This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The article seems to lead toward the idea that sex segregation is morally wrong. Any value judgments or leading statements are not fit for an encyclopedia. On top of that, this would be expressing an insignificantly minor viewpoint. Although, I don't think the concept should be so far removed that sex segregation seems 'morally correct' or 'the way things are naturally'.
To feature sexual discrimination with several paragraphs on this page also adds unnecessary weight to a link between the two concepts. I'd suggest finding a way to tone that down a bit; I'd also note that a continued link between religion and nursing in England has little to do with segregation.
Let's keep focused on the topic; this page really needs a cleanup. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is so narrow and focused on religion that it is basically useless. Why shouldn't that information just be moved to the pages for those religions, or the general pages on sex and gender? I've added one sentence on occupational segregation, which is surely a major part of sex segregation, with a link - and faced hassle and reverts over it. What is the agenda here? Yyyikes 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The new Islam section isn't NPOV - and makes vast generalizations... there are many different ways to practice Islam, the wahabi will not be like the liberal. gren 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is almost completely devoted to segregation based on gender within Islamic society. Should issues about gender segregation (which on a minor note may be a more appropriate title) in normal society (i.e. western and non relgion specific soceity) not be covered here also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 October 2005.
"Political Correctness" is often used as a blind for covering the truth, and the truth is that Islam has more disturbing elements against women than Christianity or Judaism - while Christianity and Judaism may have been sexist at one point, they have embraced the modern world and are moving towards a fairer society, while Islam in parts of the world remains largely unchanged from medieval ways of thinking. Perhaps you should READ the article first before you criticize it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.34.27 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 October 2005.
Sex segregation is one of the most visible aspects of Islam, so the nature of the article isn't surprising, especially as it appears to be new. However, I agree that the title implies a wider treatment of the issue than it is getting at the moment. Perhaps the answer is to simply edit the title to "Sex (or gender) Segregation in Islam" and let people get on with elucidating the issue as it applies there. If there are major differences between wahabi and liberal perhaps Grenavitar or others would be kind enough to add to the article to make it clearer. I, for one, would be interested to know. Igsy 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
No there really is segregation in islam. Women aren't allowed to leave the house without a man and are required to be covered from head to toe!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayaikenfan365 ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 October 2005.
-------------------------------
I found errors & biases in the article in relation to Saudi Arabia. I (an American woman) live in Saudi Arabia and have frequented various McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Starbucks, and other places with my children or with my girlfriends, and while they are segregated, they are also as clean as they would be in the States. (And, to be frank, the number of segregated establishments is small in comparison to those that are not segregated.)
Women do attend university, work, and socialize outside of the home, they do own property and businesses (the building we live in belongs to a business woman!).
In Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates one sees just as many women out and about as men. However, I can't comment on other countries (Afghanistan, Iran...), for I've never been there thus can't claim any knowledge of their customs.
In reply to the comment above, women are indeed allowed to leave the house without a man, many women work or study, and most have drivers to take them where they wish to go. Also, not all women cover from head to toe -that seems to be a personal choice.
Aouandme
06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme
Until someone actually brings up an NPOV issue, I'm going to remove the tags. If you want to split out the section, that's fine, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Melchoir 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, is there something you'd like to say here? Melchoir 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
After being reverted twice without explanation, I'm now reinstating my change for the third time. Melchoir 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's number four! Melchoir 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest utilizing WP:AN/3RR? That'll put a stop to revert warring when one party doesn't explain their reasons for reverting. Netscott 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. Irishpunktom, explain yourself or I will continue to remove the tags. Melchoir 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
They are factual errors/claims that are bordering on misleading. For e.g. on Saudi Arabia it states that women are prevented from holding property or forced to remain ignorant (presumably by being denyed education). This is untrue, women are free to hold/own property and the number of women in universities has exceeded that of men. Also in Iran the number of women in univerisities has exceeded that of men. This entire article has from the beginning an agenda to associate all types of repression of women with Islam.
It appears that the section header only applied to one sentence. I've moved the remaining text out of the section (unless someone can explain that Josei Senyo Sharyo is derived from Judaism). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the material related to gender apartheid that was in the article Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article:
Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". [1] According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam). [2]
Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":
Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in. [3]
Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:
One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them." [4]
Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:
Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement. [5]
According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:
The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays. [6]
Tiamat 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
References
You might want to be a little more specific by mentioning that in many Western countries, e.g., the US and Germany (where I've lived), that it is organized sports that are almost always gender segregated. As a cultural matter, it is very common for unorganized sports (such as volleyball, softball, and tennis) to be gender mixed, even among adults. Bostoner ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sex segregation was very common throughout Western history, and this article only mentions contemporary social facts such as sports and nursing, and so it has a taste of modernism. There should be a more balanced historical approach, notably on the primitive origins of sex segregation. 69.157.229.153 ( talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it says something like, historically jobs such as nursing and secretarial jobs were associated with women. I would say this is a pretty modern development. If you go back 200 years both of these jobs would be primarily for men, unless you mean nursing as in looking after children/wet-nursing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.57.42 ( talk) 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no rule that states men must sit at front and women at back. Most city buses are like this. However, intercity buses generally not like this during school/work hours. (e.g. buses before 7:30am have the men at front and the women at back but after 7:30am until some time at night women are at front and men at back.) 192.118.11.112 ( talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed outside of a private home. Within these facilities, there may be individual facilities provided, as in the case of toilets. from the lead-in, because it just didn't make sense as it stood. Prisons, changing rooms, and so on, aren't found in private homes, after all. I just couldn't see what the second sentence was intended to convey - could someone who does understand what it meant please supply a clearer version, if they think it's needed, please? Kay Dekker ( talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
While the article probably needs more references to a greater variety of sex segregation world wide, I believe for now that there are sufficient references for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Please feel free to comment or criticize. Marshallsumter ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reinserted the quotes regarding religion and sex segregation. Please do not remove them. They are supported by refereed articles and do pertain to understanding the possible origins of the inequality associated with sex segregation. Marshallsumter ( talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Christianity" there is a lengthy paragraph regarding gender apartheid within the Roman Catholic Church that contains many statements in need of citations. If you contributed this paragraph, please add the appropriate citations. According to the current legal meaning of the term "citizen" worshippers of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other religious worshippers are not considered citizens of these respected religions. While there may be inequality associated with the way in which the governing body of any religion conducts itself or with its recognized political sovereignty, the including of this here should be documented. I removed the illegality comments as apparently it is legal within the Roman Catholic Church for only unmarried Catholic males to be considered for election to pope. See the article College of Cardinals. Comments and criticism are welcome, especially with appropriate citations. Marshallsumter ( talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I came here expecting to find the article about the physical separation of people along gender lines. That's what the definition at the top says it's about. Instead it seems to roam all over the shop, making it cover exactly the same ground as sexism. I suggest that we either put it back to being about sex segregation, or we make it a redirect to sexism. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I cleaned this up, but I had to go back three months to get a good version that I could base this on. Further help would be ideal. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Like DJ Clayworth ( talk) I've also left some comments at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. I'm not sure if NPOV is the problem but I have looked at WP:RfC. If experts' text can be cut arbitrarily perhaps the problem is closer to that which Melchoir had to deal with. But, I am puzzled. DJ Clayworth ( talk) has performed many edits and apparently added text to a number of articles as have I, and we both left our four ~, unlike the previous similar problem. So, if appropriate, and for the purpose of attempting to reach a consensus rather than allowing the latest reversion to stand, let me ask: what is it DJ Clayworth ( talk) doesn't understand about sex segregation that creates the conclusion that text from experts on sex segregation and its origins and occurrences has nothing to do with sex segregation? Or, should we continue our reversion war, which I did not start? I do not wish the reversion war to continue but leaving the current version suggests agreement which is clearly not there. Also, I am concerned by something else. There is a web site http://www.dweec.com/dweecs.htm which lists DJ Clayworth and the tactics which he and others have used as a group to possibly censure Wikipedia. The tactic used here matches one of them. While I only know what I just read, and cannot attest to its objectivity, may I suggest that the article be reverted and locked and if need be block both of us until discussion begins. So far I've read nothing further by the other editor, but its only been a day. Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, we need to clear up some things here. Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness. What I removed was text that was very far removed from being relevant to sex segregation and did not have any context explaining its relevance to sex segregation. I only later discovered that Marshallsumter was responsible for adding this text - my intention was simply to clean the article up. I'm also not suggesting this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I'm very happy to try to find a home for it, if it doesn't already exist somewhere.
I think our best way forward here is to talk about why we think the passages I removed are appropriate or not. I've already stated my view; maybe Marshallsumter should state why he thinks they belong here. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Marshallsumter ( talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Marshallsumter ( talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Some comments:
Further comments:
"men and women work together": the first sentence in the current version is "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender." The title of the article is "Sex segregation", not "Sex integration" or "Sex togetherness". The authors I've cited and you deleted have indicated separation by the term "sex segregation" in its various forms. "If in a job men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status, in what way is that separation?" Let's say at occupation A there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," and at occupation B there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," but in occupation A there are 85% women (like nursing) and at occupation B there are 85% men (like CEO's), that's an example of sex segregation.
"writing commentary on things that are not in the article": in the current version of the article, third sentence is written, "supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." Compare that to "supporters argue that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit". "it" in the first refers to "gender segregation". I used the term "sex segregation". If you go to the project work page they are currently discussing whether to change the article title from "Sex segregation" to "Gender segregation". Last time I checked the issue was still being discussed. As I wrote there the word gender can also refer to language, gender being (masculine, feminine, common, neuter). So, I used sex segregation. With respect to the other part, one of the points being made by the phrase is that "supporters argue that it is necessary to maintain the family unit." You were discussing family. So yes it is in the current article and it is relevant.
How about something like this:
Family
Main article: Family
Look up family in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
In some circumstances, sex segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain the family unit, among other things.
One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons - biologically and socially.[63][64]
From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization.[65]
From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation, the goal of which is to produce, enculturate and socialize children.[66]
However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.[67][68][69]
"I will attempt to rewrite some of these sections so that they are relevant." DJ Clayworth ( talk) from your point of view. That will help!
Secretary and nursing: These occupations were put in by other editors, initially nurses was mentioned in the Revision as of 17:09, 2 September 2006. Secretarial was added in the Revision as of 23:00, 9 May 2008, although they weren't sectioned. Both have been in the article for almost two years! The military may have used male nurses in the US Civil War. Women have been doing police work for many decades. Firefighters might be a good addition, although during World War II many women had to become firefighters, especially in England during the Battle of Britain, and in the US because of sex segregation in the military. I disagree on replacement because the nursing and secretary sections have history that features both sexes and is enjoyable reading. India for example has few if any female secretaries. While we would need a reference, often sex segregation continues into the present because of the past. By the way "relevant" means closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand. Everything you deleted by experts in the field of sex segregation that used the words "sex segregation" was relevant, both closely connected and appropriate per NPOV. Please use a dictionary occasionally. Just a suggestion. Your personal meaning does not appear to be relevant, but I remain optimistic. By the way, Wiktionary http://www.wiktionary.org/ does not have a definition of sex segregation or gender segregation. If you have a copy of the full Oxford English Dictionary, would you look to see if it may be in there? Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If I censor as you have done to the previous version, the current version will be back to what is was in 2006, an article or stub on sex segregation in a couple of religions, best titled "Sex segregation in religion" or some such. We've put a lot of text here, this isn't a sandbox, but you've written nothing. Each sentence you write that makes a conclusion or identifies a fact needs a reference, the same request you've made of me. There is no more to discuss until you produce something. This discussion page is already at 61 kb. Writing NPOV is a lot harder than persistent censoring. But, I remain optimistic! Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you have a point like the ones you've made above and are having trouble finding a reference, let me know and I will try to help. Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added a start on a section that might be expanded on sex segregation in occupation. Feel free to comment on what I have written. You are also free to expand that, being careful to make sure everything is relevant. I have also added a number of specific citation needed notices, where something is not currently backed up by sources. It would be excellent if you could find sources to back these up. Let's see if we can cooperate to make this a good, readable article. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have read through your contributions to the article. While I view most of them as not NPOV I believe it is important to include as many points of view as possible in an effort toward being NPOV. References for some will be tough, but I'll give it a go. I have some references to add already, but let me know if you disagree with the text regarding them. DO NOT DELETE THEM BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE TEXT! Sometimes people see different points of view in the same words and a simple change may be mutually okay. I am glad you decided to contribute. I've had "editors" delete and run and it is very aggravating. Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There are several additional sentences that would be better if a citation could be found. I will put in citation needed notices for these. Please let me know what you think. Some may be too general to find, and they'll have to come back out, or the sentence or portion may have to be left out. Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There are some additions and changes that I have added. Let me know what you think on these. I have been looking at possible definitions for the terms "sex segregation" and "gender segregation". There seems to be quite a range of concepts attached to these two phrases. What do you think of a section entitled, "What is sex or gender segregation?", that includes and discusses these? Marshallsumter ( talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that different types of clothing also count as sex segration. This goes both ways, with men not really allowed to wear e.g. skirts even in western countries. Maybe it would even be worth it to extend this topic to "segration by appearance": women are supposed to have long hair and men short, makeup is reserved (and often "required") for women, women need to shave their legs while men are "gay" if they do so, etc.
I am not willing to add this to the article by mself since I have no clue about sources that could be used for this claim. However, please see this comment as a contribution, meant as making people thing about this topic and how omnipotent sex segration is. It's not limited to changing rooms, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.216.31 ( talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the article, Origin of sex segregation, be merged here. It is much too limited to stand alone. Binksternet ( talk) 02:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It is doubtful that legitimate, notable critics say this. I'm writing about the subject of gender segregation in an article I'm working on that concerns the separation of men and women offenders in an alternative sentencing program. The consensus from the participants and the professors teaching the program is that sex segregation is beneficial; the men won't open up about their problems in front of women and the women won't share in front of the men. This is in the context of a bibliotherapy program, so making the strong claim that helping people deal with their problems is somehow a violation of human rights is beyond absurd. Viriditas ( talk) 11:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, As part of Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities Program, my Poverty, Gender, and Development class annually contributes to Wikipedia articles concerning gender difference and disparities. My partner Achresto ( talk) and I have chosen to contribute to and help revamp this article.
We believe it is in need of more citations and a global perspective, as well as structural reorganization that broadens the page's focus. Looking over the talk page, it seems prior debates focused on whether and when segregation and discrimination are related, how religion (particularly Islam) relates to segregation, and whether the citations given accurately balanced examples of segregation and accounted for its origins. Disagreements seem to have hinged on these smaller examples rather than discussion of the overall plan for the article, and as a result the current article feels disorganized. Our primary goal, then, is a reorganizing.
We also think a NPOV is lacking or stretched in some statements, for example: "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights" (uncited). Further, more careful distinction should be made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the existing article, perhaps including a renaming to 'Gender discrimination'. The segregation of sex may impact construction of gender identities. We plan on reorganizing the article by starting off from a broad, theoretical perspective, discussing scholarly definitions and causes of gender segregation, and subsequently addressing different spheres of gender segregation in public and private realms.
The current article does an adequate job listing some arenas in which gender segregation takes place. We plan to include contemporary examples of areas of gender segregation, specifically where policies are in place to enforce segregation or desegregation, to both facilitate a global perspective and also provide an opportunity for multiple editors to continually update the article, maintaining high-quality work. Lastly, we want to discuss consequences (positive and negative) of gender segregation for all genders as well as critiques of gender segregation. Our proposed outline is thus: Sex segregation 1. Definition 2. Causes and origins 3. Spheres of segregation 3.1 Public 3.2 Private 4. Contemporary examples 4.1 Segregation 4.2 Desegregation 5. Consequences 6. Critiques 7. See also
We would love feedback on the organization proposed, and any content, technical, or miscellaneous feedback is also welcome. Thanks! NSDhaliwal ( talk) 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This article looks great, but some minor revisions can be made. Specifically, it can be further proofread, and the section on “Significance” can be broken down into smaller sections. Going section by section, I have made the following notes:
Lead section: Specify what kind of separation (physical, social, cultural). It might be useful to establish this early on, even though it is described in the “definitions and causes” section. Perhaps write “some critics” and “some supporters” to show that all of these opinions cannot be generalized by each group. Short and concise! Nice!
Definitions and causes: How does gender apartheid, as applied to the segregation of people by gender, imply sexual discrimination?
Permissive sex segregation: Include some more links to other articles, such as with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Theoretical explanations: Can you include a link to libertarian political theory?
Libertarianism- really wonderful explanation about how the theory is applicable to sex segregation! Very thorough, great examples
Equal treatment: “treat likes alike” doesn’t make sense…”treat people alike” instead? Change “questions when are men and women alike” to “questions when men and women are alike”…add quotes as well! The wording is confusing.
Critical race feminism: Some minor issues with grammar in this section
Contemporary policy examples: The wording of the first sentence is awkward, and “different” is used twice.
Safety and privacy: Excellent section! Examples are wonderful and the plentiful links are very useful.
Religious and cultural ideas: There are some stray brackets in the first paragraph that need to be removed.
Education and socialization: Overall, really great. Perhaps you can include some statistics about different outcomes between coed and single-sex schooling?
Desegregation: There are some links in red, which need to be removed.
Significance: “For most children” instead of “in most children.” Provide some more context for the statistics on women’s job satisfaction. Some more brackets need to be deleted.
Wonderful work, and I cannot wait to read the article once it has been further fine-tuned and polished. Heidimkahle ( talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review! We plan on implementing all of these technical changes. NSDhaliwal ( talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Heidi's points that she brought up in her review of her article. Overall, I was very impressed at the scope of the article and variety and range of sources used and topics discussed. My one large worry is that the article is written on a higher than 5th grade level, and while is very well-written, might not be as accessible to some Wikipedia readers. Maybe find ways to simplify the language and concepts used in some areas to ensure that this is not a worry. Here is a list of comments I quickly wrote down as I read through.
As you can see, there aren't too many because I really think you two did an excellent job. I am glad you discussed the ways that sex segregation can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. I also appreciate that you explained that sex and gender segregation are not equivalent, a very important concept. Good luck with continuing to improve the article! Robinkvest ( talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Robin! We will try add more photos throughout the article for balance. Furthermore, one of our concerns was readability, especially in the longer sections, including "Desegregation" and "Significance". Some of the other reviewers also commented that we should add more to our introduction, which we plan on doing; it was originally written before we knew the scope of our entire article. NSDhaliwal ( talk) 00:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with many of the points that have already been brought up. I think this article does a great job at maintaining neutrality, providing a variety of sources, linking the article to other articles, and following Wikipedia's style guidelines. While I did see some grammatical and wording issues, these have already been mentioned in the previous two reviews so I don't think there is a need to discuss them again in the post. My other points of feedback include breaking up the significance section. It is really long and I think that providing subsections might make it more readable and easily digested by the readers. This could be done by breaking the section up according to the different types of sex segregation that is mentioned in the artcile. I also would expand on the desegregation section. Are there more policies and viewpoints that argue for desegregation. I think that the article could be improved by offering a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation. Additionally the illustrations are kind of small and difficult to read, even when they are zoomed in on. Making them bigger might help. Other than that, I think this article is great and on the right track! B.chachere ( talk) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall I don't think the lead section is doing justice to the thoroughness of the rest of the article. For example: I think the original opening sentence: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex while gender segregation is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male vs female [1]." would be stronger if it read: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male versus female [1]." I also think you could expand on the ending phrase: "...supporters argue that it is central to certain religious laws and social and cultural histories and traditions [3][4]." Your article cites more facets of this side of the debate - like economic efficiency...
One element that I think is missing is a discussion of the impact this sex segregation has on intersexed and transgender members of the community. There are lots of resources out there, especially considering recent legal battles and sufficient media coverage surrounding issues of public restrooms and trans-people's designation...I think Rice was even considering having gender neutral restrooms...
Other than that I think the other reviewers have already covered it; this article is great!
Lenasilva ( talk) 19:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi B.chachere and Lenasilva,
Thanks so much for the helpful comments! I think the general consensus from your input is that the segregation section needs to be divided into subsections and our introduction can be strengthened according to the thoroughness of our entire article. I think doing the conclusion according to how we broke up the contemporary examples would be an excellent way to tie up the article, while expanding upon the significance of desegregation at the very end, and potentially even including more policies for desegregation in the contemporary examples section. B.chachere, when you say offer a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation, do you mean that we should include more of the viewpoint that sex segregation is good vs bad for people or women? Thanks for the tip on the illustrations as well, we will work with the formatting to make sure they are legible to viewers.
Lenasilva, I agree completely with your point about our opening of the article. I really like the way you re-worded it as well, thanks for the edit! Do you think we should include more in the opening about economic efficiency or less about religious laws/social traditions?
We also considered including a portion on intersexed and/or transgender members of communities; however, we wondered if the scope would be too broad for the realm of this article. We thought it would be worthwhile to suggest a new article be created on project pages, possibly to be linked off of this article? If you saw a specific part of the article that you thought would be strengthened even by mentioning this specific issue, we would love to hear it.
Thanks again!
Achresto ( talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Yeah I think just mentioning economic efficiency would be sufficient. I really think you could mention the intersex/trans issues anywhere (well...any of the first three subsections) in the policy section.
Lenasilva ( talk) 16:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The separation of sex segregation and gender segregation is entirely arbitrary and the reference of one book is insufficent to make that distinction. 2606:6000:C042:3E00:C64:FBEF:D22D:A44E ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~haneydaw/twwh/apartheid.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the lead and the definition to point out that sex saparation might be the more appropriate term, or to at least epxlain the difference. Given that there is a whole separate article on gender apartheid I think we should be careful to not create overlap between the two articles. The way I see it is that sex segregation does not necessarily carry discrimination (it might or it might not), whereas the term "gender apartheid" focuses on the negative consequences for women. Is that also how others see it? Both articles would probably benefit from another review and overhaul. Comments by User:Olliemae? EMsmile ( talk) 02:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The assumption underlying recent edits to the article that sex separation is a more neutral term, or more appropriate than sex segregation because the latter is tainted by association with the term racial segregation or for some other reason have no basis in fact, and are unsupported conjecture. I've removed one SYNTHy statement about this from section Definitions. See also the related discussion at Talk:Unisex public toilet. Mathglot ( talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have some sort of agenda here but I don't know what it is.
"People of gender" is a ridiculous term - doesn't everyone have a gender? No matter how many genders you believe there are, you can't say that there are people who are without gender. Even if this is occasionally used, it's confusing and meaningless. 98.22.175.207 ( talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A user has deleted history section from this article. Sex segregation as we all know has been a process since the beginning of human being living. You cannot understand it after deleting the history. Doostdar ( talk) 10:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Various American historians and scholars use the term sex separation instead of sex segregation. Sex separation is more logical in my mind as it is a neutral / impartial term (think of mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms) as opposed to the more charged term that is segregation, which has enormous connotations to racial oppression of blacks in the united states. Philipbrochard ( talk) 04:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
In my personal opinion, I think it would be more correct to name this page as "sex separation" better, rather than "sex segregation". I personally think the term sex segregation seems to have more of a loaded tone to it which leans towards some charged bias in a way, whereas sex separation is a little more neutral.
One thing I would like to mention is if we are comparing two instances of it, I'm sure most people can see a pretty significant difference between sex separated bathrooms (which both men and women continue to do today) vs racially segregated water fountains.
I think there is nuance and to use the term "segregation" would be comparing apples to oranges and saying they are similar situations. Philipbrochard ( talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
As someone being a resident of India and being reared in a "boys only" school, this article really strikes me. Its surprising it doesn't include India. I developed a lot of mental health complications towards the opposite gender, as a result I was made even more seggregated.
Conventionally, the Indian schools are either "Boys school" or "Girls schools", although with progress of time, more co-educational schools are being established. The gender segregation is considered as a part of an important societal lesson that girls and boys must behave differently, play differently, do not have exchange of ideas, and the societal norms being protected.
Sometimes in a co-educational school, teachers would specify different rows for the boys and girls. Sometimes the students especially in high-schools, colleges, or universities, themselves would seat separately due to a sense of societal awkwardness, or a sense of embarrassment, or a sense of fear or hatred towards the opposite gender, although this pattern is slowly weakening, and is not very prevalent in metro cities.
I sometimes feel like the either end of the patriarchial system; the celibate priests or religious leaders in the one end, and in the other end the the hooligan, drug addicts, the street people who disturbs or taunts the women; are the products of the same system. Where people of the opposite gender do not interact with each other from an early age, and develops misconception about one another.
Rape is a different incidence, which is often done by trusted family members, neighbours, or dignified people. As a result, victim shaming is the norm. It is common for a rape victim (esp. woman) to suicide or attempt suicide. This is because Rape in India is primarily defined by immodesty of the victim (legally only a girl or woman) than the consent violation by the perpitrator (legally only a man). There is no recognition of marital rape either. People usually demand exemplary punishment for the perpitrator, but there is almost no voice for removing the gender stereotype and power dynamics that causes these offenses. Sometimes schools that culturally admits only 1 gender of students, often have the reason that if they allow the opposite gender, they would incest with each other. They sees their students as sexual objects and not as conscientious human being.
In India, we observe something very opposite of the Westermarck effect (perception of familiar people as siblings than sexual mates), instead of desensitization, we get hyper-sensitized due to prolonged gender segregation of 2 genders from very early childhood in schooling and social ceremonies, when we reach adulthood, we start to perceive the opposite gender hypersexually, often as sexual fantasies or sexual objects rather than of conscientious being. It becomes hard for us to use a gender neutral language, or to analyze a situation without a gender bias. Whenever we meet a new person, we undermine the ideas they have, and we get primarily focused on gender, physical beauty, and associated expectations as per the social stereotype.
Sometimes these stigmata are even more powerfull when a person have a mental illness or disability. They are most obviously avoided by their colleagues (males with mental abnormalities can be perceived as rapists, and females with mental abnormalities can be perceived as sluts or witches), or may be sexually exploited.
Therefore my request is to please add a detailed section about gender seggregation in India.
2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 ( talk) 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that single-sex education is usually preferred by parents. Students would sometimes internalize mysogyny, such as women would not show interest in learning maths and hard science, because they grown up thinking these are mundane and boring topics not meant for them. This is not because they weren't capable, but they have been reared in culturally different ways than a boy.
References: 1.
https://www.womensweb.in/2019/08/why-we-need-to-end-segregation-of-boys-and-girls-in-schools/
2.
https://www.iimb.ac.in/node/9541
3. https://qrius.com/gender-in-education-the-damaging-impact-of-the-college-bubble-in-india/
5. https://archive.org/details/SexismInIndianEducation-NarendraNathKalia
etc.
Note that the seggregation worldwide has both positive and negative purpose. But in India it only increases long term misunderstanding and suffering of women.
2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 ( talk) 11:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The article seems to lead toward the idea that sex segregation is morally wrong. Any value judgments or leading statements are not fit for an encyclopedia. On top of that, this would be expressing an insignificantly minor viewpoint. Although, I don't think the concept should be so far removed that sex segregation seems 'morally correct' or 'the way things are naturally'.
To feature sexual discrimination with several paragraphs on this page also adds unnecessary weight to a link between the two concepts. I'd suggest finding a way to tone that down a bit; I'd also note that a continued link between religion and nursing in England has little to do with segregation.
Let's keep focused on the topic; this page really needs a cleanup. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is so narrow and focused on religion that it is basically useless. Why shouldn't that information just be moved to the pages for those religions, or the general pages on sex and gender? I've added one sentence on occupational segregation, which is surely a major part of sex segregation, with a link - and faced hassle and reverts over it. What is the agenda here? Yyyikes 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The new Islam section isn't NPOV - and makes vast generalizations... there are many different ways to practice Islam, the wahabi will not be like the liberal. gren 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is almost completely devoted to segregation based on gender within Islamic society. Should issues about gender segregation (which on a minor note may be a more appropriate title) in normal society (i.e. western and non relgion specific soceity) not be covered here also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 October 2005.
"Political Correctness" is often used as a blind for covering the truth, and the truth is that Islam has more disturbing elements against women than Christianity or Judaism - while Christianity and Judaism may have been sexist at one point, they have embraced the modern world and are moving towards a fairer society, while Islam in parts of the world remains largely unchanged from medieval ways of thinking. Perhaps you should READ the article first before you criticize it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.34.27 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 October 2005.
Sex segregation is one of the most visible aspects of Islam, so the nature of the article isn't surprising, especially as it appears to be new. However, I agree that the title implies a wider treatment of the issue than it is getting at the moment. Perhaps the answer is to simply edit the title to "Sex (or gender) Segregation in Islam" and let people get on with elucidating the issue as it applies there. If there are major differences between wahabi and liberal perhaps Grenavitar or others would be kind enough to add to the article to make it clearer. I, for one, would be interested to know. Igsy 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
No there really is segregation in islam. Women aren't allowed to leave the house without a man and are required to be covered from head to toe!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayaikenfan365 ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 October 2005.
-------------------------------
I found errors & biases in the article in relation to Saudi Arabia. I (an American woman) live in Saudi Arabia and have frequented various McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Starbucks, and other places with my children or with my girlfriends, and while they are segregated, they are also as clean as they would be in the States. (And, to be frank, the number of segregated establishments is small in comparison to those that are not segregated.)
Women do attend university, work, and socialize outside of the home, they do own property and businesses (the building we live in belongs to a business woman!).
In Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates one sees just as many women out and about as men. However, I can't comment on other countries (Afghanistan, Iran...), for I've never been there thus can't claim any knowledge of their customs.
In reply to the comment above, women are indeed allowed to leave the house without a man, many women work or study, and most have drivers to take them where they wish to go. Also, not all women cover from head to toe -that seems to be a personal choice.
Aouandme
06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme
Until someone actually brings up an NPOV issue, I'm going to remove the tags. If you want to split out the section, that's fine, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Melchoir 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, is there something you'd like to say here? Melchoir 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
After being reverted twice without explanation, I'm now reinstating my change for the third time. Melchoir 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's number four! Melchoir 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest utilizing WP:AN/3RR? That'll put a stop to revert warring when one party doesn't explain their reasons for reverting. Netscott 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. Irishpunktom, explain yourself or I will continue to remove the tags. Melchoir 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
They are factual errors/claims that are bordering on misleading. For e.g. on Saudi Arabia it states that women are prevented from holding property or forced to remain ignorant (presumably by being denyed education). This is untrue, women are free to hold/own property and the number of women in universities has exceeded that of men. Also in Iran the number of women in univerisities has exceeded that of men. This entire article has from the beginning an agenda to associate all types of repression of women with Islam.
It appears that the section header only applied to one sentence. I've moved the remaining text out of the section (unless someone can explain that Josei Senyo Sharyo is derived from Judaism). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the material related to gender apartheid that was in the article Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article:
Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". [1] According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam). [2]
Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":
Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in. [3]
Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:
One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them." [4]
Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:
Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement. [5]
According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:
The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays. [6]
Tiamat 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
References
You might want to be a little more specific by mentioning that in many Western countries, e.g., the US and Germany (where I've lived), that it is organized sports that are almost always gender segregated. As a cultural matter, it is very common for unorganized sports (such as volleyball, softball, and tennis) to be gender mixed, even among adults. Bostoner ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sex segregation was very common throughout Western history, and this article only mentions contemporary social facts such as sports and nursing, and so it has a taste of modernism. There should be a more balanced historical approach, notably on the primitive origins of sex segregation. 69.157.229.153 ( talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it says something like, historically jobs such as nursing and secretarial jobs were associated with women. I would say this is a pretty modern development. If you go back 200 years both of these jobs would be primarily for men, unless you mean nursing as in looking after children/wet-nursing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.57.42 ( talk) 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no rule that states men must sit at front and women at back. Most city buses are like this. However, intercity buses generally not like this during school/work hours. (e.g. buses before 7:30am have the men at front and the women at back but after 7:30am until some time at night women are at front and men at back.) 192.118.11.112 ( talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed outside of a private home. Within these facilities, there may be individual facilities provided, as in the case of toilets. from the lead-in, because it just didn't make sense as it stood. Prisons, changing rooms, and so on, aren't found in private homes, after all. I just couldn't see what the second sentence was intended to convey - could someone who does understand what it meant please supply a clearer version, if they think it's needed, please? Kay Dekker ( talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
While the article probably needs more references to a greater variety of sex segregation world wide, I believe for now that there are sufficient references for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Please feel free to comment or criticize. Marshallsumter ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reinserted the quotes regarding religion and sex segregation. Please do not remove them. They are supported by refereed articles and do pertain to understanding the possible origins of the inequality associated with sex segregation. Marshallsumter ( talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Christianity" there is a lengthy paragraph regarding gender apartheid within the Roman Catholic Church that contains many statements in need of citations. If you contributed this paragraph, please add the appropriate citations. According to the current legal meaning of the term "citizen" worshippers of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other religious worshippers are not considered citizens of these respected religions. While there may be inequality associated with the way in which the governing body of any religion conducts itself or with its recognized political sovereignty, the including of this here should be documented. I removed the illegality comments as apparently it is legal within the Roman Catholic Church for only unmarried Catholic males to be considered for election to pope. See the article College of Cardinals. Comments and criticism are welcome, especially with appropriate citations. Marshallsumter ( talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I came here expecting to find the article about the physical separation of people along gender lines. That's what the definition at the top says it's about. Instead it seems to roam all over the shop, making it cover exactly the same ground as sexism. I suggest that we either put it back to being about sex segregation, or we make it a redirect to sexism. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I cleaned this up, but I had to go back three months to get a good version that I could base this on. Further help would be ideal. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Like DJ Clayworth ( talk) I've also left some comments at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. I'm not sure if NPOV is the problem but I have looked at WP:RfC. If experts' text can be cut arbitrarily perhaps the problem is closer to that which Melchoir had to deal with. But, I am puzzled. DJ Clayworth ( talk) has performed many edits and apparently added text to a number of articles as have I, and we both left our four ~, unlike the previous similar problem. So, if appropriate, and for the purpose of attempting to reach a consensus rather than allowing the latest reversion to stand, let me ask: what is it DJ Clayworth ( talk) doesn't understand about sex segregation that creates the conclusion that text from experts on sex segregation and its origins and occurrences has nothing to do with sex segregation? Or, should we continue our reversion war, which I did not start? I do not wish the reversion war to continue but leaving the current version suggests agreement which is clearly not there. Also, I am concerned by something else. There is a web site http://www.dweec.com/dweecs.htm which lists DJ Clayworth and the tactics which he and others have used as a group to possibly censure Wikipedia. The tactic used here matches one of them. While I only know what I just read, and cannot attest to its objectivity, may I suggest that the article be reverted and locked and if need be block both of us until discussion begins. So far I've read nothing further by the other editor, but its only been a day. Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, we need to clear up some things here. Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness. What I removed was text that was very far removed from being relevant to sex segregation and did not have any context explaining its relevance to sex segregation. I only later discovered that Marshallsumter was responsible for adding this text - my intention was simply to clean the article up. I'm also not suggesting this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I'm very happy to try to find a home for it, if it doesn't already exist somewhere.
I think our best way forward here is to talk about why we think the passages I removed are appropriate or not. I've already stated my view; maybe Marshallsumter should state why he thinks they belong here. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Marshallsumter ( talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Marshallsumter ( talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Some comments:
Further comments:
"men and women work together": the first sentence in the current version is "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender." The title of the article is "Sex segregation", not "Sex integration" or "Sex togetherness". The authors I've cited and you deleted have indicated separation by the term "sex segregation" in its various forms. "If in a job men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status, in what way is that separation?" Let's say at occupation A there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," and at occupation B there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," but in occupation A there are 85% women (like nursing) and at occupation B there are 85% men (like CEO's), that's an example of sex segregation.
"writing commentary on things that are not in the article": in the current version of the article, third sentence is written, "supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." Compare that to "supporters argue that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit". "it" in the first refers to "gender segregation". I used the term "sex segregation". If you go to the project work page they are currently discussing whether to change the article title from "Sex segregation" to "Gender segregation". Last time I checked the issue was still being discussed. As I wrote there the word gender can also refer to language, gender being (masculine, feminine, common, neuter). So, I used sex segregation. With respect to the other part, one of the points being made by the phrase is that "supporters argue that it is necessary to maintain the family unit." You were discussing family. So yes it is in the current article and it is relevant.
How about something like this:
Family
Main article: Family
Look up family in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
In some circumstances, sex segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain the family unit, among other things.
One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons - biologically and socially.[63][64]
From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization.[65]
From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation, the goal of which is to produce, enculturate and socialize children.[66]
However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.[67][68][69]
"I will attempt to rewrite some of these sections so that they are relevant." DJ Clayworth ( talk) from your point of view. That will help!
Secretary and nursing: These occupations were put in by other editors, initially nurses was mentioned in the Revision as of 17:09, 2 September 2006. Secretarial was added in the Revision as of 23:00, 9 May 2008, although they weren't sectioned. Both have been in the article for almost two years! The military may have used male nurses in the US Civil War. Women have been doing police work for many decades. Firefighters might be a good addition, although during World War II many women had to become firefighters, especially in England during the Battle of Britain, and in the US because of sex segregation in the military. I disagree on replacement because the nursing and secretary sections have history that features both sexes and is enjoyable reading. India for example has few if any female secretaries. While we would need a reference, often sex segregation continues into the present because of the past. By the way "relevant" means closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand. Everything you deleted by experts in the field of sex segregation that used the words "sex segregation" was relevant, both closely connected and appropriate per NPOV. Please use a dictionary occasionally. Just a suggestion. Your personal meaning does not appear to be relevant, but I remain optimistic. By the way, Wiktionary http://www.wiktionary.org/ does not have a definition of sex segregation or gender segregation. If you have a copy of the full Oxford English Dictionary, would you look to see if it may be in there? Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If I censor as you have done to the previous version, the current version will be back to what is was in 2006, an article or stub on sex segregation in a couple of religions, best titled "Sex segregation in religion" or some such. We've put a lot of text here, this isn't a sandbox, but you've written nothing. Each sentence you write that makes a conclusion or identifies a fact needs a reference, the same request you've made of me. There is no more to discuss until you produce something. This discussion page is already at 61 kb. Writing NPOV is a lot harder than persistent censoring. But, I remain optimistic! Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you have a point like the ones you've made above and are having trouble finding a reference, let me know and I will try to help. Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added a start on a section that might be expanded on sex segregation in occupation. Feel free to comment on what I have written. You are also free to expand that, being careful to make sure everything is relevant. I have also added a number of specific citation needed notices, where something is not currently backed up by sources. It would be excellent if you could find sources to back these up. Let's see if we can cooperate to make this a good, readable article. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have read through your contributions to the article. While I view most of them as not NPOV I believe it is important to include as many points of view as possible in an effort toward being NPOV. References for some will be tough, but I'll give it a go. I have some references to add already, but let me know if you disagree with the text regarding them. DO NOT DELETE THEM BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE TEXT! Sometimes people see different points of view in the same words and a simple change may be mutually okay. I am glad you decided to contribute. I've had "editors" delete and run and it is very aggravating. Cheers! Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There are several additional sentences that would be better if a citation could be found. I will put in citation needed notices for these. Please let me know what you think. Some may be too general to find, and they'll have to come back out, or the sentence or portion may have to be left out. Marshallsumter ( talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There are some additions and changes that I have added. Let me know what you think on these. I have been looking at possible definitions for the terms "sex segregation" and "gender segregation". There seems to be quite a range of concepts attached to these two phrases. What do you think of a section entitled, "What is sex or gender segregation?", that includes and discusses these? Marshallsumter ( talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that different types of clothing also count as sex segration. This goes both ways, with men not really allowed to wear e.g. skirts even in western countries. Maybe it would even be worth it to extend this topic to "segration by appearance": women are supposed to have long hair and men short, makeup is reserved (and often "required") for women, women need to shave their legs while men are "gay" if they do so, etc.
I am not willing to add this to the article by mself since I have no clue about sources that could be used for this claim. However, please see this comment as a contribution, meant as making people thing about this topic and how omnipotent sex segration is. It's not limited to changing rooms, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.216.31 ( talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the article, Origin of sex segregation, be merged here. It is much too limited to stand alone. Binksternet ( talk) 02:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It is doubtful that legitimate, notable critics say this. I'm writing about the subject of gender segregation in an article I'm working on that concerns the separation of men and women offenders in an alternative sentencing program. The consensus from the participants and the professors teaching the program is that sex segregation is beneficial; the men won't open up about their problems in front of women and the women won't share in front of the men. This is in the context of a bibliotherapy program, so making the strong claim that helping people deal with their problems is somehow a violation of human rights is beyond absurd. Viriditas ( talk) 11:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, As part of Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities Program, my Poverty, Gender, and Development class annually contributes to Wikipedia articles concerning gender difference and disparities. My partner Achresto ( talk) and I have chosen to contribute to and help revamp this article.
We believe it is in need of more citations and a global perspective, as well as structural reorganization that broadens the page's focus. Looking over the talk page, it seems prior debates focused on whether and when segregation and discrimination are related, how religion (particularly Islam) relates to segregation, and whether the citations given accurately balanced examples of segregation and accounted for its origins. Disagreements seem to have hinged on these smaller examples rather than discussion of the overall plan for the article, and as a result the current article feels disorganized. Our primary goal, then, is a reorganizing.
We also think a NPOV is lacking or stretched in some statements, for example: "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights" (uncited). Further, more careful distinction should be made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the existing article, perhaps including a renaming to 'Gender discrimination'. The segregation of sex may impact construction of gender identities. We plan on reorganizing the article by starting off from a broad, theoretical perspective, discussing scholarly definitions and causes of gender segregation, and subsequently addressing different spheres of gender segregation in public and private realms.
The current article does an adequate job listing some arenas in which gender segregation takes place. We plan to include contemporary examples of areas of gender segregation, specifically where policies are in place to enforce segregation or desegregation, to both facilitate a global perspective and also provide an opportunity for multiple editors to continually update the article, maintaining high-quality work. Lastly, we want to discuss consequences (positive and negative) of gender segregation for all genders as well as critiques of gender segregation. Our proposed outline is thus: Sex segregation 1. Definition 2. Causes and origins 3. Spheres of segregation 3.1 Public 3.2 Private 4. Contemporary examples 4.1 Segregation 4.2 Desegregation 5. Consequences 6. Critiques 7. See also
We would love feedback on the organization proposed, and any content, technical, or miscellaneous feedback is also welcome. Thanks! NSDhaliwal ( talk) 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This article looks great, but some minor revisions can be made. Specifically, it can be further proofread, and the section on “Significance” can be broken down into smaller sections. Going section by section, I have made the following notes:
Lead section: Specify what kind of separation (physical, social, cultural). It might be useful to establish this early on, even though it is described in the “definitions and causes” section. Perhaps write “some critics” and “some supporters” to show that all of these opinions cannot be generalized by each group. Short and concise! Nice!
Definitions and causes: How does gender apartheid, as applied to the segregation of people by gender, imply sexual discrimination?
Permissive sex segregation: Include some more links to other articles, such as with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Theoretical explanations: Can you include a link to libertarian political theory?
Libertarianism- really wonderful explanation about how the theory is applicable to sex segregation! Very thorough, great examples
Equal treatment: “treat likes alike” doesn’t make sense…”treat people alike” instead? Change “questions when are men and women alike” to “questions when men and women are alike”…add quotes as well! The wording is confusing.
Critical race feminism: Some minor issues with grammar in this section
Contemporary policy examples: The wording of the first sentence is awkward, and “different” is used twice.
Safety and privacy: Excellent section! Examples are wonderful and the plentiful links are very useful.
Religious and cultural ideas: There are some stray brackets in the first paragraph that need to be removed.
Education and socialization: Overall, really great. Perhaps you can include some statistics about different outcomes between coed and single-sex schooling?
Desegregation: There are some links in red, which need to be removed.
Significance: “For most children” instead of “in most children.” Provide some more context for the statistics on women’s job satisfaction. Some more brackets need to be deleted.
Wonderful work, and I cannot wait to read the article once it has been further fine-tuned and polished. Heidimkahle ( talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review! We plan on implementing all of these technical changes. NSDhaliwal ( talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Heidi's points that she brought up in her review of her article. Overall, I was very impressed at the scope of the article and variety and range of sources used and topics discussed. My one large worry is that the article is written on a higher than 5th grade level, and while is very well-written, might not be as accessible to some Wikipedia readers. Maybe find ways to simplify the language and concepts used in some areas to ensure that this is not a worry. Here is a list of comments I quickly wrote down as I read through.
As you can see, there aren't too many because I really think you two did an excellent job. I am glad you discussed the ways that sex segregation can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. I also appreciate that you explained that sex and gender segregation are not equivalent, a very important concept. Good luck with continuing to improve the article! Robinkvest ( talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Robin! We will try add more photos throughout the article for balance. Furthermore, one of our concerns was readability, especially in the longer sections, including "Desegregation" and "Significance". Some of the other reviewers also commented that we should add more to our introduction, which we plan on doing; it was originally written before we knew the scope of our entire article. NSDhaliwal ( talk) 00:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with many of the points that have already been brought up. I think this article does a great job at maintaining neutrality, providing a variety of sources, linking the article to other articles, and following Wikipedia's style guidelines. While I did see some grammatical and wording issues, these have already been mentioned in the previous two reviews so I don't think there is a need to discuss them again in the post. My other points of feedback include breaking up the significance section. It is really long and I think that providing subsections might make it more readable and easily digested by the readers. This could be done by breaking the section up according to the different types of sex segregation that is mentioned in the artcile. I also would expand on the desegregation section. Are there more policies and viewpoints that argue for desegregation. I think that the article could be improved by offering a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation. Additionally the illustrations are kind of small and difficult to read, even when they are zoomed in on. Making them bigger might help. Other than that, I think this article is great and on the right track! B.chachere ( talk) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall I don't think the lead section is doing justice to the thoroughness of the rest of the article. For example: I think the original opening sentence: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex while gender segregation is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male vs female [1]." would be stronger if it read: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male versus female [1]." I also think you could expand on the ending phrase: "...supporters argue that it is central to certain religious laws and social and cultural histories and traditions [3][4]." Your article cites more facets of this side of the debate - like economic efficiency...
One element that I think is missing is a discussion of the impact this sex segregation has on intersexed and transgender members of the community. There are lots of resources out there, especially considering recent legal battles and sufficient media coverage surrounding issues of public restrooms and trans-people's designation...I think Rice was even considering having gender neutral restrooms...
Other than that I think the other reviewers have already covered it; this article is great!
Lenasilva ( talk) 19:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi B.chachere and Lenasilva,
Thanks so much for the helpful comments! I think the general consensus from your input is that the segregation section needs to be divided into subsections and our introduction can be strengthened according to the thoroughness of our entire article. I think doing the conclusion according to how we broke up the contemporary examples would be an excellent way to tie up the article, while expanding upon the significance of desegregation at the very end, and potentially even including more policies for desegregation in the contemporary examples section. B.chachere, when you say offer a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation, do you mean that we should include more of the viewpoint that sex segregation is good vs bad for people or women? Thanks for the tip on the illustrations as well, we will work with the formatting to make sure they are legible to viewers.
Lenasilva, I agree completely with your point about our opening of the article. I really like the way you re-worded it as well, thanks for the edit! Do you think we should include more in the opening about economic efficiency or less about religious laws/social traditions?
We also considered including a portion on intersexed and/or transgender members of communities; however, we wondered if the scope would be too broad for the realm of this article. We thought it would be worthwhile to suggest a new article be created on project pages, possibly to be linked off of this article? If you saw a specific part of the article that you thought would be strengthened even by mentioning this specific issue, we would love to hear it.
Thanks again!
Achresto ( talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Yeah I think just mentioning economic efficiency would be sufficient. I really think you could mention the intersex/trans issues anywhere (well...any of the first three subsections) in the policy section.
Lenasilva ( talk) 16:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The separation of sex segregation and gender segregation is entirely arbitrary and the reference of one book is insufficent to make that distinction. 2606:6000:C042:3E00:C64:FBEF:D22D:A44E ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~haneydaw/twwh/apartheid.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the lead and the definition to point out that sex saparation might be the more appropriate term, or to at least epxlain the difference. Given that there is a whole separate article on gender apartheid I think we should be careful to not create overlap between the two articles. The way I see it is that sex segregation does not necessarily carry discrimination (it might or it might not), whereas the term "gender apartheid" focuses on the negative consequences for women. Is that also how others see it? Both articles would probably benefit from another review and overhaul. Comments by User:Olliemae? EMsmile ( talk) 02:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The assumption underlying recent edits to the article that sex separation is a more neutral term, or more appropriate than sex segregation because the latter is tainted by association with the term racial segregation or for some other reason have no basis in fact, and are unsupported conjecture. I've removed one SYNTHy statement about this from section Definitions. See also the related discussion at Talk:Unisex public toilet. Mathglot ( talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have some sort of agenda here but I don't know what it is.
"People of gender" is a ridiculous term - doesn't everyone have a gender? No matter how many genders you believe there are, you can't say that there are people who are without gender. Even if this is occasionally used, it's confusing and meaningless. 98.22.175.207 ( talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A user has deleted history section from this article. Sex segregation as we all know has been a process since the beginning of human being living. You cannot understand it after deleting the history. Doostdar ( talk) 10:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Various American historians and scholars use the term sex separation instead of sex segregation. Sex separation is more logical in my mind as it is a neutral / impartial term (think of mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms) as opposed to the more charged term that is segregation, which has enormous connotations to racial oppression of blacks in the united states. Philipbrochard ( talk) 04:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
In my personal opinion, I think it would be more correct to name this page as "sex separation" better, rather than "sex segregation". I personally think the term sex segregation seems to have more of a loaded tone to it which leans towards some charged bias in a way, whereas sex separation is a little more neutral.
One thing I would like to mention is if we are comparing two instances of it, I'm sure most people can see a pretty significant difference between sex separated bathrooms (which both men and women continue to do today) vs racially segregated water fountains.
I think there is nuance and to use the term "segregation" would be comparing apples to oranges and saying they are similar situations. Philipbrochard ( talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
As someone being a resident of India and being reared in a "boys only" school, this article really strikes me. Its surprising it doesn't include India. I developed a lot of mental health complications towards the opposite gender, as a result I was made even more seggregated.
Conventionally, the Indian schools are either "Boys school" or "Girls schools", although with progress of time, more co-educational schools are being established. The gender segregation is considered as a part of an important societal lesson that girls and boys must behave differently, play differently, do not have exchange of ideas, and the societal norms being protected.
Sometimes in a co-educational school, teachers would specify different rows for the boys and girls. Sometimes the students especially in high-schools, colleges, or universities, themselves would seat separately due to a sense of societal awkwardness, or a sense of embarrassment, or a sense of fear or hatred towards the opposite gender, although this pattern is slowly weakening, and is not very prevalent in metro cities.
I sometimes feel like the either end of the patriarchial system; the celibate priests or religious leaders in the one end, and in the other end the the hooligan, drug addicts, the street people who disturbs or taunts the women; are the products of the same system. Where people of the opposite gender do not interact with each other from an early age, and develops misconception about one another.
Rape is a different incidence, which is often done by trusted family members, neighbours, or dignified people. As a result, victim shaming is the norm. It is common for a rape victim (esp. woman) to suicide or attempt suicide. This is because Rape in India is primarily defined by immodesty of the victim (legally only a girl or woman) than the consent violation by the perpitrator (legally only a man). There is no recognition of marital rape either. People usually demand exemplary punishment for the perpitrator, but there is almost no voice for removing the gender stereotype and power dynamics that causes these offenses. Sometimes schools that culturally admits only 1 gender of students, often have the reason that if they allow the opposite gender, they would incest with each other. They sees their students as sexual objects and not as conscientious human being.
In India, we observe something very opposite of the Westermarck effect (perception of familiar people as siblings than sexual mates), instead of desensitization, we get hyper-sensitized due to prolonged gender segregation of 2 genders from very early childhood in schooling and social ceremonies, when we reach adulthood, we start to perceive the opposite gender hypersexually, often as sexual fantasies or sexual objects rather than of conscientious being. It becomes hard for us to use a gender neutral language, or to analyze a situation without a gender bias. Whenever we meet a new person, we undermine the ideas they have, and we get primarily focused on gender, physical beauty, and associated expectations as per the social stereotype.
Sometimes these stigmata are even more powerfull when a person have a mental illness or disability. They are most obviously avoided by their colleagues (males with mental abnormalities can be perceived as rapists, and females with mental abnormalities can be perceived as sluts or witches), or may be sexually exploited.
Therefore my request is to please add a detailed section about gender seggregation in India.
2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 ( talk) 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that single-sex education is usually preferred by parents. Students would sometimes internalize mysogyny, such as women would not show interest in learning maths and hard science, because they grown up thinking these are mundane and boring topics not meant for them. This is not because they weren't capable, but they have been reared in culturally different ways than a boy.
References: 1.
https://www.womensweb.in/2019/08/why-we-need-to-end-segregation-of-boys-and-girls-in-schools/
2.
https://www.iimb.ac.in/node/9541
3. https://qrius.com/gender-in-education-the-damaging-impact-of-the-college-bubble-in-india/
5. https://archive.org/details/SexismInIndianEducation-NarendraNathKalia
etc.
Note that the seggregation worldwide has both positive and negative purpose. But in India it only increases long term misunderstanding and suffering of women.
2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 ( talk) 11:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)