The 'apart' in apartheid refers to separation. Black people were forced to live in different areas to white people. Unless women are forced to live apart from men and in different areas it's not the same thing.
Women actually are separated from men in public areas in Saudi Arabia, so even with applying a strict nitpicky interpretation, the usage is accurate.
More generally, though, don't you realize how badly it comes off when we're talking about a truly terrible situation for millions of people, and the only contribution you can offer is some semantic nitpicking? Do you really think that is being helpful or productive? Pick your battles, man.
It's not a nitpicky interpretation. Apartheid was a specific system in South Africa where different groups were not allowed to live in the same areas or sleep under the same roof or marry among many other restrictions. I don't think you realise how badly it comes off to someone who lived through apartheid to see the term being applied so casually to something very different due to vague similarities. Just because it's a horrible situation doesn't mean it's apartheid. Apartheid died in the 90's and was actually named 'apartheid'. When I mention apartheid to someone the response shouldn't be 'which one?'
Down this path lay the destruction of meaning. Do you realize that you've just argued that anything can mean anything, definitions and objectivity no longer matter providing the circumstances are serious enough?
We're sitting here talking on a discussion board. The readership of this site in general is not in a position to do anything about the fucked up situation in Saudi Arabia. We are in a position to do something about people (arguably) misusing language in our own back yard.
