender feelz). And the new definition of trans in SJWland has nothing to do with it being a medical condition. This is what has the transmedicalists so peeved. SJWs have basically taken ‘trans’ and changed it such that any aspiring special snowflake can simply claim that they are trans and immediately be greeted with love and attention (that they didn’t get before). Gender dysphoria, body dysmorphia etc are no longer required. The SJWs have written those out of the definition of trans. They have made a mockery of what it means to be trans. They are hurting the transmedicalists with their behaviour. They are making it all about *themselves*.
Trans is now based on nothing more than the declaration that you are. I take issue with this. And these new bathroom bills (which often apply to women’s dv shelters and locker rooms) that are being proposed and have already been passed are based on nothing more than declared *gender identity* and not the medical condition. Please, think about the implications of that.
I apologise for the length of this post.
I know Matt. He is an extraordinary person…funny, British-as-hell, and full of satire, the likes of which few people could ever understand.
Shirtgate is a great example of systemic misdirection in the world of so-called political and gender justice.
@kevin
They were so cruel that they made him cry on TV.
F that.
The sadism that I see from this “call out culture” is quite worrying.
Ha ha, sarcasticgoat.
Feminists talk about the horrid treatment of women in those countries all the time. Of course, if your definition of an “ultra-feminist” is one who doesn’t, then you’re right by definition. The only argument is over how large that number is.
“Too large” is a safe answer.
As Sastra notes, feminists of many schools of thought have condemned these behaviors for years. Many continue to do so.
The problem is that many curb their criticism out of a fear of feeding xenophobic attitudes, while others have embraced intersectionality, which apparently defines traditional cultures as authentic (even if the practices they defend are relatively new).
A fellow doctoral student and I reconnected a number of years ago; she’d formerly identified herself as a liberal feminist, so I was surprised at her response when I asked her if she believed if women who rejected traditional cultural practices had become Westernized. She said yes, a stance she wouldn’t have taken years earlier. Her views aren’t uncommon in English and Cultural Studies programs.
It’s an unfortunate feedback loop: cultural conservatives who rarely concern themselves with women’s issues suddenly portray themselves as defenders of women’s rights, while a very vocal branch of feminism attempts to depict criticism of conservative cultures as racist, effectively ceding some of the discussion back to the nativists.
It’s not unlike the war of words and symbols between Trumpists and campus activists here in the U.S.
How depressing
In my country, people identifying as feminists do not talk about the horrid treatment of women in Muslim and other Third World countries. They talk about how characters in video games are overwhelmingly male, and when female, they are made into sexualized objects, and how there are too few female CEOs. By the way, I have never wanted to be a CEO, and have never met a woman who wants.
But then how deeply embedded into your country’s feminist movement and corridors of power are you? That seems to make a difference in perspective here, it may make a difference there.
Radfems seems to have no problem talking about the Cologne sexual assaults.
In my experience it has been the intersectional, SJW feminists who are afraid of appearing racist. They are the people who believe in ‘punching up’ and ‘punching down’, and that whoever is most oppressed is always right.
I wouldn’t know, I guess. The feminists I read all seemed to be able to separate race issues from sexism issues and address both.
My impression is that the more recent writing of some of the older feminists has changed but generally 2nd wave feminists were focussed on women’s rights and didnt diverge into cultural relativism let alone identity politics. Third wave is much more into the latter two than ever before. Also trend seems to have accelerated since the late 90s and again since Gulf war ended
I decided to research radfems after hearing horrible things about them. Specifically, that they are TERFs – trans exclusionary radfems – who want to murder trans women (again, not making this up).
They are not as nasty as made out to be. I disagree with them on many things, but they are not frothing at the mouth man haters, or even trans haters. Many of them are lesbians, are gender nonconforming, and their big beef seems to be with ‘gender roles’ and how women are expected, by some folks, to conform to strict gender roles associated primarily with their female biology.
They disagree with the current incarnation of trans ideology because they feel unsafe sharing sex segregated spaces with penis owners. They also dislike that a lot of trans women define ‘woman’ as nothing more than a feeling, or a stereotypical 1950s housewife. And they take issue with the ‘cotton ceiling’, which asserts that lesbians who don’t have PIV sex with ‘lesbian’ trans women are transphobic bigots.
They were also *not* silent about the Cologne rapes, and put Muslim violence against women ahead of elevators and what shirts scientists wear.
People too often conflate radfem with intersectional fem, and the two are very different. The radfems dislike the ‘libfems’, and will often joke about how they are ‘special snowflakes’ and ‘SJWs’.
Just a note, I am not, obviously, speaking of every radfem in existence, but, from the research that I have conducted online, I feel far ‘safer’, as it were, on a radfem blog than on an SJW blog. The radfems won’t ban me or engage in a vicious pile on over a minor disagrement.
thanks for the clarification re radfems Cindy
I am staying aside from both. Feminism disappointed me.
I don’t think anyone needs to be deeply embedded in any movement to observe the the overt machination of such.
That brief anecdote reflects an accurate observation of the reality of modern feminism.
All of these people need to read “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
They are not just morally confused, but deeply, astoundingly, ignorant.
But she’s a Neocon and a house Muslim as far as they’re concerned
I know, but I think most of them haven’t read the book, and at least some of them will have their eyes opened by reading it. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit.
I think I’ve figured out how to stop such segregated meetings. A Jewish organization such as Hillel should publicly endorse them and say they are behind audience segregation 100%. At that point all liberal groups will object and the meeting will become unholdable. I call it “the Brown solution.”
Why not just hold an atheist segregated event?
Atheists don’t have a state in the Mideast that has policies these folks object to, and are not the target of a BDS campaign. Thus atheist support for something isn’t likely to ‘taint’ it enough to prevent it from happening. Instead, a sex-segregated meeting would just make that atheist group look like sexists.
“Atheists don’t have a state in the Mideast that has policies these folks object to…”
We should change that. 😉
Pat says it best:
O my, my … … my, my, my:
this of Mr Condell’s is p r e c i o u s!
Thank you for this post — cuz he of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell nails it — as it is with so very many feminists, both women and men, of whom I know — wholly spot – on!
W h o a !
Blue
While I agree with the tenor of the post, just a quibble on the legalities:
Universities in the UK are not government bodies, they are technically independent, self-governing entities.
The student unions are, again, independent bodies that are (usually) distinct from the university. Thus an event organised by a student union likely qualifies as a “private event” rather than a public one.
Are they funded with public money? Is some public money being used to pay for the seven foot curtain?
Yes, universities (and student unions) get public money.
Though the event was at a private venue
I think public money could reasonably be refused to any institution that does not respect basic human rights. That goes for the Islamic group, the Student Union and the university that sponsors it. That way taxpayers don’t have to worry about supporting gender issues.
Nona Buckley-Irvine head of LSE Student Union
“I went as the head of the students union because I support our faith societies.”
Like Swedish Feminists and Greens party figures wearing headscarves and hijab in support of Muslim women and Greens party leader twitter profile showed her for a day in hijab doing a v for victory sign
Women in Sweden Wear Hijab to support Muslim Woman
http://viralwomen.com/post/women_in_sweden_wear_hijab_to_support_muslim_woman
I can fully understand them protesting the incident (of a muslim woman being beaten up by a racist thug) but why wear hijab themselves??
I agree. Wearing the hijab does not support Muslim women, it reinforces their second-class status within Islam.
Wearing the hijab is supposedly a sign that a woman is of “high moral character.” The connotation of that is, of course, that all women who don’t, aren’t. It is this very reasoning that leads many men brought up in Muslim cultures to conclude that they are therefore valid to be used sexually in any way they see fit. And thus incidents like Cologne occur.
Wearing the hijab is supposedly a sign that a woman is of “high moral character.” The connotation of that is, of course, that all women who don’t, aren’t. It is this very reasoning that leads many men brought up in Muslim cultures to conclude that they are therefore valid to be used sexually in any way they see fit. And thus incidents like Cologne occur.
I often ask myself if western intersectional feminists do not realise this? That the women in Cologne were considered fair game because the men who assaulted them really did believe that they were wh*res who deserved to be punished for going outdoors?
Or do these western feminists just not care? Are they more afraid of being accused of racism than anything else?
Notably, the people who will suffer the most from unfettered immigration – crime, sexual assault, increased competition in the labour market – will not be the privileged SJWs who write about the plight of the poor disenfranchised Muslim rapist – but the people at the bottom. The poor. Women who cannot easily avoid sexual assault as they walk to school, or work, at night.
I think you’re right, Cindy.
I also wonder at their constant fear of being called racist. Maybe it’s because they are. They certainly seem to have lower expectations of Muslims from the Middle East.
Typically SJWs and left bits of media go on and on about how alienated the young Muslim Male must be … such an irony. Seen several media articles to that effect in the last few days. And I agree poorer or else working class women are more likely to be affected by this pernicious stuff driven by the academy and some sections of the media. The SJWs are often well off and seldom from that background and when they are they’ve ceased to be representative of it. Again, like fjordaniv said its polarisation between hard right and batshit regressive left and squeezing out reasonable debate and viewpoint.
Again, like fjordaniv said its polarisation between hard right and batshit regressive left and squeezing out reasonable debate and viewpoint.
And this is the kind of bullshit that empowers people like Trump. In going to absurd lengths to protect disenfranchised Muslim men of military age, to refuse to talk about it, only empowers the right wingers, who *will* make life even more difficult for Muslims. And the deafening silence only drives people, out of frustration, out of wanting to be heard, to the right wingers.
Sometimes, in trying to prevent what you fear most of all, you make it come true.
I also think its a problem with most of the left these days.
Feminists supporting Islam is like chickens supporting KFC.
I’m certainly not suggesting that this was a “good thing”, because I don’t think sex segregation is generally a good idea; but this was a private essentially social party, albeit held by a university society, held off-campus (the Grand Connaught Rooms are a social venue in Covent Garden). Also, if it did include prayers, which are AFAIK traditionally segregated in Muslim society, the “segregation” here was fairly nominal.
It would be quite different if the Islamic Society had tried to segregate a meeting held on campus.
I too think this is probably perfectly legal.
The problem I have is with so-called feminists endorsing it. I fail to understand how any true feminist group can constantly support groups that are all about treating women as anything less than equally.
For example, they would be the first ones to protest a bishop of the mild Church of England who opposed women priests in opposition to policy, but I bet the idea of advocating for women imams has never even occurred to them.
Unless what they want is to not have anyone call or consider them reprehensible.
The LSE has been rather cranky for decades,so it is not surprising that the Students Union has strange ideas on equality and freedom I daresay there will soon be a Student body defending Female genital mutilation on the grounds it is “traditional” and we in the West must not try to impose our values on others.
The LSE Students Union is hardly a Politically radical body (if it ever really was)it seems it is mainly concerned to breed a cozy, smug, sense of superiority within its membership and over the decades it has done this rather well.
Three prayers, a spiritual sermon, reading from scriptures, and no mingling? Worst social party of 2016.
And likely no pepperoni pizza or booze. They might as well turn the lights off and stare into darkness for several hours…it would be more fun.
Probably no music or dancing either for that matter.
I suppose “real pepperoni” has to be pork, but there is such a thing as kosher pepperoni, so I wouldn’t be that surprised to hear there is hahal pepperoni, too. Many of the pizza places here are halal, actually, being run by Lebanese in many cases, oddly. Maybe I should look 😉
(Out of scientific curiousity, anyway.)
Is a non-Muslim Western woman wearing a hijab not an example of ‘cultural appropriation’?
Or am I, as a privileged white man, not allowed to ask questions like that?
Sorry, that was supposed to be in response to Somer (#5).
Well said –
And how come gender identity is supposed to be purely in one’s head (at least if one wants to be trans or interim hermaprodite), but gayness is genetic, white males know nothing about their or anyone else’s sexuality and people of Non-Western cultures are not allowed to ever change or question their culture???
Muslim men having such a problem with lust, makes all Muslim men a potential danger to women, as a consequence to protect those and themselves the men should be permanently separated from society – best behind a 7′ fence and fed regularly with some lust controlling substance.
And then I am so sorrowfully aghast to have to read in my email transmissions — just this very afternoon — that one of the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation’s smashingly wonderful attorneys, Mr Patrick Elliott, has had to write such a remarking 3½ – page letter scorching the University of Iowa (an extremely PUBLIC university ! since its inception ! and within Iowa City in the southeastern quadrant of my home state !) for its recently providing … … prayer spaces AT ALL ! let alone, for its granting two specific, different religions (Islam & Christianity) their own particular ones !
Again, THE B I G ICK Factor.
Read all about it — including Mr Elliott’s letter (link within) — here: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/26174-ffrf-questions-prayer-areas-at-university-of-iowa !
I C K !
Blue
From this FFRF piece this excerpt, thus ! “The organization is also concerned that the university is facilitating the discriminatory practice of gender segregation practiced in the Muslim prayer rooms.”
DOUBLE ICK !
(or other __CK – ending expletives !)
Blue
What does ‘entirely voluntary’ mean here?
Could it be argued that since no one was forced to attend the social event, anyone who did so knowing that it would be segregated, implicitly accepted segregation?
I wonder why the woman talking with the man in the posted photo has her face pixelated. Why would this be necessary if the segregation was voluntary? Does this mean she’d get into trouble if seen talking across the fence? If so, there goes the “voluntary” argument.
You may be reading too much into it. If it was posted by the man in the photo (or someone associated with him) and they didn’t get the girl’s permission, it may just be intended to preserve her privacy. (Same reason Streetview blurs faces).
Without more information you can’t say.
I notice she’s not wearing a headscarf, either.
cr
OK, that could be the reason. But in the other photos, no men have pixellated faces.
The other men aren’t in the foreground of the picture.
I would have thought, if anyone was going to make an issue of it, she’d get into more trouble for not wearing a hijab (?) than for talking round the screen.
I think their screen was stupid, but I think the photo is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from. Other than that the guy and the girl seem to be enjoying themselves.
cr
Now you seem to be making an ad hoc rule to support your position that pixellation could be gender-neutral, and your rule doesn’t even work. There is at least one male face in the foreground of each of the photos Jerry posted, and neither is pixellated. Both faces are more directly facing the camera, and more recognizable, than the pixellated face of the girl (who is not even facing the camera).
I think the guy in the lower photo is probably the one who posted the tweet, so why would he pixellate himself? I’m certainly not into making ‘rules’.
I just don’t think you can read much into that photo.
cr
Yes I agree the ‘voluntary’ thing is somewhat Catch-22ish. You can sit anywhere you like! But you must call the number reserved for your gender. And they only sell seats on one side of the event. I expect they were also non-transferrable, meaning the organizers would take away your ticket if you had someone call and get a seat for you. Nice trick, eh?
If hijabs are so wonderful to wear, why are men not wearing them? Oh, that’s right! Men don’t need protective coverings because they are rapists who, because they are not females, don’t need protection from male rapists. Males are expected to rape whores (or any female deemed as such.)
Wouldn’t it be safer in that case for men to wear chastity belts?
Is “regressive” a synonym for “majority of”? Because I don’t see much condemnation of this from most the left. Or the right either, but there is more from the right.
“Is ‘regressive’ a synonym for ‘majority of’?”
No.
I think you may be right. And the political correctness of SJW feminists is taken from that the regressive left influences feminism overall (most wings, maybe not radfems), so that most third wave fems display this to some degree and even some of the older feminists start to display some of these views.
I think various forms of POMO /Crit theory anti enlightenment stuff has spread through the humanities in bits of faculties (seldom characterising whole disciplines). It has been taught for so long that you find some of it – in the form of general skepticism about western culture including enlightenment and/or modernity in most professions. Of course this applies to some professions more than others and it becomes a workplace where you have to agree or at least remain silent on certain issues if you’re not to be seen as disruptive or even against a good image for your employer – though obviously less so in purely private sector workplaces. Even so I notice looking at the occasional issue of the Economist magazine in archives over the last few decades – went from being rather racist to being a pretty PC on non Western cultural issues whilst still obviously very pro business and finance. This stance is probably good for business as much as social coin since it keeps all the big non western players happy, plus corrupt elites and clerics such elites seek backing from. The more left political correctness has also affected the public media and what used to be liberal media – whilst right wing media get more polarised. Plus I suspect the State funded media are afraid of appearing socially divisive or anti religion and this could be used to cut their funding by either side of politics. Then with twitter/social media shaming there can be real work consequences for saying the wrong thing.
Like i said on another thread I think most of the humanities are great and its critical they go on being supported because thats also key to dealing with what has become really an anti intellectual mindset. Identity politics is one manifestation. Whats needed is more and more criticism of this kind of thing and also would be wonderful to have institutes and/or think tanks that counter this kind of thing preferably not funded by government. Including courses tailored to inform media professionals or even grants/prizes.
I should say the right wing form of anti enlightenment is another danger to university and tertiary and secondary education generally, and politicians are easily influenced by them as they often have money and some politicians themselves are pretty anti scientific humanist modernity – hence non government funding would be best.
To get a sit-down nosh at the GranD Connaught Rooms is going to cost a lot more than £20 a skull. We (Geol.Soc.Lond.)had our Bicentennary chow there, but normally we do conference dinners somewhat closer and at £50 a skull (plus wine). I forget what they charged for a couple-of-hundred-skull meal (without much of the halal palaver), but it was closer to £150/skull than £20/skull.
“Follow the money” doesn’t just mean Danish high-finance shenanigans. Someone subsidised this trough with some serious coin.
Hmmmm. Really can’t see students footing this kind of bill …. Saudi/Gulf money anyone?
I don’t know who. But there’s serious coin involved. And money is easier to decode than people’s publicly stated motives and private beliefs. Witness La Trumpette.
Separate but…
still separate.
Meanwhile gender segregation on German trains …
https://www.rt.com/news/337480-gender-segregation-germany/
Not good. Recently in the Australian state of South Australia
(Imam says) Australian Muslims may resort to violence if headscarf laws not changed. (admittedly reacting to a case where a man tried to pull the headscarf off a Muslim woman on a bus and tried to intimidate her during the rest of the trip
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/australian-muslims-violence-if-headscarf-laws-not-changed-imam/7268326
The train segregation story is also on
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/german-train-operator-introduces-women-7640234
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/28/german-trains-to-offer-women-and-children-only-cars/
That’s quite a silly request. The man assaulted the woman and consequently got charged with assault. The law’s working just fine. What does he want, double secret probation?
Not quite ‘segregation’. Women (-and children) -only carriages. Rest of the train is unsegregated as usual.
From the article: “Women only carriages are available on some transport services in a number of countries including Israel, Japan, India, Egypt, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia.”
cr
Notice which participant has the pixelated face.
In response to the Cologne sex attacks the German railways are introducing gender segregation on trains.
How do you say “Do you blame the cats, no you blame the uncovered meat” in German? Eisenbahn.
NOT quite. They are introducing women (and children) -only areas on a couple of lines. As a considerable number of other countries already have.
See the links Jay already posted.
cr
No there is no relativising on this
And not the thin end of the wedge which unchallenged becomes the theocratisation – christian versus muslim of society over the generations or the reversion of women’s rights back the the 60s – or even the 19thC? any excuse to go back to the future and good old traditionalist norms of treating men and women.
Segregating women in travel is called denying opportunity. Women not in carriages become fair game because no standard is expected and women aren’t expected to be free to travel. Im not talking about walking in dark lanes late at night on your own etc. Im talking about public transport for gods sake. Your underlying assumption is that women should have no problem with demeaning harassment wherever they go if they don’t make a point of travelling by separate means as women and children. Like this vile rape apologist misogynist article
by the usual regressive suspects
“Feminism” Political aspects
https://politicalaspects.wordpress.com/tag/feminism/
It conflates all kinds of things – confusing being safe in the toilet with “rights” of trans men to use the same loo or asserting that the second wave feminists as a category saw sex per se as harmful? Then it critiques feminists for not wanting unfettered Muslim influx with killing refugees (actually many feminists are pushing for open borders and always having open borders). This is a state security issue also. The article equates complaints about groping on public transport with logically requiring a separate transport system for women.
It equates demeaning of men overall with not being willing to accept muslim norms in western societies “This [Cologne] type of group sexual assault has a name, originally in Egypt: Taharrush jamai”. It equates not accepting Muslim norms (and the religion is patriarchal) regarding women with not accepting this author (name unstated) view of evolution being a completely domination oriented model of healthy Male sexuality.
If you like that accept all the violence and injustice and backwardness for humanity that goes with it. May as well accept the other norms of muslim orthodoxy like the Hidaya (actually used as guide in the courts of law in Pakistan) the section on “Institutes” – 10 chapters of it which I can assure you in the first Chapter it mandates that a Muslim state engage in perpetual war against non muslim states and forbids any treaty with them that is not made purely as a strategic advantage between wars. The Muslim leader must first tell the infidels they have to convert to Islam “call them to the faith” before engaging in hostilities. Hidaya guide to the Islamic Laws is Hanifi school – that of the Ottomans and considered the most “moderate” and it dates to medieval times. So much for the more moderate strand of Islam before Western influence. It may have originally been translated from Arabic by Alexander Hamilton but I have the Baintner edition – edited by Muslims. And lovely Chapter IV of the Institutes tells us that when the Imam (leader) of the Muslim forces conquers some infidel land he has the option of A) killing them B) enslaving them C) (if they are people of the book) giving them Dhimmi status – but they have to pay an additional tax or tribute and accept a state of subjection. The commander is free to choose whatever option is most advantageous – what he can’t do tho is exchange them for captured Muslims – as that would weaken the cause of Jihad. Although he or his forces are forbidden to kill a defeated infidel who then quickly converts the convert can still be enslaved. This is because an infidel who still remains so after being “called to the faith” has committed “treason”! (All from Hidaya) So the state in classical islam was regarded as a unit of Islam, at least technically, and the Caliph was from the time of the death of the Prophet (according to Patricia Crone, God’s Rule) known as “Commander of the Faithful”. Even a Muslim slave can never be returned to their original homeland, unless the owner is absolutely certain they will not revert back to a non-Islamic religion. The Islamic leader of the conflict has to share the moveable booty with the troops and auxiliaries – but they do not technically own this property (including slaves) until they have returned to the Muslim homeland – in other words all booty and slaves must leave for the conquering homeland.
A man who converts to Islam before their territory is conquered will not be enslaved, but his wife and children will be enslaved, and his non portable property will still be deemed State property.
PS Im not suggesting you think like the author of the article quoted, which is extreme – I cite it to show examples of contradictions and that the separate travel thing can be a slippery slope
“PS Im not suggesting you think like the author of the article quoted, which is extreme”
Just as well, because I don’t. (I haven’t read it but I suspect it’s probably the usual pomo BS).
I do usually reject slippery-slope arguments – from whatever quarter, even my own ‘side’ whatever that may be at the time – out of hand. They’re like prophecies – easy to make, and can point in any direction the prophet chooses.
cr
You’re going overboard with this. I pointed out that craw’s post was misleading and overstated the case. That’s all. Do not assume what my assumptions are.
Fwiw, I see women’s-only carriages as a step backward, it drags Germany back into the company of those countries – from Israel to Russia – who already do it. I don’t like it, or its necessity. But segregation (in the sense of ‘you *must* travel in that section of the train’) it is not, any more than First Class is.
(The rest of your comment I’m not expressing an opinion on).
cr
My post is strictly accurate and literally true. They are introducing gender segregation on trains, you admit as much. Men are not allowed in those areas; that is segregation. It is happening on trains and the Germans are doing it. You accuse another poster of over reacting and me of misleading when all that happened is that you did not read carefully. The only person misleading anyone is you.
How can I be misleading anyone when I refer them to the original report?
It is also literally true that the Germans are NOT introducing gender segregation on most trains. ‘Literally true’ does not equate to the whole truth.
cr
The law and penalties should set standards of acceptable behaviour so that expectation of groping etc is not the norm.
Aren’t you a cutey, comparing women to uncovered meat – but more aptly comparing muslim man to cats who can’t control themselves?
Check my practical advise – keep muslim men in fenced in areas still they can be trusted to have contact with females of all ages by keeping their lust under control – which according to the Quaran they apparently are sorely lacking.