Either you accept the universal disciplines of the Church (and trust Her reasons for enacting Her laws), or you do not.

If you do not, you are part of the problem.

I don't think it's been common for masses to be gender segregated in many hundreds of years, if even the last thousand years.

The latter take a long time to warm up, but the microwave is hot immediately."  This means that accidental glances are temptations, which no degree of vigilance can prevent, and (quoting Fr. Beck again) "those women who say men just need to control themselves are naive about human nature."  I can't remember, and don't want to put words into his mouth, but he MAY have even suggested that retort is disingenuous (the sermon was on the subject of modest clothing for women).

Glancing at women in a desiring way is definitely a temptation that can be avoided. Maybe on the street where secular women dress like whores and there's little else to focus on, but in mass when you're supposed to be giving your full attention to the priest and the altar and all the women are dressed modestly? If you can't stop your eyes wandering in mass, then that does suggest a lack of self-control beyond men's ordinary inclination to steal glances.

I mean there's also nothing stopping you staring across the room at the women's section in a segregated mass either, so unless you want to put up walls between the two sections then I don't see how you're stopping glances with segregation.

And the point other users made about elderly couples needing to be there to mind each other was a very good one.

1) Factually erroneous.  Not only was this the universal law observed everywhere in Europe, Africa, and Asia (not sure about S. America), but after the Council of Trent, St. Charles Borromeo wrote a book on Church construction which became the norm for the Church in much of the world, and which compelled building a wooden divider between the men's and women's sections.  And of course, Incred posted a pic showing segregation in 1940's Japan.

Was St. Charles Borromeo unable to control himself?

Or all the rest of the popes and saints?

2) We are not speaking of glancing at women in a desiring way, but of accident and distraction (which is why the law is in place).  Implicitly, you are accusing the Church (who promulgated and matintained this law for 1600+ years) of having issues: You don't like the law, and it is the Church's law.  Ergo, your issue is with the Church.

3) What is the real reason you (and the other dissenters) disagree with the universal immemorial law and custom of the Church?

I don't think St. Charles Borromeo was unable to control himself, and I respect that he and the Church wanted purely to avoid any temptation in mass. However, gender segregation has not been the norm for most of Church history and even St. John Chrysostom, who supported it, believed that it was not the common practice when Christianity was first preached by the apostles.

I don't have any issue with Church law. PAST Church law suggests it as desirable, but not mandatory, and even back when that was the law in effect most masses were still not segregated. 

What is the real reason you, despite claiming not to be a sedevacantist, reject present Church law and declare anyone against a NON-MANDATORY(and generally unfollowed) suggestion in a past law is somehow unCatholic? This coming from the same man who happily rejects Church law on canonisations?

I'm against gender segregation in Churches, which is in the area of free opinion, merely because in the present situation where most Trad Churches are small and mostly elderly, the inconvenience and harm this would do to elderly couples who must look after each other is larger than the risk of wandering eyes. I'd rather not force the infirm or those with dementia, etc. to stay at home because their spouse wouldn't be able to mind them in mass.

I don't think St. Charles Borromeo was unable to control himself, and I respect that he and the Church wanted purely to avoid any temptation in mass. However, gender segregation has not been the norm for most of Church history and even St. John Chrysostom, who supported it, believed that it was not the common practice when Christianity was first preached by the apostles.

I don't have any issue with Church law. PAST Church law suggests it as desirable, but not mandatory, and even back when that was the law in effect most masses were still not segregated.

What is the real reason you, despite claiming not to be a sedevacantist, reject present Church law and declare anyone against a NON-MANDATORY(and generally unfollowed) suggestion in a past law is somehow unCatholic? This coming from the same man who happily rejects Church law on canonisations?

I'm against gender segregation in Churches, which is in the area of free opinion, merely because in the present situation where most Trad Churches are small and mostly elderly, the inconvenience and harm this would do to elderly couples who must look after each other is larger than the risk of wandering eyes. I'd rather not force the infirm or those with dementia, etc. to stay at home because their spouse wouldn't be able to mind them in mass.

1) It is bizarre to insist that segregation hadn’t been practiced in thousands of years, when the historical record shows a steady practice from the time of St. John Chrysostom, until the Council of Trent, through the 1917 CIC (and which is still practiced in some Eastern Catholic Churches today, outside the USA);

2) If the Church deemed it necessary throughout  those epochs, how much more so in our day?

3) I reject the new CIC because evil laws are no law at all.

4) Again, most of the universal Church adhered to the law you reject (even the Easterns) throughout Her history.  That it was not so in America is just another example of strident Americanism.

5) Of which alleged Church law on canonizations do you speak?  Can you direct me to any passage in the 1917 CIC which references the alleged infallibility of canonizations?  There is no such law.  There isn’t even any magisterial teaching affirming that position.  All there is, is a majority opinion of the last 350 years, shared by St Thomas (but opposed by “many other great named theologians,”) and brought into question by Vatican I.

6) So far as the argument on behalf of the infirm is concerned, do you think the infirm did not exist in the Church before?  (Or in the Eastern Churches today)?  According to this rationale, Communion kneeling should be abolished, because the infirm who can’t kneel cannot Communicate.

Obviously, that isn’t true: Exceptions are made for the infirm, same as with segregation.  

Exceptions cannot disprove the rule; law is tempered with charity.

It seems to me that when Our Lord spoke to St Bridget he was promoting personal self control.

The Revelations of St. Bridget

If my head was pierced and inclined on the cross for you, your head should be inclined toward humility. Since my eyes were bloody and full of tears, your eyes should keep away from pleasurable sights. Since my ears were filled with blood and heard mocking words against me, your ears  should turn aside from frivolous and unfitting talk.  Since my mouth was given a bitter drink to drink but was denied a sweet one, keep your own mouth from evil and let it be open for good. Since my hands were stretched out by nails, let your works, which the hands symbolize, be stretched out to the poor and to my commandments.  Let your feet, that is, your affections, with which you should walk toward me, be crucified as to lusts,[ 1 ] so that, just as I suffered in all my limbs, so may all your limbs be ready to obey me. I demand more service of you than of others, because I have given you a greater grace."

Sorry about the large print, I don't know how to reduce it.

With women covered,  wearing long skirts,  modest dress and veils,  seems men ought to do their fair share.

Sano di Pietro, The Sermon of St. Bernhardin of Siena, Piazza del Campo, 1445
Museo dell’Opera metropolitana del Duomo, Siena

With women covered,  wearing long skirts,  modest dress and veils,  seems men ought to do their fair share.

I smell Feminism.
Those 3 things are all required by God of you. Long skirts, modest dress, and veils. Are you complaining? What, do you want to show off more flesh and attract men to you like dogs to a piece of meat, while also committing sins against the 6th commandment? Or do you have a problem with the traditional, St. Paul-mandated chapel veil, like modern Novus Ordo feminists?

In Germany in most parishes segregation was given up around A.D. 1965-1970. In some cases earlier or later, in very rare cases segregation is upheld until today.

I voted yes, since I have learnt that one has to follow local customs and rules.