Earlier on this year, University College London (one of my alma maters) hosted a debate organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) on ‘Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?’ The two main speakers were Professor Lawrence Krauss (an atheist) and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a lecturer on Islam. The IERA had apparently requested that men and women be segregated in the seating arrangements. Despite assurances from UCL that no gender segregation would be allowed it seems that a policy of sexual segregation was allowed on the night by organisers, even having separate queues and separate entrances for men and women
[1]. When it became clear what was happening, Professor Krauss intervened and threatened to leave if the policy was enforced and it seems that the organisers had to back down. But some students were left feeling angry. Adam Barnett, a journalism student the organisers had tried to physically remove from the theatre for non-compliance with the segregation policy said, ‘What happened on Saturday is a scandal. UCL and the organisers owe an apology to me, my friend, the audience and the general public. For a London University to allow forced segregation by sex in 2013 is disgraceful. The organisers should also apologise for their appalling behaviour if they want to hold any more events on campuses in the future’. He added, ‘It’s insulting to be told that because I’m a man I can’t sit near women in the audience. I’m not in the habit of forcing my presence where it’s unwanted, but the event’s organisers have no business policing social matters of this kind’
[2].
Universities UK – the vice-chancellor’s group - subsequently issued guidance on gender segregation at events, which – in true UK fashion – seemed a classic ‘fudge’. They claimed it was a complex balance of promoting freedom of speech, when hosting orthodox religious groups, on the one hand and compliance with equality and discrimination laws on the other. They came out with the guidance that suggests segregation is likely to be OK as long as men and women are seated side by side and one group is not at a disadvantage (as women might be if seated at the back behind the men) – saying the law is unclear where the segregation is voluntary. Both David Cameron and Michael Gove (among others) have – quite rightly- condemned this advice, with Gove describing it as a ‘pander to extremism’
[3].
It is interesting to see this debate continue, especially as gender-segregation is still endorsed to some extent in UK society
[4]. I went to an all-girls’ school and my son currently goes to an all-boys’ comprehensive school (his choice, not mine – to the extent that choice exists in local authority school place allocation). The debates go on as to whether boys and girls do better or worse at single sex schools. I can say, however, that at my (academic, exam-focused) girls school, I had no problem in both doing an ‘O’ level (as it was then) in dressmaking (the only practical subject I could do) and then go on to do science ‘A’ levels (biology, chemistry, physics) with no thought whatsoever as to whether my gender gave me more aptitude for one or the other. I just did what I enjoyed and found easiest. Plus, being the only girl in my family, with two older brothers (both initially physicists), it never occurred to me that I was any less able than them in so-called ‘male’ subjects. I continue to do most of the DIY and car repairs myself (and even hold a certificate in plastering), such is my disregard for stereotyped male and female roles. This has led to many a confrontation in my life (yes, an argumentative nature as well) – most recently with a Muslim female colleague – highly capable, educated etc. who seemed to insist that women were more emotional and less able to do certain things – such as car repairs and DIY. Why? It just has not been my experience. But then personal experience and scientific analysis are perhaps not mutual bedfellows. I accept that my experience of one does not necessarily equate to the experience of millions within a whole population and we delve into the complexities of the nature / nurture divide.
I am also reminded of my experience during my so-called ‘Buddhist days’
[5]. I had had an interest and association with the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) – now Triratna - since I was around 15/16. I became vegetarian when I was 17 and tried to practice meditation on and off throughout my university days. When I was 24, however, I found myself back in Croydon (where I grew up) and at a loose end. My old school friend (from my brother’s single sex school, not mine) – Garry – had recently been ordained into the FWBO and given the Buddhist name ‘Dhammavijaya’ (meaning ‘victory’ of the dhamma – the ‘dhamma’ being the teachings of the Buddha). He was working at that point in a vegetarian restaurant in Croydon, run by Buddhists and associates of the FWBO, affiliated to the Croydon Buddhist Centre at the same location. The FWBO at that time had a ‘single sex principle’ (though some would argue it was not a ‘principle’ but rather an ‘idea’. It seemed like a principle at the time). So, FWBO businesses and associated residential communities were either men’s or women’s. At Croydon, it is fair to say that the men ran the show. There was a wholefood shop with integral sandwich business – run by the women. The adjoined café and restaurant was run by the men, together with the Centre team – the team who ran the Buddhist centre - also male. Order Members were overwhelmingly male – with only 1-2 female Order Members to contribute to the Centre management and Mitra process (‘Friend’ of the Western Buddhist Order – one stop short of being ordained).
At the time, I was classic recruitment material: middle class, educated, idealistic, vulnerable and at a pivotal turning point in my life. Dhammavijaya suggested that I help out in the women’s business – the wholefood shop – if I had nothing else to do (which I didn’t) as they needed staff. I obliged and then went on a retreat at Rivendell, the local retreat centre in Sussex, offering an introduction to Buddhism and meditation - and was hooked. I promptly took a sabbatical from any further studies I might have been planning and went to work in the wholefood shop full-time. Shortly afterwards I moved into the associated women’s community in Streatham.
So there I was: a feminist having gone (from the age of 9) to an all-girl’s school. From there I went to university, rebelled against the patriarchal, oppressive culture (at the time) of medical school, then lived in a radical feminist household – most of whom were lesbian and who wanted to minimise the presence of men in the house. All the while I seemed to be the only heterosexual woman around, with one main relationship at this time together with male friends. I had gone through my angry phase (‘all men are potential rapists’) and finally started to mellow, to begin to see my fellow male human beings as not only human as well, but also flawed and fragile human beings as I increasingly acknowledged myself to be. I did not have all the answers, and nor did they.
Then I started working in the Croydon wholefood shop. The culture at that time was highly gender segregated. We women worked in the wholefood shop (with sandwich business), while the men formed the ‘Centre’ team (running the Buddhist centre) and restaurant business. There were various associated communites: all of which were gender segregated. Two main men’s communities – one in Clapham and one in Purley, with one main women’s community (‘Khadiravani’) in Streatham. These were closed communities – ie. that members of the opposite gender could not enter them. One time, shortly after moving into Khadiravani in Streatham I decided to sell my car (as an attempt to unburden myself of all material possessions). I found a buyer, who happened to be male. There was then an awkward moment on my part where we had to fill in the necessary paperwork for the transferral and exchange money. This obviously could not be done on the doorstep, not could I invite him into the house so easily – it being (unbeknownst to him) a closed Buddhist women’s community. What could I do? I had only been there a matter of days – the new girl on the block, anxious not to put a foot wrong. I quickly surveyed the ground floor rooms and warned everyone I could see that I had to invite A Man into the hallway to complete paperwork regarding my car. Fortunately not many people were around: he came in and the transaction proceeded smoothly. Phew! But what a palava. I must also confess to having momentarily stepped inside the strictly male ground of ‘Aryatara’ – the main men’s community in Purley, at the behest of Dhammavijaya. I only went into the hallway, to admire the Tara painting on the wall – but found myself absolutely terrified should any male community member find me there.
Within the women’s community itself, most of the other women were in (heterosexual) relationships. But they couldn’t have their boyfriends round to stay, nor could they go to their boyfriend’s communities. This meant at weekends the community was virtually deserted as the couples searched for empty friends houses or spare rooms to go and be alone together. I was not (really) in a relationship at this time, so at weekends found myself in a very empty community house. And then there was the issue of same sex relationships: were girlfriends allowed to stay in the closed women’s community? Was it a no-man zone, or a no-sex zone, or both? I am not sure we ever quite worked this one out.
At the Buddhist Centre, gender segregation remained a hot topic. The 3 businesses: wholefood shop (women), restaurant and café (men) and Buddhist centre (men) ran side by side on the same premises. But although financially intertwined, they were gender separated. Ludicrous practices and policies emerged. For example, every afternoon the restaurant team hard-boiled a pan full of eggs the wholefood shop used in egg mayonnaise sandwiches. So, each afternoon we took a tray of eggs through to the restaurant kitchen, separated from the wholefood shop kitchen by a door and a short corridor. But, we weren’t supposed to be mixing with the men, so the eggs were left there with as minimal interaction as possible. Then, once they had been boiled, they were returned. A knock on our kitchen door would be heard and opened – to discover the pan of hard boiled eggs on the floor without their male deliverer in sight. Another time, a female colleague was ‘caught’ in the men’s kitchen giving one of the men a hug for something – only to be reprimanded later, for violating the ‘single sex’ principle.
The FWBO / Triratna would claim there were two ‘wings’ to the Order – a male and a female wing – separate but equal. Women ordain other women, men ordain men. There are separate women’s and men’s retreat centres. Although there has been some relaxation of the single sex principle more recently (eg.beginner’s and intermediate events and retreats are generally mixed), there still remains at its core a gender segregation. The argument is that this has developed organically as men and women found themselves more comfortable in practising within single sex groups, allowing ‘spiritual friendship’ to flourish and minimise distraction through sexual attraction. And yet ‘separate but equal’ rarely leads to equality. We have seen this with racial segregation in the US South and in South African apartheid. If, in the UK, segregation was proposed on ethnic or sexuality divides rather than gender, would it be legitimised? Of course not. So why is gender segregation promoted?
During my time at the Croydon Buddhist Centre, back in the early 90s, gender segregation was anything but equal. Women ran the wholefood shop but were not involved in management (a male team, except for one woman from the wholefood shop). I understand from what I heard, that we made most of the profit and yet the men in the restaurant seemed to benefit from it by getting ordained quicker and having a valley in Spain to go off on 3 month (paid-for) ordination retreats. There were only 2 female Order Members at that time to facilitate the women’s ordination process which, by all accounts, was very slow compared to the men’s. When I was considering my options, I looked around at the possibilities: I wanted to get more involved in teaching Buddhism and meditation at Croydon – but the centre management team was all-male. I loved studying the Dharma and wanted to do more of it – but Vajraloka, a retreat centre in Wales dedicated to meditation and studying, was all-male. I wanted to get involved in charity work and supporting the work of the FWBO in India (TBMSG at the time) – but the team at the Karuna Trust (fundraising charity) was all-male. If I had wanted to go and help run retreats at Rivendell, Croydon’s retreat centre – I couldn’t as the team was all-male
[6]. Even the movement’s founder – Sangharakshita – was male, and lived next door to the men’s community situated above the London Buddhist Centre. Separate but equal? I don’t think so.
Many religious groups and institutions today in the UK foster gender segregation, while purporting equality. Sikh and Hindu temples will typically have men and women seated on opposite sides of the room. Sikhism theoretically is based on sexual equality, although my (OK- fairly limited) experience has usually shown the men to be conducting ceremonies and prayers while women cook in the langar. In Islam, equality is claimed among men and women – and yet women can be marginalised, or even excluded from mosques. The East London mosque has a main entrance for men, with another entrance for women off to one side – at least half the size as the men’s entrance. There have recently been disputes at the Hounslow masjid about the lack of women’s representation on the management committee.
Typically in mosques, women will either pray behind the men in the main hall, or else have a separate section on a balcony above without direct access to any speaker or main hall
[7]. Kristiane Backer
[8] says one rationale behind this is so that the men won’t get aroused by the sight of female backsides in the air during their prostrations (!) if they were sitting behind. Some questions, however, arise here: a. Can the reverse not happen, and women become aroused by male buttocks in the air during prostrations? b. What does this say about male self-control and self-discipline – surely men have more focus than that? c. What about gay men and lesbian women? [presumably not supposed to exist in certain religious communities, but social surveys tell us they almost certainly do] and d. If this really is the case, surely men sitting on one side and women on the other (rather than behind) would solve the problem and not be so discriminatory?
Some feminist Muslims have started to protest over this enforced segregation in mosques and male dominance of the main space. In 2010 five women staged a ‘pray-in’ at the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Washington, USA – to agitate for more shared space in mosques, instead of upstairs in the ‘women’s section’ on a balcony behind a glass barrier. It apparently ended in confrontation and the police being called – quite bizarrely - to evict the women
[9].
I could go on. I have perhaps gone on long enough already. My main point is that the sooner we see ourselves as fellow human beings, each with our own strengths, weaknesses, fears and fallacies the better. This is my main objection. I am not against informal, voluntary gender segregation (for example having a ‘girl’s night out’) but I do not want to be primarily categorised as a woman, and told to only associate with other women. I want to primarily be categorised as a human being, to see other men and women as fellow human beings with more in common than divide us. Women have fought for too long for equal access to education in the UK to go back to the days of primary identification and segregation by virtue of their gender. Let’s uphold the primacy of the human being, not men and not women.
[4] All Oxford colleges now are co-ed although there still are still 3 women-only colleges at Cambridge.
[5] The events around the Croydon Buddhist Centre I recount here are, of course, my own experience. Others may have experienced things differently or have interpreted things differently, but this was the reality for me.
[6] There was Taraloka, the women’s retreat centre run by women – but the opportunities for men way outnumbered that for women at the time.
[7] That is if they attend the mosque at all – being exhorted more to pray at home. This, however, denies women access to the public and social space where networking and public debate takes place.
[8] ‘From MTV to Mecca’ 2012
Just over a year on from the brutal gang-rape, torture and death of Jyoti Singh Pandey in Delhi, (see our blogs: 1, 2 and 3) another story of a gang-rape has hit the international news. This time though, the gang-rape was at the orders of a local village council, or panchayat, in West Bengal as ‘punishment’ for a liaison with a married man. The 20 year old woman had reportedly been having an affair with the man from another community and as punishment the council of village elders fined the couple 50,000 rupees (around £500). When the woman’s family could not pay, the council told the men in the village they were ‘free to enjoy the girl and have fun’. The woman was allegedly then raped by an estimated 5-13 men – including neighbours, teenagers and men old enough to be her father. The gang-rape apparently took place on a bamboo platform with many onlookers. Even more shockingly, the other villagers seem to have been united in their approval that this was the correct ‘punishment’. The woman, although badly injured and losing a lot of blood, survived and is now in hospital. This is not the first time village elders in Birbhum have ordered brutal punishments for social transgressions. Four years ago, they ordered tribal women to strip and walk naked in front of large crowds as punishment for ‘unauthorised’ relationships. Such punishments are often seen as justified to restore the ‘honour’ of the village, damaged by the women’s behaviour. 
