Gender Segregation and Islamaphobia

A recent debate about gender segregated seating at university events organised by Islamic student societies has been sparked in the UK. I came across this debate on well known social activist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie's blog, and thought I'd share my thoughts to better elaborate the points Namazie has made.

I would like to make clear outright that I disagree with the point made my Dr Nazreen Nawaz regarding this being an issue of the UK being unaccommodating for "mainstream" Islamic practices. I am not saying that no Muslims wish to be segregated by gender, and some do voluntarily sit away from members of the opposite sex. However, in events such as the debate organised earlier this year at UCL between Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss, the audience was likely to be made up of both Muslims of various degrees of piety and non-Muslim groups, and therefore it was an unfair imposition to make all members of the audience sit in accordance with the wishes of only one of the guest speakers. This lacked accommodation on the Islamic society's part.

Leaving accommodation aside, let's break down why the segregated seating arrangement is not logical or egalitarian. There are a few main ways the auditoriums in question could be arranged with pros and cons for each. Let's examine them one at a time to identify the best possible solution.

1. The Islamic way: Notable Islamic scholar Zakir Naik explains on this page what the Islamic tradition was with regards to seating in a Mosque. It states "During the Prophet’s (pbuh) time, mosques had separate entrances for ladies. Women filled the mosques from behind while men had separate entrances and filled the mosques from the front. In between the two sections were children." The reason commonly given for this arrangement was that the prostating and bowing movements performed by women during Islamic prayers would sexually tempt and distract men from their own prayers if women were allowed to sit before them. Now, even if we were to take this (ridiculous) claim seriously, the problem of prostating women can be easily solved by sitting segregated groups of men and women side by side, with children sitting in between. There is no doubt that the traditional arrangement is designed around gender inequality, as it definitely more difficult to see, follow and hear a presenter from the back of a room than it is from the front. Moreover, it assumes that men cannot control their sexual urges, and that women are not expected to be distracted by the men praying in front of them. Not only is it discriminating for the women, it is also a disadvantage for children to sit in between the parents as they tend to be shorter. 
2. The 'options for all' way: This is the variation some of these Islamic Societies have attempted to adopt, where they've split the seating into areas for men, women and "married couples". Firstly, there is really no polite way to determine whether a couple entering the room is married or not. Nor is it in anybody's right to make a couple feel uncomfortable by suggesting that it is only acceptable for them to sit together if they're married. Secondly, the question of disadvantaging a group resurfaces. If there is a couple's area, where will it be positioned? Would it not be unfair if attendees showed up the event early with hopes of securing good seats, only to find that their seats have been pre-allocated based on a condition beyond their control, such as their gender or marital status? 
3. The 'not segregated' way: Or in other words, the usual first-come, first-served principle. The attendees will arrive randomly and select their seats based on preference and availability. Of course, this does not guarantee that every person will find a seat they're happy with, but the reason for that won't be determined by a single individual, religious group or mindset. People cannot complain about a bad seat, as it is only natural that availability will decrease with later arrival times. And the only person responsible for arriving at the right time for the right seat is the audience member him/herself. Having said that, the world is not perfect, and the contest for a good seat is not always a fair fight for those that are disabled or elderly, but a decent auditorium will provide for the differently abled too.

Now comes Nawaz's point about how it is a double standard to allow other forms of segregation such as women only gyms, schools and toilets to continue in the UK. Lets examine each of these points. 

1. Women only gyms: A gym is a place where people work out and would therefore often wear unflattering clothing to keep themselves cool and comfortable. Women who require personal trainers may be reluctant about trainers of the opposite sex touching them or invading their personal space - neither of which are appropriate but still happen nonetheless. You cannot compare that level of close interaction with that of two strangers merely sitting side by side - sometimes not even that - in an auditorium for 2 hours. Having women only gyms is more akin to women preferring to see female doctors for the added comfort of being able to discuss their physical problems freely. And most importantly, women only gyms are a choice, not an imposition. 2. Public toilets: Again, a similar logic as above. Women not only use the toilet, but also change clothing, fix their makeup and hair and undertake other womanly activities in the bathroom which they would prefer to do in private. It is not the same as sitting in a room full of people who are engaging in an intellectual experience. Again, our society is not perfect, and there is debate around segregated toilets compartmentalising or forcing gender X to identify as either male or female. But segregated seating does the same.
3. Single sex schools: I personally prefer co-educational schools myself. But studies have shown that pupils flourish in single gender schools more so than their coed counterparts. Where I live, some of the best secondary schools are single gendered, but the number 1 school is co-ed. So it's not a necessary factor in children's learning. In fact, it is perhaps better to allow our teenagers to grow in an environment that matches the real world. So Nazreen cannot make the point that just because one less than ideal form of segregation exists another should also. 

There really is no substantial logic in Nazreen's points other than the usual Islamiphobia card. I acknowledge that there is a lot of ignorance about the Islam in the world and people do generalise Muslims in the wake of recent events and biased media reporting. But there should be no hesitation in highlighting discrimination because above all religious belief systems should be our humanity. And those who disagree with that are doing themselves and their religion a great disfavour.