Talk:Sex segregation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] General structure
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)
[edit] Islam section
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)
- Why is "Sex Segregation in ISLAM" given so much emphasis in this article anyway? How about "sex segregation in Judaism", "schools" and whatnot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.209.176 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 August 2005.
-
- Because sex segregation in Islam is the most prominent (but not necessarily the strictest) of the foremost three religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Also, recent events stemming from 9/11 have brought forth Islam to the public eye, resulting in a focus on the various aspects of the religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.27.191 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 August 2005.
-
-
- I haven't even read the sex segregation in Islam yet and already I'm alarmed. It definately should not have such a prominant, dominating position in a potentially vast topic. I think it should be removed until the article grow to accomodate it in a proportionally representative way. It could perhaps be moved to a relevant page on Islam rather than deleted... but it is misplaced on this, which would otherwise be a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJM (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2005.
-
-
-
-
- to the above comment -> Sorry, you wanting it just doesn't cut it, buddy. The fact is that Islam DOES segregate women from men, i.e. different wagons in the Cairo subway for them, among the lightest forms of discrimination), and there is nothing wrong in reporting things as they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.34.228 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 September 2005.
-
-
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 would not mention "Islam" but rather whichever conservative/fundamentalist parts of the world happen to segregate the sexes (be there muslim/christian or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.2.66 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 January 2006.
[edit] NPOV tags
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)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but technically he stopped short. Melchoir 09:15, 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.
[edit] Judaism section
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)
