X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Labour should be embarrassed about holding a sex-segregated rally

4 May 2015

9:39 AM

4 May 2015

9:39 AM

Labour MPs who spoke at Satruday’s sex-segregated rally in Birmingham don’t seem too keen on explaining themselves to The Spectator.  Siôn Simon, now a Labour MEP for the West Midlands, proudly tweeted a picture of a Labour rally in Hodge Hill, in which seven Labour representatives spoke at a packed Islamic community centre. Only problem? The picture clearly shows that men and women were seated separately in the audience, during what was supposed to be an event to encourage political engagement.

And rather than defend this practice, none of the Labour candidates have been willing to comment on the subject. Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government, and husband of leading Labour feminist Harriet Harman even blocked me on Twitter for raising the question. It’s almost like they’re embarrassed.

They’ve got plenty be embarrassed about. There can be no excuse for requiring women to sit separately at an event at which they’re supposed to use their brains as engaged citizens, not as sex objects or as baby machines. True, orthodox branches of both Islam and Judaism require men and women to sit separately in their religious services – one reason why I’m not planning to convert to either any time soon – on the grounds that proximity to the opposite sex may distract worshippers from meditating on God. As yesterday’s rally wasn’t a religious service, I can only conclude that rather than meditating on God, the organizers were anxious that no sexual thrill should distract the watchers from meditating instead on the noble figure of Tom Watson.

If that sounds ridiculous, is it more ridiculous to assume that men and women are incapable of engaging with each other politically without thinking about sex? And engaging politically does start with sitting next to each other. The idea that men and women should hold separate conversations about politics might have a fig-leaf of equality about it, if men’s conversations hadn’t been the only ones that mattered for the past umpteen thousand years.

There’s nothing voluntary about any sex-segregation in a society with such pre-existing pressures within it, which is why we need leaders to refuse to accept it. As I’ve written before, simply having the option of separate seating sends a message that anyone who doesn’t conform to traditional male and female roles is a problem.  Would Liam Byrne speak at an event that asked gay people to sit separately, or allowed white people to ‘choose’ to sit in a reserved space? If not, why not?

If separate male and female political engagement doesn’t sound to you like ‘male political engagement, in which a few women are allowed to watch’, look again at the photograph Siôn Simon tweeted. In the front two sections, I count seven seats per row in the male section, and five for the female section. The women are crammed in, far outnumbered by the men in the room, who also hem them in at the back. Here is the old adage made flesh: separate is never equal.

This was a rally to rouse the local Labour party to get out the vote on Thursday: one wonders if Hodge Hill women are allowed to volunteer alongside men, and if so, how any of them climb up the local activist party. Back in 2010, of course, Harriet Harman was championing all women’s short-lists in places like Birmingham Erdlington to tackle women’s historic exclusion from politics. Until a certain Jack Dromey decided to stand.


Show comments
Close