Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Students In US Seek Segregation By Gender On Facebook
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."
Here's your burkha.
am i missing something - how is this news?
And Facebook is so the right place for that.
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?
They want to avoid getting harrassed by male Saudis for not wearing the damn burkha, dumbass.
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.
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.
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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...
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???
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
Read radical news here
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Your sig says otherwise.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes. Now fuck off with your holier-than-thou self.
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.
Not only did Facebook do nothing, this will not segregate the groups
What is stopping a non Saudi joining either group .. nothing .. nothing .. nothing .. nothing
What is stopping a non US Saudi Student joining either group
What is stopping a man joining either group
What is stopping a woman joining either group
It's about as safe as any other Facebook group .... ie. not at all ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
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.
Yes
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
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.
You can unlock someone's cage, but if you force them out then you have taken their freedom.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
I hear this plan has a security hole where the men can see it all...
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.
Gently reply
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!
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
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.
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.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can't wait for the genetically modified human slave. I mean, they will be engineered to WANT to be slaves. But I'm guessing most of Slashdot will think that will be ethical based on the last pole.
Life is not for the lazy.
From the fact that leaving certain bodily parts uncovered at all times is unhygenic (e.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no service"... and they don't mention shorts/underwear only because someone walking around with that part uncovered would violate indecent exposure law anyways).
From the fact that we'd prefer that most of the population not to expose certain things at certain times (let's face it, some of the people who walk around in spandex... ewww).
And then of course, it's not just "Christian" religions that do this kind of thing. Take a look over at Japan if you will.
Of course, the Japanese didn't have a hang-up about boobs the way the Xtians do. Then again, when you get to anthropological study, you can determine that a society covers up what it considers "indecent." You were busy attacking christians, when female genital mutilation is amazingly common in Muslim society. And there can be NO purpose for the Burkha other than to dehumanize women by making them "unseen" in society.
Or maybe we should be a little clearer: A Burqa is a tool for dehumanizing the wearer. For making it difficult for them to have any individual interaction outside the home. This is not a bug, this is a feature. It depersonalizes women who wear it. It makes it difficult for them to work outside the home, to have a conversation with a stranger or to even be seen as an individual. And again, that is the entire point. Burqas are the product of a culture and religion in which women are not supposed to have any function outside the home. In which they are supposed to remain in Purdah, walled off inside the home.
I think the point is that there's a difference between making sure someone has their own choices and forcing the choices you think they should make upon them.
In canada a few years back it was ruled that women could go topless (equality thing because it was legal for men to walk round topless.). Women gained the freedom to go topless if they wanted.
If on the other hand the court had ruled that women *had* to go topless whether they wanted to or not then would they be more free?
of course not.
Similarly there's a difference between making sure women have the choice not to wear a burka and *forcing* them not to wear it.
Particularly for older women it can be essentially forcing them to expose parts of their body they consider private.
It's completely reasonable that women might want to self-segregate under some circumstances. I can totally see why they might want to form a second, subgroup for the main Saudi's in America page to discuss how the issues are relevant to them specifically. On the other hand, segregating the main page is clearly a religiously influenced decision (whether it was driven by the women themselves or not). OP was trolling, but it's true that the type of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is *extremely* conservative and anti-female, and it's not parroting Fox News to say so. Like Christians, Muslim have a range of practice that are considered "Orthodox"; and just as some versions of Christianity are very sexist, so to are some versions of Islam. Tunisia, for instance, is completely different and very liberal in regard to relations between the sexes.
In short, choice to form a self-segregated group to discuss women's issues is a perfectly reasonable idea. A forced split of all men and women on the main page into separate groups is a symptom of what's wrong with Saudi Arabia from a human rights perspective. Even if the drive to segregate was from the women, you can see how this is a problem based on the reason.
There are a significant number of girls who do not yet feel confident enough to share their points of view and opinions in the same domain as men. In my opinion they need some time to adjust
In other words, these women have been beat down enough that they literally can't respond to a man in a disagreeable manner. So they want to segregate, as "training wheels". However since th whole site is segregated, I fail to see what they can do after they've "adjusted" to practice their new found confidence.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea have been good successes.
Do you consider drinking human blood and eating human flesh normal?
How else can you possess the deceased's talents and powers? Sheesh!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
On the contrary, I think we all can fully understand why Middle East Women would like to keep Middle East Men away from them.
Pretty much every Western culture requires women to cover their breasts while men can leave theirs bare. I'm not sure of the anthropological history of this particular example, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had Judeo-Christian roots. All cultures have screwy social norms. Most members of that culture can't recognize them.
Yeah seriously, check out what the Chinese used to do to girls.
If you want REALLY weird, check out the Mormons and their Magic Underwear. These freaks also practice "baptism by proxy", wherein they "baptize" dead people using a "stand-in" so that every "family member of a Mormon" gets a "Mormon Baptism"... turns out every few years, some German Mormon nutter gets it into their head to baptize Hitler, then they excommunicate him, then the cycle repeats.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "consumption, storage, and transfusion" of blood is 100% verboten. They won't even pre-donate their own blood if they have to go in for a surgery where there may be extra blood needed.
As for the whole deal about cultures and what they will sexualize... I hereby direct you to Rule 34. Or Rule 34. Or Rule 34. Rule 34. In other words, Rule 34.
Clear?
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.
So you're suggesting that "muslims", with no further qualification, are "violent"? Riiight.
Sure you can handle that big, broad brush all by yourself there, Sparky?
Seriously, fuck christianity, islam and any other primitive superstition, god is a construct of the human mind, invented as a means to explain the world around him. The gods used to be the sun, the fire,the wind, the rain, the summer and winter, the lightning bolt and the thunder, now the gods are just an excuse to cleave someone's head in two.
Yet even most aboriginal societies have some form of bodily covering - even if it's just loincloths.
Decent (i.e. non-prostitute) women were expected to cover their breasts in ancient Greek and Rome long before Judeo-Christian ideas came to Europe.
Although popularly associated with Ireland, there is nothing distinctly Irish or Roman Catholic about them, indeed a number of the asylums, including the first in Ireland, were founded and run by members of Protestant denominations.
You didn't even read your own fucking link, did you?
not agree.
They Germans have been turning a blind eye to the immigration of "lesser' people for sometime. The highly insular societies built up with in Germany are little better than those from the countries they fled. As with many societies, those of us who were born here (I am not from/in Germany - just a Western Country as in the US) tend to think many things are automatic. Instead we what happens is many of these groups get marginalized by government policies that are there to supposedly help them but keep them isolated instead. This opens up opportunity for some in those groups to enforce the old ways.
Simply google Turkish Immigrants Germany and you can find many articles, some very recent on the problems faced by them, especially women. Even over there people turn away from the particularly awful problems while talking up all the good that has been done
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Similarly there's a difference between making sure women have the choice not to wear a burka and *forcing* them not to wear it.
I think the more important concern when dealing with wahhabism, radicalized islam, and sharia law, is keeping women free and equal who do NOT want to wear a burka or go back to being a second class citizen. not to mention, keeping our heads attached to our bodies if we choose not to follow their belief system.
"used to" is only a few decades ago in this case.
It wasn't the middle ages it was the mid 60's.
That some countries and religions are a mere few decades behind our own isn't all that surprising.
Go back a mere handful of generations more and people were still being executed for heracy.
Not all muslim countries are equal, not all are equally extreme.
some are mere decades behind, others as much as a couple of centuries.
There are places that one can't go with short-shorts on. And I've definitely been kicked out of restaurants for wearing a tank top.
If you tried to walk into a suit-and-tie restaurant, I'd rather expect that.
Different social situations call for different levels of attire. If a restaurant wants to portray an image of being more upscale, you can bet they're going to have some form of a dress code posted. I doubt it has anything to do with religion.
There are new testament passages that certain Christians interpret as meaning that women should never wear jewelry or makeup.
Reverend Lovejoy: "Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not even supposed to go to the bathroom."
Paul swore in the new testament that women had to wear head coverings while praying, which you see more often in South American Catholic communities.
Which may have little to nothing to do with christianity - Greek and Roman and Jewish cultures at the time all prescribed head coverings for women, especially in religious events.
And let's not get started on Catholic School dress requirements.
Or the Japanese uniforms? Or are you referring to Rule 34 fetishizations? Seems that school uniforms are rather ubiquitous - and downright similar - throughout the world. As if the arguments had been gone round and round quite a few times...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_toilet
A gender-neutral toilet, also known as a unisex toilet or a gender-free toilet, is a public restroom or toilet that is available for use by either the male or female gender, and includes family restrooms.
Sex-separated public toilets are a source of difficulty for some people. For example, people with children of the opposite sex must choose between bringing the child into a toilet not designated for the child's gender, or entering a toilet not designated for one's own. Men caring for babies often find that only the women's washroom has been fitted with a change table. People with disabilities who need assistance to use the restroom have an additional problem if their helper is the opposite sex.
Some public places (such as facilities targeted to the transgender or LGBT communities, and a few universities and offices) provide individual washrooms that are not gender-specified, specifically in order to respond to the concerns of gender-variant people; but this remains very rare and often controversial.[1] Various courts have ruled on whether transgender people have the right to use the washroom of their gender of identification.[2]
Gender neutral toilets at Gothenburg University, Sweden.
Transgender advocacy groups in the United States have taken up the cause of unisex toilets. They see unisex toilets as a solution to eliminate harassment and other inconveniences for trans people in using conventional toilets. In 2005 there were 5 American cities, including San Francisco and New York, with regulations for public restroom access based on person's perceived gender identity rather than their birth sex.
A significant number of facilities have additional gender-neutral public toilets for a different reason — they are marked not for being for females or males, but as being accessible to persons with disabilities, and are adequately equipped to allow a person using a wheelchair and/or with mobility concerns to use them. Some buildings have restrooms with a single toilet each, and these could be redesignated as gender-neutral without requiring people of different genders to share them at the same time.
There are several ways to add gender neutral toilets to existing restroom provision without building new toilet blocks. One is to simply designate disabled toilets as gender neutral, as disabled users of both genders use them anyway. Under this model, University of Bradford Union became the first university student union in the United Kingdom to institute gender neutral toilets in 2008 after campaigning by the student union's welfare officer. Another option is to make all toilets unisex, regardless of previous designation. Sussex University has been trialling this. Several other universities have instituted gender neutral toilets after campaigning by union LGBT groups, most notably Manchester University, who faced an international media furor in September 2008 after they designated one set of their four toilets as gender neutral. The BBC mistakenly reported that the entire union had been made gender neutral against the wishes of the student population, and several other media outlets picked up the story. Media coverage spread as far as India and Brazil, but also spurred other student groups to press for gender neutral toilets in their own unions.[citation needed]
On Tuesday 27 October 2009, Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) appeared on the front page of The Student after having decided that week to introduce gender neutral toilets. This was done at the joint request of EUSA's Welfare Committee and LGBT Action Group. Again, EUSA did not spend any money on building new toilet blocks, but simply located a facility within the union building which only contained one toilet and designated this a gender neutral toilet. A sign was changed from reading, 'Gents' to one simply reading, 'toilet', a move which Kate Harris, EUSA's LGBT Actio
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No joke.
That's why there are "no gays" in Iran, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joked about on a previous US visit. Known homosexuals are either forced to have gender reassignment surgery, or risk jail or execution. It mirrors the way western countries forced gays to undergo chemical castration as recent as 50 years ago (like what happened to Turing), but it's terrible that this kind of thing still happens today.
Sigs are for losers
Last week I was talking to a customer and he explained how he, his wife, his brother-in-law and his wife, had left their southern baptist church because his brother-in-law's wife had the temerity to suggest that she could teach Sunday school - due to having assisted the male teacher, who had since left. It was "suggested" by the church that the brother-in-law should "control his woman"
The Southern Baptist Convention is more like a coalition of somewhat similarly-believing churches. Each member church is wholly autonomous, hires (and sometimes fires) their own pastor, elects their own Board of Deacons (which actually governs the church), and generally does whatever they want in whatever way they see fit. The whole SBC system is basically a federation of democratic republics with a very weak central government, the main purpose being to band together to support missionaries and some colleges, etc.
The Southern Baptist church I grew up in was the exact opposite of what you're describing. Specifically, my mom taught Sunday School for many years. Although we wore the traditional business-casual to business-formal clothes on Sunday morning, any other meetings or services you might go to were "come as you are", and in hot months you could just about guarantee that 90% of kids would be in shorts and t-shirts. The youth groups had summer camps where girls swam in bikinis if they wanted to, we went on ski trips, and one time we went on a national tour to perform a rock musical.
I don't consider myself a Southern Baptist anymore because of doctrinal differences, but they're certainly not collectively the way you describe that one particular church. Now, that church may very well be exactly like that, but that's because its own members choose to be. Other SBC churches would have very little patience with those artificial restrictions, and would in fact see them as ranking piety more importantly than an honest relationship with God.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Do you think women would be asking to wear a burka if it wasn't for pressure from men to wear them?
It might seem like women are repressing themselves, but that's simply not the case.
MABASPLOOM!
An asylum seeker behind the bins, too.
What?!
Hong Kong is not a democracy by any western standards. Half of the legislature is what we call the "functional constituency", which has a voter base of about 3% of the whole population. A few of those seats are exclusively selected by "corporate votes", no real people voting. For example, the legislator in the "finance" constituency only has to secure votes from a few dozen BANKS to get a seat. (You thought just lobbying by corporations was bad enough?)
The government directly reports to the Central Government of the People's Republic of China, and the head of government in Hong Kong is elected by a small group of about 800 people. Note, you're talking about a city of 7+ million people.
Not that the state of affairs was any better under British rule -- for a long time, the legislature was appointed until it switched to a system similar to that of today, and the Governor of Hong Kong was appointed by the British government.
In short, Hong Kong is not, and was never a democracy.
---
As for Taiwan, I am less familiar with its political history. But I am not aware that there was significant "outside" help. The people in Taiwan wanted democracy, and the then president Lee Teng-Hui gave what they wanted, and now they are pretty proud to be the only place in "China" where democracy is practiced.
Don't quote me on this.
Can anyone think of reasons why they should remain segregated in the modern world?
urinals.
MEN ! DO NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THIS!
We all know how long and slow lines at the womens' room is for busy events. Do YOU want to suffer the same inconvenience ?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It might seem like women are repressing themselves, but that's simply not the case.
Women in sexually repressive societies are almost always one of the major vectors of repression.
But here's the thing: a woman telling another woman she must wear a burka is just as repressive as a man telling a woman she must wear a burka.
See, the thing that matters is that the two women involved--and I know this is a difficult concept so please bear with me--ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Only a gibbering idiot would suggest that it's ok to repress someone if they happen to belong to the same socially-constructed abstract category as you.
It would make no more sense to say, "It's ok for women to repress other women" than it would to say, "It's ok for humans to repress other humans." The reification of one particular abstract category does nothing but announce the political agenda of the reifier. It adds nothing but noise to the discourse.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
"Do you think women would be asking to wear a burka if it wasn't for pressure from men to wear them?"
Yes. In the conversations I've had with Muslim women in my neighborhood (not to say that we're real good friends or anything, but sometimes I'll be at the coffee shop or something and get to talking with folks), the consensus that I've heard is "It's not about the men, it's about us."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Note that the person saying that the women want this is a man. Typical.
For many young Saudi women, an education in the US is their one time of freedom in life. Some years ago, I was chatting with a Saudi woman about to finish Stanford, and she mentioned that she was going to drive across the United States, then fly back to Saudi Arabia from the East Coast. I asked her why the long drive, and she said it was the only time in her life she'd be allowed to do something like that. (In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive.)
I like the red-state solution to this problem. Someone at a Texas company wrote that an Islamic female co-worker was being harassed by an Islamic male employee who just assumed that, since he was male. he had the right to her if he wanted. So the Texan took the woman to a shooting range and taught her how to use a 9mm pistol. "You taught her how to shoot?" the annoying guy said when he found out about this. "Yes, and she's good at it, too". No more problems.
This argument is the same one made by those trying to defend female circumcision. Or stoning people to death.
Just because they come from a different geographical location does not make them different from you or I. Repression is repression, zeitgeist be damned.
MABASPLOOM!
What's wrong with segregating Blacks and Whites? What if only the Whites want to self-segregate? The facilities will be separate but equal, so no problem, right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Right, because at no point in their life were they raised to believe that they should cover themselves."
Yeah, and you were probably raised to believe you should cover your genitals when you go to the grocery store. What are you getting at?
Is it something to the effect of "Muslim women are downtrodden and oppressed drones who can do nothing that a man does not allow?" Because that's a bunch of bullshit. There is a Muslim woman who wears the veil in my neighborhood...and is our city council representative. I don't think her man's telling her to do it.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Democracy and personal freedoms often go hand in hand, but you don't strictly need one to have the other. There are a few non-democratic countries in the world which, nonetheless, provide a high degree of personal freedoms.
You're right. People in the West really have deluded themselves into thinking that they don't have an arbitrary culture, it's everyone else that does. Of course you cover your penis, testicles, vagina and anus: that's just natural! Of course only women cover their breasts, unless on a beach in France or on spring break in Mexico - that's reasonable and natural! But that women should have their hair covered - well, that's repression! Oh, and men will need to shave for at least the first 10 to 15 years of their careers if they want to be taken seriously in the corporate world - that's just normal... etc.
In fact, many of the things we take as conventional have "repressive" origins, but we've integrated them into everyday life as simple conventions and habits of basic modesty. That so many people don't understand how this could possibly be the case for Muslims is discouraging.
There are many spheres of life, too, where women do better when they segregate themselves from men. Because of the tendency of boys to monopolize attention and resources in K-8 math and sciences education, girls do much better in those subjects when taught in all-girl environments. Unsurprisingly, then, a disproportionate number of women scientists and engineers went to all-girl schools: the shocker is that there are more women (by percentage) studying engineering in the Arab world than in the US! (Recognizing the reality of discrimination in the job markets in those countries, however: most come to Europe or the US to work.)