1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Should Political Parties hold segregated public meetings?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Weald56, Nov 30, 2015.

  1. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

  2. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    2 side rows - one for men who only wish to sit with men; one for women who only wish to sit with women, and the main one in the centre for everyone else. Personal choice.
    Didactylos4 and grumpydogwoman like this.
  3. sparkleghirl

    sparkleghirl Star commenter

    I can imagine the Labour party heading this way, albeit not on the basis of gender.
  4. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    Might still get men coercing 'their' women to sit in segregated zones. Or ''ghettos' as one could say.
  5. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    You can't 'fix' someone else's culture or religion to fit how you think it should be. What you can do is make it as inclusive as you can with what you have.
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  6. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    That's pandering to discrimination - take that approach and one would still have 'No Irish, No Blacks' notices on B & B doors- after all it was their 'culture' in the 1960s & before!
    harsh-but-fair likes this.
  7. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    This is somewhat different. Orthodox Jews separate men and women - you would insist on changing that?

    Say you went to an island where it was the norm for women to only wear clothing from the waist down - would you (or Mrs Kent if you're male) continue to wear tops if you felt it more comfortable to do so? Would you want someone to insist you (or Mrs Kent if you're male) followed local custom?

    I would take issue if someone told ME I could only sit among the women in a meeting which was secular, but I would not have a problem if someone else felt more comfortable sitting only with their own gender.

    Have you considered that in allowing some element of 'segregation', it actually opened up the meeting for people to attend and take part who wouldn't have done so if they had not had the option?
    InkyP and sparkleghirl like this.
  8. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    I was shocked that not a single man appears (I use the word advisedly) not to have opted to sit on the other side.

    There is a woman in the second row behind 'striped jumper' but accounts of the meeting say that only two 'Western' women broke ranks.

    Crikey, it'd bring out the teacher in me. "Sit on this side if you like bananas. Sit on the other side if you hate football. Sit at the back if you have children. Sit at the front if you support free-school meals for all kids up to the age of 11."

    Mix 'em up a bit. Pathetic. But what can you do? We're all indoctrinated one way or another. We all have unreasoned prejudices. I do despair but I suppose you have to give people time.
  9. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    Our parties often segregate into men around the beer fridge and ladies in the comfy chairs in the living room. I think it's our culture:eek:
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  10. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Thank goodness we segregate toilets over here or men would be queuing to use them for all eternity.
    colpee, HelenREMfan and racroesus like this.
  11. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    If they held a public meeting, then yes.

    But isn't this just their religious services? Surely rather different?

    Or does it tell them that, yes, we as a society accept that you are 2nd class citizens, just as your menfolk say?
  12. Orkrider2

    Orkrider2 Star commenter

    Two questions:
    1) did they actually tell people where they had to sit according to their gender, or did people go and sit where they wanted and it worked out largely that way? They seem to be denying it was any official segregation and suggesting that people chose to sit in this manner - which if true, is hardly an example of pandering to discrimination, it's just allowing free choice. It's not their fault that their choice does not conform to the expectations you had of what they should choose.
    2) how does it denote the women as 2nd class citizens? If it was a case of being told that men and women can't sit together, it's not like the men were on chairs at the front with women on the floor behind or anything like that. If both sides had both male and female people sitting there, would you presume one side is being discriminated against? Probably not, in which case why are you presuming that there is this discrimination against women merely because they're sitting on the right not on the left?
    monicabilongame likes this.
  13. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    1. Labour say it wasn't forced segregation. But they condoned it .

    2. It is representative of their position in that particular 'culture'.
  14. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    People get shirty about the silliest things.
  15. HelenREMfan

    HelenREMfan Star commenter

    As GDW pointed out there are 2 women in western dress seated on the 2nd/3rd row on the "men's side". It could well be that the women on the other side took themselves there - though that could well be down to cultural pressure and they didn't wish to 'break ranks".
    It isn't apparent whether the organisers of the meeting - as in the Labour party - facilitated this "segregation. I wonder how many of us - if ok about going into a proper pub on their own - would go and seat themselves near a group of men, or would we seek an empty area or area with just women there ?
  16. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Diversity enriches us all and should be celebrated.
  17. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Is diversity the new word for destroying the previous or current culture?
    Segregation is wrong in all its forms. Accept one form and the rest will follow.
  18. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Embrace the diversity. Embrace it...resistance is futile. Embrace...embrace...
  19. Didactylos4

    Didactylos4 Star commenter

    so if people choose to segregate themselves you are happy to tell them they are wrong and insist that they don't?
  20. VanEyssen

    VanEyssen Established commenter

    They are wrong, aren't they?

Share This Page