“Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless.” » « It was about Reddit Some tweets from Krauss v Tzortzis Apparently the big fuss happened after all, even though we were told that the organizers had agreed that there would be no segregated seating. Apparently Krauss had to make a fuss to make that concession a reality. Share this:FacebookTwitterTumblrRedditGoogleMoreEmailPrint “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless.” » « It was about Reddit
The Muslims are complaining because they can’t enforce their misogyny.
sounds like they did get to enforce it? why is any democratic state allowing such segregation at any public event?
emily isalwaysright says
If it’s a fuss over *nothing*, why do they care so much about this *nothing*? That’s sooo manipulative.
If, and it’s a big if. there really were muslim women who wanted to sit in a hen house then not giving them that subordinates-only space could be denying them the opportunity to be at the debate at all (though why women like that would want to be there, even if allowed by their masters, is anyone’s guess).
Why not have a few seats on one side for the brainwashed women; a few on the other side for the gynophobic men; and a nice big free for all space everywhere else for the regular people. Maybe seeing that men aren’t driven insane with lust by mingling with women, and that women actually come out of it alive and unscathed will change a few minds. That ain’t going to happen if they’re never in a position to experience normal behaviour.
Ophelia Benson says
Why not is because segregation is segregation, and the principle itself is bad. Imagine having a few seats on one side for the brainwashed blacks; a few on the other side for the racist whites; and a nice big free for all space everywhere else for the regular people. No good.
And no, I don’t think any of the people at that debate are unfamiliar with normal behavior. It’s all artificial. All the women there are almost certainly quite used to mixing with men in public spaces. For that matter we have only the word of Mo Ansar that there were any women there who didn’t want men sitting next to them. If they did feel that way it was a manufactured sort of feeling, because they don’t live in Jiddah, they live in London.
so did this get settled after all, and did the debate proceed with krauss?
Insisting on segregation is a calculated move to get the organisers and audience to make a substantial concession to the muslim voice even before the speakers take to the stand.
Imagine if the secular speakers had insisted on the opposite for a debate taking place in Riyadh. Not that that would ever be possible, of course.
Ace of Sevens says
They seem to be afraid people will sit next to their women and hit on them. It’s like a weird mirror image of Thunderf00t and company.
Ophelia Benson says
I don’t think they are really. I think it’s a form of display, of making themselves Special. Get us, we’re devout.
This particular segregation is bad; however, I can see seats being reserved (at least until a certain time) for people with disabilities (and their assistant, if they have one). Not all seats in most auditoriums can handle a service dog and many are difficult to reach if someone has difficulty walking.
Also some people are allergic to certain perfumes, etc. Would it be ok to have a section for those who aren’t wearing perfumes (or scented deodorants) so those with allergies can also sit there without having a reaction?
However separate seating for women and men (or blacks and whites) is generally an excuse to push one group to the back (or out). Do they believe that women should sit in Parliament?
Ophelia Benson says
Well sure. And there’s smoking, too – that used to be segregated and now it’s pushed farther away. Some smokers do treat that as an injustice, but I think there’s a consensus that it’s a different kind of thing. It’s not the person, it’s the smoking.
@Ophelia – I wasn’t for a moment suggesting segregation, but accommodation in the hope of shaming. There’s no evidence of familiarity with normal behaviour either way, but I certainly did qualify my entire comment with a big ‘if’ regarding the existence of these women in the first place!
Your later point about bragging rights is well taken, though.
Here’s a thought:
1. Those who want “segregated seating” will sit in segregated sections, not just those they want segregated.
2. Those sitting in segregated sections will NOT be allowed to talk or ask questions.
If you want to participate in a group, you have to have to be part of the group, sitting among it. Unfortunately, that runs the risk of women who want to participate being prevented by those who want them segregated. But those who want women silenced will have to think about whether they want themselves to be heard.
This particular segregation is bad; however, I can see seats being reserved (at least until a certain time) for people with disabilities
I can’t believe I’m reading this. You are comparing in all honesty reserved seating for people with disabilities with segregated seating for women at the request of men on the basis of their religiously influenced convictions? What an absurdly false equivalence.
Next up: Calling Krauss’ refusal to debate under the circumstances racist and islamophobic.
The whole thing is a power play. They want to make people conform to their rules. A lot of the people there are probably students at the university. I doubt they get to sit in gender-segregated lectures and I’m sure they won’t be able to avoid the opposite sex when they get the Tube to and from the event.
Ibis3, Let's burn some bridges says
This is just like Christians who insist on doing invocations before council meetings or prayers before football games. Even the response (“It’s no big deal. You’re making such a fuss. It doesn’t mean anything. Just comply and otherwise ignore it.”) when opposed is the same. It is, as Ophelia says, a proclamation of how devout and therefore how special and privileged they are. With an added bonus of forcing infidels to submit to their god’s rules. They go on the Tube, sit in mixed seating in class lectures and food courts/cafeterias etc. on campus and off everyday, but here they want to enforce segregation? It’s a power grab.
Oh hey, Richard Dawkins has a full account of the event. TL;DR: the event went ahead, but not without some foot-dragging and drama.
Ophelia Benson says
Snap – I just did a post on that. I also commented at RDF – and, weirdly, a moderator promptly removed the link to my Friday post on the subject, when the point of my comment was that the organizers were on the record ON FRIDAY agreeing to no gender segregation.
I am struck by the tweets that reframe Krauss’ stand as him wanting the *men* to be able to sit wherever they want. As if being cloistered in the back of the bus, erm, lecture hall, is a special privilege that women get to enjoy, and here’s this guy trying to take that privilege away. When really it’s the opposite of that.
Giliell, professional cynic says
Wow, now my girl-cooties are literally a disability.
Good that Kraus stood his ground.
They must not impose their misogyny on public space.
I noticed that one too. Seems to be a woman who tweeted it. Maybe she can’t even imagine the obverse?