Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Saudi Students In US Seek Segregation By Gender On Facebook

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the gradualism-and-quantum-effects dept.

Facebook 353

Beetle B. writes "A 22,000-member group for Saudis studying in the US on the social networking website Facebook has been split into two groups, one for women and one for men. The split follows a request from the group's female members who wanted extra privacy. The separate page for Saudi women is a valid decision. We took it to fulfill the wishes of the Saudi women in the US. We have been contacted by a lot of women asking for their private group,' Majed Aleid, media chair of the 'Saudis in the US' group, told Arab News in a letter."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And if they don't (0, Troll)

andoman2000 (1755610) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198306)

And if they don't the religion will allow them to kill all the women, problem solved.

Re:And if they don't (0, Flamebait)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198802)

Please unplug the fox news feed from your cerebral cortex, often its the women that want segregation. I know, I know, you can't fathom why the women would ever want to have a social life of their own without god's gift to women, i.e. men.

You can't free someone who doesn't want to be free (4, Insightful)

gtvr (1702650) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198310)

I guess.

Here's your burkha.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198362)

They want to avoid getting harrassed by male Saudis for not wearing the damn burkha, dumbass.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (3, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198366)

And why should you want to?

"Freeing somebody" does not work. Freedom implies, to a degree, independence. You can't be independent if someone else does the freeing for you.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198440)

Something given has no value.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (4, Insightful)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198554)

As a german happily living in a democratic and free Germany, I have to disagree. Most more recent "freeing" attempts may have been utter failures, but (proof by example) it is obviously possible to succeed.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198796)

The key difference is that Germany was already a democracy at the time. It would be more accurate to say that you can't bring democracy to people, they have to come to it themselves.

Liberation is one thing but as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown democracy doesn't work very well unless it comes from the people.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198592)

You can unlock someone's cage, but if you force them out then you have taken their freedom.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (3, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198450)

I guess.

Here's your burkha.

Do you feel the same the way about every Christian denomination that imposes a dress code and other restrictions on their congregation???

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198490)

Yes. Now fuck off with your holier-than-thou self.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (1)

puterg33k (1920022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198528)

To bad you were to much of a bitch to post this with your username in front of it. Because, I approve your message.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (5, Insightful)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198560)

Yes

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198564)

Difference being, you are free to leave that denomination and many do. It is apostasy in Islam to leave...and the majority (read almost all) middle eastern countries have that particular infraction punishable by death.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (1)

ShadoHawk (741112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198738)

Difference being, you are free to leave that denomination and many do. It is apostasy in Islam to leave...and the majority (read almost all) middle eastern countries have that particular infraction punishable by death.

Thank you! I have learned a new word today!

apostasy
/pstsi/ [uh-pos-tuh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198766)

And?
the catholic church used to punish/torture people for stupid things as well.
The Magdalene laundries weren't all that long ago.

And the catholic chruch simply maintains that you simply cannot leave. (there used to be a formal defection procedure but they removed it because people were using it after the whole international coverup of child rape thing)

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198570)

YES I DO!!!

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (1, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198576)

What Christian denomination imposes anything beyond that which is normally covered in our "indecent exposure" laws or a reasonably normal restaurant?

Are you speaking of the Amish or Mennonites? They're stuck in the dark ages just like the Muslims, but at least they aren't violent about it.

Or are you talking about that freakshow cult, the Fundamentalist Mormons?

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198678)

Where do you think our indecent exposure laws came from?

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198798)

Only one big catholic freakshow cult comes to mind.
The biggest one.

The catholic church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum [wikipedia.org]

What is being free isn't the same everywhere (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198488)

Culture determines what many consider freedoms let alone quality of life. What we may see as repressive others may see as comforting and safe. I am quite sure there are many rules in the good old U.S. of A. that are repressive to others in the world if not those who live here.

Patriarchal societies are backwards and repressive (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198606)

Culture determines what many consider freedoms let alone quality of life. What we may see as repressive others may see as comforting and safe. I am quite sure there are many rules in the good old U.S. of A. that are repressive to others in the world if not those who live here.

Absolutely.

Many cultures are backwards in their own way. But, the Saudi people and every other patriarchal society are stuck in the Bronze age. The Saudis are one of the most backwards and repressive societies on Earth.

Re:What is being free isn't the same everywhere (5, Interesting)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198646)

Yup. How many people in the US would be comfortable on a nude beach? Or even a topless beach? The fact that our broadcast TV standards can produce a half-million-dollar fine for a nipple while allowing gratuitous carnage to be shown is considered very strange to a lot of the rest of the West - much of it enthusiastically supported by our fairly conservative religious culture.

Re:You can't free someone who doesn't want to be f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198580)

Freedom is about being empowered to make ones own decisions. If these wemon want to voluntarily segragate themselves I don't see any reason they should denied the right to chose not to interact with men. Now if they were being forced to move their profiles into a separate area that would be completely different, but this is something they are asking for.

who cares? (5, Insightful)

someonestolecc (1038714) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198314)

am i missing something - how is this news?

Re:who cares? (1)

MrKlaatu (1985836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198410)

am i missing something - how is this news?

"Fact x Importance = News"

Re:who cares? (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198438)

I'm missing something too - why couldn't the Saudi women just create their own group?

Are Saudi women are prohibited by their religion/laws from creating FB groups?

Privacy on Facebook, huh? (5, Funny)

magloca (1404473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198322)

the group's female members who wanted extra privacy

And Facebook is so the right place for that.

Re:Privacy on Facebook, huh? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198372)

I have two words for them: Bossom Buddies [wikipedia.org]

Can we look at this without panicing? (2)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198328)

They aren't asking for segregation on facebook. They requested a group for female students (in addition to the main group).

Are people so uptight about everything that we need to freak out every time someone wants to mingle with a specific group?

Re:Can we look at this without panicing? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198446)

Depends. Will there be Jews?

Re:Can we look at this without panicing? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198452)

They aren't asking for segregation on facebook. They requested a group for female students (in addition to the main group).

Damnit, stop being so level headed and rational.

This is the evil Mooselims we are talking about.

Because women of other cultures dont form their own groups with other women of similar age and interests to talk about the things that they want to talk about in private. This would never happen in good old western culture.

Who Gives A Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198332)

What the fuck is this garbage doing on a site ostensibly about news for nerds??

Has slashdot sunk so low that any facebook related story, no matter how trivial becomes front page news? You've got to be kidding me. What is the tech/nerd angle here?

Timothy needs to be fired, pronto.

Re:Who Gives A Shit (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198382)

This is about self-segrigation and self-censorship on the intertubes. It may not be the hottest story, but in the wake of the turmoil in the Middle East it's a clear indication that some of that oppression is deep rooted and won't be changing soon. Information wants to be free ... well, not everyone wants to be free to embrace it.

Re:Who Gives A Shit (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198724)

Make sure that your Facebook profile and any groups you participate in are wide open for all to see, especially people who may have trouble with the freedoms you are taking advantage of. This isn't the women being forced into their own group, it is them requesting privacy from their male counterparts. This is a step forward, not back. By having their group be private, they are moving away from oppression.

Re:Who Gives A Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198556)

Exactly! Bring back the stories about every time Steve Jobs has a bowel movement. Now THAT'S news for nerds.

Uh, what? (0)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198334)

Why is this a /. article? Why would it even deserve a passing comment, other than within the groups it directly effects?

Has political correctness now reached the level where people aren't supposed to group together, even privately, by any of the traditional discrimination factors - ethnic or national origin, color, race, religion, or sex? They were already grouped by national origin (Saudi). How does further subdividing by sex change anything?

Re:Uh, what? (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198416)

Obviously for the kind of discussion it would breed, oh ye of such superior intelligence. It's good for page loads etc, and personally I can't see a problem with them posting it. If only political correctness reached the point where all gender discrimination, self-imposed or not, and all race discrimination, self-imposed or not, and all etc discrimination and segregation, self-imposed or not, were banned, then perhaps we could start getting over it. People with your view always end up on the wrong side of history. I'm just saying.

Re:Uh, what? (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198424)

I guess my reasoning is this: it relates to the internet, and the internet was once the territory strictly of nerds, so I think that's why slashdot feels okay publishing just about anything web-related.

Re:Uh, what? (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198472)

How does further subdividing by sex change anything?

No, no,

For sex change in the Middle east, you need to look at Iran. I'm not joking, Iran does more gender re-assignments than any other nation except Thailand.

no better story for Valentines? (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198666)

Than a story about women wanting men out of their business? Goes without saying, so why say it?

Sigh. Happy Valentine's day I guess.

this is news? (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198338)

I submitted my article on earth-shaking breakthroughs in warp-drive physics that will change the world as you know it, and at the same time reveal who killed Kennedy, only to be rejected... and they publish this?

Thought they had "Veilbook" already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198340)

Or was it niqabbook?

first to comment?? (0)

crank-a-doodle (1973286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198342)

hey it's me!!!:D:D:D btw this is gender bias! what does the feminist movement hhave to say on this???

Should be 3 groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198346)

One each for women and men who want to maintain their privacy from the other gender, and everyone else who doesn't care. Imposing a division on everyone seems a little unfair. It should be voluntary.

I'm sorry... (1)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198352)

but I fail to see why I should care about this. It's not like they've been banned from each other's presence, it's just Facebook. Besides that, it's not like they can't be friends... it's just a Facebook Group that's been segregated.

Facebook and Privacy (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198354)

Is this the same Facebook who is traditionally terrible about privacy settings? It is surprising to see they are helping a (probably large) group of their users gain extra privacy. Certainly, an action like this is an isolated incident and doesn't imply that Facebook is turning over a new leaf. Or maybe Facebook is beginning to take privacy more seriously?

Re:Facebook and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198378)

Just a placebo effect to _feel_ more secure and gain more popularity.
Nothing prevents me from making a fake account as a female and getting in the group.

Re:Facebook and Privacy (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198384)

At first it appears so, but in Facebook's eyes, they haven't got any more privacy than before. In fact, they have less... Facebook employees can still read the group (at least some of them, I'm sure) and now the group has clearly marked its advertising demographic. This is a major win for Facebook in every regard. Especially if people keep saying Facebook helped these people have more privacy.

Stupid move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198356)

This will only encourage those who think that women in general should not partake in "men" topics.

Hijab ribbon (1)

conscarcdr (1429747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198360)

They needz it.

This again? (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198364)

Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such, but I'm getting sick of this kind of bullshit. To be clear, I don't think FB did anything wrong here -- they're a business, and they listened to the wishes of their users (didn't say customers, 'cause their customers are the advertisers they sell your personal data to). What I'm sick of is seeing some people fighting and dying for freedom in one part of the world (lookin' at you, Egypt), and others digging themselves deeper into outdated, bullshit traditions and rules, and clinging to them because of propaganda from religious figures and tyrants that has them convinced that it makes them somehow superior or happier.

TL;DR: My sig is relevant as ever.

Re:This again? (2)

dpolak (711584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198412)

I don't think anyone thinks they did anything wrong. I for one just roll my eyes at the oppression brought to women in the extremist Muslim faith followers. It's funny, actually not, when you go out shopping and you see a Muslim family there. It's 95F outside, she's covered from head to toe in black with only her eyes showing and he's walking around in flip flops, sandals, short sleeve T-shirt and shorts. The BS part about it is that he is enforcing the law on her but he is bucking it. Being clean shaven with no beard and also not showing the supposed modesty he is supposed to be under their religion.

It's all about oppression and the women go along with it to avoid harm.

My 2 cents, knock my status down I don't care because it's the truth.

Re:This again? (2)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198468)

Facebook didn't do anything wrong here because Facebook didn't do anything at all here. The group was split by the people running the group.

Re:This again? (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198530)

Not only did Facebook do nothing, this will not segregate the groups

What is stopping a non Saudi joining either group .. nothing
What is stopping a non US Saudi Student joining either group .. nothing
What is stopping a man joining either group .. nothing
What is stopping a woman joining either group .. nothing

It's about as safe as any other Facebook group .... ie. not at all ...

Re:This again? (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198484)

Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such

Your sig says otherwise.

but I'm getting sick of this kind of bullshit

What?

The girls just wanted a group to talk about girly things with other girls?

What the hell is wrong with that. They can still communicate with the male students, they just have a group where they can talk about how dreamy Abdul is amongst themselves.

Re:This again? (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198578)

Look, I'm all for religious freedom and such

Your sig says otherwise.

I disagree.

Re:This again? (1)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198516)

What I'm sick of is seeing some people fighting and dying for freedom in one part of the world (lookin' at you, Egypt), and others digging themselves deeper into outdated, bullshit traditions and rules

Don't worry, maybe Egypt will go the bullshit traditions way very soon.

Saudi Islam Motivated Black Ops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198376)

The Saudi's funded terrorism now they're trying to normalise their divided society. They'll be demanding Sharia law next.

Fuck that.

O_o (4, Insightful)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198386)

Having a women's group and men's group is fine, but they are deluding themselves thinking that they can do without a mixed group... Girls wanting a place for girl talk happens a lot in all sorts of environments. Many social forums have female only and male only sub-forums. But splitting the bazaar down in the middle with a wall... Nobody is going to be content with that. In fact the whole idea is rather backwards and primitive. And checking ones gender on the internet is a bit tricky, so expect covert mixing. No wall is as attractive to climb over as the one with the opposite gender on the other side...

Re:O_o (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198588)

Not to say you're wrong, but I would like to point out that Islam is fairly primitive and backwards.

Re:O_o (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198672)

Not to say you're wrong, but I would like to point out that religion in general is fairly primitive and backwards.

there fixed that for you

Re:O_o (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198792)

Not to say you're wrong, but I would like to point out that Islam is fairly primitive and backwards.

You mean:

religious fundamentalismis fairly primitive and backwards.

Christian fundamentalism is no better

Re:O_o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198654)

Saudi Arabia's motto: backward and primitive

Re:O_o (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198776)

Its not that hard to create a fake profile on FB. Even a person of the opposite sex than you.

A really neat trick is to put yourself in a relationship with the fake person and then have fake public love conversations to make other females think you are a normal guy. Then fake your alter ego cheating on you and then set your status to single.

Then you'll get sympathy from all the real females...

Not that I know anything about this though....

But seriously, it wouldn't be too hard to fake your gender on FB. Especially in a country where everyone basically dresses the role.

Don't really care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198396)

"A 22,000-member group for Saudis studying in the US on the social networking website Facebook has been split into two groups, one for women and one for men."

So a Facebook group, that I'm not in, did something?
Cool story.

Personally (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198402)

What's next? Allow them to go Mosques on US soil and wear the hijab? Oh, wait. So, uh, what's the big deal?

Re:Personally (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198454)

let me tell you what the big deal is, as someone who is living in a muslim majority country - after a certain point, they will start to make demands that others 'respect' their religion properly. which will entail you, as an outsider, sticking with their idea of respect as it is present in their language. you wont criticize anything regarding their religion, wont talk negatively about their prophet, their ways and so on. after a certain point, they will want that their ways be the dominant rule, law. and those not compliant with their ways, should be treated as outsiders, minority, and have 'minority rights' in limited conditions. after a certain point, everyone is demanded to stick by their rules. because, they are divine.

Re:Personally (2)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198502)

I'm with you, man, I'm more on the Sarkozy side of things -- even if the women see it as liberation, our culture does not, and so we should do everything we can to impede it and assimilate them to our, not superior, but more objectively just ways of doing things.

Re:Personally (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198534)

the thing is, women doesnt 'see' it as liberation. they are brainwashed to think it as 'good'. its no different than hitlerjugend being brainwashed into nazizm.

yet, appallingly, we are condoning and encouraging such a situation, as 'freedom'.

Re:Personally (2)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198622)

I just finished transcribing a series of interviews with British Muslim women on this very subject. One was college educated, a doctor; she sees it as an equalizer, the veil and the covering. When women go out, she says, they are judged not on their appearance but solely on their intellect etc. This is why she sees it as liberation. This particular interviewee also happened to be vehemently opposed to the hijab, forced or otherwise, because, she said, there was no directive from Allah to wear such. Hers was the only opinion I really paid a whole lot of attention to; the other seven, I would say, were more like what you're saying -- brainwashed and militantly so.

Re:Personally (5, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198720)

Oh, come on. Next you'll be saying that Christian fundamentalists will want to impose their will on women's reproductive rights, even if they're not Christian, and to start using that as an unofficial litmus test for who could be elected President!

Seperation of church and state. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198428)

I would suppose if they ask for it, it will fly in the supreme court. But this is why the constitution has that clause. They new immigration and time would allow groups to form and possibly try and interject there beliefs into everyone else's lives and possibly lead to drastic shifts in political policy based on religion. Oh wait.........

Re:Seperation of church and state. (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198522)

It's Facebook, not a public building.

Its not a freedom. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198444)

Freedom to end freedom and equality, cannot be a freedom.

Re:Its not a freedom. (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198542)

The way I see it, one of the forms freedom can take the freedom to end your freedom. If, for example, the Swiss decide per election that communism is what they want, they will get it in a free and democratic way...

Re:Its not a freedom. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198662)

firstly communism is not an 'end' for freedom. its just communal ownership and planning of goods. you, as a citizen, have less say in what to do with your country's resources in a capitalist system than you have in communism.

secondly, no. freedom to end freedom, cannot be a freedom. its a contradiction. then, freedom to prevent ending of freedoms would also be a freedom.

Re:Its not a freedom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198594)

They don't want to stop others being mixed. Provided they don't enforce it on me, I'm happy for them to have the opportunity to avoid people of the opposite gender if they so wish.

Re:Its not a freedom. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198644)

They don't want to stop others being mixed. Provided they don't enforce it on me, I'm happy for them to have the opportunity to avoid people of the opposite gender if they so wish.

for now. had you lived in a muslim majority country, you would know that it doesnt stop there.

Re:Its not a freedom. (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198668)

Freedom to end freedom and equality, cannot be a freedom.

Yeah, that's why I prefer GPL over BSD.

You want extra privacy? (1)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198456)

For maximum privacy: DO NOT USE FACEBOOK! You freaking morons.

Well it does save on bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198460)

Since they all wear the burka they can save on bandwidth by only needing one picture between them. Brilliant!

America (1)

acalltoreason (1732266) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198470)

Dont get me wrong, I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but segregation is something that is not in keeping with the American spirit, a land where all men (as in the human race, not the gender) are created equal. If you want to segregate yourselves fine, but not in this country. I realize that people will say that they have freedom of religious beliefs; yes they do, they have the freedom to not be ridiculed for anything they believe. The segregation of women is NOT a religious obligation, it is a social choice.

Re:America (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198608)

Ever been to a Curves location? They're workout facilities for women only.

The strange thing is that, during the '70s, women sued to get in to men-only fitness clubs. Now, here we are, 30+ years later, and we have women-only facilities. Surely the pendulum swings both ways.

Re:America (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198612)

Don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but segregation is something that is not in keeping with the American spirit, a land where all men (as in the human race, not the gender) are created equal. If you want to segregate yourselves fine, but not in this country.

Yup. And the Girl Guides and Boy Scouts of America are obviously evil fronts to corrupt our youth organized by evil Muslim clerics bent on the destruction of America. And if it wasn't then it must be because of those damn liberal Democrats..

Re:America (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198620)

You certainly seem to have abandoned reason. Or rather, you never probably never had any.

There are probably 10s of thousands of examples of women-only groups in the US that have nothing what-so-ever to do with religion. Just because creation of this new group was probably religion-inspired does not make it any less "in keeping with the American spirit". Quite the opposite, it is part of the American spirit to allow groups to practice their religious beliefs -- in-so-far as they don't conflict with society at large.

Re:America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198626)

You sound like you speak for everyone, all of America. You do not. You speak only for yourself. America is 300,000,000 independent voices, crystallizing into a common opinion, backed by the threat of nuclear devastation to whomever opposes us.

Re:America (2)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198746)

The segregation of women is NOT a religious obligation, it is a social choice.

So you would deny them the freedom to make that choice? Its not as if people only get to belong to a single Facebook group, after all.

Right, Wrong, and Situation Ethics (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198482)

This whole thing smells of situation ethics. Is discrimination on the basis of the right thing to do? Certainly when requests the exclusion of it is okay. However when requests the exclusion of it is clearly evil. Why? To grok that, we have to consider the entire social, political, economic, religious, and cultural heritage with their interwoven sensibilities, sensitivities, and non-sequiturs.

I call bullsnap.

Re:Right, Wrong, and Situation Ethics (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198524)

This whole thing smells of situation ethics. Is discrimination on the basis of {gender} the right thing to do? Certainly: when {gender A} requests the exclusion of {gender B} it is okay. However when {gender B} requests the exclusion of {gender A} it is clearly evil. Why? To grok that, we have to consider the entire social, political, economic, religious, and cultural heritage with their interwoven sensibilities, sensitivities, and non-sequiturs. I call bullsnap.

Sharia (1)

GottMitUns (1012191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198504)

If Americans allow those foreigners to impose their culture then get ready for Sharia in America, it's coming...

Re:Sharia? (2)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198706)

Right, like Mormon law took over Utah, and Amish Law took over Pennsylvania... Oklahomans need to stand guard. While there are plenty of non-secular law encroachments to worry about, I don't think Sharia is in the top ten.

More likely (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198538)

"We have been contacted by a lot of men (women) asking for their private group,' Majed Aleid, media chair of the 'Saudis in the US' group, told Arab News in a letter."

Secular States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198562)

The United States and Canada are secular societies. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, look it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state .

The reason I bring this up with this posting about a Saudi Facebook posting is because of what really lies behind the action. Many of you said "Big Deal" or "This is a Story?"

It is. Particularily because more and more often, both the US and Canada have been bending over to religious-based demands that have nothing to do with how a country or corporation is being administered or should be run for that matter.

In Ontario, Canada, just a few years ago, the provnice outlawed the idea of Sharia law even though it had allowed Roman Catholic and Jewish family court tribunals over matters of divorce (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20050912/mcguinty_shariah_050911/).

The issue here is how draconian Sharia intrepretation can become. Once you begin allowing these types of arbitrations and allowances in something as trivial as Facebook it will not be long before this "group" of Saudi students expects to have Sharia arbitration over their own religious "read personal" matters in the US and Canada or any country that is driven by a secular policy.

I am Roman Catholic, however I don't want my priest deciding on what happens between my wife and I should we ever file for divorce. I don't want my priest deciding who my daughter should marry and which caste our family belongs to in our neighborhood.

We live in countries (those of us in secular societies) who chose to live here after immigrating from different countries. We chose to accept a group of laws and representation and intrepretation of those laws by our courts. We elect those people every four years. This isn't Egypt and I don't want it to be either.

There are people in Canada and the US, for example, Indians who want to wear their ceremonial daggers and headgear while serving as members of the police force then TOO BAD. Police officers wear a uniform for a reason. A uniform is there for a purpose. Wearing your headdress and dagger does nothing but make that individual stick out like a sore thumb and is potentially dangerous to that individual should anyone harbour racist feeling toward that Indian culture. I don't and I'm simply trying to make a point.

Leave your religion where it belongs. At home, in your heart and teach it to your children if that is your desire but it has NO PLACE in government or the legal system.

Re:Secular States (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198752)

This isn't the government we're talking about. It's Facebook. They are just setting up one more affinity group, albeit one with tighter rules for association that commonly seen in the Facebook environment.

girls with dicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35198628)

and where to put girls with dicks, dicks that are girls or just anybody who's a dick??

There's a place in France... (3, Funny)

Zingledot (1945482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198656)

I hear this plan has a security hole where the men can see it all...

The greatest power of control... (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198778)

After a person's basic Maslow-level needs are taken care of, finding a mate and mating are realllly strong drives. These drives are at the core of evolution... every function of every bit of DNA in every sexually reproducing organism is about successful sexual reproduction, indirectly at least.

So, people who seek to control humans.... and evolved systems that benefit from controlling humans... they have this easy as can be way of grabbing humans by the gonads: Claim to define proper and improper inter-gender relations. Act as an intermediary for the "proper" inter-gender relations, and condemn, attack, and fight "improper" inter-gender relations. Also condemn and attack anyone circumventing this control by way of a natural attraction to the same gender (yeah, they have a "legitimate" self-interest in the anti-gay stuff). Most religions, not just the Abrahamic ones are all about this, as are non-religious yet power-hungry organizations. If you're shopping for a religion, this is a quick and easy test to see if it is about empowering the individual or empowering the organization: does it seek to divide the genders? It doesn't have to divide physically either... if there is an encouraged "philosophy" that pits men against women, it's just more subtle and better competing against the option of "no religious affiliation" available in some countries.

If anyone thinks this sexual segregation thing is Muslim-specific, step back a bit. Sexually segregated schools were entirely common in the US for its first century, and they still exist in number today. Pay attention to the motivations of the big proponents: they seek to control other people, either personally, or to strengthen their favorite non-human entity/organization.

it's facebook ... (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198786)

... which means someone can set up a non-segregated Saudi page if they wish.

Women! Can't liv..... (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35198794)

Paraphrasing Tom Hanks in some corny movie: I don't get it!

What's the exact rationale for this I ask myself?
  • Saudi women care for their privacy more than women of other nationalities. (Not very likely.)
  • Saudi women are more afraid of men than women of other nationalities. (Not very likely.)
  • Saudi men are more to be mistrusted than men of other nationalities. (Not very likely.)
  • Or maybe a certain religious movement in Saudi culture "induces" women to initiate such division. The "inducement" is enforced through sanctions whereby participation to the social network is rendered impossible.

I have given the subject a lot more thought than apparent here. In my opinion a free society should refrain from facilitating religious costumes that can be used to potentially enforce limitations on groups.
E.g. wearing clothes that facilitate or even portray submissiveness, segregation, exclusion, etc...

The argument that women want these limitations themselves is invalid as it most likely an outcome of peer pressure. Freedom comes at the price that you have to learn to deal with interactions with a large variety of people of mixed backgrounds and of mixed gender. Shame on the body facilitating this separation!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?