Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Gender segregation is commonplace in a lot of parts of society -- girl/boy scouts, college dorms, sororities/fraternities, private schools, shared hospital rooms, etc.*

So why is this accepted but racial segregation is seen as evil? I can understand why sex segregation would exist between sports teams for instance, because of the physical differences (or average differences) between sexes, but why is gender segregation permissible?



*not all of these examples are always gender segregated, but they are in some instances
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,228 Posts
I imagine one could posit it similarly in terms of certain ideas of contamination perhaps, the idea that its dirty for two groups to mix. But gender isn't race and thus they have different views surrounding them and different histories.
A big difference between that in gender there is an emphasis on the relationship between men and women in a way that isn't comparable within racial hierarchies. I am unaware of a history of white slave owners as having to have a love and respect for their slaves in the way that is maintaining to romanticize the relations for men and women in the cult of domesticity and their rightful roles.

I think they shared a required exclusivity in the sense that women encroaching on spaces defined as male undermined the ideological validity of gender. It's easy to say there's no women capable of being in positions of power when they've been actively excluded from it, but once integrated it starts to diminish the weight of one's argument and it has to adapt to women being in such spaces. That even in similarity there needs to be a perceived fundamental difference between men and women which is why there can be such strict regimentation in women dressing feminine to denote them being women and men dressing masculine to denote their maleness (think dresses, long hair and so on).
There is also a tendency for men and women to segregate themselves informally because of the social elements, when there hasn't been enough to radically change the material conditions and ideological apparatus that denotes a need for man being separate from woman, people tend to their own groups. To which I imagine an issue of sexual attraction can be a concern for some since many don't see the value in the opposite sex outside of that or haven't ways to manage their attraction within a platonic realm.
When they are separated in many ways and engage in different tasks to conform to social standards, it seems natural that the groups tend towards themselves, because they relate to one another. The behaviour of exaggerated masculinity isn't necessarily that tolerant to feminine things and vice versa which helps to maintain such rigidity.

When it comes to things like all girl schools, from my understanding they originated part of the process of promoting women's access to education, because in the process of being excluded from education I don't take it they were welcomed into boys schools. So once there was compelling shifts towards allowing women to be educated, it was accepted by still segregated. That it arose to provide for girls because it wasn't already provided for, they seem odd now because we have mixed sex schools and so the historical problem is forgotten.
And following this example, I imagine theres a similar tendency, we've inherited a history materially and ideologically about gender. It doesn't simply dissipate without agitating to change the conditions and also establish new ideological norms maintained within ideological apparatuses like the school (hence tension around gender relations as taught in sexual education).

This is all pretty rambly but I'd suggest a historical view that considers how the concrete social relations underpinned by economic production plays in shifting ideological/cultural views and how cultural views push things further as well within the limits of what is materially possible.

In regards to racial segregation, it clearly has a harsh history that colours the notion of racial segregation (Jim Crow was rationalized on pretty explicitly prejudiced racialized views). In some areas, some might argue that gender segregation is bad as well, so we must not assume that it's not looked down upon as in many cases I would say it is, both in its formal maintenance and its substantive form. So while women can technically pursue many of the careers men do, they in a practical sense have barriers to realizing it to the same extent men do. Quite often things like pregnancy and maternity expectations are brought up.

In regards to sports, I could see for somethings perhaps testing out mixed games, but there can also be case for not mixing it because of certain trends. That where it'd be mixed it would have to be established there can be equal competencies and nothing that disproportionately favours one over the other on average or that if one meets expectations one can play. But at extremes like the Olympics, the results speak for themselves I believe, where there can often be a slight gap between the sexes in their best scores. But perhaps in something like tennis if it was thought that the differences between athletes wasn't so different that could perhaps propose mixed sex competitions.
 

·
Registered
INFJ
Joined
·
1,555 Posts
Gender segregation is commonplace in a lot of parts of society -- girl/boy scouts, college dorms, sororities/fraternities, private schools, shared hospital rooms, etc.*

So why is this accepted but racial segregation is seen as evil? I can understand why sex segregation would exist between sports teams for instance, because of the physical differences (or average differences) between sexes, but why is gender segregation permissible?



*not all of these examples are always gender segregated, but they are in some instances

Religious beliefs were the origin of much of it. It would have been seen as highly improper for young females to be around young males in school dorms, etc.

Even though we are largely a secular society now, we continue to maintain those standards.

Most people would feel uncomfortable using a public shower or toilet with the opposite sex, so those are areas where segregation will likely always be the case for the comfort of all.

In some places, segregation is done out of necessity, such as female only train cars in countries where women are routinely groped or harassed.

You bring up a good point, but it is important to note that racial segregation was based on racist beliefs that one race is superior to another, and that certain people should not have to confront the “other” in their daily lives. It was based on hate and ignorance.

Gender segregation can also be a form of intolerance such as groups that will not allow the opposite gender to join, and certain religious groups beliefs about one gender being superior to another, but usually it is for practical reasons and because both genders want it.

As society continues to change, some of these forms of segregation will likely disappear, as they will be seen as outdated and unnecessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,567 Posts
It's really quite simple. It's a hetero normative viewpoint. Men and women are attracted to one another so people think it's important to segregate them to avoid this.

Sex supposedly distracts students and hospital/living areas people want the privacy of changing/being in a compromising situation without the idea that someone of the opposite gender could be looking at them in a sexual manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
Gender segregation is commonplace in a lot of parts of society -- girl/boy scouts, college dorms, sororities/fraternities, private schools, shared hospital rooms, etc.*

So why is this accepted but racial segregation is seen as evil? I can understand why sex segregation would exist between sports teams for instance, because of the physical differences (or average differences) between sexes, but why is gender segregation permissible?



*not all of these examples are always gender segregated, but they are in some instances
It has to do with sex. I mean hanky panky sex not what parts you have sex.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
So what? You can get STDs from the same sex and society still segregates children (e.g. boy/girl scouts) and the elderly (e.g. some hospitals) by gender/sex.
If two boys have sex they wont have babies. A baby is more responsibility then an STD. Do you need to feed an STD? Do you need to send an STD to school? Do you need to raise an STD? Do YOU?

Also its been proven segragating children during school auctually improves test scores. Also it makes sense if you seperate new born babies in hospitals becuase you dont want to give parents the wrong kid. If you put all the girls in pink and put them in one area, and all boys in blue in one section you can say "Okay you had a boy" or "Okay you had a girl". Its very basic. Of course this is not the only way they seperate them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
If two boys have sex they wont have babies. A baby is more responsibility then an STD. Do you need to feed an STD? Do you need to send an STD to school? Do you need to raise an STD? Do YOU?

Also its been proven segragating children during school auctually improves test scores. Also it makes sense if you seperate new born babies in hospitals becuase you dont want to give parents the wrong kid. If you put all the girls in pink and put them in one area, and all boys in blue in one section you can say "Okay you had a boy" or "Okay you had a girl". Its very basic. Of course this is not the only way they seperate them.
I don't have a problem with segregating newborns, because they don't even know anything about society yet or have any wants beyond basic instincts and I can see that it'd be easier in a practical sense to segregate by sex.

As far as making babies, should ethical principals be disregarded for the sake of pragmatism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
I don't have a problem with segregating newborns, because they don't even know anything about society yet or have any wants beyond basic instincts and I can see that it'd be easier in a practical sense to segregate by sex.

As far as making babies, should ethical principals be disregarded for the sake of pragmatism?
Pretending it wont happen becuase you dont think its ideal is absolutly foolish. A smart man realizes people do what they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Pretending it wont happen becuase you dont think its ideal is absolutly foolish. A smart man realizes people do what they want.
I don't even care about outlawing segregation in private institutions; I'd encourage that groups not be segregationist when it has no purpose (e.g. boy/girl scouts), but I won't bother infringing on people's ability to do so. I just think for the government to fund institutions that segregate by gender but making it illegal to segregate by race in public schools is inconsistent.

Obviously people want to do what they want, but if there are laws against it, it reduces their incentive to do what they want for fear of punishment. I don't think "people do what they want" is an applicable to talking about just, consistent laws (though I don't know if that's what you were using that response for).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
I don't even care about outlawing segregation in private institutions; I'd encourage that groups not be segregationist when it has no purpose (e.g. boy/girl scouts), but I won't bother infringing on people's ability to do so. I just think for the government to fund institutions that segregate by gender but making it illegal to segregate by race in public schools is inconsistent.

Obviously people want to do what they want, but if there are laws against it, it reduces their incentive to do what they want for fear of punishment. I don't think "people do what they want" is an applicable to talking about just, consistent laws (though I don't know if that's what you were using that response for).
So you want boys and girls to use the same locker rooms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
So you want boys and girls to use the same locker rooms?
It could be reasonable, while they should have the option to change clothes in private stalls. Many countries have an obsession with associating nudity with sex and a repressive attitude toward sex in general which gives some people an instantaneous disturbed reaction with unsegregated locker rooms. I can see how this could potentially be seen as a problem as some since locker rooms are less supervised than other parts of school, but I'd be interested to see if sex-integrated bathrooms/locker rooms has led to any increases in sexual assault (I'm on mobile so I'll look it up later). Regardless, as long as stalls that people undress in are concealed well without cracks, I don't see a problem on the surface.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
It could be reasonable, while they should have the option to change clothes in private stalls. Many countries have an obsession with associating nudity with sex and a repressive attitude toward sex in general which gives some people an instantaneous disturbed reaction with unsegregated locker rooms. I can see how this could potentially be seen as a problem as some since locker rooms are less supervised than other parts of school, but I'd be interested to see if sex-integrated bathrooms/locker rooms has led to any increases in sexual assault (I'm on mobile so I'll look it up later). Regardless, as long as stalls that people undress in are concealed well without cracks, I don't see a problem on the surface.
There are not stalls to change in when you go to a locker room. Its just a bunch people getting nude in front of the lockers. The stalls in the restrooms are toilets generally and there is almost always someone in there. They are not for changing. It would be a bunch of sexually developed girls changing infront of a bunch of hormonal sexually developed boys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
There are not stalls to change in when you go to a locker room. Its just a bunch people getting nude in front of the lockers. The stalls in the restrooms are toilets generally and there is almost always someone in there. They are not for changing. It would be a bunch of sexually developed girls changing infront of a bunch of hormonal sexually developed boys.

Hormonal sexually developed gay males have been in the same locker room as other sexually developed males for, I assume, as long as locker rooms have existed with people changing in front of each other.

In my locker rooms in high school there were showers/stalls to change in if you didn't want to change in front of everyone, I think that's the best way to do it. Actually, having a unisex bathroom/locker room would more more cost-efficient in general because there's less money spend on walls and other construction expenses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
Hormonal sexually developed gay males have been in the same locker room as other sexually developed males for, I assume, as long as locker rooms have existed with people changing in front of each other.

In my locker rooms in high school there were showers/stalls to change in if you didn't want to change in front of everyone, I think that's the best way to do it. Actually, having a unisex bathroom/locker room would more more cost-efficient in general because there's less money spend on walls and other construction expenses.
No locker room I ever been to had those and I moved 9 schools. We already get guys harrasing girls when they are not in the locker room. You think letting them see naked girls wouldnt cuase any extra issues? Not to mention we are also forcing women to be competitive with other women instead of just being free to change since they have to worry about how they look in front of other boy. Which women can get rather bitchy when they are fighting over a male. Which means women are going to start harrasing each other too.
 

·
MOTM May 2011
Joined
·
14,041 Posts
I don't even care about outlawing segregation in private institutions; I'd encourage that groups not be segregationist when it has no purpose (e.g. boy/girl scouts), but I won't bother infringing on people's ability to do so. I just think for the government to fund institutions that segregate by gender but making it illegal to segregate by race in public schools is inconsistent.

Obviously people want to do what they want, but if there are laws against it, it reduces their incentive to do what they want for fear of punishment. I don't think "people do what they want" is an applicable to talking about just, consistent laws (though I don't know if that's what you were using that response for).
FYI, Boy/Girl scouts are private organizations and are not funded by the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
No locker room I ever been to had those and I moved 9 schools. We already get guys harrasing girls when they are not in the locker room. You think letting them see naked girls wouldnt cuase any extra issues? Not to mention we are also forcing women to be competitive with other women instead of just being free to change since they have to worry about how they look in front of other boy. Which women can get rather bitchy when they are fighting over a male. Which means women are going to start harrasing each other too.
What you've experienced in the past is not relevant to my discussion of what solution I think could be better if it was the norm. Thus, if no one wanted to be naked in front of another, then they wouldn't have to be in this private curtained/stall area. The only time the boys and girls would have to see each other in the locker room is when they enter/exit the private area to tie their shoes or whatever.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top