Camillia Khan, head of communications for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, writes in the Huffington Post UK about gender segregation, or, as she prefers to call it, gender ‘segregation.’
The debate on ‘segregation’ has returned, and once again figures from across the spectrum have focused their lenses on Muslim students and Islamic societies. Universities UK recently published a guidance document, outlining the management of external speakers on campuses and have been heckled for coming to the rather simple conclusion, amongst many others, that side-by-side gender based seating is not against the law.
From across what spectrum? What lenses? She’s a clumsy writer. Universities UK hasn’t been “heckled” – it’s been disputed, often hotly, but not heckled. And then, what was disputed was not a conclusion that “side-by-side gender based seating is not against the law.” The law wasn’t the issue. The issue was university policy, not the law.
So we know already that Khan doesn’t bother to be precise about what she’s discussing.
The focus on this single case-study, buried amidst the document’s 42-pages, has been extremely disproportionate and led to sensationalist comments, vilifying Islamic societies and Muslim students. It is encouraging to see that Universities UK have chosen to remain firm on their objective and measured stance, acknowledging the nuances that exist with different theological perspectives.
Vilifying Muslim students? I don’t think so. I think Khan told a falsehood there. And why is it encouraging to see that UUK is “acknowledging the nuances that exist with different theological perspectives”? How is that their job or their role? They’re an organization of university vice-chancellors, not theologians.
Firstly, the term segregation itself is highly problematic and acts to conflate the reality further. As Saussure theorised on syntagmatic relations, ‘within speech, words are subject to a kind of relation that is independent of the first and based on their linkage,’ and segregation connotes various forms of separation and oppression – it is a word loaded with modern history, drawing back to the belligerent injustices of the slave trade, apartheid, and the Holocaust. It blows the discussion out of proportion and acts to politicise it further. Segregation implies a hierarchy- a form of discrimination which asserts the dominance of one group over another- which is a very different reality to a voluntary seating arrangement which impacts both males and females equally. Thus, the current discourse is creating new imagined problems rather than solving existing ones.
Where to begin. Yes, segregation is a loaded word, but it’s the right loaded word. Calling it something more emollient than that is lying, and minimizing the ugly reality. A seating arrangement that spells out who may sit where is indeed a form of discrimination which asserts the dominance of one group over another. Segregation in seating can’t be fully voluntary, because it depends on everyone’s compliance.
The term ‘segregation’ denotes discrimination and isolation – and this couldn’t be further from the general reality. There needs to be a linguistic shift in the discourse – but more importantly, the shift must be an ideological one which accepts that there exist differences based on sound spirituality, and these need to be embraced, led by brave and nuanced organisations such as Universities UK. Male and female seating is a simple religious manifestation that has been established for multiple millennia and is one that is still actively implemented today by many churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious communities. Taking away the basic freedom to choose a room arrangement from mature and democratically elected student groups such as Islamic societies will only seek to alienate Muslim students from social engagement by denying their right to religious freedom.
She’s being deceptive again there. The issue isn’t meetings of groups such as Islamic societies, it’s meetings and debates open to everyone.
What a pathetic project, a woman defending her own segregation, and being deceptive to do it.
“a simple religious manifestation that has been established for multiple millennia”
Like burning people you don’t agree with?
“based on sound spirituality”? WTF is sound spirituality?
syntagmatic relations
Sintered-whatthefuck? And was the rest of the text written by the Post-Modern Generator? I do enjoy it (albeit in a cynical way) when the purveyors of absolutist authoritarianisms try to cloak themselves in the most relativistic anti-realist rhetoric available.
WTF is sound spirituality?
It’s the kind that’s so wooey that you can’t argue with it. Because it’s, ummmmm culturaltraditionalspiritualvoluntarymetaphoricalfeelGOODness!!
Pure sophistry, the “Moslem as Victim” ploy is as old as Mohammed and has usually been very successful.
(1) ‘…brave and nuanced organisations”– how can an organisation be either “brave or nuanced”? Is there a bonus for mentioning “vilification” and “nuanced”, particularly when in context, both terms are meaningless?
(2) “.. a voluntary seating arrangement which impacts both males and females equally.”–yes, they’re separated equally, what would be the result if an individual ignored the “voluntary arrangement”?
(3) “..the shift must be an ideological one which accepts that there exist differences based on sound spirituality..”—
Total crap,”sound spirituality” is an oxymoron, the difference is ideological and it’s the expression of an ideology that’s repugnant to liberal democracy. What is “spiritually” anyway, apart from a camouflage?
Of course Khan is a clumsy writer, she’s defending the indefensible, religious ideologues are just relentless.
“What a pathetic project, a woman defending her own segregation, and being deceptive to do it.” yes indeed, but she has Allah on her side.
The kind that doesn’t get you beaten up by the rightful head of the household. /snark.
Listening to Doolittle.
This is how you get women defending these practices in my opinion:
1st you create a climate of hostility to women, which in this particular case seems to involve the idea that they are irresistible sexual temptations, potential sexual prey and that the whole thing is their fault, or at least, their responsibility.
2nd you offer a remedy to the situation that will allow them to own a position of relative honor as ‘pure’ women deserving of respect and protection, e.g. segregation, clothing rules, etc.
It’s a manifestation of the virgin/whore dichotomy. No surprise if women plump for Virgin so they can be respected and retain some autonomy, because under the given rules, you can do what you want to Whores.
We need a better class of liar, especially when we have the video! 46 seconds of Krauss walking out of a meeting and the audience reaction sound is all it takes, Ms Khan.
Stop fooling yourself. You no longer fool us.
My friend the Rationalizer posed an interesting question. What if, for the sake of argument, we agreed to allow segregation – but insisted that the women sit on the right, and the men on the left? Apparently, at side-by-side segregated events, the women are always on the left.
There are verses in the Hadith which suggest the left is the dirty side:
http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/Book-9/Hadith-10/
http://quranx.com/Hadith/Saliheen/Book-2/Hadith-42/
http://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/Book-1/Hadith-33/
Not separate but equal if one side is holier than the other!
Ooh ya good point Author. Isn’t the left hand the one we’re supposed to wipe our bums with? A big no-no to use the right, because kaka dirties belong on the left?
So, women are basically on a par with used toilet paper. Thanks, Hadith.
(I didn’t know women were always seated on the left at events segregated-by-side.)
Author,
I suspect the very same objection would be made: that it doesn’t sufficiently
pander toacknowledge religious sensitivities.Ugh. These days I can’t even hear/read the word ‘nuance’ without cringing, since it’s almost exclusively used by the disingenuous in defence of the appalling.
That describes having women sit separately from men. When discussing UUK’s mealymouthed sophistry Mano Singham quoted from the opinion in the landmark Brown v Board of Education case:
She means “connotes.”
The whole thing is pinheaded.
***
Anyone see Tessane Chin on The Voice last night? Lovely.
is it just me, or are these defenses of gender segregation all rather cis-normative and hetro-sexist? the “logic” behind it is that men are sexually attracted to women, while they seem to assume that it is trivially easy to divide people into either men or women, and those binary categories cover all people. i wonder where they would expect me to sit?
dangerousbeans, it’s not just you.
Presumably, you’d be allocated seating according to how you present; and if there’s doubt about it, then I guess you’d end up with the women (at least in the UK).
(But you raise a good point; I for one have no idea of what the (ahem) nuanced theological views are regarding the queergendered)
SMARM!
Sorry… just finished this article and it seems very apropos.
That is a very interesting point. So, when are we going to have a debate about banning all single sex schools and demanding full integration across the board? It’s an interesting issue to discuss because I believe girls do slightly better in all-girls schools while boys do slightly better in mixed schools. Some people may find it hard to give up that perceived advantage for their daughters, but obviously, to hold a consistent position, we must ask that they do so.