• Gender Segregation in Universities and Elsewhere

    Having been involved in university chaplaincy a couple of times, the issue of gender segregation in universities that has come up in the news is not a new thing for me to think about.

    There have been a couple of news reports about issues surrounding Islamic groups in universities this week and quite a lot of comment, not least on the Today programme over the last couple of days on Radio 4.

    Here are some thoughts.

    Firstly, I think that universities have the obligation to ensure equality of experience to those studying (and working) within them.

    Secondly, I’d say that I’m generally suspicious of single-sex gatherings. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that they should ever exist nor that I wouldn’t take part or even lead such a meeting. Sometimes I think it makes sense for men to talk about being men and women to talk about being women. What I get suspicious of are times when power seems to be being manipulated in ways that ensure that a group of people have a worse experience of life than they otherwise would.

    It was my experience when I worked in the chaplaincy at the University of London that we were occasionally approached by Isalamic women who wanted a place to say their prayers on a Friday and who enquired whether they could come to the chapel. My answer was always that everyone was welcome to pray in the chapel and it was the case that such women did sometimes find that place a place of prayerful welcome. Of course, I always asked why they could not go to the campus mosque which the University provided. (It didn’t, incidently provide the chapel, which was a Church of England building). The answer tended to be a shrug of the shoulders for it was clear to everyone on the campus that women were not welcome in the mosque.

    My view is that the conversation about banning same-sex organisations on campus is a trickier one than it first appears. Universities have for a long time had single-sex structures within them though that appears to be receding. When I was at St Andrews University there were some single-sex halls of residence. I believe that there are fewer of these than there used to be. My only regret is that fewer students will have the enjoyable frissance of creeping around the wrong hall at the wrong time of day. However, that notwithstanding, I suspect that single-sex accomodation may well be becoming a thing of the past.

    But there are single-sex sports clubs a-plenty and there are many Christian organisations in British Universities that have prayer breakfasts (why always wretched breakfasttime!) and similar opportunities for women. Christian Unions who have single-sex meetings might well be watching the developments surrounding Islamic students very carefully.

    My own take is that any money or resources provided to students in Universities (including room bookings) should be given on the general presumption that such resources are for all students who are interested in the activity regardless of gender. I struggle to say that single-sex meetings should be banned but I think that a case needs to be made for any that happen. I don’t think myself that it is legitimate for a University to provide a Chapel that is only for Christians to use, a mosque that only male students can use or sports facilities that are dominated by one gender or the other. (To use binary gender shorthand that won’t please everyone who reads this). What people do in their own time and space is their own business. Men’s prayer breakfasts in private places (including rooms in halls of residence) don’t bother me so long as I don’t have to go to them. Public space set apart for one gender to use does bother me quite a lot.

    We don’t have any single-gender organisations in St Mary’s and I’m quite glad it is so. It is the case that the clergy who celebrate on a Sunday at the 10.30 am service are all male for the first time in many years though that isn’t the case for all the services that take place here. I’ve also been surprised in recent years that we are not a congregation with any male flower arrangers. One might have thought that we were a congregation full of them, but no, apparently not.

    I’ve been asked if I will consider co-leading a retreat for gay men sometime next year and it is an idea that I am actively thinking about. However, I’m also clear that it won’t come under the auspices of St Mary’s if I do it. I’ve benefited from such retreats in the past and I know that there are similar gatherings that lesbians have sometimes found very necessary. Interestingly, the LGBT group at St Mary’s has always been gender mixed in a way that at first surprised me. Should that group ever have a retreat, I’m sure that it would be open to both men and women, those who don’t identify comfortably as either and probably include a couple of straight people too.

    These lines are complicated and more difficult to draw than at first appears on the Today programme.

    Would you draw them differently to the way I would draw them?

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

  2. Jimmy Avatar

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

  3. Jimmy Avatar

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Beginning a conversation

    Yesterday, I entered the 20th century. I’ve long since embraced 21st century geekery with the blog, facebook, flickr, pvr etc. However, one piece of last-century technology which I have quite firmly, and uncharacteristically eschewed has been the mobile phone. Although I have carried a mobile for a long time, it has been on a very…

  • Mobile access

    I was interested to learn on Sunday night (in the aforementioned pub) that this blog was not terribly accessible on a mobile phone or a pda. The truth is, I had never thought about it being accessed on a mobile phone or a pda when I set up the template. Anyhow, new template now installed…

  • Nexus

    Here is a quick headsup for the Nexus event taking place at the SECC from Thursday to Saturday week. In their wisdom, they have changed the name of the Christian Resources Exhibition to Nexus Scotland. It makes it sound like a dating agency to me, but what would I know? (And anyway one might get…

  • Teenage Kicks

    I have to confess that I had never understood what John Peel was on about. However, on viewing this version of Teenage Kicks, it all fell into place.