Talk:Gender apartheid

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 1. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Iran

doesn't Iran have a long history of educating women and isn't it a moderate islamic state in terms of it's general treatment of women. I'm not sure it deserves to be singled out here (how many female presidents in the US?) Will TALK 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase has been used to describe Iran, rightly or wrongly (see the citation provided in the article and the external links). Feel free to write a paragraph on criticisms of the phrase (but use citations if you do so). Homey 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

{{RFMF}} SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Islamic apartheid

Is there any opposition to merging Islamic apartheid into this article?Homey 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the article

I restored the article after it had been reduced to a redirect to Sex segregation without discussion, as can be seen. Apparently there was supposed to be a merge, but the content that this article originally consisted of does not currently appear in Sex segregation. Gender apartheid and gender segregation are separate phenomena, as are racial apartheid and racial segregation. Segregation is institutionalized separation between groups but with theoretical or actual equality, whereas apartheid is institutionalized discrimination against a particular group or groups. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious fork of Sex segregation and the daughter article Sex segregation and Islam. Could you please change this back into a redirect to Sex segregation. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Though obviously someone has to do the work of merging any information. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the article, I am coming to like the phrase as I see it has been applied to practices of fundamentalism in other religions, and in other societies, which I'm still adding. Considering there is an article on Gender segregation and Islam, that section is WP:UNDUE, especially length of quotes. So what I'll do is move some of the material over to that talk page for others to include in that article if they choose. If someone wants to find current refs for dead links, do so. Otherwise I'll delete in a few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the guidelines of WP:MERGE.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pejorative term"

I see at this search gender apartheid has been described as pejorative in four articles (til it was removed here), even though none of these articles has a source that specifically calls it that. Obviously, since apartheid is not seen as a good thing by most people, it is pejorative. Should Wikipedia describe it as such. I'm not sure myself, but the policy should be same for all articles that use the phrase. (And some of them seem redundant, but another issue for another time.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes, because "gender apartheid" is not such a common term, and less pejorative near-equivalents such as sex segregation are in common use. In any use of the word not corresponding to the crime of apartheid, "apartheid" is a derogatory epithet, much like "fascist" or "dictator". Quigley (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid analogy

A recent change to a section title saying "apartheid analogy" is of interest since the article Israel and the apartheid analogy has been a long standing debate, with many saying that it is in fact apartheid. (I guess we'd have to look at their WP:RS calling it an analogy:

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid.^[1]^[2]^[3]

So this brings up the question, should this article be similarly titled? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because one is clearly false (have you ever been to Israel?), and one isn't (ever been to Saudi or the IR of Iran?). JerryDavid89 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions are not relevant here, just sources. Of course, there probably are more "WP:RS" calling it an "analogy" for Israel than for Islam. I have removed apartheid analogy since there is no reference. Anyway, I have a problem with this article being used as a coatrack for attacks on just one of the patriarchal religions that practice sex segregation, especially since there already is an article on Sex segregation in Islam. Since all those countries are Islamic nations, obviously content not WP:Undue should be listed under "Gender segregation in Islam" section. Note: forgot to sign couple days back User:Carolmooredc

References

^ Davis, Uri (2003). Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within. Zed Books. pp. 86–87. ISBN 1842773399.
^ Shimoni, Gideon (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.
^ "Why "Apartheid" Applies to Israeli Policies" (PDF). US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Retrieved 21 October 2010. "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." —Former South African President Hendrick Verwoerd, Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961

Why only of women?

Women only trains (i.e. trains in which men are not allowed to ride) as found in Japan, seem to me to be apartheid "of men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Wikipedia covers concepts reported in WP:RS. The article is about situations where women are forced into separation. In the Japan case they effectively are because so many women are sexually groped on Japanese trains. I doubt you'll find any WP:RS that would call that gender apartheid vs. men. CarolMooreDC 23:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though you are right, if no reliable sources name it such you can't alter it, for example despite all the obvious cases of androcide we can't define it as "androcide" if none of the sources refer to it as androcide.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Article Revisions

As a part of the Wikipedia Education Program, I plan to overhaul “gender apartheid” to give it more clarity as well as depth. It seems that one major shortcoming of the article as it currently stands is its lack of clearness in scope. There appears to have been previous confusion over the distinction between gender apartheid and sex segregation—perhaps why the article was once deleted. Moreover, the page is fairly sparse, with little information beyond gender apartheid in religious contexts. My priorities in revamping this page consequently include: providing case studies of gender apartheid in more religious/cultural contexts; describing different practices that constitute gender apartheid (e.g. honor killings, acid attacks, etc.); and elaborating on the various social interventions that have been made to combat it. Additionally, I plan to include more scholarly references in my contributions, as the current article’s citations point mostly to news stories rather than research articles. I believe that the page could benefit substantially from the latter, as research articles provide an alternative dimension and perspective to the issue.

A well-developed page for “gender apartheid” is an important contribution to Wikipedia given that it describes a form of social inequality prevalent around the world. With that in mind, improving the page has the potential to help educate more individuals on the causes and extent of gender apartheid. With the hope of making optimum changes to the page, I appreciate all constructive feedback and ask only that other editors please be mindful that my contributions are a part of an assignment at Rice University.

-JoyceChou (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at Postcolonial feminism: You have to make sure that most references use the phrase "Gender apartheid" or that a significant article uses it before using some topic like honor killings, acid attacks, etc. Otherwise you are doing WP:Original research leaving open your material for deletion by editors who have been around a while and may not want to see much on this topic, or just may be really "strict constructionists" of wikipolicy. I wrote a lot of current version within that strict interpretation, but happy to see more material if you can find good references.

Also, something you might want to look at is the Bias in the Honor killing article with so many examples about honor killing among Arabs/Muslims, which I think is politically motivated by a number of very partisan Islamophobes who write disproportionately in "reliable sources" about killing of Arab/Muslim women as "honor killings" while other killings of women that technically are honor killings don't have that phrase applied to them. (There are a lot of articles on specific killings at Category:Honor killing. CarolMooreDC 03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the advice! I will be sure to find and use the appropriate references while developing this article. -JoyceChou (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, failed to notice I'd commented here. Looks like a good job with some new info put in. But I did check the first few references and there was a bit of WP:Original research in there. (At least from search of terms; good to put page numbers where possible so we don't miss anything.) Not to mention first ref (which already was in there) has wrong URL. I can check back on that but really trying to finish off a couple other things and so easy to get distracted! CarolMooreDC🗽 00:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really great job on this Joyce. I left the article with an incredible clarity about the topic of gender apartheid. I kept noticing how similar this topic is to hegemonic masculinity. While my page is highly theoretical and difficult to read for nonacademics you did an excellent job of making the subordination of women much more readable.

Does gender apartheid only include male dominance over females or can it also include male dominance based upon feminine characteristics such as the subordination of gay men? This might be where hegemonic masculinity and gender apartheid diverge though so it is just a question. Are there any examples of reverse gender apartheid whereby females dominate males? This would be a compelling section if you were able to find any information on it. There might be a case study out there on Amazonian or other matriarchal cultures.

This article is incredibly informative and easy to read. Sorry I do not have more suggestions. I sincerely believe there is not much more you could do to this article. Some pictures or illustrations might make it more captivating if you able to find any, but other than that, I think you're golden. NehemiahAnkoor (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, NehemiahAnkoor. I will be sure to look more into instances of gender apartheid in which males occupy a subordinate position, as well as look for possible pictures to supplement the article. Also, now that you mention it, I think it would be appropriate to link gender apartheid to hegemonic masculinities. Thanks again! JoyceChou (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi Joyce! This is a really good article and I enjoyed reading it. However, I think you should definitely find more scholarly resources to give the article more credibility. Also, do you know if there has been any research done on this by international organizations and possible policy suggestions. Furthermore, you put some legislation in the sections about the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, but do you know if other countries have put similar legislation in place? I think those things would be interesting to incorporate. Other than that, I really don't have many more suggestions for you. Good job! Lgriffin92 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lgriffin92, thanks for very helpful suggestions! As I continue to edit the article, I will definitely look into finding more scholarly sources. As for more examples of legislation that perpetuates gender apartheid, I will certainly look for more evidence in other countries to add to the individual case studies. Thanks again for the great advice! JoyceChou (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gender apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017194849/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2FgNX4Q1GeE&refer=uk to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2FgNX4Q1GeE&refer=uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit disallowed by filter

Hello, in this edit I desired to write the word "paedophile" instead of where I placed [child] in brackets. However, the edit-filter disallowed my edit entirely. In order to conform with the quoted source, I feel the correct word should be used. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incorrect, as it's not called "paedophile pornography".—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of short description

Because I think it's too controversial for me to just plonk in a short description straightaway, I would like to carry this discussion here. I am proposing to add a short description for this page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[UriDavis-1] Davis, Uri (2003). Apartheid Israel: possibilities for the struggle within. Zed Books. pp. 86–87. ISBN 1842773399.

[Shimoni-2] Shimoni, Gideon (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.

[3] "Why "Apartheid" Applies to Israeli Policies" (PDF). US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Retrieved 21 October 2010. "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." —Former South African President Hendrick Verwoerd, Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961

[1]

[2]

[3]