Harvard tries women-only gym hours

[Taverner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/harvard_women_s_hours

y MARK PRATT, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

BOSTON - Harvard University has banned men from one of its gyms for a few hours a week, a move to accomodate Muslim women who, for religious and cultural reasons, cannot exercise comfortably in their presence.


The policy is already unpopular with many on campus, however, including some women who consider it sexist.

"I think that it's incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that's supposed to be for everyone," said student Lucy Caldwell, who also wrote a column in The Harvard Crimson newspaper critical of the new hours.

Student Ola Aljawhary, who is Muslim and works out elsewhere on campus but is not one of the women who requested the change, rejected that argument.

"The majority should be willing to compromise," she said. "I think that's just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others."

The trial policy went into effect Feb. 4, about a month after a group of six Muslim women, with the support of the Harvard College Women's Center, asked the university for the special hours, spokesman Robert Mitchell said.

<SNIP>

Hmmmmm where should I start...

Should I start with the stupid religiously insane women forcing their lifestyle on the rest of us?
Should I start with that kind of closed minded thinking has no place in a University?
How about asking when did we get tolerant of intolerance?

Sorry, that's not respecting their muslim beliefs. It's all about special privileges given out of guilt.

Wearing a Burkha to class is one thing. Forcing others to adapt to your intolerance is another.

Let me put it this way, if I were to say I'm a member of the Christian Identity religion (a racist, whites only form of Christianity) and said that Blacks working out with me in the same room is an affront to my religion, how long do you think that would last?

[Dora]

1. I'm not Muslim, but if I worked out in a group setting...

... I would be eminently more comfortable in a women-only environment.

[mike_c]

2. and that is personal sexism....

It's sexism because it reflects underlying gender based biases (you prefer interacting with women instead of men) and personal because you seem willing to express it, but you're not calling for imposing your gender bias on others (at least not in that response).

[Taverner]

3. Exactly. eom

[Dora]

8. Okay, I'll not take that personally.

I'm too tired to get into anything about sexism today. I work at a large university, I've been studying or working in a big state U environment for twenty years now, in Arizona and in Texas. In these campus environments, I've been ogled by students, faculty, and staff and in different contexts - walking, studying, working out - but always the ogler was male.

I am not saying that all men are oglers. I am saying that all the oglers I've been uncomfortable with have been male.

It may be sexist of me to want to work out in a male-free, thereby ogle-free space. Is it wrong?

On edit: I'd like to also add that I do not "prefer" working out with women. I "prefer" working out in an environment where I feel safe and not put on the defensive by a crass and leering bore.

We all look at one another. This is our world we inhabit. I know that. I also know how to look at a man's lap and ponder the unponderable without broadcasting it to him, and how to check out a woman's assets without making her wonder if she was suddenly doing a pole dance. If the leering bores would take it upon themselves to learn how to be cool with with the boobs and butts and sweat, I'd be down with working out in mixed company.

[Taverner]

13. At the risk of stirring up a can of worms

If someone does not like being ogled, that is their preference. But to mandate against what someone can and can't look at is an infringement on civil liberties.

The Muslim students can all go to Curves if they want a men-free atmosphere. Pay extra? Sure - as they should. Sometimes intolerance costs money.

[leftynyc]

41. I agree with you there

Let them pay more for that kind of thing. Inconveniencing the men is not right. And for religious reasons - blech

[mike_c]

15. not necessarily....

I don't think sexism is necessarily wrong at all, i.e. it can be harmless. I think the same is true of a variety of isms. I also think that gender biases, racial biases, cultural biases, and so on are simply human nature, and that whether they are harmful depends in large measure upon how we expess them, whether we're conscious of them, and whether we work to prevent them from doing harm.

Men and women respond to the presence of potential sexual partners in very different ways, and we're generally uncomfortable with one another's innate responses. That too is just human nature-- it helps both men and women make appropriate sexual decisions within vastly differing reproductive contexts. Men will often ogle and pant, and leer and slaver, or otherwise display sexually aggressive behavior unless they make an effort to avoid it-- largely a socialized effort that represents a sort of sexual compromise along the male-female sexual response continuum.

That's a bit of a different topic though. I find it endlessly fascinating.

I certainly didn't mean any personal affront.

[Taverner]

17. I disagree that sexism isn't wrong

If anyone takes offense to my being male, that's their problem

If they legislate against it, or create policy against it - that's discrimination.

Now don't get me wrong, men are not a discriminated group. The idea of anti-Male discrimination is laughable, like anti-Christian discrimination. But anything can happen in a marketplace of ideas. And of course, the religiously insane have to be heard too.

[mike_c]

28. well, my point is that to some extent it is an innate behavior...

...and questions of fundamental morality are rather meaningless. We don't think a predator is evil for killing its prey because that is its nature, fostered and reinforced by generations of natural selection. I think many human biases spring from the same innate source, perhaps having its roots in our evolutionary framework that emphasized the absolute need to center life around small social groups mostly drawn from the same general region of the gene pool. We are naturally suspicious of "others" and that suspicion increases in direct proportion to genetic distance. Is that "wrong?" The answer I think, is that it depends. It depends on the social context, on our individual awareness of how our biases affect our behavior, and so on. But it is our nature just the same.

The degree to which culture counters innate responses is another endlessly fascinating topic!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

37. Thats not easy

"It may be sexist of me to want to work out in a male-free, thereby ogle-free space. Is it wrong?"

Would it be wrong for men to want a period to have the gym to themselves?

[Traction311]

20. What about locker rooms?

Is it still "personal sexism" to support seperate locker rooms and showers for men and women? Not that I wouldn't mind if they were co-ed. :evilgrin:

[Taverner]

22. If we would have passed the ERA in the 1970's like we should have

All bathrooms and locker rooms would probably be Unisex.

Unfortunately, we're still hung up on Victorian Sexual Mores.

[Traction311]

24. I hadn't known that

Are locker rooms/bathrooms co-ed in more liberal European countries co-ed?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

39. Im sorry thats way different

You can wear a track suit to work out, thats somewhat modest but to stick men and women in one locker/bath room is unfair *to both* genders... Some women here have expressed discomfort at being ogled by a guy while she is dressed on the stairmaster you want her to have to change in the same room?

And if one does not think Men can be self conscious (im rather pear shaped in my pre middle age) they are equally diluted.. I know many *many* very sexually liberated people who would not want to change in front of a stranger of the opposite sex..

Its not enlightened to share a bath room, its just silly..

[Taverner]

55. Europe does it

And I would go out on a limb and say "yes, Europe is more enlightened than us" They also have less violent crime, and less rape.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

85. Correlation does not equal causality..

[Taverner]

86. Very true

And I would never assert there is a cause and effect relationship going on here.

But....the same mentality that gives us Unisex bathrooms also reduces inter-gender violence. Europe is big on equality - most EU states have passed similar bills to the ERA.

Europe is also not a fear-driven place.

Eliminate the needless fear, and make all men your equals. Do that, and we live like the French :)

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

90. How can you say this with a straight face..

I would never assert there is a cause and effect relationship going on here.

and..

the same mentality that gives us Unisex bathrooms also reduces inter-gender violence

...

I am *completely* capable of having a mens only bathroom without raping someone...

[Taverner]

92. Simple. As long as men and women are treated as seperates, they will behave such

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

94. So you *are* saying their is a causation between things like

uni-sex bathrooms and lower crime...

[Taverner]

96. No I am saying they both stem from the same root cause

[CTyankee]

107. I don'tknow about locker rooms but I've never encountered unisex toilet facilities

in my travels to Italy, not even in little towns in Sicily. Once I encountered a surprisingly primitive bathroom in the train station of a little town in Tuscany, but it wasn't unisex...

I am not talking about a public bathroom that either sex could use privately, of course, but we have those in this country with no complaints. And of course, there are airplanes...

[lukasahero]

45. That's a myth that was used to prevent passage of the ERA. eom

[Taverner]

54. Wasn't entirely a myth - down the road that is one of the goals of equality

But it was used by the right for fear factor at the time...

[gollygee]

56. One of whose goals? n/t

[Taverner]

58. Well if you want true gender equality, it would be a goal

Europe already has unisex bathrooms, most college dorms in Europe are co-ed with shared bathrooms. They're ahead of us, sorry, no other way to put it.

And guess what, they have less crime and less rapes.

[gollygee]

91. Equality is about equality in value, not equality as in acting as if we're identical.

We have equal value, but we are not identical. Women and men still need privacy when changing clothes and taking a shower.

And I don't believe that most college dorms in Europe have shared bathrooms between men and women. Most college dorms in the US are co-ed too, aren't they? At least most were at my university in the 80s. But they had different bathrooms.

I don't see sharing bathrooms as being "ahead of us". That's a ridiculous standard to judge who is ahead or behind in whatever competition you're talking about.

And as to the last point, correlation does not equal causation. Those countries in Europe that have lower rates of rape probably take rape more seriously in the criminal justice arena.

[Taverner]

93. Only because of latent puritanical cultural mores

ones which have no place in a modern society

The reason there is more violence against women in the US is due to the friction of gender struggle, and the fear perpetuated by the media.

[CTyankee]

105. Well maybe but not because of the ERA.

We would probably have more equality of access for women in their public bathrooms, tho.

That antiquated idea was Phyllis Schafly's argument. It's strange for me, a veteran of that ERA campaign of the 70s, to find it articulated on a progressive Democratic website!

[mike_c]

32. sure-- and not only that, it's sexism reinforced by cultural institutions...

...BUILT upon sexism. More to the point, I think those cultural expectations are so deeply entrenched that most folks can't even have a rational conversation about things like non-separate locker rooms. They immediately assume such things are so far outside their cultural norms that they couldn't possibly be comfortable with them. Still, I think that betrays an underlying sexism. Not a very harmful one unless one considers such things as duplication of resources harmful.

[SoCalDem]

4. I bet Huckleberry's pal, Chuck, could hook them up with their own exercise stuff

If you don't want to go to a co-ed gym, go to a women's gym..or work out at home..

[Taverner]

7. Exactly

Curves can do their own sexist gyms. But at a University, things should be different.

[aquart]

25. So? Lucille Rogers wants YOU.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Join Curves. n/t

[Xenotime]

42. This is an excellent progressive idea..

This helps many people for various different reasons.

[Warpy]

5. Some of us would love women only health clubs

and swimming pools. After we get to be a certain age, we really don't want to put up being gawked at by men, especially in settings where clothing is minimal and our flaws are magnified.

[Taverner]

6. Can I start a mens only club then? Say one where me and my work buddies can go and smoke cigars?

And specifically make it "No Women Allowed"

[AngryAmish]

10. Lots of those already

I used to work at one.

[Taverner]

11. Yes but they have to allow women

Several big court cases have been filed and won over that very subject.

Why? It's discrimination, pure and simple.

[AngryAmish]

21. If I recall my civil rights law...

(and I might be off on this so if I am wrong please forgive me ahead of time)

anyway, there is a right to freely associate in the constitution. So private clubs can discriminate - ie the NAACP does not have to allow David Duke to join.

However when one is a public accommodation (read restaurant, hotel, public health club) then one has to allow whoever walks in the door irregardless to faith, color, etc.

So - private clubs can discriminate, public accommodations cannot.

Now some people have argued that private clubs are public accommodations or use public services so they can't discriminate.

Also, there is SUpreme Court precedent that allows some discrimination. I think all women's health clubs are OK when all male may not be. There certainly is allowable discrimination in health care services - nursing homes can only hire women for their female patients.

I'm running to the end of my knowledge here...

on edit: I know darn well irregardless is not a word. regardless is a word. Irrespective is a word. Irregardless is not. Why did I put it in? I'm stupid. Any why does the spell checker not catch it?

[Traction311]

23. There are no all-men gyms because

No one would go to one (at least no one straight). Many women don't like to work out with men, because they are going to be hit on or looked/gawked at in their skimpy clothes. Men, however, don't have such issues, and want to be around women in gyms.

[BoneDaddy]

70. Thanks for speaking for all men

dead wrong.

[Traction311]

106. Sorry about that

While I was wrong to put all men together, I still don't think an all-men gym would be a success. A good chunk of men who go to gyms are heavy testosterone whackos who need to be around women. Let's put that percentage at, say, 30%. That's a big percentage to lose.

[BoneDaddy]

119. Well we are operating under different experiences

Most of the guys I know pick a gym that meets their needs and not based upon the women there. That may be for a much younger crowd, but although I have to certainly admit I look (albeit with as much discretion possible) that is just a matter of the outer environment and not one of the main reasons I joined a place. I like to get in, work hard and get out. I have joined about 4 gyms in about 10 years (due to moves) and never once was that even a factor. Price, accessibility and options were probably the top three and I don't ever think I ever thought about women there until I was faced with a woman I found attractive.

But women are not immune to this. Women pick Curves who want a distraction free environment, that is certainly their perogative. But the very same phenomenon you describe about men also apply for women who choose LA Gym, Work Out World etc. Women are just as guilty of "checking out" men as the reverse. I am flattered when it happens to me.

That said, I believe it is human nature to find people attractive. It is the way it is done that is offensive at times. There is a way to do it where it is not demeaning.

[EOTE]

114. Spell checker didn't catch it because it IS a word.

It's one of those words that has entered our lexicon simply because so many people use it. Kind of like how "newkyular" is now an acceptable pronunciation of "nuclear" because the asshat in chief uses it so much. Irregardless means the same thing as regardless. Much like how flammable and inflammable are synonymous.

[madeline_con]

126. I don't care what that idiot does...

NU-CU-LAR is NOT and NEVER will be an acceptable pronunciation for nuclear. :rant:

[Warpy]

12. As long as you don't conduct company business there, sure

although why anybody would be stupid enough to smoke cigars in a health club escapes me.

[Taverner]

14. Read post 11

[Warpy]

18. That's because y'all just can't help yourselves

and keep doing business transactions in those places, making them inherently unfair to women.

Separate the business from the health club and have a great time. I think there are probably a lot of less than perfect men out there who'd prefer exercising without feeling like every woman in the place is snickering at them. (We're not, of course, we're too busy trying to be as invisible as possible because of our own flaws)

[Taverner]

19. Again part of it could be my own attitude at gyms

When I go to a gym, I couldn't give a rats ass who looks at me. I'll be sweaty, farting and wearing yesterday's clothes. So go ahead, take a look!

[lukasahero]

44. There's a reason for that gender distinction

Men will almost always respond the way you just did to the idea of being ogled and there's a reason for it: it provides you no risk or threat.

Women, on the other hand, are more often uncomfortable with being ogled because there is a distinct risk/threat associated with that behavior. Women have a right/responsibility to be leery of unfamiliar men (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2949060&mesg_id=2949060 if you disagree and argue that point please...)

[Taverner]

47. I think a lot of this is irrational fear perpetuated by the media

The media portrays women constantly as victims, so why wouldn't many women feel like victims?

The honest truth is, you are more at risk of getting into a violent confrontation if you are male.

But the media perpetuates the myth that there are rapists and murderers around every corner.

And I would bet ogling has nothing to do with any real threat, just perceived ones.

In fact, I would argue that most of what women perceive as "ogling" is just some guy who's in the zone and is just looking at the first thing he can fix his eyes on. If you were a tree, he'd be looking at that.

[lukasahero]

51. Like I said, go argue that in the other thread

where the woman ended up in the hospital due to the violent actions of the man and half the thread called HER stupid...

[Taverner]

53. Thing is I don't think that thread really has anything to do with gender

Other than she's a woman, he's a man.

Sometimes people bring things into arguments that are not germane.

[madeline_con]

124. Sure, knock yourself out.

:)

[Traction311]

26. The gawking usually reaches its peak

BEFORE you get to a certain age, not after. :)

[AngryAmish]

9. Is this legal?

They get federal funds.

[Taverner]

16. It isn't

[Dora]

27. And why not? Harvard is a private school. nt

[Johonny]

30. They take

lots of public money in the form of grants. They certainly have to conform with federal law.

[Dora]

43. Serious question.

In this case, I understand that there are multiple and equal facilities available to everyone. The facility they chose to use for the women-only hours is the least used and least convenient geographically. Harvard is limiting this one facility for only six hours per week.

What is the law that's being broken? I did some reading on Title IX on wikipedia last night, but that's the extent of what I know, and I forgot most of it between then and now. :)

Why does accomodating a minority equate to discriminating against the majority, and what is the harm?

We accomodate minority (or matched) populations in other ways - ADA law, for example. Men's and women-only public toilets is another way. Would you suggest that Harvard, or any university, choose to go unisex on restrooms? For a lot of people, working out is a personal (and private) experience, just as personal as answering nature's call.

[Taverner]

50. Public toilets are way different - non handicapped folks can use them too

Same with ramps, elevators, etc. They don't cause an inconvenience to everyone - they just remove an inconvenience for others.

This is directly inconveniencing men, and for religious reasons at that - something that in my mind deserves little or no respect.

[Johonny]

120. actually restrooms are a lot different

Either way they probably do have to conform to federal law. Which they very may well be doing. I'm not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure your analogy won't be considered. I imagine separate but equal concepts do not float well for what are considered community acts. Such as going to school, drinking at a fountain, riding a bus... Since the vast majority of society works out in the open, in public, often out doors (weather permitting), it's really hard to claim it's a private act.

[Johonny]

29. "We must show tolerance and respect for all others."

So the people that won't tolerate exercising with people of other genders wants other people to respect and show tolerance for her? I think there's a hole in that logic loop some where.

[supernova]

31. I think so too

There's a whole host of gyms that cater to women exclusively.

[annabanana]

109. bingo!. . .n/t

[MaryCeleste]

33. Given the nature of the institution, if they want to pursue this silliness, there should be

reciprocal mens only time.

[Taverner]

52. And African-American hours, Euromerican hours, Asian American hours

And then hours for those who practice Kabballah, Scientologists only hours, Atheist only hours...

And then they should special hours for those who shower before going to work out, and those who shower afterwards...

Yeah, that way every group gets exactly 5 minutes of gym time a day!

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. "The majority"?

If men are the majority on Harvard's campus, they're an anomaly.

[flashl]

36. Re question ...

"if I were to say I'm a member of the Christian Identity religion (a racist, whites only form of Christianity) and said that Blacks working out with me in the same room is an affront to my religion, how long do you think that would last?"

You would have been a member of Bally Total Fitness or Gold Gyms.

[readmoreoften]

38. The university should build a small work out center for the six women.

It's wealthy enough. Or the women should get Islamic exercise apparel for women. It exists.

Wait? Harvard only has one gym?

[Taverner]

48. Or hell, give them a voucher for Curves

[Justyce]

40. I don't see anything wrong with having

women-only hours, men-only hours, and co-ed hours, for whatever reason. Some people don't like to be ogled at by members of the opposite sex while working out...

[Seeking Serenity]

46. If so, then join a private, single-sex club

Public facilities are for the public.

Discrimination is bad, period.

[Seeking Serenity]

49. And then . . .

Muslim students demand that Harvard canteens, cafes, and restaurants stop selling food during daylight hours during Ramadan, when Muslims are religiously required to fast.

Harvard cravenly agrees. "It's hardly an imposition on our campus community to refrain from eating during this holy month as an expression of religious tolerance," an enlightened Harvard administrator said.

[Taverner]

60. And then Sharia law added to code of conduct

Beheadings at Noon in Harvard Yard

[rucky]

57. What's everybody complaining about?

A few hours a week so women can work out alone? At one of several gyms? And folks are ready to start a Brooks Brothers revolt.

Give me convenience or give me death.

[Taverner]

59. "Brooks Brothers revolt"??? Use meaningless loaded words much?

[rucky]

72. All the time.

[Seeking Serenity]

62. Discrimination is what we're complaining about (n/t)

[rucky]

64. Against whom?

[Seeking Serenity]

65. Against the men who will be barred from the facility during those times.

Rules against sex discrimination does not go just one way.

[rucky]

71. Religious discrimination, on the other hand...

is okay as long as we've decided that their beliefs are too fucked up for an Amurkin college to accomodate?

[Seeking Serenity]

73. The college is not discriminating against the women because of their religion

The college is not saying, "You can't use the facility because you are a Muslim or a Muslim woman."

But the college is saying to all of the men, "You can't use this facility during stated periods simply because you are men.

Don't you see the difference?

(edited to fix typo)

[rucky]

74. The college is not discriminating at all.

the people reacting are.

There are gym facilities available for all students to accommodate to their needs.

[Taverner]

78. So how long before Harvard adopts Sharia law?

After all, NOT having it is discrimination by your definition

[CTyankee]

112. There was an issue at Yale a few years back concerning unisex dorms and Orthodox Jewish students.

I don't remember how it got resolved but it became a cause celebre and even Alan Dershowitz invited himself to get into it (on the side of the Orthodox students).

[Seeking Serenity]

98. Then where do you draw the line, and how do you logically support such?

If six Muslim women can demand segregated hours, can six Christian men? Six Hindus? Six adherents to the World Church of the Creator (segregated time for whites only)?

Where do you draw the line, and how do you logically defend the line being here and no further?

[Dora]

103. They didn't demand, they requested.

And seeing that their campus has ample facilities with enough locations and hours to spare, Harvard willingly accmodated their request.

[Seeking Serenity]

108. So you'll be cool when World Church of the Creator adherents

"request" Harvard grant them a "whites only" time in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs and Harvard accomodates?

Sure you will.

[Dora]

115. I don't deserve that from you or from anyone.

I've made no shitty responses or disrespectful questions.

I have a legitimate opinion and I am open about my ignorance of the law.

Nonetheless, my sincere queries here are met with unfettered sarcasm and NO real answers.

You know what? It's attitudes like yours that make women dislike hanging out with men. I thank my lucky stars that the man I married loves and respects me, and he treats all people in the world with respect and dignity, instead of the crap that SOME PEOPLE think it's okay to hand out just because they're anonymous.

Go blow it. And have a nice day.

[Seeking Serenity]

116. I am a woman, though (not that that matters)

I'm sorry that my response was so snarky, but I was trying to make a legitimate point.

If we allow just a little bit of discrimination here, how can we protest if others want a little bit of discrimination there?

We draw arbitrary lines all the time, but they need to have some logical justification as to why we draw the line here and not there. No one has come up with a logical justification for why this bit of discrimination is OK.

[Dora]

117. Where you see discrimination, I see accomodation. Never the twain shall meet.

It's not discrimination because equal (or better) facilities are available to everyone at the same time. Nobody, male or female, is losing the opportunity to work out.

Now, if Harvard closed ALL gyms for women-only hours, I think a claim of discrmination would be legitimate. But that's not what Harvard did. Harvard accomodated a small population's discrete need by limiting access to men for a small number of hours at its least-used facility.

[Seeking Serenity]

122. Would you feel the same if the roles were reversed?

If the facility of public accomodation was closed off to women and was men only because of the men's religious sensitivities, would you feel the same?

My gut tells me 'no.'

[Dora]

128. Yes, I would be okay with it.

Your gut tells you wrong because your gut doesn't know me.

If the gym was "men only" for six hours out of seventy, I would indeed be fine with it. Now I wonder if perhaps Harvard should go ahead and establish some "men only" hours, if only to be equitable to those men who would prefer to exercise without women around.

[rucky]

118. You negotiate. You compromise.

One term: Hours available.
another: All women will be allowed.

This does not require an act of congress to resolve. It's just a matter of common decency.

[spooky3]

121. I don't know about educ. insti. but religious ACCOMMODATION

is required in workplaces, not just avoidance of discrimination. There is a similar provision with respect to disabilities, but no such provision when it comes to most other categories, such as gender, race, etc. The employer has to make reasonable accommodations. Whether reserving a few hours a week to accommodate these individuals' religious faith constitutes something beyond reasonable is the question, I think (if the law is similar for educational institutions).

disclaimer - I'm not an attorney but I am in a profession where legal issues are interrelated with what I do.

[kiva]

75. No, we decided that religious descrimination shouldn't be funded by the government.

As long as Harvard receives $$ from the government, it shouldn't practice any form of religious discrimination. When the university refuses all federal funding, they are welcome to make whatever accommodations they choose for religious purposes.

If these women want to exercise in a women-only environment, there are several options for them off-campus. I belong to a women's only gym, but don't expect the university I attend (and pay student fees to support) to provide me with separate time schedules.

[Taverner]

76. Having unisex gyms is not religious discrimination

Looks like you've been reading the Pat Robertson guide to religious discrimination

[kiva]

88. Sorry, fingers faster than brain.

[Taverner]

89. Nah you just misread my post

I was saying that having a gym unisex (aka Co-Ed) is not religious discrimination

[kiva]

95. Again, sorry--obviously haven't had enough caffine this morning.

A question about manners, though. I'm pretty new to posting here; I edited my last post, but is it better to just let my stupidity stand (which makes more sense in the flow of the discussion) or bury my mistakes? This seems like a safer forum to ask the question that the GDP, and I'd like to know.

[Taverner]

97. I say bury your mistakes

But that's just my opinion

I sometimes re-edit a post several times before I'm happy with it.

But I never change the original argument.

[kiva]

99. Thanks for the advice. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

125. So it's religious discrimination to protest a belief that discriminates?

How ironic.

I'm sure there are plenty of religious beliefs that would be too fucked up for you to accomodate, if you want to go there.

[HEyHEY]

102. So, when women want segregated gyms because they think men are staring

At them, we have to have them. Now, everyone gets pissed cause another group of women want it for another reason. And these women are now called sexist. Man, fuck all ya'll.

It's all stupid. If you don't like the gym, go jog in the park and bugger off.

[seabeyond]

61. it doesnt hurt anyone. we do NOT have to be such a selfish people. n/t

[Seeking Serenity]

63. Sure it does. Discrimination against one hurts us all.

[seabeyond]

67. no, it is understadning and saying, hey.... not a big deal. here is a couple hours a week

it is nice. it is who we use to be.

[Seeking Serenity]

68. And it will be just as nice when conservative Christians demand their own time

to keep them from being looked upon by gays?

It's who we used to be, y'know.

Where does it stop, logically? Where do you draw the line and how do you logically support that arbitrary line?

[Taverner]

79. Excellent point!

[Blue_Tires]

66. wow....

i could half-way understand it if the school was like half-muslim, but to cater to the request of SIX women (!) is going too far...

[Ordr]

69. "but to cater to the request of SIX women (!) is going too far..."

The scary thing is that this seems to be the way our party is heading...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Solutions

Make the gym women only from 3 am to 5 am. Since the majority is accommodating the minority, surely the minority would agree to these hours so as not to impose unduly upon the majority. If it's that much of an issue, make two gyms, identical in every way, side by side, and make one mens only and one womens only. It's Harvard, surely they have 50 or 60 million dollars to pour into two separate gyms to accommodate 6 people.

David

[Ordr]

80. "surely the minority would agree to these hours"

I'm sure they have a track record of being very reasonable based on the information given thusfar.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. This would only be fair if they also set aside a time when it was men only also

[THUNDER HANDS]

82. with the way education statistics are moving in this country

it might be easier just to wait it out until there are no longer any men at Harvard.

[bullwinkle428]

83. Every single gym in my area has a separate "women's only" workout area -

I don't see the problem with placing one of these into their athletic facility for those uncomfortable exercising in the same room with other guys...seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

[Ordr]

84. The issue wasn't about women in general.

It was about six women trying to push an agenda and being catered to out of guilt.

[Taverner]

87. That is a womens only area, not an entire gym

The men can always use the other elliptical

[bullwinkle428]

123. I read the whole article - apparently one guy wrote an opinion piece

suggesting this very idea, but it doesn't say how or if the university reacted to this...

[Book Lover]

100. What I don't get is this

You wear a sweatshirt and sweatpants. Your hair is up in a bun and covered by a headscarf. What is left to be unmodest about?

[gollygee]

101. That would be too hot to work out in comfortably

Powerhouse here used to have a women's only gym that Islamic women would work out in, and they'd dress like everyone else when they worked out. They moved but they still have a women's only room for women who don't like to work out around men for whatever reason.

[Book Lover]

111. Oh

Can you tell I don't go to gyms? :-)

[Dukkha]

104. If there uncomfortable being around specific others then they don't need to show up

my area has lots of "women only" fitness clubs and the trend continues to where options are very limited for men. My gym is co-ed and it's more costly and further from home because everything else is women only. I like it though because it's an actual gym where people work out and not a social club for those who just chat on cell phones while walking on a treadmill.

[annabanana]

110. I don't like this because of the undefined parameters...

Are there separate facilities for menstruating women because men of some faiths aren't supposed to be in their company?.. Or are the men with this sensitivity to be confined to particular hours when they know there won't be any menstruating women present?

It is open ended, and therefore infinitely open to abuse...

[CTyankee]

113. That would be pretty hard to manage, since women menstruate at

different days of the month. How would a man even know if a woman was menstruating? Men who were that hung up would have a hard time at work, on a bus, in a store or restaurant, just about anywhere except an all male place, wherever that would be (Shriners lodge?).

[madeline_con]

127. The men don't need to know, the women know.

And Muslim women and some of other faiths, I'm sure, segregate themselves without any assistance from men.